SUMMARY ‘ There have been wide fluctuations in sheep and lamb numbers, nationally and in Texas, dur- ing 1930-57. Numbers reached a peak in the early 1940’s and then declined sharply. Texas, on January 1, 1957, had 15 percent of the sheep and lambs in the United States. Within Texas, sheep and lambs are concentrated in the Edwards Plateau—Trans-Pecos areas. These are- as contain three-fourths 0f all the sheep and lambs in Texas. Most Texas sheep flocks are breeding flocks, with over 90 percent of the farms and ranches with sheep and lambs having breed- ing ewes. A number of factors cause changes in sheep and lamb numbers. The most important are the number of lambs saved, the number of sheep and lambs marketed and death loss. Shipments to other states account for approximately two-thirds of the net marketings. Salable receipts at Texas stockyards account for approximately half of net marketings within the State. The remainder are divided between auction markets and direct and country sales. There is a seasonal pattern in sheep and lamb marketings. ‘The patterns at stockyards and auction markets differ. At the stockyards, re- ceipts are seasonally highest in the spring, while at the auction markets, receipts are seasonally highest in the fall. Lamb and mutton consumption per person was relatively stable prior to 1945. Between 1945 and 1951, lamb and mutton consumption declini sharply, from 7.2 pounds to 3.4 pounds. In 19 it totaled 4.4 pounds per person. Prices received for Texas lambs are lower than the national average, while prices received f, Texas sheep are higher than the national avera, One important factor causing this difference , the predominance of fine wool blood in Tex,‘ sheep and lambs. There are definite patterns " ‘ prices of Texas sheep and lambs. Prices z highest in the spring and lowest in the fall winter. On the Fort Worth market in 1956, the t spread between high and low prices was $5.48 per hundred pounds for Good and Choice slaughter j lambs and $2.46 per hundred pounds for Good and ‘ Choice feeder lambs. The importance of the value for sheep ‘and lambs sold has increased relative to the valueof - wool sold. In 1930, wool accounted for 70 percent of the total income from sales of sheep and lambs“ . and wool. In 1955, wool sales (excluding incen-f tive payments) accounted for 46 percent. One important factor causing this change has been a a decline in the wool-lamb price ratio. In the 10 years, 1946-55, the average value of production from the average Texas ewe was $13.62, $9.08 being the value of the lamb pro» t duced and $4.54 being the value of the wool pro- duced. 1 CONTENTS Summary _____________________________________________________________ _- 2 Seasonality of Marketing .......................... .. 9 Introduction ________________________________________________________ __ 3 Disposition of Texas Sheep Marketing 9 Sheep and Lamb Numbers .............................. -. 3 Commercial Slaughter ...................... -. 9 Geographical Distribution ........................ -. 3 Out-of-state Shipments _____________________ 9 Trends ---------------------------------------------------------- -- 3 Consumption of Lamb and Mutton ........... .- 10 ' Distribution within Texas ________________________ __ 3 prices of Texas Sheep and Lambs __________________ __ 11 ‘ Composition’ ------------------------------ -: ---------------- -- 4 Price Discovery ............................................ -.-"11 t Sheep and_ Cattle Numbers """""""""""""" " 6 Average Annual Prices ............................... .. 11 1 Factors Affectmg Sheep and Lamb Numbers“ 6 Seasonal Variation in Prices ..................... .. 11 | LamPs Saved """""""""""""""""""""""" " 6 Wool Production, Consumption and Prices ....... .. 12 Inshlpments __________________________________ " 7 Production " 12 Marketings __________________________________________________ __ 7 _ """"""""""""""""""""""""""" " Death L0,, _________________________________________________ p, 7 Consumptwn ------------------------------------------------- -- 12 y Farm Slaughter __________________________________________ __ 7 Prices """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" " 13 t Marketing Texas Sheep and Lambs ________________ __ g 111601116 from Sheep, Lambs and W001 ------------- -- 13 Number Marketed ______________________________________ __ 3 Value of Production per Ewe .................. .. 14 Marketing Channels __________________________________ __ 8 Acknowledgements _____________________________________________ __'_ 14 g Marketing Sheep and Lambs in Texas JARVIS E. MILLER and JOHN H. W1NN* ,' EEP RAISING is an important Texas industry. ; .- annual gross income of Texas farmers and ' chmen from sale of sheep, lambs and W001 av- r r I l g ~ favorable. age. ious for Texas sheep farmers and ranchmen. . 1 to $45,880,000 in 1954. ged more than $57,000,000 per year during . 0-56. Most of the sheep in Texas are concen- ted in the Edwards Plateau—Trans-Pecos are- Consequently, sheep raising forms the basis a sizeable portion of the farm and ranch in- . e in that area. Income from sheep and wool has declined rply during recent years, from $87,169,000 in Sheep and lamb bers also declined sharply. Prices have been Drouth conditions have reduced The effects of these factors have been SHEEP AND LAMB NUMBERS Geographical Distribution On January 1, 1957, there were an estimated i ,838,000 sheep and lambs on farms and ranches w the United States. Of these, 19,495,000 (63 cent) were in the Western and Southwestern T tes, and 11,343,000 (37 percent) were in the = aining states. V, There were significant changes in the distri- tion of sheep and lambs in the United States tween 1930-57. During this period, there was eneral downward trend in the number of stock eep and lambs in the 11 Western States and uth Dakota relative to the total United States eep population. Numbers in these states de- ned from 57 percent of the total in 1930, to 4-9 rcent in 1957. Stock sheep and lamb numbers . Texas increased relative to the United States tal until 1946--from 14 percent of the total in 30, to 26 percent, in 1946. Since 1946, Texas mbers have declined relative to the total, and January 1, 1957, made up 17 percent of the tal. Numbers in the remaining states remained ble relative to the U. S. total during 1930-46. fter 1946, they increased, from 28 percent in w to 34 percent, in 1957. Trends Sheep numbers, in the United States have ached very low leyéls in recent years, Figure 1. n all-time high of 56,213,000‘ head was recorded 1942. Between 1942-53, numbers declined sub- antially. On January 1, 1950, only 29,826,000 espectively, assistant professor and former research as- istant, Department of Agricultural Economics and So- iology, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. head were reported, a decline of 47 percent in the 7 intervening years. Since 1950, sheep and lamb numbers have stabilized near that level. On Jan- uary 1, 1957, a total of 30,838,000 sheep and lambs was reported. Texas sheep numbers have tended to follow the general pattern of U. S. numbers. There was a substantial increase in sheep and lamb numbers between 1930-43, from 6,387,000 in 1930, to 10-,- 829,000 in 1943. After 1943, numbers declined sharply. On January 1, 1957, a total of 4,708,000 head of sheep and lambs were reported for Texas. This is 56 percent less than the 1943 total. Distribution Within Texas Sheep are widely distributed within Texas. In 1954, 247 counties in Texas reported sheep and " lambs. However, the heaviest concentration is in the Edwards Plateau-Trans-Pecos areas, Figure 2. On January 1, 1955, it was estimated that 73 percent of the stock sheep and lambs in Texas were located in these areas. The major increase in numbers prior to 1943 took place in these areas. For example, between 1940-43, numbers in the Edwards Plateau—Trans-Pecos areas in- creased by 2,140,000 head, while numbers for the entire state increased only 1,164,000 head, indi- cating a decline of 976,000 head in other areas of the state. Between 1943-53, decline in numbers was proportionally about equal in other sections of the state. Numbers in the Edwards Plateau- Trans-Pecos areas declined by 3,875,000 head (50 percent) while numbers in the remainder of the state declined 1,310,000 head (53 percent). MILLION HEAD so __ ’§ /’n§~”\~ §zl \\ .__,_. \ 5° UNITED STATES\, \\\ 4o \ \ ' \ \ 3o ‘~ "'“"‘“* 2o l0 TEXAS ,_.\_ o 1930 was 1940 1945 usso I955 Figure 1. Sheep and lamb numbers, Texas and Uni- ted States, January 1, 1930-57. 3 '\'/ \ x» 3 ' 0/‘ L - > - / . ' - I . u _ ‘I \, . vy/ AK.) . _/_ v . \ m Figure 2. Distribution of sheep and lambs in Texas, 1954. Each dot equals 5,000 head. Composition Sheep and lamb numbers are reported by the Agricultural Marketing Service, United States De- partment of Agriculture, on January 1 each year. Allsheep and lambs are classified as either s sheep and lambs or as sheep and lambs on f Stock sheep are primarily ewes and ewe w with some rams and wethers. Stock sheep | up between 84 and 90 percent of the total sh numbers, Table 1. Sheep and lambs on feed count for the remainder. W’ Texas has a higher proportion of stock sh and lambs than the United States, Table 2. proportion of Texas sheep and lambs on f varies between 1 and 5 percent of the total. However, Texas has’ a lower proportion ewes and ewe lambs than the United States as whole. From the 27 years, 1930-56, ewes and ewe lambs accounted for an average of 82 percent M , the total stock sheep in Texas, compared with 92 percent for the United States. Over this period, wethers 1 year old or older accounted for an, average of 5 percent of the Texas stock sheep. In fact, Texas had an average of over one-half of, the wethers in the United States. a The relative importance of this category has declined in recent years, and accounted for less than 2 percent of. total Texas stock sheep on January 1, 1957. In 1954, more than 25,000 Texas farms and ranches reported sheep and lamb enterprises, Table 3. This number increased between 1930-40 from 20,546 to 33,706. In 1945, and again in‘ TABLE 1. INVENTORY OF SHEEP ON FARMS AND RANCHES IN THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 1,1930-57‘ Stock sheep Y All On Lambs 1 year and over ear Sheep feed Total Ewes avnvjti1slgss Ewes Rams Wetherl ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ — — — — — ———1,000head----t — — — — — — — — — — — —- 1930 51,565 5,988 45,577 7,274 1,258 34,614 1,233 1,198 1931 53,233 5,513 47,720 7,205 1,371 36,514 1,288 1,342 1932 53,902 6,220 47,682 6,863 1,349 37,095 1,315 1,060 ‘" 1933 53,054 5,751 47,303 6,635 1,218 37,012 1,318 1,120 1934 53,503 5,259 48,244 1,360 37,042 1,322 1,065 1935 51,808 5,669 46,139 7,357 1,196 35,285 1,318 986 1936 51,136 5,701 45,435 6,475 1,127 35,555 1,305 973 1937 50,848 5,597 45,251 6,774 1,697 34,574 1,265 941 1938 51,063 6,091 44,927 6,559 1,493 34,710 1,281 929 _ 1939 51,348 5,885 45,463 6,910 1,474 34,833 1,294 952 1940 52,107 5,841 46,266 6,931 1,398 35,707 1,325 905 1941 53,920 6,479 47,441 ' 7,345 1,422 36,419 1,379 876 1942 56,213 6,867 49,346 7,864 1,778 37,361 1,446 897 1943 55,150 6,954 48,196 6,928 1,643 37,303 1,434 888 1944 50,782 6,512 44,270 6,142 1,951 33,991 A 1,345 841 1945 46,520 6,911 39,609 4,782 1,513 31,280 1,264 »770 - 1946 42,362 6,837 ' 35,525 4,765 1,530 27,619 1,100 511 1947 37,498 5,693 31,805 A 4,199 1,415 24,790 994 407 1948 34,337 4,851 29,486 4,058 1,144 23,013 901 370 1949 30,943 4,003 26,940 3,827 974 20,976 826 334 ' 1950 29,826 3,644 26,182 3,908 1,109 20,057 790 318 _ 1951 30,365 3,382 27,253 4,512 1,146 20,457 823 315 1952 32,088 4,038 28,050 5,065 831 x 21,034 843 277 ‘ 1953 31,861 4,161 27,700 3,987 842 21,738 871 262 l 1954 31,218 4,117 27,101 3,665 843 21,490 851 252 A 1955 31,582 4,445 27,137 3,982 740 21,321 860 234 1956 31,273 4,261 27,012 3,838 687 21,429 845 213 a / i 19572 30,838 4,468 26,370 3,742 634 20,982 817 195 a ‘Source: Crop Reporting Board, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Livestock and Poultry on Farms and Ranches, l l January 1, Washington, D. C., 1930-57. zPreliminary. 4 ABLE 2. INVENTORY OF SHEEP ON FARMS AND RANCHES IN TEXAS, JANUARY 1, 1930-57‘ Stock sheep ear All 0n Lambs 1 year and over a sheep teed Total Ewes avlyftrffilss Ewes Rams Wethers ________; _______ --1,000head———--- ___________ -- 30 6,387 83 6,304 856 665 3,950 125 708 , 931 6,834 85 6,749 741 667 4,364 131 846 932 7,212 260 6,952 975 678 4,593 140 566 A 933 7,644 200 7,444 935 598 5,100 160 651 " 934 8,179 120 8,059 1,200 750 5,344 165 600 i 935 7,152 60 7,029 1,056 525 4,796 165 550 , 936 7,359 125 7,234 912 536 5,063 165 558 937 8,920 170 8,750 1,482 1,118 5,400 180 570 ' 938 9,320 220 9,100 1,458 922 5,960 220 540 ' 939 9,401 210 9,191 1,260 913 6,200 238 580 ’ 940 9,606 231 9,375 1,295 840 6,440 2147 553 ~ 941 9,831 175 9,656 1,434 874 6,568 260 520 = 942 10,552 220 10,332 1,580 1,198 6,765 273 516 943 10,829 290 10,539 1,560 1,070 7,103 286 520 944 10,257 140 10,117 1,558 1,356 6,393 277 533 l , 945 9,811 200 9,611 1,223 1,000 6,585 305 498 _ 946 9,305 175 9,130 1,371 1,087 6,124 265 283 ‘ 947 8,341 215 8,126 1,219 1,056 5,396 244 211 948 7,495 100 7,395 1,081 813 5,072 222 207 949 6,465 105 6,360 904 668 4,413 191 184 950 6,605 118 6,487 1,077 817 4,236 182 175 951 6,851 105 6,746 1,191 863 4,321 189 182 0 952 6,188 117 6,071 1,103 510 4,148 120 140 ; 953 5,725 200 5,525 794 527 3,858 160 125 ' 954 5,549 300 5,249 753 509 3,665 145 119 , 955 6,559 350 5,354 963 419 3,704 161 107 , 956 5,376 290 5,086 865 346 3,631 153 91 I 957’ 4,708 334 4,374 656 284 3,238 122 74 Source: Crop Reporting Board, AMS, USDA, Livestock and Poultry on Farms and Ranches, January 1, Washington, D. C., 1930-57. ' reliminary. 950, decreases in the number of farms reporting i heep and lambs were noted. Between 1950-54, he number reporting sheep and lambs again in- _ reased. Both number of sheep and lambs on farms and anches and the number of farms and ranches ’ eporting sheep and lambs have a bearing 0n the verage size of the flock. The average size of exas sheep flocks declined between 1930-40 at he same time that total numbers and number of arms reporting sheep and lamb enterprises were ising, indicating a larger number of smaller locks. The average size of flock increased be- tween 19404-45 and declined after 1945. Most Texas sheep enterprises are breeding flocks. In 1954, for example, slightly over 90 percent of the farms and ranches reporting sheep and lambshad breeding ewes. These farms and ranches are located in all areas of the state. While the Edwards Plateaw-Trans-Pecos areas have three-fourths of the sheep and lambs in the state, they contain slightly more than one-third of the sheep farms and ranches in the state. The average size of the ewe flock declined 38 percent between 1945-55 from 251 head, to 157 head, Table 4. The average size of the ewe flock, varies widely within the state. For example, in 1955, the average size of flocks in the Trans- Pecos area was 1,071 ewes, whereas, along the Gulf Coast, the average was 13, Figure 3. Be- TABLE 3. TEXAS FARMS AND RANCHES REPORT- j ING SHEEP AND LAMBS AND AVERAGE EQQEMPE ELOCK’ SELECTED YEARS’ TABLE 4. TEXAS FARMS AND RANCHES REPORT- " ING EWES AND AVERAGE SIZE OF EWE Year Farms and ranches Average size flock FLOCKS: SELECTED YEARS 194049551 ‘ » , 311 Farms and Average number A ’ 269 Year ranches of ewes 1940 33,706 285 1940 31,567 229 1945 28,263 347 1945 25,721 251 1950 22,198 298 1950 20,998 216 a 1955 25,153 225 1955 22,674 157 i ‘Source: Censuses of agriculture and Division 0f Agri- ‘Source: Censuses of agriculture and Division of Agri- cultural Estimates, USDA. cultural Estimates, USDA. 5 Figure 3. Average size 0f ewe flock by Crop Re- porting District, 1945 and 1955. tween 1945 and 1955, ewe flocks declined in size in all areas of the state except the Rio Grande Plain area, where there was a slight increase in size. Sheep and Cattle Numbers While the number of sheep in the United States has declined sharply since 1942, beef cattle numbers have reached new high levels. Beef cat- tle appear to have been substituted for sheep, especially in the Western States. In Texas, beef cattle numbers have also in- creased while sheep numbers have declined, Fig- ure 4. However, there appears to be little sub- stitution of cattle for sheep. The Edwards Pla- teau—Trans-Pecos areas W i th almost three- fourths of the Texas sheep experienced a decline in both cattle and sheep numbers between 1945- MILLION HEAD l2 |o i "\\ _ _,/ \\\STOCK SHEEP ._ fl‘ \\\ 8 I I \ CATTLE I930 I935 I940 I945 I950 I955 Figure 4. Beef cattle and stock sheep on farms and ranches, Texas, January 1, 1930-57. 6 55. Cattle numbers there declined 29 per I while sheep numbers declined 47 percent. In remainder of the state, sheep numbers decl’ 36 percent. . ‘ FACTORS AFFECTING TEXAS SHE AND LAMB NUMpERs e A number of factors can ‘cause changes f * numbers of sheep and lambs on farms and ranch during the year. Among those directly mi, sible are the number of lambs saved, death loss marketings, farm slaughter and inshipments f‘ feeding or breeding. These in turn are influen by weather and range conditions and by prices lambs and wool. As an example, during 1-9 there was a net decrease of 451,000 head in this? number of sheep and lambs on Texas farms and? ranches, Figure 5. T Lambs Saved A total of 2,815,000 lambs was saved in Texas; . during 1955. This represented a 76 percent lam crop (expressed as a percentage of ewes 1 yearrjj old or older). The 1956 lamb crop totaled” ' 2,667,000 head, or a 75 percent crop. There ap~' peared to be a slight upward trend in the per- centage lamb crop in Texas during 1930-56, Fig- ' ure 6. The U. S. lamb crop has shown a definite 1 upward trend during that period. The Texas lamb crop has been much more vari- , able than the U. S. lamb crop, varying from a 10w of 48 percent in 1934 to a high of 79 percent in 1950. During this period, an average of 68 ‘ lambs were saved per 100 ewes in Texas compared with 87 for the United States. There appeared to be a definite cyclical pat- tern in the Texas lamb crop between 1930-56, with from 4 to 6 years between peaks. Peaks were recorded in 1931, 1937, 1941, 1950 and 1954. Lows were recorded in 1934, 1939, 1943, 1948 and 1952. .1 ‘taxi.- DEATH LOSS I 930,000 JANUARY l, I955 ' NUMBERS 5,659,000 MARKETINGS " / , 2,440,000 TOTAL I955 SUPPLY INSHIPMENTS Z7 I20 000 ' °'594-°°° \ FARM SLAUGHTER |s,000 DECEMBER a|,|9ss LAMB CROP uumesn 2,015,000 5.208.000 Figure 5. Supply and disposition of Texas sheep and lambs, 1955. unity» _ hipments into Texas was 123,000 head. ERCENT '0 OI UNITED STATES /_m ’\ § 4\_ ' _ ’\ ’—’/\v4’ \\~;’/ \\’/ I o \\ I\ I - § 0 /I “\ f’\\ -/\\\/;/\\\\\l:/\\ /:W\ ° \ TEXAS '- \/ Q V o 0 I930 I935 I940 I945 I950 I955 Figure 6. Lamb saved as a percentage of ewes 1 ear or older, Texas and United States, 1930-56. Inshipments Sheep and lambs are shipped into Texas for I ~ reeding or for further grazing 0r feeding. The olume of this movement increased substantially etween 1-930-55, but is still not large, Figure 7. he 1930-55 annual average for sheep and lariilb T e umber shipped in has varied Widely, from a 10W f 19,000 head in 1930, to a high of 226,000 head 1942. In 1955, an estimated 120,000 sheep- and Imbs were shipped into the state. Marketings Net marketings totaled 2,440,000 head of heep and lambs in Texas in 1955. Of these, ,477,000 (60 percent) were lambs, and 963,000 _ (40 percent) were sheep. During 1930-55, sheep ~ nd lamb marketings averaged 2,536,000 head an- = ually, including 1,308,000 head of lambs (52 per- ; ent) and 1,228,000 head of sheep (48 percent). Total marketings of sheep and lambs in Texas howed a slight upward trend between 1930-55, able 5. There has been a considerable variation 1 in the number marketed, varying from a low of 1,087,000 head in 1930 to a high of 4,257,000 head in 1945. Marketings declined substantially after 1945. Death Loss . j In the 26 years, 1930-1955, annual sheep and I lamb death loss averaged 13.5 percent in the Uni- ted States, and 14.1 percent in Texas. The Texas death loss has increased in recent years, While . the U. S. death loss has declined slightly. Death loss acéounted for an average of 4,205,- ) 000 sheep and lambs annually in the United States 7 during 1951-55. In Texas, death loss accounted for an annual average of _ 988,000 head. Of the I U.S. total, sheep accounted for 58 percent, and - lambs, 42 percent. In Texas, sheep made up 65 A percent, and lambs, 35 percent. THOUSAND 250 HEAD 200 I50 I00 50 I930 I935 I940 I945 I950 I955 Figure 7. Inshipments of sheep and lambs, Texas, 1930-55. Farm Slaughter Farm slaughter of sheep and lambs is not large in Texas, averaging slightly over 23,000 head per year during 19301-55. It reached a peak of 45,000 head in 1934. number has declined sharply, and in 1955, an es- timated 16,000 head were slaughtered on farms and ranches. TABLE 5. SHEEP AND LAMB MARKETINGS IN TEXAS, 1930-55‘ Y Number marketed’ ear Lambs Sheep Total ———-——1,000head—-——--— 1930 741 346 1,087 1931 1,185 813 1,998 1932 1,557 343 1,900 1933 ~ 1,707 347 2,054 1934 781 1,853 2,634 1935 559 617 1,176 1936 825 322 1,147 1937 1,461 1,314 2,775 1938 1,840 1,297 3,137 1939 1,411 1,176 2,587 1940 1,880 1,168 3,048 1941 1,246 1,093 2,339 1942 1,648 1,595 3,243 1943 1,133 2,363 3,496 1944 1,858 1,853 3,711 1945 2,352 1,905 4,257 1946 1,741 2,485 4,226 1947 1,538 1,860 3,398 1948 1,142 1,595 2,737 1949 952 1,117 2,069 1950 1,020 1,079 2,099 1951 745 1,608 2,353 1952 820 1,248 2,068 1953 1,052 853 1,905 1954 1,339 713 2,052 1955 1,477 963 2,440 "Source: Crop Reporting Board, AMS, USDA, Meat Animals Farm Production, Disposition and Income, 1930- ‘Excludes interfarm sales. Since that time, the”, TABLE 6. FARM ANH RANCH ‘SLAUGHTER PER FARM OR RANCH REPORTING SHEEP AND LAMBS, SELECTED YEARS, 1930- 1954 . Year Slaughter per farm or ranch Head 1930 .39 1935 . 1.17 1940 .74 1945 .88 1950 .68 1954 .64 Average - .75 During 1930-55, annual farm and ranch slaughter averaged about three-fourths of a head per farm or ranch reporting sheep or lambs, Table 6. ' MARKETING TEXAS SHEEP AND LAMBS Texas sheep producers market a number of types and classes of sheep and lambs. Distinc- tions among classes are based on factors such as age, weight, degree of finish and breeding. Age is one primary distinction. In this analysis, sheep are assumed to be 1 year old 0r older and lambs are assumed to be less than 1 year old. Texas lambs fall into three general categories: fat lambs, feeder lambs and lambs for breeding purposes. Fat lambs generally are available from spring until fall and usually are destined for slaughter. Feeder lambs are generally more plen- tiful during the late summer and fall months. Marketings of sheep in Texas include old crop lambs, breeding stock, aged wethers and culled breeding stock. With the exception of breeding stock, most sheep are destined for immediate slaughter, either Within the state or at some other point. Number Marketed The total number of sheep and lambs marketed annually in Texas is unknown. Net marketings, THOUSAND HEAD 5 4 '''''''''''' '- 3 2 . /,,,,,;/», .4 a wuss // é /// / A 4 O I930 I935 I940 I945 I950 I955 Figure 8. Texas sheep and lamb marketings, 1930-55. 8 whichiare basically the sums of net outshipmen and commercial slaughter are available. The ume of country selling and direct selling withing" Salable receipts of sheep“ and lambs at the terminal markets are available.‘ 1 the state is unknown. Salable receipts of sheep and lambs and goats at" auction markets are available, but no distinction is made among sheep and lambsipand goats. Net marketings of Texas “sheep and lambs A have fluctuated widely from year-to-year since f 1930, ranging from 1,087,000 in 1930 to a high of In 1955, net ; marketings amounted to 2,440,000 head. Of these, . _ 1,477,000 (60 percent) were lambs and 963,000 '- 4,257,000 head in 1945, Figure 8. (40 percent) were sheep. Since 1930, net marketings have been divided l However, e there has been a general downward trend in the ‘ equally between sheep and lambs. proportion of lambs marketed. A number of factors may be responsible for this change. One l is the increase in lamb feeding. However, prob- ably the most important is the increase in size of the. breeding flocks prior to 1945 and the subse- » quent reduction in the size of the breeding flocks after that time. When producers are increasing numbers, lambs are retained for breeding, While the usual number of mature sheep is still market- ed. This causes a decline in both the total number marketed and in the percentage of lambs market- ed. ~On the other hand, when producers are re- ducing numbers, marketings increase, primarily because of increased numbers of mature sheep which are marketed. Even if the same number of lambs were marketed, the proportion of lambs would decline. Marketing Channels Texas sheep producers have a number of al- ternative channels through which they may mar- ket their sheep and lambs. They may sell them through one of the three terminal markets (Stockyards) in the state; they may sell them through a local auction market; they may sell them to local buyers, feeders or other farmers and ranchmen; or they may sell them directly to a packer buyer at the farm or ranch. Generally speaking, producers market their sheep and lambs where they feel they will re- ceive the greatest net return. However, con- venience, custom, amount of risk and such also in- fluence their decisions. In trying to choose the market where they can obtain the greatest net return, producers should consider the expected price, the costs of marketing (including transpor- tation, selling services, feed and yardage) and expected shrinkage. During 1946-55, salable receipts of sheep and lambs at the three Texas stockyards amounted to almost one-half of the net number of sheep and lambs marketed. The remaining one-half was divided between auction markets and direct and country sales. - l l l l l The percent of sheep and lambs marketed rough Stockyards (salable receipts) declined 0m 57 percent in 1946, to 42 percent in 1955, 'gure 9. However, at the same time, total re- ipts of sheep and lambsat Stockyards have in- eased in relation to net marketings. This is ~ imarily the result of packer purchasing activi- - es, both at auction markets and in direct buy- g. These sheep and lambs which come through e stockyards to the packing plants are included J the total receipts, but not in salable receipts. Seasonality of Marketing There is a definite seasonal pattern in sheep arketing. This seasonal pattern is related to ~ 1 e breeding cycle of sheep. A number of Texas es are bred in the summer to lamb in late fall early winter. These lambs are marketed in e late spring. Old crop lambs and yearling mbs also may be marketed during this period. _ uring the late summer and fall, a large number stocker and feeder lambs move to market. The different patterns in marketings at stock- ' ards and through the auction markets, result om large numbers of fat lambs coming to mar- et for slaughter in the spring, Figure 10. These mbs are marketed at the terminal markets. Re- ipts at auction markets are higher in the fall ecause of the movement of feeder lambs to mar- et. Large numbers of these lambs move to mar- g et in the late summer and early fall. A Disposition of Texas Sheep Marketing p Sheep and lambs marketed in Texas are des- ' ined for slaughter, for breeding, or for further eeding or grazing, either within the state or out- ide the state. g ommercial Slaughter Commercial slaughter of sheep and lambs in exas totaled 978,000 head in 1956, approximately . MILLION HEAD 5 R CEI TS OCK AR S I946 I948 |95d . I952 I954 I956 Figure 9. Net marketings of Texas sheep and lambs ~ nd salable receipts of sheep and lambs at Texas stock- yards (Fort Worth, San Antonio and Houston), 1946-55. 12 percent greater than the average of 875,000 head for the preceding 10 years. Commercial slaughter was high immediately after World War II, totaling 1,604.000 head in 1946. By 1950, it had declined to 561,000 head. It increased stead- ily after 1950. Meat that is to move in interstate commerce must be slaughtered under the supervision of fed- eral meat inspectors. Since little mutton and lamb is consumed in Texas, most of the com- mercial slaughter of sheep and lambs in Texas is conducted in federally inspected packing plants. Between 1946-55, the percentage of sheep and lambs slaughtered in federally inspected plants ranged from a low of 82 percent in 1952 to a high of 95 percent in 1955. I The average live Weight of sheep and lambs slaughtered in Texas is considerably lower than the U. S. average. The 1947-56 average for Texas sheep and lambs was 84 pounds compared with the U. S. average of 95 pounds. The number of sheep and lambs slaughtered in Texas varies widely from month-to-month within a year, Figure 11. There are two peaks, the first in May a.nd June, and a smaller one in September“, and October. There is some indication that the spring peak is diminishing and that the fall peak is becoming larger. Slaughter is lowest during the fall and winter. Sheep and lamb slaughter in the United States as a whole is below average during the spring and reaches a peak in the fall. Out-of-state Shipments Sheep and lambs are shipped out of state for slaughter, for breeding or for further "feeding or grazing. Complete information on interstate movement is available only on rail shipments. In 1956, rail shipments totaled 1,425,000 head. Destination of sheep and lamb shipments from Texas are available only for rail shipments. These PERCENT OF ANNUAL AVERAGE 25o ,r"‘\\== STOCKYARDS zoo ,' ‘ ll \ AUCTION \ MARKETS " \\ / < . 1 15o . . I \ \ V’ MK ./ / ‘ . '/' l ‘5np_———_§ \ '4 \\\ I’ \\ so *1,” \--_ o J F M A M J J A S O N D Figure 10. Seasonal variation in sheep and lamb marketings at Texas stockyards and auction markets (includes goats). 9 PERCENT OF ANNUAL AVERAGE 200 //\ I50 TEXAS77 X Tx i-l/‘l &\"“~ |oo \ _,, 4 ~-——""'“ ‘ ? /"-—- UNITED STATES\ 5O R\// 0 J F M A M J J A S O N D v Figure 11. Seasonal variation in commercial slaugh- ter of sheep and lambs, Texas and United States (1946- 55 average equals 100 percent). out-of-state destinations to which sheep and lambs are shipped may be classified as out-of- state markets or other out-of-state points. Those shipped to out-of-state markets may be sold through those markets or shipped there for slaughter. Those destined for other out-of-state areas are primarily stockers and feeders being shipped for further feeding or grazing. In 1956, 775,000 head (56 percent) of the rail shipments from Texas were destined for out-of-state mar- kets, and 650,000 head (44 percent) were shipped to other out-of-state points, Figure 12. This dis- tribution is considerably different from the pre- vious 10-year average, when only 28 percent of the sheep and lamb shipments were destined for an out-of-state market, and 72 percent were des- tined for other points. While there is only a slight downward trend .111 total rail shipments, there is a distinct down- ward trend in shipments to out-of-state feeding and grazing areas. The proportion of sheep and lambs destined for out-of-state markets increased substantially, from 17 percent of total rail ship- ments in 1951 to 56 percent in 1956. THOUSAND new 2,000 npoo 1,000 500 I946 I948 I950 I952 I954 I956 Figure 12. Destinations of sheep and lambs shipped by rail from Texas, 1946-56. - l0 PERCENT OF ANNUAL AVERAGE 250 ' g\ 200 ‘x l I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1|- §§§ I50 ‘~__ u-I -____ _ 4 I ( \ r; \_ x IOO 1 \ 5 o “~ 1 ‘s J F M A M J J A S O N D Figure 13. Seasonal variation in rail sheep and lamb shipments from Texas (1945-54 average equals 100 per- ; cent). Out-of-state rail shipments fluctuate Widely from month-to-month within the year, Figure 13. As with commercial slaughter, there are two i peaks, one in the spring, and another in the fall. j Shipments are lowest during the winter. The two ~ peaks in shipments appear to result from two _ different factors. The spring peak appears t0 be the result of shipments of fat lambs which are being shipped out of the state for slaughter. The fall peak appears to be the result of the stocke and feeder movement. _ * Consumption of Lamb and Mutton Consumption of lamb and mutton per person in the United States has declined sharply in re- § cent years. In 1956, consumption averaged 4.4 pounds per person. Between 1930 and 1945, con- 1 sumption averaged 6.7 pounds and was very sta- ble, varying between 6.2 and 7.2 pounds. Lamb and mutton consumption has not kept pace with consumption of other meats, showing a definite downward trend in relation to total red meat consumption. In 1945, lamb and mutton made up 5 percent of total red meat consumption. In 1956, it made up only 2.4 percent. This decline in per capita consumption re- sulted from decreased production of lamb and mutton and a rapidly rising population. While per capita consumption of lamb has declined and per capita consumption of beef has increased in recent years, there has been very little improvement in the ratios of the prices of Texas lambs and calves. Prices of Texas calves averaged 7 percent higher than lamb prices be- tween 1930-45. Between 1946-55 when the major decline in lamb consumption took place, prices of Texas calves were 4 percent higher than the prices of lambs. However, between 1953-55, the price of Texas lambs averaged 12 percent higher than calf prices. - PRICES or TEXAS SHEEP AND f? 'T(D(D(DUQZHQ.'"Q LAMBS Price Discovery Prices received for sheep and lambs by Texas rmers and ranchers result primarily from the teraction of supply and demand. Price deter- ination is complicated by the fact that there are ree general destinations for sheep and lambs arketed in Texas. Sheep and lambs marketed I Texas may be destined for immediate slaugh- r, for further feeding or grazing or for breed- g. Different forces of supply and demand are twork within these general categories, and on given lot of sheep or lambs, there may even be mpetition from buyers representing all three _|terests. For sheep and lambs suitable for slaughter, e Texas price results basically from equating I e total available supply of these types of sheep l d lambs both in Texas and in the remainder of W country, and the packer demand for sheep d lambs. Packer demand is based largely on . e anticipated Wholesale prices of lamb and mut- ~ n at the time of sale less costs of slaughtering, ansportation and marketing. The Texas price for stocker and feeder lambs = a result basically of the total available supply 1 f feeder lambs both in Texas and in the entire untry and the demand for these types of lambs. he demand stems from farmers and ranchmen ho wish to fatten these lambs. In determining eir offering prices,‘ they are guided by consid- ations such as anticipated prices of slaughter heep and lambs, present and anticipated prices f feeder cattle and the availability and prices of ed. Prices of commercial sheep and lambs fo-r reeding purposes result from the supply of such nimals and. the demand for them. The demand influenced by factors such as anticipated re- urns from sheep production relative to other 'vestock and the availability, both present and nticipated, of feed. Average Annual Prices Prices received for sheep and lambs by Texas armers and ranchmen varied greatly between ' 930-55, Figure 14. The price received for lambs P2890 in 1951. 16.60 per hundred pounds between 1951-55. ose from $3.30 per hundred pounds in 1932 to Lamb prices fell 43 percent, to Prices received for sheep followed the same attern as those f r lambs. However, prices re- eived for sheep ,cTined relative to lamb prices. a he prices of Texas sheep averaged 29 percent elow lamb prices in 1932. By 1951, these had de- lined to 40 percent. Sheep prices averaged 55 ercent below lamb prices in 1955. Texas lambs sell at prices lower than the . S. average. Texas sheep sell at prices consid- DOLLARS 4O PER CWT. 3O ‘ \\ ii 4 " LAMBS\ _/ . 2O [I '\ I ~“~ I I [I ’r\’¢ 1o /”\ //%'—’/ k \ ,1 a \~"' /\’ SHEEP/ o I930 I935 I940 I945 |95o 195s Figure 14. Average annual prices of sheep and lambs received by Texas farmers and ranchers, 1930-55. erably higher than the national average, Table 7. Between 1930-55, prices received for Texas sheep averaged 18 percent higher. Prices of Texas sheep and lambs rose relative to the national av- erage. Lamb prices rose from 23 percent below the national average in 1930, to 10 percent below-r in 1955; sheep prices rose from 4 percent above the average in 1930 to 26 percent above in 1955. Texas lamb prices are lower than the national average mainly because of breeding (a high pro- portion of fine wool blood), a high proportion of feeder lambs and distance from. feeding" and con- suming centers. Texas sheep prices are higher than the national average primarily because of breeding (a high proportion of fine wool blood). Seasonal Variation in Price-s There appears to be a definite seasonal pat- tern in prices received for sheep and lambs. Prices received for sheep are highest in the spring (March, April and May) and lowest in the summer, fall and winter. Prices received for lambs follow much the same pattern. TABLE 7. AVERAGE ANNUAL SHEEP AND LAMB PRICES PER HUNDREDWEIGHT RECEIV- ED BY FARMERS AND RANCHERS, TEX-l AS AND THE UNITED STATES, SELECT- ED YEAR'S, 1930-55‘ Lambs Sheep Year Texas United States Texas United States - — — — — -——Dollars———————— 1930 6.00 7.76 4.95 4.74 1935 6.00 7.28 4.00 3.75 1940 6.90 8.10 4.75 3.95 1945 11.00 13.10 7.10 6.38 1950 23.30 25.10 12.80 11.50 1951 28.90 31.00 17.20 16.00 1952 20.00 24.30 10.70 10.10 1953 17.40 19.30 8.30 6.66 1954 17.00 19.10 8.20 6.10 1955 16.60 18.40 7.40 5.87 ‘Source: Crop Reporting Board, AMS, USDA, Meat Animals Farm Production, Disposition and Income, 1930- 55. ll PERCENT OF ANNUAL AVERAGE \ |2o _ ..... .. II 0 ,\.' 0/,‘ m“. x SLAUGHTER LAMBS I00 _ _ '- . FEEDER LAMas/W. 9o - - 8O ‘JFMAMJJASOND Figure 15. Seasonal variation in prices received for feeder and slaughter lambs, Fort Worth (annual average, 1950-55 equals 100 percent). Knowledge of the price behavior for grades and classes can be meaningful to producers in formulating their production and marketing plans. At Fort Worth, prices of good and choice slaugh- ter lambs between 1950-55 were highest in April and May and lowest in the fall and winter. Prices of good and choice feeder lambs have been sea- sonally highest in February and March and lowest in June, July and August, Figure 15. These data indicate that the highest prices during the year for slaughter lambs can be expected in April or May. In 1956, prices for these lambs at Fort Worth were highest in May, $22.56 per hundred pounds, compared with $20.30 in April, and $20.54 in June. Lowest average monthly prices in 1956 were $17.08 in January and $17.23 in December. Prices of feeder lambs are expected to be highest in February and March and lowest in the summer months. In 1956, average monthly prices at Fort Worth were highest in February ($17 per hun- dred pounds) and lowest in July ($14.54 per hun- dred pounds). This information points up the importance of timely marketing. The spread between low and high prices of slaughter lambs in 1956 was $5.48 per hundred pounds. On a 90-pound lamb, this means the difference between a sale value of $20.30 and $15.37,. or $4.93. On feeder lambs, the spread between high and low prices was $2.46 per hundred pounds. On a 60-pound lamb, this is a difference between a sale value of $10.20 and $8.72, or $1.48. These are points for consideration by pro- ducers who are marketing during periods of sea- sonally lower prices. Many of them might eval- uate present production programs to determine whether changes might be profitable in light of the seasonality of prices. While these data pro- vide guidance on price behavior, the possible addi- tional cost of any changes should be considered before changes are made. 12 WOOL PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION; AND PRICES Production Wool production in Texas varies in general with sheep numbers. It increased substantially between 1930-40, from 48,262,000 pounds in 1930, to 79,900,000 pounds in 1940. In 11,943, wool pro- duction totaled 80,713,000 pounds. After 1943, production declined sharply, reaching 42,653,000 pounds in 1956. _ Texas is the leading state in the nation in wool production. Between 1930-56, Texas production accounted for more than 20 percent of the total shorn wool produced in the United States. Texas shorn wool production increased relative to the U.S. total between 1930-55. In 1930, Texas produced only 14 percent of the total. By 1946, Texas was producing 25 percent. After 1946, Texas pro- duction declined relative to total U. S. production, accounting for 18 percent of the total in 1956. The average weight per fleece sheared is. lower in Texas than in the remainder of the country. In 1-955, for example, the average weight of fleece shorn in Texas was 8.1 pounds, while the average for the remainder of the coun- try was 8.6 pounds. Average weights per fleece shorn in Texas showed a generally slight down- ward trend after 1930, while for the United States ' as a whole, the average fleece weight increased. The average fleece weight in Texas increased af- ter 1950, but in 1955 it was still lower than the ' 1930-39 average of 8.2 pounds. I Consumption Mill consumption of apparel wool in the United States is extremely volatile, varying greatly from I Mill consumption of - year-to-year, Figure 16. apparel wool greatly exceeds domestic production. After 1930, production exceeded mill consumption only twice, in 1932 and 1934. Between 1946-55, domestic production amounted to only slightly more than one-third of mill consumption. MILLION POUNDS TOO 600 500 4OO soo \ xv 200 PRODUC ON IOO Q . I930 I935 I940 I945 I950 I955 Figure 16. Production and mill consumption of ap- parel wool (clean basis) United States, 1930-55. ‘ The difference between domestic production d consumption must be made up by imports. tween 1946-55, imports of apparel wool ac- unted for 64 percent of domestic mill consump- on. The proportion declined, however, from I percent of mill consumption in 1946 to 53 per- nt in 1955. A Per capita consumption of wool has followed | uch the same pattern as mill consumption, in- yeasing during the 1930’s, reaching a peak in a 946, and declining after that time. Per capita nsumption of wool in 1955 was 2.5 pounds, o1 mpared with 2.1 pounds in 1930 and 5.2 pounds S. =d LS )-__ 1,6 1 fiber consumption, from an average of 10 per- nt of the total in the 1»940’s to 6 percent in 955, Table 8. Part of this decline has resulted om the great increase in consumption of syn- hetic fibers. However, wool has not held its own lative to other natural fibers. Per capita con- umption of wool in 1955 was 43 percent lower LS an the 1940-49 average, but consumption of e ther natural fibers was only 14 percent lower. 'e Prices Since the United States produces only about ne-third of the wool that it consumes, the domes- 'c price of wool is influenced greatly by world upply and demand conditions. Because o-f the -_ eat influences that these world conditions have n prices of domestically produced wool, Wool pro- ucers have long supported tariffs on imported ools which compete with those produced domes- ically. Because of the dependence on imported wools, he National Wool Act of 1954 was enacted to en- — ourage domestic production. The goal of this egislation was a production of 300 million pounds f grease wool annually. This Act went into ef- ect in 1955. Under its provisions, domestic Wool s sold on a free market, and an incentive payment is made to Wool producers to bring the national verage price up to the incentive level. “e H'- Phi-Thin ‘i . Prices received for wool by farmers and ranch- men have followed much the same pattern as . TABLE 8. FIBER CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA, UNITED STATES, SELECTED PERIODS, 1930-55‘ Other Man- natural made Period Wool fibers fibers Total _ Pounds 1930-39 average 2.5 24.4 1.7 28.6 1940-49 average 34.44 34.0 5.9 44.3 1950 31.2 35.2 9.8 45.0 . 1951 3.1 34.7 9.6 44.3 1952 3.0 31.6 9.3 40.9 1953 3.1 31.2 9.5 40.7 1954 2.3 27.9 9.1 37.0 1955 2.5 29.2 11.2 40.4 1' ‘Source: 1957 Agricultural Outlook Charts, USDA. those of sheep and lambs, increasing until 1951, and falling sharply after that time. The changes between 1947 and 1955 were especially volatile. Prices received by. Texas producers more than doubled between 1947-51, rising from 43 cents per pound to 99 cents per pound. After 1951, prices declined sharply, and in 1955 averaged 43 cents per pound. However, as a result of the National Wool Act of 1954 which went into effect with the 1955 marketing season, returns to producers av- eraged 62.6 cents per pound, with the government paying producers the difference between the price received and the incentive level. INCOME FROM SHEEP, LAMBS AND WOOL ‘ Texas sheep producers receive income from sales of wool, lambs and mature sheep. Income from these sources fluctuated widely between 1930-55, rising generally until 1-951, and falling sharply after 1951, Table 9. Changes in income from sales of sheep, lambs and wool result from changes in both marketings and prices. To a great extent, changes in prices of both sheep and lambs and wool have been high-H ly correlated. This has resulted in greater fluc- tuations in income. . TABLE 9. INCOME RECEIVED BY TEXAS FARMERS AND RANCHMEN FROM SALES OF SHEEP AND LAMBS AND WOOL, 1930- 55‘ Year Sheep and lambsf Wool Total Thousand dollars 1930 4,238 10,135 14,373 1931 5,366 8,004 13,370 1932 3,723 5,311 9,034 1933 4,655 16,456 21,111 1934 6,484 13,999 20,483 1935 3,893 12,436 16,329 1936 4,726 17,994 22,720 1937 12,890 23,509 36,399 1938 10,816 16,654 27,470 1939 28,638 1940 12,601 23,171 35,772 1941 12,503 29,692 42,195 1942 19,149 30,748 49,897 1943 23,189 34,707 57,896 1944 23,640 33,836 57,476 I 1945 29,648 31,423 61,071 1946 31,685 30,643 62,328 1947 32,929 26-,637 59,566 1948 29,326 30,053 59,379 1949 23,081 28,211 51,292 1950 27,504 35,006 62,510 1951 38,944 48,225 87,169 1952 22,518 26,841 49,359 1953 17,790 27,400 45,190 1954 19,997 25,883 45,880 1955 22,7923 19,409‘ 42,201 ‘Source: Crop Reporting Board, AMS, USDA, Meat Ani- mals, Farm Production, Disposition and Income, 1930- 55; and AMS, USDA, Wool Statistics and Related Data. zGross income less cost of inshipments. aPreliminary. ‘Does not include incentive payments of $9,619,087. 13 During 1930-55, the importance of income from sales of sheep and lambs increased relative to income from the sale of W001. In 1930, sales of sheep and lambs accounted for 30 percent of gross income. In 1947, sales of sheep and lambs made up 55 percent of income, and in 1955, they made up 54 percent. Consideration of wool in- centive payments in the 1955 figure would in- crease wool income approximately 44 percent. A number of factors are responsible for this change in the relative importance of sheep, lambs and wool. One is the reduction in sheep num- bers which occurred after 1943. This resulted in increased marketings of sheep and lambs. The reduction in the number of wethers and the con- sequent increase in the proportion of breeding ewes was another factor. The decline in the weight of the average fleece clipped, and the in- crease in the average weight of lambs marketed was also a factor. Another important factor was a decline in the wool-lamb price ratio. During 1930-39, 1 pound TABLE l0. AVERAGE VALUE OF PRODUCTION PER EWE, TEXAS, SELECTED _ PERIODS, 1930-55 Lamb Wool Total Period value‘ value’ value 1930-39 average $2.12 $1.76 $ 3.88 1946-55 average 9.08 4.54 13.62 1955 8.75 37.44 12.19 1955“ 8.75 4.96 13.71 ‘Based on average weight of lambs marketed, average prices received for lambs, and average percent lambs saved. zBased on average fleece weight and average price re- ceived for wool. p alncludes incentive payments. 14 .4 ‘I of wool was equal in value to 3.9 pounds of lamfi (live-weight basis). During 1946-55, 1 pound of . wool was equal in value to 3.0 pounds of lambs, ~- and in 1955 this ratio declined to 2.6. While this ~ has been true in the past, the current wool incen- tive program changes the situation. When thei wool incentive payment is taken into considera- tion, 1 pound of wool in 1955..was equal to 3.7 pounds of lambs, rather thanq2l6 as in the mar- ket. Value of Production per Ewe Ewes are valuable for both wool and lambf’ production. In Texas, the average value of the lamb and wool produced per ewe was $12.19 in p 1955, Table 10. Of this, $8.75 was from lamb pro- duction and $3.44 was from wool production. When wool incentive payments were included, the wool value increased to $4.96, increasing the total value to $13.71. Lamb value has increased relative to Wool value, from 55 percent of the total during 1-930-39 to67 percent of the total during 1946-55. Several conditions have been responsible for this change. Among these are an increase in the weight of lambs marketed, a decline in the average fleece weight and a decline in the wool-lamb price ratio. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was made under the Texas Agricul- tural Experiment Station’s ‘State Contributing Project to the Western Regional Livestock Mar- ‘ keting Project Number WM-22, “Sheep and Lamb ' Marketing Problems in Specific Western States.” ' The cover picture was used through the couri tesy of the Fort Worth Stockyards Company, Fort Worth, Texas. ‘ oseo 1