View original document

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

&deraI Reserve Bank of Dallas

Business Review

......

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

Farm Trade-

Farmers on Threshold

Of New Opportunity
......
Alll .
th el'lcan farmers have found
ta elllseives a much more imporIII ntkelement in world agricultural
poar ets in recent years. Farm exJ rts for the trade year ending
c:ne 30 will probably be 150 perea~~ greater than only two years
billiler.. They could well reach $20
far .on In the current trade yearlionIn e.Xcess of the record $13 bil1' shlP pe d last year.
fa there have been a number of
inc ors spurring the sharp increase
in;tfo rts , ranging from the opentri ° trade with Communist counpr~~ to ~he shortfall in agricultural
'l'h uChon over much of the world.
ha:se developments, however,
tno e overshadowed the fact that
for~e f~ndamental, longer-range
role es ave been expanding the
\\Iorl~f American aglliculture in
ship trade for some time. Farm
S\\Iinlllents have been on the upel(pe~ fo~ at least 20 years, and
D.S tah?~s are for even greater
ke~ parhClpation in foreign marPr~ the future.
latio oJecte~ growth in world popuoVer ~ and In per capita incomes
ever_ehe nex~ decade suggests an .
CUlt tpandIng demand for agripl.'O~al.products. And while the
throu C~lon of agricultural goods
g out the rest of the world

is expected to grow as well, it will
probably not keep up with the
overall increase in demand. In
addition, future growth in agricultural production is not likely to be
stable from year to year nor to be
distributed evenly throughout the
world. All these developments
suggest an increasingly important
role for agriculture in world trade.
The American farmer is likely
to playa central role in meeting
the increased demand for agricultural products worldwide. The
United States has one of the most
favorable climates for farming, has
the most advanced agricultural
technology in the world, and has
vast reserves of cropland that have
been withheld from production.
As the demand for farm products increases, the country is in an
especially favored position to meet
this expansion. Additional land
can be brought under cultivation;
and if farm prices and incomes are
maintained, further capital investment and technological improvements can economically be made.
Therefore, despite recent disruptions, the United States can step
up its farm output significantly,
supplying not only domestic needs
but also much of the projected increase in world demand.

.
. e
are b " oJect'
Ions m t h' artIc1
IS
hist ~Slcally extrapolations of
llect~l'lC trends. Judgmental in\\Ih e IOns have been incorporated
sUlllr~structural changes are as\\Ihn: .' rr:hese modifications,
Partlllin hne with recent U.S. Deaf Pat:nt of Agriculture analyses
do refl erns of agricultural trade,
terpre: ct.some independent inn
ahons by the authors.

The evolving world market
The Soviet grain deal was, of
course the biggest event in agricultur~l trade in many years. Signaling the opening of new markets
for U.S. farm products-first in the
Soviet Union and then in Communist China-it led eventually to
the United States shipping grain
to markets serving another 1.2
billion people. In terms of popula-

~ Pr'
01'E·

lIsines h •
S ~evlew I May 1974

tion, that represented a 50-percent
increase in the markets served by
U.S. farmers.
The resulting surge in foreign
shipments was followed by sharp
advances in domestic food prices.
But the increase in domestic food
prices and in foreign shipments
also reflected a more fundamental
development-even with no decline
in production, the world supply
of food would be tight llelative to
demand. This growing scarcity has
been affecting food prices and
trade worldwide.
... more basic changes that
had been settling over world
markets for some time also
contributed to the relative
shortage.

The recent decline in the supply
of food was the result of temporary
conditions, such as drouths and
floods overseas, and the beginning
of Communist purchases in world
markets. But more basic changes
that had been settling over world
markets for some time also contributed to the relative shortage.
And it is these basic changesthe growth in world population,
increased consumer demand, and
general improvements in trade
relations-that will determine the
future flow of agricultural trade.
The area of greatest uncertainty
is trade relations. Despite vestiges
of protectionism in the United
States and recurring calls for more
protection, this country has been
a leader in broad multinational
efforts to reduce artificial trade
barriers. Some of these efforts,
1

Cultivated
acreage
could be doubled
with shifts in use of land

and these demands must be met
largely through increased trade.

Rising incomes in Europe have
been central to dispelling some of
in this country
the apprehension
over implementation
of the Eurocorn'
pean Economic Community's
mon agricultural
policy. Although
the policy is clearly protectionist,
countries in the EEC have continued to increase their demand for
imports. The mix of
agricultural
commodity imports has changed
with implementation
of the policy,
but the EEC has not closed out
imports. In fact, to satisfy consum'
ers, it will have to become an even
larger importer of food.

(2.3)
AL
SPEC17-" - USE_.AREAS

POTENTIAL
CULTIVATEDCROPLAND
SOURCE:

U.S. Department

of Agriculture

such as the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, have been formally undertaken. Others have
been voluntary reciprocal agreements. Both types have yielded
progress toward freer trade.
the situation has been
in recent years, agriculchanging
have
tural trade agreements
tended to lag other agreements,
partly reflecting concern in some
countries over becoming dependent on foreign sources for basic
The basis for such
commodities.
was pointed up last year,
concern
by the imposimost dramatically,
Arab embargo on oil
tion of the
and also by the brief U.S. embargo
on soybeans.
Although

More important in holding back
the movement toward freer farm
trade, however, have been differences in the productive efficiencies
of farmers in various countries. In
countries where agriculture is not

highly productive,
there has been
to exposing farmers to
resistance
the competition
of world markets.
This has been especially true in
countries where farmers have had
the political strength to protect
their domestic markets.

Affluence has created demands for diets of higher
quality and greater variety,
and these demands must be
met largely through increased
trade.
Several developments are occurring, however, to reduce the resistance to freer trade. The most
important has been the general
uptrend in per capita incomes
throughout the world. Affluence
has created demands for diets of
higher quality and greater variety,

Consumer pressure in the six
original member nations (Belgium'
Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
France, Germany, and Italy) has
already dissipated some of the in'
fluence of the farm bloc that had
pushed for protection in the Eur°'
pean Common Market. And with
the addition of the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Ireland, the
power of this bloc promises to be
diluted still further.
Another factor contributing to
the outlook for expansion in world
farm trade is the lack of significant
or even potential agricultural pro'
duction gains in most areas. At one
time, it was generally believed that
with new crop varieties and technologies, many less developed
countries could be transformed
from net food importers to net
food exporters. The promise of this
Green Revolution has not materialized, however.
Although many of the less developed countries have achieved Sig'
nificant gains in production, few
have achieved self-sufficiency in
food. Limited access to the necessary capital and technology, large
existing food deficits, rapidly expanding populations, and such set'
backs as the recent prolonged
drouths in India and Africa have
combined to preclude the market'

source of the greatest demand for
farm commodities from the United
States. This is even more so now
that the Soviet Union has been
added to the nations trading with
the United States. And with the
change in types of farm products
demanded, countries in Western
Europe are more inclined to seek
U.S. farm commodities.

'50-'54
SOURCES:

'55-'59

U.S. Department
Federal
Reserve

'60-'64
of Agriculture
Bank of Dallas

Tutting
In fact, surpluses once expected.
most commercial shipments to
all these
been increasing. countries have
°AAortunities

for trade
Historically,
...
most agricultural
trade
has
developed been between the more
countries. In the United
States,
two-thirds of the farm
exports have
gone to developed
countries.
Although less developed
countries
proportion account for a far larger
of world population
and

a
capitasmaller supply of food, per
tries, than do developed counthey have
not had the income to
compete effectively in
world
markets.
By 1985
approach world population will
more than 5 billion, or 35 percent
in
tl e continued.1970, if past trends
The world's produc°n of goods
and services should
Increase
even faster-possibly exnding

some 75 percent by 1985.
he disproportionate
distribution
Ofwealth
is likely
and population
business
Review / May 1974

to continue, however. The net
effect-given current growth trends
of countries-would be roughly a
fourth of the world's people producing about four-fifths of its
goods and services.

With all areas expected to show
however,
some economic growth,
in less deexpanding populations
veloped countries will also contribbase for
ute to a vastly broader
future demand, ensuring not only
growth in agricultural
near-term
but also the need for a
trade
increase in the rate
longer-term
in agricultural
output.
of growth
Even a slight increase in the trends
in agricultural
already established
the projected
trade would raise
to 75 percent
world total in 1985
than in 1970. In constant
more
1970 dollars, that would be an
trade year of close to
agricultural
$80 billion.

in developed areas ...
...
The more economically developed
the
countries have always been

Despite some efforts within the
Common Market to limit farm imports, Western Europe has long
provided American farmers their
most important
export market. As
continues to press on
population
the arable land in Europe and incomes there rise, it will become an
even more important
market.
The population
of Western
Europe is expected to approach
400 million by 1985, compared
with 335 million in 1970. And
while they account for less than 8
percent of the world's population,
the countries of Western Europe
will have boosted their combined
economic product to more than a
fifth of the world total. The result
in per
could be a near-doubling
income.
capita

with the change in types
... farm
of
products demanded,
countries in Western Europe
are more inclined to seek
U.S. farm commodities.
Despite this increase in total
production,
agricultural
gains will
probably be fairly slight. With
only about 6.5 percent of the
world's arable land (less than 250
million acres), Western Europe
cannot meet its increased demand
for food.
And with the outlook for incomes in Europe to rise rapidly,
the sharpest increase in demand is
apt to be for livestock products.
Since livestock production is landextensive, import demand will

Soybeans and grains dominate U.S. farm exports ,
making up a larger share of the total in 1973
PERCENT

100-

\

OTHER
COMMODITIES

I
,

80RICE

~

FEED GRAINS

60-

I

WHEAT

40-

COTTON

20I

SOYBEANS AND
PRODUCTS

\

o_...r.:a:~o:.a_...J:

1960

1965

1970

I

1973

SOURCE: U.s . Oepa rtment of Agriculture

~

----------------------------------------------probably increase rapidly, not only
for meat but also for feed grains
and protein meal.
At present, Japan is the largest
single-country market for U.S.
farm exports. And although growth
in purchases of farm products
from the United States by Japan
may slow in the years ahead, that
country is likely to continue for
some time as the largest such
market for U.S. farm exports.
The pressure of population on
the available agricultural land in
Japan is extreme. With one of the
highest population densities in the
world, the country has limited potential for increasing its agricultural production.
But the population of Japan is
also one of the slowest growing in
the world. The increase has been
averaging less than 1 percent a
year. In marked contrast to its
growth in population, Japan has
4

had the fastest economic growth
among industrialized nations.
Growth in its gross national product has averaged over 10 percent a
year for the last decade.
Such rapid economic expansion
would be hard for any country to
maintain for long, and the Japanese economy has begun to show
signs of slowing. But if Japan
maintains its current growth rates
for population and economic activity, it would have about 2.5 percent
of the world's population in 1985
and these 120 million people would
be turning out roughly 12 percent
of the world's goods and services.
Even with a decided slowing in
economic growth, they will still
have a vastly expanded capacity
for consumption. One reason, in
fact, for expecting a slowing in economic growth is that some spending that once went into investment
may now be going for consumption.

Most of the anticipated increase
in demand can probably bes~ b
met by imports from the Ulllte aiJl
States. Soybeans will likely r erllas
a major import item for J a pan
they make up a large part of t ~ese
Japanese diet. But as the J apa
eat more beef, they will have to tlP'
rely even more on imports. To \
port cattle feeding operations a
home, they, like the West El;lropeans, will need to ship in stIll inS
.
more protein meal and feed gra

d

h

---------------~
Even with a decided slowing
in economic .growth, the
Japanese will still have.a for
vastly expanded capacity
consumption.

-------------~
. nand
Together, the Soviet Unl O boot
Eastern Europe account for a d-a fifth of the world's arable Ian

1
I.

(

-SOl11e of it highly productive. The
Ukraine, for example, may ha~e
the richest soil base of any agrICultural area. But the productivity
of l11uch of this vast land mass is
~eVerely limited by a climate that
IS either harsh or unpredictable .
. A large part of the Soviet Union,
In. fact, falls within the Arctic
CIrcle. And crop production in
~uch of the rest of the country
IS lil11ited by a short growing season. Even in areas where temperatures are generally satisfactory,.
~he land is prone to drouths. ThIS
IS eSpecially true in the eastern
Part of the country, where more
nd
lllore grain is being pl.anted.
n the Ukraine lack of ramfall
Often cuts yields sometimes diS~strously. As a ;esult, not only are
YIelds irregular but the variety of
crops is sharply restricted.
With projected increases in inti~e and population, the Soviet
t 1e and other Communist coun~10~
lr s In Europe will very probably
oak lllore to imports as a comple~en~ to their agricultural producon
b· In the years ahead. The comIned Population of this area could
~~ceed ~OO. million by 1985, a~d
l' caplta Income in Commumst
~OUntries by that time is expected
a aVerage OVer twice that in 1970.
at But i.n addition to this fairly
.eady Increase in demand for foreIgn fOod, Communist countries .
a~e also likely to increase their for~~gf Purchases very sharply when
ds are off. This will be particuy true in Eastern Europe.
lll;ustralia and Canada are ~oth
St JOr COmpetitors of the Umted
III a~s in farm trade but are also
u ~r ets for some U.S. farm prod.'<101' Of the two , Canada is the
. . c s. •
.
i e ltnportant. In spite of its
f~ense land mass, Canada is so
III nOrth that it has only a little
atorbel than 100 million acres of
a eland.
at AUstralia, too, covers a large
ea but has a broader range of

As agricultural exports rise ,
nation reduces its set-aside acreage
MILLION ACRES

400

TOTAL

300-

200-

i

o
1950
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture

1;:1

llllsil\

egg Review I May 1974

1_~~_~_ _ _ _~__

5

\.
I

Gains in agricultural production
exceed population growth in United States ...
1950 = 100
160--------------------------------------~---

150 140 130 120 110 100-4~----~----~------r_----_r----~r_----_r_

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1973 preliminary
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture

climatic zones. It is the driest continent, however, and has only a
little over 110 million acres of
arable land. Production in Australia has been off for the last few
years because of drouth.

climate but also from climaterelated problems. Much of the land
is leached of nutrients, and the
incidence of insects and diseases is
usually higher than in the rest of
the world.
Some progress has been made in
••• and less developed areas
increasing farm output in these
Agricultural production in most
countries. A few countries, in fact,
of the less developed countries of
have made decided progress. And
Africa, Asia, and Latin America
with capital improvements, almost
is severely limited by climate.
all of them could make more progOften hot and subject to seasonal
ress. But so far, efforts to increase
changes that see months of drouth production in less developed counbroken by torrential rains, many of tries have been disappointing.
these countries cannot adequately
feed their own population. And
their situations are likely to worsen
Production in less developed
as increases in population continue
countries suffers not only
to boost the demand for food, refrom the climate but also from
moving any real expectation that
climate-related problems.
these countries will be able to reduce their needs for imported food
anytime in the near future.
Because most of the world's reProduction in less developed
search in agriculture has been in
countries suffers not only from the
temperate zones, many of the im6

proved strains of crops and live- _
stock are not suitable for the tr~P
. t eS
ics. Moreover, where new vane 1 d
have been successfully introduC~ S
.
into less developed countnes~ ga1Il
in farm output have go~e I?aln1~d
into efforts to reduce eXlstmg fo
shortages. The diets of the ?Opulation of less developed natlOnSftin 1970 were estimated to be de
cient by an average of about 30 O
t
calories per person per day. Th\at
was about an eighth less than "VI
the United Nations considere~ all
adequate diet in these countnes .
Population increases have prevented much progress in clOSIng
the food gap, and most of these
countries certainly do not h~~es for
surpluses of staple commodltle arexport. Nor do they have the rn 5Sketing, transportation, and pro c
ing facilities to handle increa~estlcb
flows of farm products-even If
flows could be developed.
These countries, then, will befor
net importers of farm products Ilthe foreseeable future. Implerne
tation of suitable technology requires enormous investment, asto
does the infrastructure needed re
. ltu .
support a commercial agncU ·w.l
Without a massive inflow ?f cale~b­
into less developed countrIes, f
nology alone offers little hOP~feJlls,
solving their agricultural pro loPProjections. show ~hree dr:till
ing areas-Africa, ASIa, and
America-with roughly threet'OIl
fourths of the world's popula 1tiin 1985. And although some eS y be
mates indicate their people ft~ of
producing no more than a ~ s rethe world's goods and serVIcebat
cent developments indi?ate t osisome of them migh~ be In a P ds
tion to make effective dema n rtlon the world supply of such CO
modities as soybean~..
eS
With the increase m mcoW f
0
elsewhere in the world, some illt~y
these countries may be abl~
crease their exports of spe~a {fee.
items, such as bananas an cO

d

And others may be able to turn to
la~ger shipments of lumber and
lllinerais. Recent price developtnents suggest that this groupespeCially petroleum-producing
COUntries-could be in a vastly
itnproved trading position.
Many of the less developed
tnarkets presently served by the
United States are in Asia. That
COntinent is expected to have well
OVer half the world's population in
1985. But as the proportion of
world population in Asia rises, its
share of total production is exPected to lag. By 1985, countries
of Asia could be producing only
about a tenth of the world's goods
and services.
~ apan is the only country in
A.sla that does not fall into the less
developed category. India and
China dominate the continent, together accounting for roughly twofifths of the population projected
for the World in 1985. To feed this
POPUlation of some 2 billion, they
have less than a fifth of the world's
arable land.

as sharp rise in yields
cultivation of fewer acres

~~quires
1950

= 100

180

160CROP PRODUCTION PER ACRE

140-

120 -

100 -

CROPLAND USED FOR CROPS

-------~""III~

~

80~~~~-r------r-----1-9T6-2-----1916-6~--~19;7~0~--~1:9~7~4
1950

1954

1973 preliminary
t
SOURCE: U.S. Departmen

1958

0

t Agriculture

------------------••• as the proportion of
~orld population in Asia rises,
!ts share of total production
IS eXpected to lag.

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

I·China has a fairly good soil and
C1tnate mix, but its agricultural
:oduction is strained by the det· an~s of its population. Produc~on in India is subject to monsoon
tneather patterns. Failure .of ~h~
ons
Caonso ' or shifts in theIr tunmg,
f n eause drouths or floods-both
~ which have cut production the
ast Couple of years.
C· 'l'he resulting projected defitWo in fOod production in these
lency
d COUntries implies an enormous
geiendence on imports. But, toI e her, they will probably produce
SS
ge than 5 percent of the world's
oods and services in 1985, which
lilts·
tness ReView I May 1974

- , . (..

7

Brazil, for example, gives promise of becoming an active purchaser of food from the United
States. Although a large land
mass, Brazil has only about 75
million acres that are arable. And
its climate reduces the variety of
crops that can be grown.
Although farm surpluses have
been forecast for Argentina, that
country also has some problems of
land and climate. The few agricultural surpluses that are anticipated are not likely to be enough
to make any great difference in
world markets.
Mexico has made major gains
in output in recent years. Trade
based on the proximity of the
United States and mutual needs of
the two countries is apt to increase,
however, as most of Mexico's additional production has gone to
feed its expanding population.
Overall world population growth
indicates not merely continued demand for farm products but continued increases in demand. Most
... Latin America suffers
of the increase will come, of course,
from both population presfrom more developed countries.
sures on its arable land and
But with less developed countries
limitations of climate.
also making gains in income, the
rise in demand is apt to be increasingly more worldwide.
Mexico and Venezuela are alAs other countries seek to comready important buyers of U.S.
plement their own farm producfarm products. The proximity of
tion and upgrade diets by increasthe United States to Latin Amering imports, the outlook is for a
ica and the good trade relations al- premium to be placed on soybeans,
ready established in the Western
feed grains, and livestock products
Hemisphere suggest other Latin
-all commodities in which the
countries could also become imUnited States has a competitive
portant buyers.
advantage. Its ability to take adBut Latin America suffers from
vantage of this opportunity for
both population pressures on its
greater foreign sales will depend
arable land and limitations of clion the growth in demand at home
mate. And its share of total world
and increases in domestic agriculoutput is not expected to exceed 4
tural productive capacity.
percent in 1985. Still, with only
U.S. capability to produce
8 percent of the world's population, even a modest rise in income
Unique among the countries of the
levels could be enough to stimulate world, the United States has the
import demand for food in many
land, climate, market network, and
Latin American countries.
technology to produce far more

would clearly restrain their economic ability to buy much abroad.
The ratio of population to land
is much better in Africa than in
Asia or Latin America. And that
will probably still be the case in
1985. With about 14 percent of
the world's arable land, the continent will probably have only
about 10 percent of the population
at that time.
But because of climate, this ratio is not as advantageous as it
might seem. Without exte~siv.e
capital inputs, most of Africa IS
too hot too wet, or too dry for producing 'agricultural commodities.
Nor are marked gains in the production of other goods likely for
Africa. Taken as a whole, the continent is expected to produce less
than 2 percent of the world's
goods and services in 1985. That
will give it the smallest share of
world income of any major population area.

8

farm products than it can consume. In fact, until the last couple
of years, American agriculture has
been plagued with surpluses.
Excess capacity at a time when
world demand for food is rising
faster than foreign production
capability places the United StateS
in a highly favorable position for
further increasing its exports.
Much of this bright prospect is
based on the fact that the Unitedt
States has one of the world's mos
favorable land-population ratios.
With only about 7 percent of the s
world's land mass, this country:;'s
more than 12 percent of the .w~r 1
arable land. And in 1985, it IS bke 'j
to have no more than about 5 percent of the world's population.
Even more importan~, howeveJ'
is the amount of land WIth a .god
climate for farming. The UnIte,
States has about half the worl1 5
farmland with long summers ~
adequate rainfall. These Co~dI- i1
tions combine with the fertile SO
of the Midwest to provide-in t
roughly the Corn Belt-the moS
flexible area of agricultural production in the world.
In addition, the United Sta~es
has about a third of the world~ypi­
humid subtropical farmland. SS
fied by the old Cotton Belt acr o
the southern states, this area ha~81
a very desirable climate for gene
agricultural production.
s
There are also other large a~ea
of the United States having cli~a_
mates that further extend the
riety of production and the fle~­
ibility of response to changes In
demand. These include, for e"-ers
ample, the short, humid .sumJIl s
far inland that favor gram croP oIl'
in the upper Midwest, the dr~'~e_
tinental climates suitable for 1
stock operations in the weste~
states, and the mild coastal c s
mates that favor specialty croP
on the West Coast.
tsThese natural endowmen . agcoupled with improvements In

-l'icultural technology that have

land, and marginally productive
land. With substantial capital in1 Wered average costs-have alvestment, crops could be profitably
thW~d the United States to supply
produced on at least a third of
f e omestic market with more
this land. If world demand convoo~ of higher quality and greater
tinues to keep prices at levels jus13arlet~ than any other country.
tifying the necessary improvealut thIs combination of factors has ments, considerably more acreage
coso allowed this country to becould be brought under cultivation
of ~e ~he world's largest exporter
in a few years.
Whirrlc~ltural products. Even
Other factors contributing to
cente w~thholding about 15 perthe competitive advantage of the
in of ItS acreage from production United States in agriculture instiuecent years, the country has
clude its marketing system and
fifth bee,n able to export roughly a
transportation networks. Because
of ItS farm output.
much of the large-scale farming
developed far from population centers, an extensive marketing system was needed. As it has develici • Illuch of the [U.S.] croppr~~ tha~ ha~ been held out of oped, it allows rapid responses to
changes in demand, Because the
sf uCbon In the past connation is closely linked all across
u~tudtes a reserve that can be
e for export production.
its heartland by interconnecting
railways, highways, and waterways
tying farm-market areas to ports
on two oceans, it has advantages
th~hile domestic demands on
se
in moving farm products that no
tise ~esources will continue to
other country has matched.
tionWith the increases in populaAgricultural research is more
Ptoje~n? per capita consumption,
advanced in the United States
tiVit h?ns.suggest that producthan in any other country, as are
detn YWIll rIse roughly in line with
its commodity markets. Both aclb.en~nd. ~hese parallel movetivities add to the flexibility of
Year f -estImated at 2 percent a
American agriculture.
the cror crops-mean that much of
Part of the productivity of farmOf Pr ~Pla~d that has been held out
ers in this country is due to the
tute 0 uctlOn in the past constiel(Po~~ reserve that can be used for size of their operations. Compared
11 production.
.
with farms in other countries,
farms in the United States are
lion ~ch of the reserve of 50 miltypically large. This is especially
leas 60 million acres was retrue for commercial farms, which
Alth for production in late 1972.
produce more than three-fourths
favo~ugh the late release and unof the nation's farm products. And
tionarf1e weather kept this addiducti and from being put into pro- there is a steady trend toward
consolidation of farmland, along
in 19~~ th:n, part of it was used
with associated efficiencies.
to tis . ~lth demand continuing
is be,e, VIrtually all of this reserve
Closely related to the large size
ng
of farms is the heavy investment
~se~ in 1974.
aCl'ea ere IS, lU addition, substantial in agriculture and its supporting
industries. The country has, for
tion a1e that is not under cultivaland present. Additional cropexample, 30 percent of the world's
260 ~~ld be drawn from about
tractors. It produces about a
fourth of the world's fertilizer. The
fled a ho n acres currently classis Permanent pasture, woodUnited States also has a dispro-

~:stly expanded productivity and

Value of farm exports
surges ahead of volume
1968 = 100

350 - - - - - - - - - - -

300VALUE OF EXPORTS

250 -

200 -

150 -

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

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

100 -

_ . -.....
VOLUME OF EXPORTS

50~Ir---rI----r---~I--

1968

1970
1972
TRADE YEARS

1974

1974 projected
SOURCES: U.S . Department of Agriculture
Federal Reserve Bank of Da"as

3

'l'h

1lllSille
Ss Review

I May 1974

\ - - - - --_._ ----:==-= ..

~

portionate share of other production and marketing capital assigned to increase the efficiency
of farmers.
Outlook for domestic production
Agricultural production in the
United States will, no doubt, increase rapidly over the next few
years. The largest increase is likely
to be in crops. With continued
improvements in yields and the
release of millions of acres of cropland previously idled under Government programs, crop production by 1985 could well be over
40 percent greater than in 1970.
Livestock production, led by
beef and poultry, will also expand
rapidly, probably staying well
ahead of the growth in population.
Projections indicate that livestock
production CQuld reach a level in
1985 about a fourth higher than in
1970. Most of this gain will be
absorbed in markets at home. But
even with the projected growth in
domestic population and consumption, some of the additional production will be available for export.
In crops, the fastest growth will,
most likely, be in the two that give
the United States its greatest
competitive advantages-soybeans
and feed grains. This country already produces two-thirds of the

10

world's soybeans and about a third
of its feed grains. Soybean production could double by 1985, and
feed grain crops by then should
total about 50 percent more than
in 1970. And foreign shipments of
these two crops are expected to
double by 1985.
The growing importance of
soybeans and feed grains
gives the United States a distinct advantage in world farm
trade.

The United States is also a major producer of both cotton and
wheat, accounting for about 19
percent and 14 percent of the respective world totals. Production
of these crops should be up about
a fifth by 1985. On this basis, supplies would be ample to meet not
only domestic demand but also rising foreign demand. However, both
these crops can be grown in many
parts of the world. And although
export gains are expected, foreign
competition will probably limit the
extent of the increase in cotton
and wheat.
Rice production probably will be
up about a third. While the United
States produces only a very small

share of the world's rice, it is the
leading exporter, and almost all
production gains would go into
world markets.
The growing importance of soYbeans and feed grains gives the
United States a distinct advanta.ge
in world farm trade. And as a result, it will probably take a larger
share of the world market. In
volume, U.S. farm shipments in I
1985 could be double the 1970 leve
and be even more in dollar terms.
The world needs U.S. agricultural products. At the same ti1l1e't
the United States needs to expo \
more farm products to help o~se
the increase in imports-especla.llY
of petroleum. And this mutual
need and the resulting mutual
gain in improved trade relations
should be to the advantage of
American farmers.
-Dale L. Stansbury
Carl G. Anderson, Jr.

New member bank

The Western National Bank, Duncanville, Texas, a newly organized institution
located in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve Bank
of Dallas, opened for business April 8, 1974, as a member of the Federal Reserve
System. The new member bank opened with capital of $400,000, surplus of
$400,000, and undivided profits of $200,000. The officers are: Bill D. Beall,
President, and Jim R. Boothe, Vice President and Cashier.
New par banks

!he Marion State Bank, Marion, Louisiana, an insured nonmember bank located
the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas,
was added to the Par List on April 1, 1974. The officers are: H. D. Green,
Chairman of the Board; C. W. Sehon, President; K. S. Thompson, Vice President;
R. A. Tucker, Vice President; G. V. Sehon, Executive Vice President and Cashier;
and Dianne Gulley, Assistant Cashier.
In

The First Bank, Balch Springs, Texas, an insured 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 4, 1974. The officers are:
Robert E. Edgmon, President, and Dean Morris, Vice President and Cashier.

..........

---------------------------------------------------------,

ll,,,

"sllles

s neview I May 1974

11

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
May 1974

Statistical Supplement to the Business Review
~----------------------------------------------

......

~~:?na~IY adjusted industrial pro-

M 10n n;t Texas rose slightly in

ou7ch . Smce November, industrial
towPut has fluctuated within a nartren~a;ge, showing no discernible
fact '. he gain centered in manudUt~r;ng, where production of nonPet e goods was up 2 percent.
t
mos~l~urn refining accounted for
14 pe 0 the strength, increasing
mont~ent after four consecutive
of tefi of decline. The higher level
stepp ~ry ~roduction-reflecting
tesult:ci';lP unports of ~rude oil:utiliz t" m an mcrease ill capaclty
Petcea tl?n to 84 percent from 76 .
OU~ In February.
drop' put of apparel continued to
of fo In March. And the production
nearld and allied products fell by
sPon Y6 percent-apparently in recons~e to the recent softening of
felt attner d;mand for meat being
bur packinghouses.
\Vas es able goods manufacturing
the tn sentially unchanged from
slightlnth before. Mining was off
from /: due .to lower production
thoug~g 011 fields in Texas, alCteased the o.utput of utilities inconslderably.
.
'l'otallo
\Veekl ans a~d investments at
enth fi.rep.ortmg banks in the Elevthe fi lStnct rose substantially in
ha\'inve.weeks ended April 24 after
earue g .lncreased only moderately
centr~t~ t~e year. The rise was con?USin
ess In loans, particularly to
lnstitut. s and nonbank financial
and conlons. Demand for real estate
hOWe" sUrner instalment loans
ver
'
USUal fo ' w~ somewhat less than
As 10 r this period.
total dean ~ernand began to rise,
deClin loslts at reporting banks
\Vete t~ Co~traseasonally. There
and t" uChons in both demand
ltne and savings deposits.

!

Recent increases in market rates
of interest probably induced some
depositors to withdraw or divert
funds from banks to high-yielding
market securities.
The decline in deposits led banks
to look to increased borrowing in
the Federal funds market and from
the Federal Reserve Bank. Also,
banks made adjustments in security holdings to finance the increase
in loan demand. Net purchases of
Federal funds increased much more
than usual over this five-week period. At the same time, banks reduced their holdings of Government
securities and cut net acquisitions
of other securities well below the
amount they usually acquire that
time of year.
Seasonally adjusted employment in
the five southwestern states fell
slightly in March from the month
before. The loss centered in manufacturing-especially durable goods
production-and construction. Consequently, jobless statistics were up
substantially. The unemployment
rate reached 4.6 percent, compared
with 4.4 percent in February.
Department store sales in the Eleventh District remain strong. Seasonally adjusted sales accelerated
to a 2.6-percent rate of growth from
mid-March to mid-April. Purchases
have now increased in five of the
last six months.
The decline in new car sales in
Texas slowed in March. Seasonally
adjusted registrations of new cars
were 6 percent lower than in February but were off 36 percent from a
year before. Year-earlier comparisons in this case, however, overstate
the magnitude of the current slump
in new car sales. March 1973 re-

mains the record month for new car
registrations in Texas, reflecting
the surge in foreign car sales following devaluation of the dollar a
month earlier.
The cattle feeding industry in the
Southwest reported a severe drop in
earnings in the first quarter. Most
feeders suffered substantial losses,
primarily because the price received
for fed cattle declined sharply relative to feeder cattle, grain, and
other feeding costs. In response to
these developments, the number of
cattle on feed in Texas on April 1
slipped below the year-earlier level.
And significantly fewer cattle were
placed on feed in March than in the
same month a year before.
As a result of the decline in cattle
feeding activity, only 225 feedlots
with capacities for more than 1,000
head were operating in Texas. This
was the smallest number of large
feedlots since the surge in commercial cattle feeding in the last half of
the 1960's.
With appreciably lower prices for
livestock and a moderate decline in
crop prices, the index of prices received by Texas farmers and ranchers declined 6 percent in the month
ended March 15. But despite the
decline, the index was 23 percent
higher than a year earlier.
Cash receipts from farm and
ranch marketings in District states
in January and February totaled
slightly more than $2.3 billioncompared with $1.5 billion in the
same period in 1973. Crop sales,
at nearly $1.4 billion, were more
than twice the year-earlier receipts,
while livestock marketings were up
moderately to over $900 million.
The gains were due to both higher
average prices and a larger volume
of marketings.

CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING COMMERCIAL BANKS

Eleventh Federal Reserve District
(ThouSand dollars)

".
Apr.24,
1974

ASSETS
Federal funds sold and securities purchased
under agreements to resell ...
Other loans and discounts, gross
Commercial and Industrial loans .......
Agricultural loans, excluding CCC
certificates of Interest ...................
Loan s to brokers and dealers for
purchasing or carrying:
U.S. Government securities ....
Other securities ....................................
Oth er loans for purchasing or carrying:
U.S. Government securities ..
Other securities ....................................
Loans to nonbank fin ancial Institutions:
Sales finance, personal fin ance, factors,
and othe, business cre dit companies ....
Oth er ...................
Real estate loans .....................................
Loans to domestic commercial banks .
Loans to foreig n bank s .
Consumer Instalment loans ................................
Lo ans to foreign governments, official
Institutions, cen tral banks, and International
Institutions .
Other loans .
Total Investments .
Total U.S . Government securities ..
Treasury bills ..........................................
Treasury certificates of Indebtedness ..
Treasury notes an9 U.S. Government
bonds maturing :
. .......... "."" ....
Within 1 year ..
1 year to 5 years ....
After 5 years ..................................................
Obligations of states and pOlitical subdivisions:
Tax warrants and short-term notes and bills
All other ............................................................
Other bonds, corporate stocks, and securities:
Certificates representing partiCipations In
federal agency loans ............................
All other (Including corporate stocks) ....
Cash Items In process of collection .. .. ..
Reserves with Federal Reserve Bank ....
Currency and coin .......................................
Balances with banks In the United States .
Balances with banks In foreign countries ................
Other assets (Including Investments In subsidiaries
not conSOlidated) .

Apr. 25,
1973

1,272,152
10,104,188

1,948,101
9,872,802

1,088,926
9,416,183

4,436,372

4,366,917

4,195,643

281,363

295,293

273,061

1,276
55,398

445
49,532

0
61,229

3,995
445,667

4,474
442,673

4,959
517,417

144,032
795,986
1,482, 187
44,213
72,047
1,042,138

118,389
765,903
1,466,405
42,714
55,493
1,035,586

195,338
680,013
1,295,470
31,880
62,341
1,007,256

17
1,299,497
4,187,402

203
1,228,775
4,155,013

250
1,091,326
4,085,651

1,012,222
153,510
0

1,031,514
164,945
0

144,009
530,031
184,672

152,452
514,652
199,465

132,379
507,315
156,013

151,477
2,738,014

151,360
2,684,781

14,745
270,944
1,357,760
1,156,152
127,542
463,820
18,863

13,113
274,245
1,434,004
1,048,484
125,094
505,113
16,482

86,942
223,824
1,385,290
766,782
119,535
435,794
12,418

Apr.24,
1974

LIABILITIES

820,983

850,522

967,257
171,550
0

Total demand deposits ..........................................
Individ uals, partnerships, and corporations ..
States and political subdivisions ..
U.S. Government ....................
Banks in the United States .
Foreign:
Governments, official Institutions, cen tral
banks, and International Institutions .
Commercial banks .......................
Certified and officers' checks, etc.
Total time and savings deposits ............................
Individuals, partnerships, and corporations:
Savings deposils ........................................
Other time deposits ....................
States and political subdivisions ........................
U.S. Government (Including postal savings) ......
Banks In th e United States .............................
Foreign :
Governments, official Institutions, central
banks, and International Institutions .
Commercial banks .................................
Federal funds purchased and securities sold
under agreements to repurchase ......
Other liabilities for borrowed money .
Other liabilities .......
Reserves on loans ........
Reserves on securities ....
Total capital accounts .

~

---7,031,826

2,560
52,367
104,559
7,426,000

1,158,428
4,069,831
2,023,964
6,801
81,727

1,170,532
4,079,097
2,068,860
10,305
83,610

13,192
300

13,296
300

2,951,021
155,092
503,280
177,966
24,249
1,311,185

3,278,558
167,054
492,505
178,190
24,252
1,278,860

19,508,862

19955615

Total deposits .
Borrowings ..........
Other lIabllltles e ...............
Total capital accountse .
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL
ACCOUNTs e .
e-Estlmated

~~:I04

13 260
0
'12

2,365,2~~
4

27 ,222
552,3
21

159'~51

13, 61

TOTAL LIABILITIES, RESERVES , AND
CAP ITAL ACCOUNTS .

----

,

'

Feb.27,
1974

Mar. 28,
1973

20,985
2,320
6,531
1,727
361
1,395
20
1,732
1,587

21,411
2,315
6,408
1,646
355
1,466
20
1,813
1,619

18,065
2,525
5,832
1,380
321
1,246
13
1.,585
1,336

36,658

37,053

32,303

1,672
12,109
15,168

1,800
12,166
15,065

1,645
11 ,431
13,138

28,949
3,826
1,377
2,506

29,031
4,213
1,312
2,497

26,214
2,790
1,066
2,233

36,658

37,053

32,303

l
I
(
\

64223

\

~

~

I

t
DEMAND AND TIME DEPOSITS OF MEMBER BANKS

Eleventh Federal Reserve District

savingS

Total

Adjusted'

U.S .
Government

Total

1972: March .
1973: March ..
April ..
May ......
June .
July ......
Augus!.. ........
September ..
October ...
November ...
December .
1974: January .....
February .
March .

Mar. 27,
1974

I

~

753,644

Eleventh Federal Reserve District

TOTAL ASSETSe

;i

012
1,183'53 5
3,526'711
1,745 '71 6

19,955,615 18,064 ,223

(MIllion dollars)

LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
Demand depOSits of banks
Other demand deposits .
Tim e deposits .

3 894
39'8 16
107:2
6,588,4

1,936
67,666
124,799
7,354,243

(Averages of dally figures. Million dollars)

CONDITION STATISTICS OF ALL MEMBER BANKS

ASSETS
Loans and discounts, gross ..
U.S. Government obligations
Other securities ......................................
Reserves with Federal Reserve Bank ..
Cash In vault ...............................................
Balances with banks In th e United States .....
Balances with banks In foreign countrles e .
Cash Items In process of collection ..
Other asse ts e ..

.--:--;;

14,536,196 13,521,0
6,932,5
7,110,196
4,81 1,4 22
35
5,077,322
5,030,957
574'~15
451,602
460,732
253, 98
169,709
154,032
1,1 42,3
1,252,077
1,191,704

14,386,069

Total deposits ...

Date

Item

APr. 25,
1973

Mar.20,
1974

284,809
2,522,819

19,508,862

TOTAL ASSETS ..

Mar. 20,
1974

12,118
13,203
13,237
13,136
13,218
13,259
12,941
13,039
13,289
13,455
14.008
14,384
13,949
13,933

8,515
9,454
9,550
9,502
9,551
9,567
9,492
9,442
9,461
9,816
10,086
10,276
10,082
10,150

300
395
331
341
279
261
172
208
239
167
244
302
264
260

10,978
13,038
13,249
13,336
13,374
13,396
13,507
13,618
13,795
13,953
14,154
14,533
14,919
15,126

2,430
2 848
2'85 5
2'8 59
2'88 4
2'868
2'8 57
£85 4
2'8 63
2'8 71
2: 883
2 900
2'90 9
2'9 58

~

1. Other than those of U.S . Government and domestic com mercial bankS, leSS
Items In process of collection

RESERVE POSITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS

Eleventh Federal Reserve District

_
______________________--::;;;1

(Averages of dally figures. Thousand dollars)

Item
Total reserve s held ................ .
With Federal Reserve Bank
Currency and coin ...
Required reserves ....
Excess reserves
Borrowings .......
Free reserv es .

4 weeks ended
Apr. 3, 1974

4 weeks ended
Mar. 6, 1974

2,001 ,302
1,684,164
317,138
1,998,421
2,881
76,858
-73,977

1,991,735
1,679',392
312,343
1,982,945
8,790
39,027
-30,237

ndad

4 weeKSle973
Apr. 4,
79 6
1,753 '761
1,468, 03 5
285, g4
1,74N02
95'0 53
, 1
-88,4 5

BANK 0

EBITS, END-OF-MONTH DEPOSITS, AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER

SMSA' .
S In Eleventh Federal Reserve District
(Dollar am
__
Ounts In thou sands, seasonally adj usted)
DEBITS TO DEMAND DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS '
DEMAND DEPOSITS'
Percent change
Annual rate
Mar.
March 1974 From
of turnover
1974
3 months,
(Anbnuall-)rate
Feb·
~9a7r3'
19i~i~om
Mf~7~1.
Mar.
Feb.
Mar.
g74
~a:s:~_____1~=-____~~~____~~______~~______~9 7~_______1~ 7:______~
s
1~ 4
9~ 4
1~9~74~__

:--Sta~~:~~t~:lr~fe~lItan
ARIZON ~:::-____~~~~=A
LOUISIA : Tucson .. ........................ .....................

__________________

NEWM NA:

$15.73 1.875

~r~~~epiirt':: "

lEXAS:~~~~~eROswell' "

... ". . """".""..
....................................................... .......

t

~cldAlalinedn-Piia~;:E·dl;ib~;9"·. .......... ............... .......
,~

~~~i~~~,,=2)
;

31 %

1,438 ,962

19
-1

2:
25

3,840,642
12.135.854
16.963 .919
9.904.232
3.760.289
1,687 ,049
12.134,471
695,424
257,559 ,230
14.017.063
41 .915 .671
3,982,560
212.068.705
2,411.376
1,737.972

0
23
-11
-3
11
9
-3
1
6
-1
8
-2
4
-10
-4

23
29
27
26
26
26
57
13
52
30
26
11
30
8
26

13,382.344
3,894 ,611

Amarillo "..
.......... .......................
Austin ............................... .... .. ...........................
Beaurriiiiii~'port' A;iiiiir:" " "'''''''''''''''''' .....................
Brownsvill H
Orange ..............
Bryan C
arllngen-San Benito .....
Corpu~ 3h~i~~ Station .... .. ..............
CorSican '
.................................
Dallas a ....
EI Paso ...........................
.......................
Fort Worth "
Galvest
.""."""""
HOUsto~n-TexasClty ........................................
Killeen-Tern ''''''''
Laredo
pie...
LUbbock ............................................... .......... ...........

Waco .............
WIChita Falls'

2%

1~:m:~~6

28
8

64
24

1II: ! -I
!H
I
3,392.040

10

;,g~g,g:~

""'''''''' .. .......................

~ers

1~

34%

$375.901

m
'm

1~

42.7

42.2

36.1

56:285

33~

g~

25.7

26.3

;~ :~

155,843
249.543

31
35
26

~~:~

24.7
49.3
37.1
31 .6
30.4
27.2
41 .2
16.6
83.7
44.1
47.4
29.1
58.6
20.5
27.2

25.0
41.4
40.1
33.6
27 .7
25.2
41.9
16.2
81 .0
43.8
45.2
29.8
57.0
22 .8
28.5
L1
422 7

23.1
44.2
28.6
28.0
26.2
23.7
27.5
15.1
58.2
34.8
39 .1
28.2
49.3
19.9
23.9
5
38'
19 . 6

g~~,' m

26

123.685

~~

2~~ ·.m

45
29
23
12
28
13
33

3.103,962
329,653
904.549
139,037
3,631,318
118,417
64,446

15

41.518

~~

~~~ ', ~~~

~~:~

41 .5

~ !! ;~m gU ~! III
H!
15

~~

4

140,467

~g

1~~:m

24.8

~~:~

23.6

~~:6

~U

................. ........................................................... $709:314:348
5%
36%
33%
$13,186,930
54 .0
52 .2
42.5
2: CepOSlts Of ;:I
n=:-:--:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ounty baSis dlvlduals, partnerships. and corporations and of states and political subdivisions

CONDITIO
(rhou

N OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DAtLAS

sand d
.............. ollars)

BUILDING PERMITS
Apr. 24 ,
1974

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

................... ...
, ................ , ...
"

815.043
88,310
0
94.738
3,324.814
3,507,862
1,855,810

525,415
41,268
0
85,806
3,443,039
3,570,113
1,799,558

362,249
102.009
0
57,214
3,304,229
3,463,452
1.390.351

2,413,246

2.262.855

VALUE Of:
(Million

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

~rs)

January-March
Area
~I"E
and tYpe
S SOU;
RlA;ES,HWESTERN
NeSlde ..........
onres~tlal bUllciiii """"''''''''

UNNonbulI~~ntlal bUII~'lii9':""'"

~lED ; A9 construction"'"

eSI
NOnr
NOn

VALUATION (Dollar amoun ts In thousands)

Apr. 25 ,
1973

2,461,874

,

Mar. 20,
1974

Mar.
1974

Feb.
1974

Jan .
1974

1974

987
406
402
179
7,911
3,374
2,752
1,785

776
358
300
118
6.610
2,678
2,260
1,672

853
295
323
236
5,954
2,231
2,307
1,415

2.599
1,052
1,016
531
20,394
8,283
7.282
4,829

rES
..
bUliCiiii ""
tlal bUII~i~"''''''
9 COnst
9 ........
I
ruction ....
,.:. An~Ona
NaRevlsed' LOUISiana N
SaGE: Det
' ew Mexico , Oklahoma, and Texas
RCI:. ails may n
. F. W. DOd;t a~d to totals because of rounding.
e. cGraw-HIII, Inc.

1973
2,858r
1.445r
1,048r
365
22,106r
11 ,064r
7,252r
3,790r

Percent change
Mar. 1974
from

NUMBER

Area

Mar.
1974

3 mos.
1974

Mar.
1974

3 mos.
1974

1,422

$9,531

$24,799

107%

Feb.
1974

Mar.
1973

3 month s.
1974 from
1973

AR IZONA
631
Tucson ....
LOUISIANA
Monroe77
West Monroe ...
556
Shreveport.. ...
TEXAS
98
Abilene ....
248
Amarillo ..
509
Austin ....
212
Beaumont ...
136
Brownsville ......
215
Corpus Christi ..
1,693
Dallas ........
19
Denison ..
561
EI Paso ............
383
Fort Worth ..
78
Galveston ...
2,138
Houston ...
34
Laredo .......
172
Lubbock ......
72
Midland ..
Odessa .........
127
Port Arthur ...
94
San Angelo ....
62
San Antonio ..
1.639
Sherman ........
39
Texarkana ...
88
Waco ...............
198
Wichita Falls .
61

181
1.240

2,968
9,936

5.366
22.275

63
3

33
115

- 9
-34

237
558
1,240
539
331
718
3,809
50
1,407
1,045
182
5,736
87
433
186
286
192
188
4,253
91
214
510
194

1,438
8,014
30.816
2,824
3,196
2,555
34,009
110
34,949
31,250
1,650
47,522
635
10,710
1,395
1,460
245
455
18.641
524
894
7,523
1,216

3,200
16,277
63,148
7.833
10,307
10,904
76,499
578
55,872
46,185
4,526
169,231
802
46,459
14.255
7,383
699
2,876
62,979
1,103
1,546
11,694
2,464

76
118
125
102
232
-52
77
- 14
395
395
242
- 1
1,098
- 43
44
- 18
31
- 46
-21
126
123
164
124

-62
122
-11
47
218
-40
1
- 65
167
69
- 29
- 47
- 92
- 7
114
4
-69
- 29
- 26
5
63
13
-44

- 67
24
- 6
1
41
-42
-14
-47
53
23
36
-22
-9 1
98
226
86
- 58
- 2
2
- 25
42
- 20
- 60

Total-26 cities .. .. 10,140

25,329

$264.466

$669,260

52%

20%

-5%

- 53%

-8%

LABOR FORCE, EMPLOYMENT, AND UNEMPLOYMENT

DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL
(Thousand barrels)

Five Southwestern States'
Percent change from

Area
FOUR SOUTHWESTERN
STATES ..
Louisiana ........
New Mexico ..
Oklahoma ...
Texas ..................
Gulf Coast ..
West Texas ...............
East Texas (proper) ...
Panhandle .
Rest of state
UNITED STATES

Mar.
1974

Feb.
1974

Mar.
1973r

Feb.
1974

6,574.0
2,125.0
269.4
519 .0
3,660.6
708.1
1,924.2
241 .7
62.0
724 .6
9,179.9

6,633.0
2,259.4
282.5
505.2
3,585.9
711 .6
1,818.4
252 .5
63.0
740.4
9,174.9

-1.1%
-1 .9
-2.3
.5
-.8
- .5
-.8
- .3
- 2.9
-1 .1
- 1.0%

- 2.0%
- 7.8
-6.9
3.3
1.3
-1.0
5.0
-4 .5
-4.4
-3.2
-1.0%

."""".
Percent chan~

Mar.
1973

6,500.1
2,083.8
263.1
521.7
3,631 .5
704.6
1,908.7
241 .1
60.2
716.9
9,084 .9

(Seasonally adJusted)

r-Revlsed
SOURCES: American Petroleum Institute
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

Thousands of persons
Item
Civilian labor force ..
Total employment ........
Total unemployment..
Unemployment rate
T alai nonagricultural
wage and salary
employment
Manufacturing ..
Durable ........
Nondurable .
Nonmanufacturlng
Mining .............
Construction .............
Transportation and
public utilities
Trade ............................. ,'
Finance .
Service ............
Government .

~
p,ls'·
Feb.
1974

Mar.
1974p

Feb.
1974

Mar.
1973r

8,890.2
8,482.7
407.5
4.6%

8,876.0
8,487 .3
388 .7
4.4%

8,686.3
8,317.8
368.5
4.2%

0.2%
-.1
4.8
'.2

7,441 .8
1,291.7
722.3
569.4
6,150.1
245.7
519 .9

7,438.1
1,299.7
728.7
571 .0
6,138.4
245.4
524.2

7,126.8
1,250.3
695.3
555 .0
5,876.5
235.6
482.0

.0
- .6
-.9
- .3
.2
.1
- .8

508.4
1,782 .8
409.3
1,226.0
1,458.1

506.9
1,779.1
407.8
1,222.6
1,452.4

484.3
1,707.3
386.5
1,176.6
1,404.1

.3
.2
.4
.3

1973
.----::.

2.3~

2.0
10.6
'.4

4.4
3.3
3.9
2.6
4.7
4.3
7.9
5.0
4.4
5.9
4.2

3.6~
.4%~

1. Arizona, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas
2. Actual change
p-Prellmlnary
r-Revlsed
NOTE: Details may not add to totals because of rounding .
SOURCES: State employment agencies
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (seasonal adjustment)

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
(Seasonally adjusted Indexes, 1967 - 100)

Area and type of Index
TEXAS
Total Industrial production ..
Manufacturing .
Durable
Nondurable ..
Mining .....
Utilities ..
UNITED STATES
Total Industrial production .
Manufacturing ...
Durable
Nondurable
Mining
Ulilities .

Mar.
1974p

Feb.
1974

Jan.
1974

Mar.
1973

138.6
143.1
159.0
131 .7
120.8
163.6

137.6
141 .7
159.2
129.0
121.4
161 .3

137.7r
143.8r
160.7
131 .6r
116.9r
160.9

135.3
139.8
154.5
129.3
117.5
161.2

123.9
123.4
118.6
130.4
112.8
147.8

124.5
123.9
119.4
130.3
111 .6
148.5

125.4r
125.0r
120.7r
131 .0r
110.8r
144.9r

123.7r
123.4r
119.9r
128.6r
109.5r
149.6

p-Prellmlnary
r-Revlsed
SOURCES: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

;::::

TOT AL OIL WELLS DRILLED

Area
FOUR SOUTHWESTERN
STATES ... .
Louisiana ......
Offshore ..
Onshore ..
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas .. ......
Offshore
Onshore ..
UNITED STATES ..

Fourth
quarter
1973

Third
quarter
1973

1,507
217
71
146
68
261
961
0
961
2,701

1,379
207
72
135
59
219
894
2
892
2,497

SOURCE: American Petroleum Institute

Percent
change
9.3%
4.8
-1.4
8.1
15.3
19.2
7.5
7.7
8.2%

1973

hang
C 19; 2
rtl
fr°rtlUISIIVS

cumulatlV~
5,715
855
287
568
280
897
3,683
6
3,671

_10.2\1.
_ 7.1
13.9
15.0
- 44.3
: 12.5
_1.0
_7t
12.6\1.

9,891~