TEXAS AGRICULTURE

BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 1993-1996

AFPC Working Paper 97-10

September 1997

Department of Agricultural Economics

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station

Texas Agricultural Extension Service

Texas A&M University

Web Site: http://AFPC1.TAMU.EDU

A policy working paper is designed to provide economic research on a timely basis. It is an interim product of a larger AFPC research project which will eventually be published as a policy research report. These results are published at this time because they are believed to contain relevant information to the resolution of current policy issues. AFPC welcomes comments and discussions of these results and their implications. Address such comments to the author(s) at:

Agricultural and Food Policy Center

Department of Agricultural Economics

Texas A&M University

College Station, Texas 77843-2124

or call 409-845-5913.

TEXAS AGRICULTURE

BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 1993-1996

AFPC Working Paper 97-10

Ronald D. Knutson

Edward G. Smith

Carl G. Anderson

Katherine R. Cook

Natalie A. Outlaw

Dawne M. Hicks

Agricultural and Food Policy Center

Department of Agricultural Economics

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station

Texas Agricultural Extension Service

Texas A&M University

September 1997

College Station, Texas 77843-2124

Telephone: (409) 845-5913

Web Site: http://AFPC1.TAMU.EDU

TEXAS AGRICULTURE

BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 1993-1996

Ronald D. Knutson,	Edward G. Smith,	Carl G. Anderson,

Katherine R. Cook,	Natalie A. Outlaw,	and Dawne M. Hicks

Agriculture, as used in this paper, includes the production of all program crops, fruits, vegetables, nuts, nursery products, livestock, dairy, and poultry produced with the intention of earning a profit. When all economic activities related to the food and fiber sector are included, agriculture ranks as the second largest industry in Texas.1 The purpose of this AFPC Working Paper is to present estimates of the farm level value of agricultural production by congressional district.

The value of agricultural production for each Texas county is estimated annually by the County Agricultural Extension Agent with the support of local Extension Program Councils (Table 1). Therefore, these are not official National Agricultural Statistics Service/USDA data. They are, however, the only estimates available on the current value of production by Texas counties.

Some congressional districts include only part of a county. For example, Brazos County is divided between District 5 and District 8. No attempt was made to divide the value of agriculture production in Brazos County between the two districts. Instead, the full value of agricultural production in Brazos County was included for both District 5 and District 8. Obviously, this procedure introduced some double counting and over-estimation of the value of production in districts where the whole county is not contained within the district. When summed over the entire state, the magnitude of such double counting was 39 percent for crops, 15 percent for livestock, 29 percent for ag-related commodities, 26 percent for the total value of production, and 14 percent for the program commodities (Table 2). The higher differential for crops reflects the importance of nursery commodities in urban counties which are often included in more than one district. The lower proportion of livestock reflects the obvious absence of feedlots in urban counties. Every congressional district has at least one shared county, with District 4 having eight.

Importance of Data

From a policy perspective, this data provides an indication of the importance of production agriculture and farm programs to farmer and rancher constituents by congressional district. This point is emphasized by separating out the value of commodities covered by farm programs. Commodities covered only by marketing orders (such as certain vegetables) are not included as program commodities because they do not receive any direct subsidies or payments, and the order provisions are not normally affected by major legislation such as the 1996 Farm Bill.

While program commodities are separated out, it is important to note that other crops, livestock, and/or poultry that are not the direct recipient of subsidies or payments are also affected by farm programs. For example, beef, hog, and poultry producers are indirectly impacted by grain policies that effect both the price and the stability of the market place.

It also needs to be emphasized that the ultimate beneficiary of most farm programs is the consumer. Just as the livestock and poultry producers are impacted by current grain policy, U.S. consumers enjoy a plentiful supply of food and fiber purchased at relatively reasonable prices. At least equally important, the security of the U.S. food supply has seldom been in doubt, despite adverse weather at home and abroad. This reality is a consequence of farmers who industriously employ the technology continuously infused into agriculture and of government programs that undergird U.S. agriculture.

It is recognized that the production value data presented understate the importance of agriculture to each district. Many industries and services are related directly to agricultural production. For example, Texas farmers are buyers of agricultural chemicals, many of which are produced within Texas. Such production input sales to farmers are not included in this data. Likewise, farm sales create employment in marketing, processing, exporting, and retailing. Estimating the magnitude of such economic activity on a county or district basis would be much more difficult and subject to considerable error.

Results

The results are presented in eight state summary and 30 individual district tables — one for each congressional district. Table 1 indicates that the average total value of agricultural production over the 1993-1996 period was nearly $14 billion, of which 42 percent was due to crops, 49 percent to livestock (including poultry), and 9 percent to other ag-related commodities.

Program commodities accounted for 32 percent of the value of agricultural production in Texas over the 1993-1996 period. The nature of support for these program commodities changed substantially as a result of the 1996 Farm Bill for most crops and dairy. Earlier, the incentive program for wool and mohair was eliminated and the honey program was converted to a recourse loan.

Table 2 indicates average value of crop and livestock production for all counties included in each congressional district over the period 1993-1996. The last column indicates the value of program commodities as defined in Table 1. As indicated previously, the bottom two lines of Table 2 indicate the magnitude of double counting resulting from counties being included in more than a single district.

Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 include the same information as in Table 2 except that the districts are ordered with respect to the value of crop production (Table 3), livestock production (Table 4), ag-related production (Table 5), total agricultural production (Table 6), and farm program commodities (Table 7).

Table 3 indicates that for the period 1993-1996, the top five congressional districts, ranked in terms of the value of crop production, were Districts 19, 13, 14, 15, and 4. Nine districts included counties generating over $300 million in average crop sales over the period 1993-1996. All but five of the 30 districts exceeded $100 million in crop sales.

Table 4 indicates that for 1993-1996, the top five congressional districts, ranked in terms of the value of livestock production, were Districts 19, 13, 1, 17, and 14. Eight districts included counties generating over $300 million in livestock sales while 15 exceeded $100 million in sales.

Table 5 indicates that for 1993-1996, the top five congressional districts, ranked in order of the value of ag-related production, include Districts 2, 1, 14, 4, and 23. For Districts 1 and 2, the biggest factor in ag-related production is the value of farm-related forestry. Fishing and hunting leases are also important contributors to ag-related production.

Table 6 indicates that for 1993-1996, the top five congressional districts, ranked in order of the total value of agricultural production, include Districts 19, 13, 14, 1, and 2. Each of these five districts and District 17 exceeded $1 billion in the average annual value of agricultural production over the period 1993-1996. Districts 19 and 13 each generated over $2 billion worth of agricultural production. Only four districts included counties producing less than $100 million in production. Half of the districts had in excess of $400 million in total agricultural production.

Table 7 indicates that the top five congressional districts, ranked in order of the value of farm program commodities over the period 1993-1996, were Districts 13, 19, 17, 14, and 1. Each of these districts, plus District 15, included counties producing farm program commodities valued in excess of $200 million. Twelve districts produced over $100 million in program commodities. In all but seven districts, the value of farm program commodities exceeded $20 million.

Table 8 indicates the percentage of Texas production for each category of sales by congressional district. For example, the counties in District 1 account for 4 percent of crop production, 13 percent of Texas livestock production, 13 percent of ag-related production, 9 percent of total production, and 6 percent of program crops.

Tables 9 through 38 provide information on sales by individual congressional district. On the page opposite each district table is a map indicating the counties included in the district. These should not be interpreted as district maps since if part of a county is in a district, the whole county is included on the map. Therefore, split counties are on more than one map.

Implications

Every Texan, as a consumer of food and fiber, is affected by agricultural policy issues. Rural issues are particularly important to those districts where agriculture represents a significant share of economic activity. The data indicate that agriculture is more important to many congressional districts than might previously have been recognized. They indicate that in all but four congressional districts, production agriculture accounts for over $100 million in production.

The 1996 Farm Bill substantially changed the nature of farm programs, although the average level of spending did not change materially from the past. With greater flexibility in production, cropping patterns are changing. In 18 of the 30 Texas congressional districts, farm program commodities represent over $50 million in production.

Copies of this publication have been deposited with the Texas State Library in compliance with the State Depository Law.

Mention of a trademark or a proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or a warranty of the product by The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station or The Texas Agricultural Extension Service and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that also may be suitable.

All programs and information of The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station or The Texas Agricultural Extension Service are available to everyone without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin.