ML20134G589
| ML20134G589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1984 |
| From: | Harscheid D, Kamerman C, Molino J WYLE LABORATORIES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134G588 | List: |
| References | |
| WR-84-34, NUDOCS 8508270022 | |
| Download: ML20134G589 (159) | |
Text
._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
iI {
WYLE LADOC3 ATORIED F 5 :,
L V> .
t, v _.
3.-
N l WYLE RESEARCH REPORT !
WR 84-34 $.".
INGESTION PATHWAY DATA TO SUPPORT iq ANNUAL DOSE CALCULATIONS FOR THE 49 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT .3 4
ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION
\ \
lVl For d
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY (. ,
5400 Westhelmer Court Houston, Texas 77056 .j Contract No. ST-300030 ji}
{$
r.,
r [:,
John A. Molino -
Charles Kamerman i. .
David Harscheid "4 WYLE RESEARCH 5 Arlington, Virginia 22202 3/N 39186 m
July 1984 su.
1 8508270022 850823 PDR ADOCK 05000498 PDR A
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page SPECIAL DATA ......................... 27 5.0 .
Fish ............................. 27 5.1 5.2 Crop and Livestock Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.3 Nearest Commodity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Average Vegetation Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.4
........................... 44
6.0 CONCLUSION
.............................. 44 REFERENCE LIST OF FIGURES Page Fig. Within After Report Report l
No.
i 1 50-M11e Zone Surrounding South Texas Project Electric 2 45 Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 10-Mile Zone Surrounding South Texas Project Electric 3 46 Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(a) County Sector Map for Brazoria County . . . . . . . . . . 47 3
(b) County Sector Map for Calhoun County .......... 48 (c) County Sector Map for Fort Bend County ......... 49 50 (d) County Sector Map for Jackson County ..........
51 (e) County Sector Map for Matagorda County . . . . . . . . .
52 (f) County Sector Map for Victoria County ..........
53 (g) County Sector Map for Wharton County . . . . . . . . . .
54 4 (a) Simplified County Sector Map for Brazoria County .....
55 (b) Simplified County Sector Map for Calhoun County .....
56 (c) Simplified County Sector Map for Fort Bend County . . . . .
57 (d) Simplified County Sector Map for Jackson County . . . . . .
58 (e) Simplified County Sector Map for Matagorda County ....
59
'(f) Simplified County Sector Map for Victoria County .....
...., 60 (g) Simplified County Sector Map for Wharton County ,
o li N.o===.
u
i LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) p,g, Within After Fig. Report Report No.
...... 61 5 (a) Full Form Administered to Agricultural Experts 62 (b) Short Form "A" Administered to Agricultural Experts . . . .
63 (c) Short Form "B" Administered to Agricultural Experts ....
64
- (d) Commodity Weights Form Administered to Agricultural Experts 65 1
- (e) Special Questions Form Administered to Agricultural Experts .
66 (f) Location of Nearest Commodity Form Used in Study ....
67 (g) Two-Mile Radius Map Used to Locate Nearest Commodity . .
68
! (h) Ten-Mile Radius Map Used to Locate Nearest Commodity ..
35 69 6 Location of Nearest Commodity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
l LIST OF MW p g, i
Within After
! Table Report Report No.
70 1 (a) Brazoria County Annual Production . . . . . . . . . . . .
71 (b) Calhoun County Annual Production . . . . . . . . . . . .
72 (c) Colorado County Annual Production . . . . . . . . . . . .
........... 73 (d) Fort Bend County Annual Production 74 (e) Jackson County Annual Production ............
75 (f) Matagorda County Annual Production . . . . . . . . . . .
76 (g) Victoria County Annual Production . . . . . . . . . . . .
77 (h) Wharton County Annual Production . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 78 2 Agricultural Commodities Included in Study . . . . . . . . . .
......... 79 3 (a) Brazoria County Annual Harvested Acres 79 (b) Calhoun County Annual Harvested Acres . . . . . . . . . .
......... 80 (c) Colorado County Annual Harvested Acres 80 (d) Fort Bend County Annual Harvested Acres . . . . . . . . .
81 (e) Jackson County Annual Harvested Acres . . . . . . . . . .
81
-(f) Matagorda County Annual Harvested Acres ........-
82 (g) Victoria County Annual Harvested Acres . . . . . . . . . .
82 (h) Wharton County Annual Harvested Acres i
111 M_ _ .
i LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Page Table Within After Report Report No.
(a) Brazoria County Annua! Yield Per Harvested Acre ..... 83 4
(b) Calhoun County Annual Yield Per Harvested Acre . . . . . . 83 i
(c) Colorado County Annual Yield Per Harvested Acre ..... 84 (d) Fort Bend County Annual Yield Per Harvested Acre . . . . . 84 (e) Jackson County Annual Yield Per Harvested Acre . . . . . . 85 85 (f) Matagorda County Annua! Yield Per Harvested Acre ....
{ 86
- (g) Victoria County Annual Yield Per Harvested Acre . . . . . .
(h) Wharton County Annual Yield Per Harvested Acre ..... 86 i
.................. 9 87
! 5 , Pasture Grass Summary 11 88
- 6 Percent Agricultural Commodities Consumed Within the County .
l (a) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the North Sector .. 89 7
(b) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the NNE Sector . . . 89 i
(c) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the NE Sector ... 90 (d) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the ENE Sector . . . 90 91 (e) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the East Sector . . .
91 (f) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the ESE Sector . . .
92 (g) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the SE Sector . . . .
92 (h) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the SSE Sector ...
93 (1) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the South Sector ..
93 (j) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the SSW Sector . . .
94 (k) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the SW Sector 3
I l 94 (1) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the SWS Sector . . .
95 l (m) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the West Sector . . .
95 j (n) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the WNW Sector ..
96 (o) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the NW Sector ... l 96 (p) Area Per County by Radial Distance for the NNW Sector . . .
17 97 8 List of Agricultural Experts Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . .
19 99 9 Table of Conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
100 10 Average Annual Production by County ............' 21 23 101 11 Average Annua! Yield by County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iv M LAmonatonas j
)
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) p,g, Table Within After No. Report Report 12 (a) Rice: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . . . . 102 (b) Wheat: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . .. 103 1
! (c) Soybean: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . .. 104 (d) Sorghum Grain: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . .. 105 (e) Sorghum Hay: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . . .. 106 (f) Corn Grain: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . . . .. 107 (g) Hay: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . . .. 108 (h) Beef: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . . . . 109 (1) Hogs: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . . . . 110 l-(J) Eggs: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . . . . 111 (k) Milk: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . . . . 112 (1) Pasture Grass: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . 113 J
13 (a) Non-Leafy Vegetables: Production Per Sector Per Distance . 114 I (b) Animal Feed: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . . .. 115 14 (a) Rice: Harverted Acres Per Sector Per Distance . . . . .. 116 (b) Wheat: Harvested Acres Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . 117 (c) Soybean: Harvested Acres Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . 118 (d) Sorghum Grain: Harvested Acres Per Sector Per Distance . . 119 (e) Sorghum Hay: Harvested Acres Per Sector Per Distance . . . 120 (f) Corn Grain: Harvested Acres Per Sector Per Distance . . . . 121 (g) Hay: Harvested Acres Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . . 122 (h) Pasture Grass: Harvested Acres Per Sector Per Distance .. 123 (1) Non-Leafy Vegetables: Harvested Acres Per Sector Per Distance 124 (j) Animal Feed: Harvested Acres Per Sector Per Distance . . . 125 15 (a) Rice: Yield Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . . . . .. 126 (b) Wheat: Yleid Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . . . . . . 127 (c) Soybean: Yield Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . . . . . 128 (d) Sorghum Grain: Yield Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . . 129 (e) Sorghum Hay: Yield Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . . . 130
-(f) Corn Grain: Yield Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . ..
- 131 (g) Hay: Yleid Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 (h) Pasture Grass: Yield Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . .. '133 y
, M
)
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Page Table Within After No. Report Report l
i 134 16 (a) Non-Leafy Vegetables: Yield Per Sector Per Distance . . . .
(b) Animal Feed: Yield Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . . . 135 1
17 (a) Rice: Percent of Surface' Area Per Sector Per Distance . . . 136 -
(b) Wheat: Percent of Surface Area Per Sector Per Distance . . 137 (c) Soybean: Percent of Surface Area Per Sector Per Distance . 138 (d) Sorghum Grain: Percent of Surface Area Per Sector Per Distance 139 l
I (e) Sorghum Hay: Percent of Surface Area Per Sector Per Distance 140 141 (f) Corn Grein: Percent of Surface Area Per Sector Per Distance (g) Hay: Percent of Surface Area Per Sector Per Distance . . . 142 l
143 (h) Pasture Grass: Percent of Surface Area Per Sector Per Distance i
! 18 (a) Non-Leafy Vegetables: Percent of Surface Area Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 l (b) Animal Feed: Percent of Surface Area Per Sector i Per Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 28 146 19 Fish Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20 Growing Seasons for Various Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 147 Hold-Up Times for Various Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 148 21 Weights and Moisture Contents of Crops . . . . . . . . . . . 32 149 22 Feed / Grass Ratios During Winter Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . 34 150 23 37 151 24 County Area Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39 152 25 Marshland Grasses: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . . .
40 153 26 Trees and Bushes: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . . . .
42 154 27 Total Vegetation: Production Per Sector Per Distance . . . . .
43 155 28 Average Vegetation Density Per Sector Per Distance . . . . . .
s uoun=s
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose The purpose of this study is to document the food Ingestion pathway in support of annual dose calculations for the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station. By I " food ingestion pathways" we mean the human food cycle for an area of 50-mile radius '
. surrounding the nuclear generating station site. This ingestion pathway embraces all biological products that might directly or indirectly result in human food consumption in the area, including crops grown for livestock which may in turn be consumed by people.
The output of this study is an extensive series of figures and tables describing the For ease of reference, all of the distribution of agricultural commodities in the area.
In figures and tables may be found in sequential order at the end of the present report.
order to improve clarity of certain sections, some of the figures and tables have also been reproduced and inserted at their appropriate places in the text.
1.2 Area Under Consideration The geographic area of concern is the 50-mile zone surrounding the nuclear power plant site shown in Figure 1. This area has been divided into sixteen 22M-degree compass sectors as indicated. The area is further subdivided into annular sectors, bordered by radii of various distances from the center of the plant site. The center is defined here as the midpoint between the two reactor buildings. The outer annular sectors are defined in 10-mile increments bordered by the 10 , 20 , 30 , 40 , and 50-mile distances from the center. As can be seen in Figure 1, the 50-mile zone includes portions of Brazoria, Fort Bend, Jackson, Victoria, Calhoun, and Wharton Counties, all of Matagorda County, and a small part of Colorado County. Also,12 of the outer annular sectors are completely over the Gulf of Mexico, where the only food cycle concerns are those of fishing.
The area inside the 10-mile radius from the plant is further subdivided into annular sectors, having outer radii of 1, 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5-mile distances from the power plant site as shown in Figure 2.
IJ Major Commodities l
The major agricultural commodities produced in this area may be divided into four j
primary types. They are animal production for human consumption, vegetable pro for human consumption, animal feed for livestock consumption, and pasture grasses for 1 M LAe0AATURES
- - .-,,, ----.- m --- - - - + , ,
i
\ Colorado Fort Bend
/
NNW NNE i i Lavaca
~
NW NE j ,
Whart Bra la I E j: Ja son 1
t
) W -
E
! victoria -
Calh
+ ESE h **
30 S ,o SE
- j '
b i
i Figure 1. 50-Mile Zone Surrounding South Texas Project Electric Generhting Station i , 2 MLAaORAT0fuES
' ^ - - - * , in- %
tf -
hh?*? f 0 'h&? &
] W(n *~ $ $ $' 7l I >
i
'"\
(
) \ f
% )
g.'--~
"* .Q ".b
- ) _j n
e l*
__1 l
l *
.ma
("", e -
L }lf g. y, L ; ;f
~
, t.,. . a l (
\
- - r
.r- mP , -
~
,i ,,
> : 1W'cl.7/:-, ' t(qv ' '
e s
lj< =-
~ - D)x . , n/ A, _ Ts n
. s 7,- e i
\k t
s y',
./ .f. ,:sA ;'.j j L.
1
- n! .., - , ,
, v! #.
u
- - L _ - :s '
. .;- y m
-~,- ,
w- :, :
+ /,;A. #. ' .y ),\ -
4 e
r*
yi
,- e )
/ ,
- - Q's ' '
NE x,- <
- .7
. i cm\ .,- '
/
d.=. ', ._. ;----* s: -.; .C 4 i ,1 H . , , M *
$' k ~. '
b-- I l D , s - r .. s
..a ,-h
~e a',
~,j g- jsgs 3 / - i'-
1 s,7 e(,-A y.--
. % _. L y,--- r
( .
1.~ g '; ,
i , '%3 ',
- G l*
/-
I'
'q b
v'
'[h'I .
b ggg e% *-*,s.- v
" .1 ,
,- g N . N-p
",.. [ \
9 ,
\ I 4 .. * ,
I -'" '.,L** *( .-
- y' 6-' ,, N "~'\p[g ' #
- I
'N 3
\l 'his\ ( ', 1 ip' '
W i
-} l j '
-'iI- - J 4:-'.
f f' .
N.'
- s. t
_ gg -
/.J~ -
\
'. ! /
- m& \f, r -
.e ( l < .J g '
~
fy 0a___%. - . + ~l ?c y
<__:.R----f- ; - ;y: r- ,-+ . T . - re H..
r V.~E "x
= ~.
'r-. '
. , ',*' ~ -
~~ # --
,I %- g - , e -} N!
i e a g
- m. , .ri .;
')_.
' .- c $-lN'!j
s ,- ;
jph %,
/T
/
i (' t .
Il'
- g'
' L
_ a' s '. \I s .- s- r ~ i u
- : a . _ a,,r i
- c~
.c 2 y ;
/ <k ? ,n- <MSE
, . ~
T ~5 s .' r
' r' ~ /: ,-
3 .
?,Y$ n,A ~~
p j.i< h .k_('-'
nclM.
, t , . h 1.- i: v .
/
\
-: .um.. . - ..
's '- '
5 7 T-@ vy..f
,s i ,.
a;_;;p D'.
s
- - ~ ..-
yp .<,- p 3 p i,/. i
.s -
m R&a i
f'
- K'
-g
(
')y'/ Q .,.U r *j's ya
/ c , '.
. o 1c,. 4,.
- ,----., ,,gy, x,. (
)e .<.
-'N., , .,
4-,%.
,* - ) $ .. .
'/ , , , ' . <
F"~~- d,
/ f- - er o. .e
. .t
,1
~ I I * - e~. /.
l .
~
_- [4' r
~
s %, W::,:M" . / kYB +'
(' j., )l ,,f 5 Q
. .::: t{
t , ~f" ' 3
~ * -
} t.:: .
I' %\ {, i , - ) l' ' -./.(i,.yk 'f)%,/ ~<sz f" lP 4-Q~")'.
.= fw; :, f 6.,y- - '
~
~hl,h
/ C:g W-f' Mla'* '
~ '
l O
- 4
+
+ ._m.s2 1h ,
Figure 2.10-Mile Zone Surrounding South Texas Project Electric Generating Station.
ELA40ftATOputs 3
grazing. The animal products include beef, milk, hogs, chicken, and eggs. (No significant amount of goat meat or goat milk is produced in the area.) The vegetable products include rice and wheat, both of the non-leafy vegetable variety. (No significant quantitles of leafy vegetables, e.g., lettuce, cabbage, etc., are produced in the area. Nor is there any significant root-like vegetable production, e.g., carrots, potatoes, turnips, etc.) The i animal feed includes sorghum grain, sorghum hay, corn grain, soybeans, and hay. Pasture
. grasses are a major. production quantity. In the case of pasture grasses, the various i
- . varieties of warm season and cool season pasture grasses grown in the area have been lumped together for single overall average estimates of grazing regions. Marsh grasses have not been classified as pasture grass because they are not generally reported in agricultural statistics and because only limited grazing occurs in the marsh areas.
1.4 Exclusions Minor amounts of other products do appear in the food cycle for the area. The amounts produced, however, are relatively small (in all cases less than 10 percent of the total production for the given type of commodity), and have therefore been excluded.
Commodities in this category include pecans, honey, deer, etc. The fish yields for the area only include fish taken from the Colorado River downstream from the plant and from l
the area of Matagorda Bay am the Gulf of Mexico surrounding the discharge point of the Colorado River. All otSer fish production has been excluded.
IJ Method l
The fundamental method used in this study has been to collect agricultural statistics by county for the 8 counties included in the 50-mile zone. These statistics represent the smallest unit of agricultural productions and yields for which there are reliable docu-mented data. Local agricultural authorities, knowledgeable about the characteristics of i agricultural production in each county, were used as a resource for information on how quantities of the various commodities tabulated by county were then distributed across the annular sectors in that county. By means of the responses of these local experts to l
structured interviews and distribution maps, these documented county statistics were i
distributed over the 160 annular sectors that comprise the 50-Mile Zone. Tables were then created that showed the average production for each commodity by annular sector, the harvested acres for each crop by annular sector, and the yields for.various crops by annular sector. Information was also collected on the percentage of the surface area in I
l k
LAaORATORES
each annular sector that was covered by each of the different crops and on the fraction of each commodity that was consumed within the county, since in many cases the majority of the production was shipped outside the county.
1.6 Special Data In addition to the distribution of agricultural commodities across the 160 annular -
sectors in the 50-mile zone, data were also collected on several additional variables
- important in the food cycle for the area (see Section 5.0). These included growing times, grazing times, wet / dry ratios, shellfish and finfish production, and conversion factors for calculating and comparing biomasses in the production cycle. Information on these variables was tabulated by county or by area as appropriate. By combining many of the
' data collected and analyzed above, an estimate was made of the average vegetation density of all plant life in each annula sector.
1 I
e i >
i I
LADORATORES
l ,
)
.i 2.0 AVERAGE COUNTY DATA l 2.1 Source The primary source for agricultural data for each county was the Texas County Statistics compiled by the Texas Crop and Livestock Service (see Reference Section).
Data were compiled from the years 1977 through 1982 for the eight counties involved.
l Since the annual production for many commodities varied considerably from year to year,
' average statistics were computed over the six-year period. These averages were
- ' computed by taking the production or acreage estimates and averaging them, provided 3
' there was any significant production or harvesting that year. Years with no production of a given commodity were not averaged as zero production years. Rather, they were excluded from the averaging process, yielding an average estimate for that particular commodity for any year where production was significant. Such a process produced conservative estimates that would be on the high side of any fluctuations that might be encountered, ensuring that food chain implications would be overestimated wherever l
uncertainty existed in the data base. In the case of beef and hogs, data were available for ,
> 1983, and therefore the 1982 entries were in fact comprised of the average of the 1982 I and 1983 production. Thus, in these cases, the average annual productions covered a seven-year period.
j I
2.2 Production i
j Tables were prepared showing the annual production of agricultural commodities by county for each year of the six-year period. This information is presented in Tables 1(a) through 1(h), which may be found at the end of this report, along with other multiple-page f figures and tables describing the food cycle of the area. In addition to the production
!j each year, Tables 1(a) through 1(h) also show the average annual production over the entire six-year period, averaged as described in Section 2.1, above. As can be seen in the
,' tables, some commodities were produced in relatively small. quantities and only sporad- ;
1 Ically in certain years. Those commodities which would contribute only insignificant quantities to the commodity type total were excluded from further consideration. Such exclusion occurred if the annual production of a given commodity was less than 10 percent (by weight) of the total annual production for that commodity type. Table 2 shows which f I
commodities from the annual production tables were in fact included for further I consideration in the present study. As can be seen in Table 2, oats, rye, and alfalfa were of generally insignificant production quantitles when compared with other animal feeds, and do not appear any further in the study. Hens were also excluded because (1) they are not consumed as meat; (2) their production had already been counted in the form of eggs; and (3) no significant broiler production (chickens that are eaten) was found in the area.
6 M
-- -~
Table 2 Agricultural Commodities Included in Study ,
l
- County l
Description Matagorda Victoria Wharton Brazorla Calhoun Colorado Fort Bend Jackson Crop X X X X X X X Rice X X X X Wheat X X X X Soybean X X X X X X X' X X Sorghum Grain X X X Sorghum Hay Oats X X X X X X X Corn Grain X
" Rye Alfalfa X X X X X X Hay X X Livestock / Poultry X X X X X X X Beef X X X X Hogs Laying Hens i
Livestock / Production X X X i Eggs X Milk X X Other X X X X X X X Pasture Grass X
j i 2.3 Harvested Acres
. Tables 3(a) through 3(h) show the annual harvested acres for different crops for the eight counties involved. The tables show the harvested acres for the years from 1977 to 1982, and the average over the six-year period, with the average computed in the same manner as was done for the p oduction figures. Harvested acres were tabulated as opposed to planted acres because the harvested acreage would form a better estimate of -
cultivated land whose foodstuffs could possibly enter the human food consumption cycle.
t i .
, 2.4 Yield Tables 4(a) through 4(h) show the annual yield per harvested acre for the various crops included in the study. These tables are arranged by county and cover the six-year
. period under investigation. In each case the yields simply indicate the production quantities of the various crops (Table 1) divided by the harvested acres (Table 3), as found in the county statistics books. Once again, the average annual yield per harvested acre over the six-year period is given in the far right-hand column, averaged in the same manner as the production and harvested acre figures.
l 2.5 Pasture Grasses i
Table 5 is a summary of pasture grass data for the area. Pasture grass is shown separately in this study because it is not a commodity which is harvested and sold in the traditional sense that the other commodities are. It is rather grown and some fraction is consumed off the land by grazing cattle. Furthermore, documented county statistics from the primary source books are only available for the 1981 and 1982 reporting years. The 1981 total county acreage for pasture grass is shown in column 3 for each of the eight !
counties in thousands of acres. This figure represents the 1981 total of improved
. pastureland and rangeland, thus encompassing total grassland acreage. The 1981 reporting year was selected as the conservative, high-production year because it showed slightly higher grassland acreages (by about 3 percent) than the 1932 reporting year in all counties except Colorado County, where the same grassland acreage was reported in both years.
1 l ^
8 LAmonaTonuts
7 i l
Table 5 i
' Pasture Grass Summary Percent Area in County
' MUe Prod son Yleid County 50;o Rugeland 3 3 I (%) (x 10 Tons / Year) (x 10 Acres) ,
Brazorla 57.0 912.0 456.0 2.0 Calhoun 85.0 382.5 153.0 2.5 Colorado 7.0 652.5 435.0 1.5 Fort Bend 30.0 427.5 285.0 1.5 Jackson 94.0 594.0 297.0 2.0 Matagorda 100.0 917.5 %7.0 2.5 Victoria 22.0 750.0 375.0 2.0 Wharton 95.0 550.5 %7.0 1.5 i
i
~ .
b 4
I o i
The yields for typical pasture grasses in tons per acre were obtained from the interviews with agricultural experts described in Section 3.0. Average yield estimates for the variety of pasture grasses grown in the given county are shown in column 4 of the table. Multiplying these yields in tons per acre by the total grassland acreage in the I
j county results in the estimates of total county production of pasture grass shown in column 2. This production is shown in thousands of tons produced per year. In addition, _
, Table 5 gives the percentage of the surface area of the county that lies in the 50-mile
. . zone surrounding the nuclear power plant. These area percentages were used later in l determining portions of production that could be attributed to the area inside the 50-Mile Zone. Thus the pasture grass summary shown in Table 5 is a hybrid data resource, comprised of area data obtained from the county statistics books and yield data obtained from interviews with experts.
i 2.6 Percent Consumed Within the County From interviews with county agricultural experts (see Section 3.0), estimates were made of the percent of various commodities that were consumed within each county.
These estimates are shown in Table 6 for the eight counties involved. Examination of
. Table 6 reveals that, in general, commodities either are basically shipped out of the l county for external processing or consumption, or are almost totally consumed within the county. Rice and wheat, the major crops for human consumption, are almost entirely shipped outside the county. Likewise, animal grain products used for animal feed are also primarily shipped outside the county. However, hay and hay-like products (sorghum hay) tend to be consumed largely within each county.
The livestock estimates for percentages consumed within each county proved more l difficult to determine. In the case of beef, large fractions of the beef herd are not j shipped out of the county but rather remain in the county for next year's production.
Therefore it was not a simple matter to estimate the percent of beef consumed within the county from data on the percent shipped outside the county. Instead, an investigation of local slaughterhouses and meat-packing companies was undertaken to estimate the percentages of locally raised meat that might be consumed within each county. These estimates formed the basis for the row of percentages given in Table 6 for beef. Only a small percentage of total beef production tended to be consumed within the county.
I 2
WYLE
Table 6 Percent Agricultural Commodities Consumed Within the County .
Percent Consumed (%) By County Description Brazorla Calhoun Colorado Fort Bend Jackson Matagorda Victoria Wharton Crop 0
- 0 0 0 0 0 Rice 10 0 0 * -- -- -- -- 0 Wheat 0 0
- O -- 0 -- 0 Soybean 0 0
- 1 2 0 0 0 Sorghum Grain
- 95 -- -- .-- 95 Sorghum Hay -- --
Oats -- -- -- --
5 0
- 8 2 0 0 0 Corn Grain C Rye -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Alfalfa -- -- -- -- -- --
100
- 95 85 75 100 95 Hay 100 Livestock / Poultry 2
- 10 10 0 8 5 Beef 5 Hogs -- --
- 40 -- -- 60 --
i Livestock / Production 100
- 100 -- -- -- 0 Eggs --
- * --. -- 0 i Milk O -- -- --
i -- = Not inclued in study.
O e'100% shipped out of Cennty.
- = Not tabulated; only a small portion of the County in the 50-Mile Zone. The percent consumed can be assumed to be the same as bordering Wharton County.
I _ .
1
)
I As determined by interviews with local agricultural experts, about half of the hogs j produced tended to be consumed within the counties producing them. This situation was ,
confirmed by inquiries of the slaughterhouses and meat-packing companies. By contrast,
,' as can be seen in Table 6, the local production of eggs in Brazorla and Fort Bend Counties l
!- is totally consumed within the producing county. Milk, on the other hand, is almost exclusively shipped out wherever it is produced. .
Of course, from the present data and methods of investigation, it is impossible to ,
determine what fraction of each commodity that is shipped out may be reintroduced into l local county supermarkets after processing and dilution by other sources outside the county.
l l
i E
e e
12 M--
1 ,
)
~
i 3.0 DISTRIBUTION PROCESS 3.1 Sector Maps try County j
I The process of distributing the county production, acreage, and yield statistics over 1 the annular sectors comprising the 50-raile zone was begun by creating county maps i depicting the sectors and portions of sectors included in each county. Figures 3(a) j , through 3(g) are examples of these county sector maps for seven of the counties involved. ~
I .No such county sector map was prepared for Colorado County because only 7 percent of that county was included in the 50-M11e Zone. Instead, estimates for the small area of
! Colorado County included in the zone were made from data collected for the bordering portions of Wharton County. As can be seen in the figures, the overall outline of the
, county shape is depicted along with the location of the major cities.
Figure 3(e), the county sector map for Matagorda County, has been subdivided by
!! annular sectors beyond the 10-mile radius of the nuclear power plant. The 96 annular sectors within the 10-mile zone surrounding the plant are represented in the figure by l
>i' only four simplified and larger sectors. Smaller partitioning of the area into actual annular sectors was not warranted given the resolution of the distribution process for which these maps were prepared. General inspection of Figures 3(a) through 3(g), and also
- Figure 1, reveals that a number of annular sectors are shared by more than one county,
, leaving small, odd-shaped pieces at various extremities of the counties. Also, some counties have as many as 15 to 20 subdivided pieces.
3.2 Acres Per Annular Sector i Tables 7(a) through 7(p) depict the area relationships for the 16 compass sectors surrounding the nuclear power plant site. Each of the 16 sectors is divided into 10 annular sectors corresponding to different radial distances from the plant site as shown in the left-hand column. Here the radial sector is designated by its compass-direction letter abbreviation, and the outer radius in miles is designated by the number after the hyphen.
The total surface area of each annular sector is given in the right-hand column. This total
! surface area represents the area inside the entire geometric annular sector, including both ;
land and local water, but excluding areas covered by the Gulf of Mexico. Thus these numbers represent surface areas covered by one or another of the eight counties i considered in the present study, including Matagorda Bay (both East and West), Lavaca Bay, and Espiritu Santo Bay, all of which were regarded as local water. '
i f
u.o===. !
i l
l
The total surface area of each annular sector was further subdivided into areas within a county jurisdiction that are covered by local water, and areas within a county I jurisdiction that are covered by land. The areas covered by water are given in the next to I
the last column, irrespective of which county has jurisdiction over them. By contrast, the areas covered by land are subdivided into those portions of the land area which lie within
' each county jurisdiction. In summary, these tables portray the fundamental geometric .
. and area relationships that were used to distribute the agricultural commodities across
.the annular sectors. .
3.3 Simplified Survey Maps i
l The county sector maps shown in Figure 3 proved to be too complex and arbitrary to l
serve as satisfactory survey or interview instruments. Consequently, they were simplified by eliminating sector boundaries that were near to county boundaries, by combining
' numerous contiguous annular sectors into fewer larger sections, and by including odd-shaped pieces of land into nearby simplified sections in such a manner that the
' distribution task would be facilitated. These simplified survey maps, prepared from
' county sector maps, are shown in Figures 4(a) through 4(g) for the seven counties involved in the interview process. The simplification process resulted in counties partitioned into no more than eight separate sections for distributing commodities.
i t
l At the top of each simplified map can be seen the survey question information that was administered to the interviewees. For a given county, packets of approximately 15 identical pages of that county map were prepared. On each page of the packet, a different commodity was written beforehand by the interviewer. The list of commodities used to prepare each county packet was obtained from the annual production tables shown in Table 1. Upon administering the questionnaire, the interviewer wrote the name of the interviewee in the space marked " source" at the top of the first page of the packet. Then the interviewee completed the rest of the form per the instructions given.
The four-quadrant square map shown in the upper right-hand corner of each simplified map was used as a trial and training device to acclimate the' interviewee to the distribution process. After completing the extremely simple four-quadrant partitioning, the interviewee filled in the percentages of total county production according to the more irregular sections depicted on the survey map for that particular county. One simplified sector map was completed by each interviewee for each commodity where the county
! statistics had shown any significant production. The Interviewees were also given blank maps to provide information on other commodities that were not anticipated beforehand.
- 14 M(
l
l 3.4 Forms After completing the distribution maps, the interviewee completed one or more of the survey forms shown in Figures 5(a) through 5(h). If the interviewer thought that there l, was sufficient time allotted to the interview to gather all the desired information, then i
the Full Form illustrated in Figure 5(a) was administered. If the interviewer believed that there was not sufficient time in the interview to collect all of the data desired, then the -
- Short Form "A" (Figure 5(b)) was administered to the interviewee. Short Form "A"
- contained questions about critical information which was absolutely essential to supple-ment data collected from the county statistics books. Then, if time perrr'itted, the interviewer proceeded to Form "B" (Figure 5(c)) to collect as much data as possible on questions which were essentia!!y corroborative in nature, where data had already been 4
obtained from documented sources.
Time permitting, the form shown in Figure 5(d), Commodity Weights, was admin-istered to obtain an estimate of the weights of locally produced agricultural products.
Although the fundamental weight data for the present study was obtained from U.S.
Department of Agriculture authorities, it was desirable to have corroborative information which might show any minor differences due to local conditions. Finally, if the interviewer believed that the expert being interviewed could answer some more generai questions that were outside the area of common agricultural commerce, then the Special Questions form shown on Figure 5(e) was given. For the most part, however, the special questions form had to be administered to a completely separate sample of experts who were knowledgeable about the highly specialized information requested therein.
As a separate part of the local data collection task, the interviewer made inquiries in the area immediately surrounding the South Texas Project nuclear plant about the location of the nearest examples of certain agricultural commodities. In most cases, the nearest animal or nearest crop was personally sighted by the interviewer upon driving and
' walking through the area. In a few cases, the location of the nearest commodity had to be determined by asking people questions about the commodities in very close proximity to the plant. In either case, the locations were noted on the two maps included in this part of the survey, shown here as Figures 5(g) and 5(h). Figure 5(f) shows the Nearest Foodstuff Symbol Table that was used in conjunction with the two above maps to locate
.ea,by iood ,,oduction.
1
, 15 E
3.5 Azricultural Experts Contacted i
Table 8 lists the various agricultural experts contacted in the course of the present l
study. The first part of the table lists authorities contacted locally in each county. The second part lists state authorities and Texas A&M Extension Service specialists who were
, contacted to supplement the local information. The code letters and numbers were used to simplify identifying responses from different authorities in the overall data base. Not -
- ' all of the people listed in the table were interviewed on all of the questions. The
' interviews were tailored ahead of time to the expected knowledge-base of each expert, and in some cases only a few questions were administered to a given Individual in order to l
fill gaps that had occurred in the data from previous interviewees. Taken as a whole, these individuals provided the valuable information base from which the distribution process was undertaken. In most cases, at least two estimates were obtained for every commodity and every variable. In some cases, three or more estimates were obtained for the desired input data.
3.6 Conversion Factors The actual distribution of agricultural commodities across the annular sectors l required several steps. The first step was to convert the county annual production statistics given in a variety of common agricultural metrics to uniform weight and area measures. Thus pounds, tons, bushels, pounds-hundredweight, etc., were all converted to kilograms. Likewise, the basic unit of geographic area found in the county statistics books, the acre, was converted to square meters. In order to accomplish this, a Table of Conversions was created as shown in Table 9.
' The upper half of Table 9 states the weight and area conversion factors used in the l
present study. The lower half states some of the commodity weight conversions that were needed to establish uniform quantities of measure. The weights in pounds for bushel I
' quantities of various crops were obtained from Terry Crawford of the Crops Branch of the i U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C. (202/447-4997). The weights in pounds of the various animal commodities were obtained from Sam Evans of the Livestock Branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C. (202/447-8444). The animal weights represent retail meat values for full-grown slaughtered animals. The ]
retail meat quantitles were used rather than the live weights or the carcass weights of the l pardcular animal commodities because the retail values more closely reflected quantities that might enter the human food cycle. Also included is the weight of one average jumbo ,
egg and one gallon of oysters.
1
! 16
Table 8 .
List of Agricultural Experts Contacted ,
Agency City Telephone No. Code Name Title BRAZORIA COUNTY Farms of Texas Co. Alvin 713/331-6481 B-1 Jerry Locke Range Manager (Cattle)
ASCSa Angleton 409/849-7451 B-2 JoAnn Stanzel Agr. Agent Co. Ext. Officeb Angleton 409/849-7451 B-3 Waverly Jefferson Co. Ext. Agent SCSc Angleton 409/849-6820 B-4 John Campbell Soil Conserv. Agent CALHOUN COUNTY Co. Ext. Office Port Lavaca 512/552-9747 C-1 Gilbert Heideman Co. Ext. Agent ASCS Port Lavaca 512/552-2969 C-2 John Wayne Stepp Soil Conserv. Agent SCS Port Lavaca 512/552-6661 C-3 Diane Arnold Rangeland Specialist Rice Farmers' Co-Op Port Lavaca 512/552-3404 C-4 Rick Nickols General Manager Farmers' Gin Port Lavaca 512/552-6778 C-5 Jean Marwitz Clerk PORT BEND COUNTY Co. Ext. Office Rosenberg 713/342-3034 F-1 Johnnie Cooper Co. Ext. Agent ASCS Richmond 713/342-5064 F-2 Walter Kelley Co. Exec. Director Y 3ACKSON COUNTY Co. Ext. Office Edna 512/782-3312 3-1 Marvin Lesikar Co. Ext. Agent l ASCS Edna 512/782-2172 3-2 Elmer Jones Co. Exec. Director SCS Edna 512/782-3361 3-3 Lester Hahn Soll Consery. Agent Rice Co-Op Ganado 512/771-3371 3-4 Dick Otis Manager Jackson Co. Elevator, Inc. El Toro 512/782-5891 3-5 Grant Crawley Manager MATAGORDA COUNTY Co. Ext. Office Bay City 409/245-8415 M-1 Jas. Enbrock Co. Ext. Agent SCS Bay City 409/245-1138 M-2 Albert Kinsey District Conservationist ASCS Bay City 409/245-1201 M-3 Clarence McDaniel Agent Farmer's C@p Bay City 409/245-9131 M-4 Jack Wikoff Asst. Mgr., Commodities Bay City 409/245-5821 M-5 David Reid Agent TX Parks / Wildlife Pres., Co-Op, Farmer Farmer's Co-Op Bay City 409/245-5532 M-6 Arnold Ravinca Lwr.Co.Riv. Auth.(LCRA)d Bay City 409/245-4631 M-7 Norm Trowdy Manager Bay City Feed Co. Bay City 409/245-2712 M-8 Jimmy Stewart Owner / Manager Co. Marine Life Agency Bay City 409/245-8415 M-9 Willie Younger Co. Marine Agent Yeaman's Oyster Place Matagorda 409/245-7827 M-10 Jim Yeaman Owner, Y's Oyster Pl.
Commercial Fishing Matagorda 409/245-7434 M-11 Raymond Cox Fishing Guide l Commercial Fishing Matagorda 409/245-9207 M-12 Albert Garrison Fishing Guide I., Rancher Farm / Ranching Bay City Bay City 409/245-3909 409/245-2234 M-13 M-14 Frankie Harrison William Green Rancher /V.P. - CP&L Farmer / Rancher
Table 8 (Continued) l Agency City Telephone No. Code Name -
, Title VICTORIA COUNTY Co. Ext. Office Victoria 512/575-4581 V-1 Joe Janak Co. Ext. Agent SCS Victoria 512/575-9542 V-2 Ronnie Boston Conservationist SCS Victoria 512/575-9521 V-3 Stan Ranke Rangeland Specialist ASCS Victoria 512/576-1129 V-4 Evelyn Walters Clerk l TX Parks / Wildlife Victoria 512/575-5275 V-5 Lyndon Shatz Agent WHARTON COUNTY ASCS Wharton 409/332-0567 W-1 Ronny Grantland Co. Exec. Director SCS Whartor. 409/532-0077 W.2 Harold Graf Conservationist SCS Wharton 409/532-0077 W-3 Walter Garrett Agent Co. Ext. Office Wharton 409/532-3310 W-4 Johnnie Cosper Co. Ext. Agent TEXAS A&M EXTENSION SERVICE Forage Dept. College Station 409/845-2761 T-1 Dr. Don Dorsett Forage Specialist Poultry Dept. College Station 409/845-4381 T-2 Fred Thornberry Poultry Specialist Grasslands Dept. College Station 409/845-2755 T-3 Dr. F. Smeins Grassland Ecologist Marine Fisheries Dept. College Station 409/845-5777 T-4 Dr. Linton Assoc. Professor l g Wildlife Ecology Dept. College Station 409/845-5777 T-5 Dr. Silvy Assoc. Professor l Forestry Service Dept. College Station 409/845-2641 T-6 John Halslet Forester ,
Range Science Dept. College Station 409/845-5560 T-7 Dr. Jos. Schuster Super., Ext. Specialists i TEXA5 DEPARTMENT OF CORRl!CTIONS Animal Husbandry Sugarland 713/491-2146 TD-1 Frankie Thorp Livestock / Poultry Manager STATE SOG. CONSERVATION SERVICE OPPICES Grasses / Shrubs / Trees Temple 817/774-1291 S-1 Herb Senne Range Conservationist Grasses / Shrubs / Trees Temple 817/774-1291 5-2 Dan Caudie Range Conservationist TEXA5 C1 TOP / LIVESTOCK REPORTING SERVICE Co. Statistics Austin 512/482-5581 C/L l Doug Spellman Statistics I
- a. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
- b. County Extension Office
- c. Soll Conservation Service
- d. Lower Colorado River Authority im
- l. ,
i' .
Table 9 4 Table of Conversions 0.4536 kg I lb =
I lb = 16 oz 1 lb: cwt = 100 lbs I ton = 2,000 lbs 2
' I acre = 43,560 ft 2
I acre = 4,046.86 m 2
1 lb/ acre = 1.1209 x 10 kg/m fl I bushel corn grain = 56 lbs
! I bushel oats = 32 lbs I bushel rye = 56 lbs I bushel sorghum grain = 36 lbs 1 bushel soybeans = 60 lbs I bushel wheat = 60 lbs I broller chicken (Retall) = 2.5 lbs I head of beef (Retall) = 450 IM 1 hog (Retall) = 1 D lbs l = 2.1 oz
,t 1 Jumbo egg 8.5 lbs l
- 1 gallon oysters =
i I
l
'l 1
l 1
i 19 M
l 3.7 Distribution ('airulations Once the conversion to uniform measurement units had been completed, the f distribution of. agricultural production across the annular sectors proceeded as fo!!ows.
The county production and the county producing acreage was first distributed according to the patterns portrayed on the simplified survey maps (Figure 4) that had been filled in by the interviewed agricultural experts. Next, the county sector maps (Figure 3) were -
- superimposed upon these distributions, and the production or acreage was further
, partitioned into the actual annular sectors or portions thereof. The Acres Per Sector tables (Table 7) were used to assist this partitioning, since these tables gave the relative sizes of the different annular sectors. Thus, if a given amount of production were ascribed to three annular sectors of differing sizes, that production would be divided
. proportionately among the annular sectors according to the area in each annular sector.
Many annular sectors were composed of pieces from two or more counties. In these cases,
,; the production was first distributed into the portions of the annular sector which belonged to each particular county. Then the total quantity for the production or acreage was obtained by adding together the contributions of the portions of the annular sector belonging to each individual county. In this manner, the county production or county harvested acreage that had been obtained from the crw.mty statistics books could be distributed over the annular sectors in ar csidance with the estimates given by agri-l cultural experts for the various counta.s in rolved. Distributed yield estimates were then I calculated by simply taking the ratio of the production in the given annular sector divided
'by the corresponding harvested or growing iald area in that sector, i Thus it was possible to transform the county production and yield tables (Tables 1 2
and 4) into consistent units of kilograms per year and kilograms per meter , respectively.
In this manner the production and yield of various agricultural commodities could be compared and combined as necessary to support annual dose calculations. The average annual county productions in kilograms per year for the various agricultural commodities i are given in Table 10. As can be seen in Tatle 10, the largest quantities in terms of kilograms of mass produced across the varioui counties are rice, sorghum grain, and pasture grass for the crop commodities, and bief for the animal products. Of these, pasture grass by far accounts for the vast majority of the total biomass production that l
might enter the human food cycle. The predomir.ance of pasture grass is true for every
> county individually as well as for the 50-Mile Zone .ss a whole.
I 20 g
2 Table 10 Average Annual Production by County 0
Average Annual Production (x 10 kg/yr)
Description Brazorla Calhoun Colorado Fort Bend Jackson Matagorda Victoria Wharton Crop Rice 107.6 27.4 112.8 50.3 88.3 119.2 14.9 182.9 Wheat 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.5 --- 0.4 1.2 Soybean 22.0 1.1 5.4 12.2 4.5 33.1 0.5 33.0 Sorghum Grain 26.1 75.5 6.2 69.5 123.8 112.0 88.6 242.1 Sorghum Hay 1.5 6.1 2.2 2.6 4.4 6.5 8.2 7.3 Oats 0.2 --- 0.4 --- --- ---
0.1 ---
Corn Grain 10.6 8.4 34.7 21.6 32.6 5.1 30.1 73.4 0 Rye 0.3 ---
0.1 ---
0.2 --- --- 0.2 Alfalfa 4.3 --- --- 2.7 --- ---
2.3 1.8 Hay 20.0 3.2 38.7 13.6 8.8 11.5 9.3 15.4 Livestock / Poultry Beef 15.0 3.6 19.4 12.0 8.8 14.5 14.8 15.7 Hogs 0.5 ---
0.6 0.2 --- ---
0.2 ---
Livestock / Production Eggs 0.4 --- 1.6 0.4 --- --- --- 0.8 Milk 2.4 --- 2.8 --- --- --- --- ---
Other Pasture Grass 827.4 347.0 591.9 387.8 538.9 832.3 680.4 499.4 15 IE - '
i Table 11 shows the average annual yleid for the various crops in kilograms per square meter for the eight counties involved. As can be seen in the table, alfalfa has the highest consistent yleid in terms of usable food mass production per unit area, but the overall production of alfalfa in the area is generally insignificantly small. All of the main j crops for which the production of the area is large, i.e., rice, sorghum grain, and pasture grass, have approximately equivalent yleids. It can also be observed that the yields for a ,
, given crop commodity are relatively constant across the different counties as would be
. expected in a given geograph i c area w t e climat ci and soll conditions do not change h ere h drastically.
i t
'i i
i! .
.l 1
- l i
i f
22 M
A-Table 11 s
Average Annual Yield by County Annual Yleid (10-I kg/m2 )
Description Victoria Wharton Brazorla Calhoun Colorado Fort Bend Jackson Matagorda Crop 4.4 5.0 5.9 4.9 5.3 5.7 5.6 5.6 Rice 1.4 2.0 1.5 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.4 Wheat 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.6 Soybean 1.5 4.1 3.7
~
3.9 4.2 4.5 3.9 4.3 Sorghum Grain 3.6 8.5 4.5 7.8 8.1 8.5 10.1 7.2 Sorghum Hay 7.4 U 0.9 1.3 0.9 0.7 1.3 0.7 0.9 Oats --
4.7 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.3 5.3 Corn Grain 4.4 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 -- 1.1 Rye 1.2 --
9.6 -- -- 9.2 8.1 Alfalfa 10.3 -- --
4.7 5.4 4.3 5.2 6.0 4.7 5.2 Hay 5.4 Other 5.6 4.5 3.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.4 Pasture Grass 4.5 d
9 15 -
IR .
4.0 DISTRIBUTED DATA 4.1 Pr*-tion Per Annular Sector The result of the distribution process was the creation of a series of tables showing how each commodity was distributed across the annular sectors. Tables 12(a) through 12(1) show the production per sector per distance (per annular sector) for the 12 ~
As can be seen in the tables, no agricultural commodities included in the present study.
production is given for any commodity within the 16 annular sectors defined by the one-mile outer radius. This is because the nuclear power plant site itself occupies practically all of this area. Also, toward the south, south-southeast, and south-southwest directions from the plant, the cooling water reservoirs for the plant occupy most of the area to the four-mile radius. Between the four- and the ten-mile radius in the same Other direction, the land is composed primarily of marshes and uncultivated lowlands.
than pasture grass, very little agricultural activity was observed in this latter region.
Further out in the southward direction, many of the annular sectors are over the Gulf of Mexico and do not contribute to the agricultural food cycle. In all other areas, some form of agricultural activity is represented depending upon the distributions indicated by the agricultural experts.
The same kind of distributions were obtained for commodity types as have just been described above for individual commodities. Tables 13(a) and 13(b) show the production per sector per distance (per annular sector) for non-leafy vegetables and for animal feeds.
The non-leafy vegetable production represents the sum of the rice and the wheat production in each sector. As can be seen from Tables 12(a) and 12(b), the rice production completely dominates and therefore the non-leafy vegetable production is identical to the rice production. Table 13(b) for animal feed represents the sum in kilograms per year of the soybean, sorghum grain, sorghum hay, corn grain, and hay production found in each annular sector.
4.2 Harvested Acres Per Annular Sector Tables 14(a) through 14(h) show the harvested acres per sector per distance (per annular sector). The harvested acres were distributed in the same m'anner as the production figures on the assumption that for crops within a given county the yield was apprpximately uniform throughout that county. The same constraints on certain sectors encountered in the production figures are reflected in the harvested acres as wc!!:
(i) the , ,
1 1
24 Ml I
)
i a
16 sectors within the one-mile radius have been excluded; (2) the cooling reservoirs and marshlands to the south, south-southeast, and south-southwest of the plant show no (3) the agricultural productivity (other than some pasture grass in the marshlands); and Tables 14(1) and 14(j) areas covered by the Gulf of Mexico are likewise non-productive.
show combined harvested acres for non-leafy vegetables (rice) and for all animal feeds.
I
~ 4.3 Yield Per Annular Sector I
Tables 15(a) through 15(h) show the yields per sector per distance (per annular sector). They represent the ratio of the annual production in kilograms per year divided by the harvested or growing area in square meters from the previous tables (Tables 12 l and 14). As a result, they reflect the same productivity exclusion relationships as were observed in the previous sets of tables for distributed quantitles regarding distances less than a mile from the plant and the generally southward direction from the plant. Since it was assumed that the yield for a given crop was uniform within a given county, all of those sectors for a given commodity that are entirely contained in a single county show identical yields. Annular sectors that are composed of pieces from different counties will show slightly different yields reflecting a weighted average of the yleids for the portions representing each of the different counties. Thus the vast majority of the yield tables are relatively uniform across all of the annular sectors for a given commodity.
Table 16(a) shows the yield per sector per distance for non-leafy vegetables. Since rice clearly dominates, the non-leafy vegetable yield is identical to the rice yield shown in Table 15(a). Table 16(b) portrays the yield per sector per distance for animal feed, representing a combination of soybeans, sorghum grain, sorghum hay, corn grain, and i In this case, the total annual feed production for each annular sector, the sum of all five of these feed commodities, was divided by the total harvested acreage that was needed to produce all of these commodities. The result is a combined animal feed yleid which Indicates a weighted average yield for a square meter of land planted in the proportions j animal feed found within each sector.
4.4 Percent of Surface Area Per Annular Sector Tables 17(a) through 17(h) show the percent of surface area per sector per distance (per annular sector) planted or grown in each of the eight important crop comm In this case, the number of harvested acres in each annular encountered in the area.
sector was divided by the total geometric surface area of that annular sector, also .
25 M i
i expressed in acres. Here the total surface area of an annular sector included all land, local water, and the Gulf of Mexico. This definition of total surface area was used as i opposed to the one found in Table 7, which excluded the Gulf, because for dose The calculations the actual geometric area of an annular sector is more appropriate.
percent of surface area for different types of crops, i.e., for combined crops, is given in Table 18(a) for all non-leafy vegetables (rice and wheat, effectively only rice) and in .
Table 18(b) for all five animal feed commodities combined.
4 l
G G
- - - . - ~ - _
i 4
- 10 SPECIAL DATA In addition to the agricultural data described above, certain other information is necessary to characterize the overall food cycle for the area within a 50-mile radius of j
the nuclear power plant site.
i 11 Fish There is considerable fishing activity in the area of Matagorda Bay and in the Gulf of Mexico immediately surrounding the discharge of the Colorado River. This fishing li activity is conducted out of the town of Matagorda, and is centered around four major commercial shellfish establishments and a network of professional fishing guides to assist in sport fishing. The area in question encompasses the waters of east Matagorda Bay an west Matagorda Bay to a distance of about 15 miles either side of the Colorado River, and
-! a small portion of the Gulf of Mexico extending in a radius of about 3 to 4 miles from the mouth of the Colorado River where it discharges into the Gulf. Some fishing is also conducted in the Colorado River itself, downstream from the plant site to the Gulf.
The major finfish taken consist of trout and redfish; the major shellfish taken consist of crabs, shrimps, and oysters. Table 19 shows the fish production for these areas in thousands of pounds. The production is divided into that which originates from the bay and gulf regions and that which originates from the river downstream from the plant. T table is further divided into the production attributable to sport fishing and to commercial fishing, as well as into finfish and shellfish.
The sport fishing consists almost entirely of finfish catches. The bay and gulf are fished from small boats often with the help of fishing guides, whereas the fishing in the river downstream from the plant consists primarily of night fishing by lights, which may occur as many as 60 nights per year. By far the largest fish production is that of the l Commercial finfishing is practically commercial shellfish establishments in the area.
non-existent, because recent regulations prohibit the commercial take of redfish and l
The commercial shellfish trout, the main commercial revenue fish from the area. -
production consists of large quantities of crabs and shrimp, along with some o f
taken from the bay and gulf areas. A small number of baltboats also catch some bait l
shrimp in the river downstream from the plant.
i )
l
, 27 N
t
Table 19 i
Fish Production 3
- (Pounds x 10 )
Sport Bay / Gulf River Downstream 50 50 Finfish 5 0 ,
Shellfish (Oysters)
' Subtotal 55 50 Total Sport: 105 Commercial Bay / Gulf River Downstream 0 0 Finfish 2,600 0
[ Crabs 10 (Baltboats)
Shellfish < Shrimp 1,300 145 0
( Oysters -
4,045 10 Subtotal Total Commercial: 4,055
- Sources: Albert Garrison and Jim Yeaman (see Table 8).
- 28 E
i The above proflie of the fishing activity in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant die is likely to change drastically in a few years af ter the completion of the jetties and
- the dredging of the channel at the mouth of the Colorado River. These projects, when i completed, will open the area to larger fishing vessels, thus dramatically increasing the fishing activity that can be sustained. For example, preliminary estimates of the potential gulf shrimp production range as high as 5 million pounds per year after
. completion of these projects. However, such projections are speculative and the only
. concrete data which can be provided in the meant ime are those presented in Table 19.
d 5.2 Crop and LWwd Parameters Table 20 shows the growing seasons for various crops produced in the area. The times portrayed in Table 20 represent the means of estimates given by a subset of the j agricultural experts listed in Table 8. Thus they are average times for each crop commodity, irrespective of minor local fluctuations which might occur among the counties. In a similar matter, Table 21 shows the hold-up times for these same crops.
This is the time that the crop is held in storage from when it was harvested to when it is either consumed in the case of animal feeds or shipped out for processing in the case of vegetables for human consumption (rice and wheat). Once again, these times represent the averages of estimates given by the various agricultural experts interviewed. They do not represent worst-case durations or maximum times that foodstuffs might likely be held in storage from harvest to consumption. At the bottom of Table 21 an estimate is given for a worst-case storage time for most of the crops listed. From the experts interviewed, a long storage duration (worst case) would be about 12 months for all crops, except wheat, f
which would be shorter.
I Another set of agricultural parameters that is important in describing the exact nature of the agricultural food chain is the weights and moisture contents of various crops l
at different stages of production. Table 22 shows the wet weight, as reported in l
i agricultural statistics, of each crop at cutting, as well as its moisture content. The ta also shows the weight after drying and the moisture content of the dried commodity.
From these quantitles it is possible to compute wet-to-dry ratios for the various crops a As can be to determine precise commodity weights during hold-up and storage times.
seen from the table, most of the grain-like commodities lose very little weight (water) In i}
g{. the drying process. This situation is not true of the hay and grass products, which Jose considerable weight after drying. Thus cut and dried hay and pasture grass exhibit a l
considerable weight reduction when they are fed to livestock during the winter grazing season.
29 MLASORATOMS I
1 P
1 Table 20 Growing Seasons for Various Crops
~ ~
Begin End Months March 15 October 1 6M Rice (Two Harvests)
November 1 May 15 6M Wheat October 1 4M Soybeans May 15 March 15 July 15 4 Sorghum Grain April 15 September 15 5 Sorghum Hay March 1 August 15 3M Corn Grain October 1 6 Hay April 1 i
E e
30 M
Table 21 Hold-Up Times for Various Crops
~
Begin End Months July 15 March 15 8 Rice Wheat May 15 June 15 1 I
August 15 January 15 5 Soybeans July 15 February 15 7 Sorghum Grain June 15 February 15 8
. Sorghum Hay August 1 March 15 7 Corn Grain June 15 March 15 9 Hay i
Worst-Case Estimate: 12 months for all commodities, except wheat.
G 9
l
L Table 22
~
l
, ; Weights and Moisture Contents of Crops Mohe Crop RW)e@t at Cutting et Content at Cutting Weight After Dry Moisture Content
(%)
(%)
b r
Obs) 19 52 12 Rice 56*
15 39 13 Soybeans 60*
15 58 12 Wheat 60*
17 54 14 Corn Grain 56*
^
17 97 14 Sorghum Grain 100 50 1200 10 Sorghum Hay 2000 30 1600 10 Hay 2000 20 1800 10 Pasture Grasses 2000
- Weight per bushel, kernels only.
- No milling.
- Main Source
- Diane Arnold (see Table 8).
i l
l
) - _,
l
i During this time, which normally includes the months of December, January, and February, the cattle are grazing in winter pastures, but their food supply is supplemente by dried hay and grain feeds. The average supplemental feed to pasture grass ratios th j
' characterize the food intake of cattle during winter grazing are shown in Table 23. These j
ratios, averaged from estimates provided by the local agricultural experts, vary somewhat from county to county, with an approximate average for the entire region of about 65 percent farmer-supplied feed to 35 percent pasture grasses consumed directly fro fleid. Thus, although cattle graze in thei reg on 100 percent of the time (a!I year round) in the winter their diet is supplemented by more~than half the total consumed weight.
This supplemental diet is largely necessary because the pasture grasses lack much nutrient value during the winter season. The rest of the year is considered to be summer grazing time, when the cattle are on a diet consisting of 100 percent pasture grasses growing in the field.
Another concern in the agricultural food cycle is the type and extent of artificial irrigation in the area. From the experts surveyed, no significant irrigation of crops occurs Thus Colorado River water in region from the nuclear power plant site to the coast.
downstream from the power plant is not diverted to any significant degree for man-made irrigation of crops.
5.3 Nearest Commodity A search was made for the nearest example for each agricultural or livestock commodity type that could be found close to the nuclear power plant site. The exa of commodities were located by driving and walking through the area immediately surrounding the power plant to a radius of several miles. Inquiries were also ma residents to obtain information on where the nearest commodity might be found. Fi shows the location of the nearest example of each commodity as determined in the a All of these commodities, with the exception of manner during the month of June 1984. The the nearest hog, were visually sighted and personally confirmed by the interviewer.
location of the nearest hog.was obtained from a telephone conversation with a re
' source who owned land in the area. As can be seen in Figure 6, many of the commodities may be found almost immediately outside the boundary of the nuclear p plant site. "
5 LASORATORIES r
1 Table 23
- Feed / Grass Ratios During Winter Grazing (December, January, February) ,
i, .
- County Average Feed / Grass Ratio
- Brazoria 55 / 35 Calhoun 75/25 Jackson 80 / 20 1
Fort Bend 75 / 25 Matagorda 65/35 Victoria 60 / 40 Wharton 50 / 50 Average 65 / 35 (Approximate) ,
- Ratio of portion of food intake by weight that is supplemental
- (feed, grain, hay, etc.) to portion of food intake that is growing pasture grass during the time that cattle are winter grazing.
j i
g LAeonAfomas i
'*..g
- . 4
, ; yv,t r'. 3 .r3 r- -,{;* . ; \.; d
- f} ?- D
~
Y. 'i ' ks -
~
' ~~'.
7I- Li -y i--- -
F- '
- .*..I . .! .__,
c _~ ~. -
ss : , ,--> -l -
< ;> n! r . ea ,
- 1. - z .
t_ ; ~ . .
e W _".6..e i ' NNE:. . 4('-
,,(y . f.
3 'I'*'t,I 4 . -
NNW ^
t
...i _ .e c-- .
f t- r--
.w t. f i, -
g
< 3- 1.).
f b
/
/.
s
, A. N . .'
.' s.. .--
P _A_
.. - ,- . ., _ .e. .
v,,
2--- ,_ : -
. _t. w _\ i,,. % p --_ ,f' _-
, i gr . - ., .
, ' s
..s .s u .
1.,% mW '~ 4- ' . . :, V, W..: ..* . ~~~i~
. s:'i.'d.d_.i.%.-'~~
- , . .. . 7. ..
~_ s. __.____...
. . :. . :.7:,
c #,j .,m. .
.n x, - t' s-- -
T. b.._. . 9.'Q:w',@-
, .~~ ~ ~
,. rl v _.7 s
, l 'i
., s - m.
_,/
,j '
, . - h, _ _ _._ _ _
, i. ,- m n
,m-
?: e b '> .D -+.v
. . . s j=.v j N -'
i
- ,f ' -
ENE
.asta --
. *=' ._.--
c, ,
..r_ ._-
_,r /: .
, . -m .:.. . ..-
m- . .. m- .
~.,, ~._
.. 2 .. , .
s.
. m.
.~ ., .
,v.~. ,
.n
. .oB~~s .. :-
- u. . .- . ; ;
?.- u '-
j.
g
-( p
- , . ,e . ' .
- m. _- -p.-- m .: m , ' .y_. ' '
~ -
2 v . l-A. E j@i i 's
- : __ s.r _._ STP . .
. ,,j.#'f _,f_ _. . _. '\. '
UP -)
~ ,'
'N--E PC '
i -
i~. ', .,. s ._ " ~~ iy >..[', -
e: . _ t-; , .e --
j.- -
N, [
., ,.1
+-, r y :
E. . "]-
s
. . .. z... w.
. t. ._ ._t c-
- , e.
. ,_. ,.4 %
. s.... ~~. . - .- ; .
. s, ,
-- Ok _ _- _'. s . .P
' '.gE S. ~, E i
-J +. .,
W%,. . .,T , <_ ,_.: ._ _ q. s
+/ <
,e u
..t l ,. o
..3 W- p.
.. -,. a .- n .. -
- - t
/1j '- .I : .. . ,
a: .i . .4 +
._: }
j p 7., yp...,,f/-.,j;
-- w . . y. . /n) . , r- e.%j
... . . _ . 9e -
t
_. _/.
s
~*
s a.>-
-C-Q ;3. ;,~.;t / - i G m; y,(, 'gg r-. ,
y.
( i, .v'\,.'y, *f.<
}L%
' ~ '
u Q~ . .
9, w .. t. '
. !SW XJ ,. .
.L . ./ =
.# 6' ~-- - ~D .
7-
/ , , . . *e.h,,,..h., T/i_s; ' N.yyty, ..,,
,-- . ~ ~4 -
,--r-a. . e .k: - . ..s
.s,. __ %*
s<s; s
- >-4y
.,-: i-_ ~. s
~~
x
'~'
.$ r$k ' . , , /S
'.^ '.'.
&w T .:'f' . -~~ =M
? . }I .7%y_f. ',, -
v- -
. s r %- '-
& no' '
' p.. _f i - ) QO ~~A s-Q @;.b FC' \.s --
- \~ '
A - Cow E - Home Garden Plot B - Goat F - Rice or Wheat Field C - Hog G - Commercial Pasture D - Chicken H - Feed Growing Field 4
, Figure 6. Location of Nearest Commodity
' 35
5.4 Averase Venetation Density In order to characterize the entire biomass within the 50-mile zone surrounding the power plant, calculations were made of the average vegetation density found in each annular sector. This average vegetation density was computed from the total mass of all types of growing plant matter in each of the defined annular sectors. The approach was similar to the one used for distributing crop and livestock commodities across the various annular sectors, except that certain additional data and assumptions were necessary.
i First, it was necessary to partition the total land area of each county according to the land area that would be covered by each of the major plant types that could be found therein. The distributed data in Section 4 of the present report contain Information on the overall production of vegetables (non-leafy) for human consumption, animal feed for livestock consumption, and pasture grasses for grazing. Non-leafy vegetables and animal However, I feeds could then be summed to obtain information on total cultivated crops.
These are are two major categories of plant matter are not considered in Section 4.
marsh grasses and trees and bushes.
Next, it was necessary to estimate the amount of area in each county covered by marshes and by medium-density stands of trees and bushes by a process of elimination.
First, the best estimate was obtained from the data collected of the total jurisdictional surface area (including local water) in each county. These estimates may be found in the first column of Table 24, the County Area Summary. Then the best estimate for the total local (non-Gulf of Mexico) water area was subtracted to obtain the totalland county (see columns 2 and 3 of Table 24). The total cultivated (planted) crop area for each county was considered to be more appropriate than the harvested area for determining the proportions of different kinds of vegetation growth. This total planted l crop area was obtained from the 1981 agricultural source book, as was the total range i
area (see columns 4 and 5).
- In the opinion of the agricultural experts interviewed, when the entire 50-mile zone was regarded as a whole, trees and bushes accounted for approximately 10 percent o l this total land area on the average. Thus the initial approximation consisted of assigning i
10 percent of the total land area of each county to trees and bushes, subtracting the cr and range area, and assigning the remaining land area to marshland grasses. This proces yleided the marshland estimates for Calhoun, Matagorda, and Brazorla Cpunties s l
.! , column 6 of Table 24. The process also resulted in small amounts of marshland being
(
assigned to several of the other counties. Since maps of the area did not Indicate any i
-n--- ..__
.. - _ _ - . . . . _ e i Table 24 County Area Summary Land p Total Total Total Total Total Total Total. I Trees ^'**
A'**3
- 3 Wateg Cg3 Ragg x 10 Marsg x 10 x 10 3 Z
3 Inside County x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 Zone Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres ,
175 456 189 91 531 57 Brazorla 926 911 15 153 75 34 283 85 Calhoun 584 337 247 75 435 --- 61 425 7 U 607 --- 111 Colorado ---
166 285 --- 110 162 30 Fort Bend 567 560 7 297 --- 72 515 94 549 544 5 175 3ackson 722** 167 180 367 120 74 722** 100 Matagorda 908 98 375 --- 97 123 22 Victoria 572 570 2 267 70 665 95 Wharton 700 695 5 366 ---
- Estimate of area covered by trees and bushes exclusive of rangeland.
- Excludes Matagorda Island.
I appreciable marshland areas in these other counties, such small marshland areas were eliminated and the resulting excess area was added back into the trees and bushes category. Thus the County Area Summary shown in Table 24 gives an approximate breakdown in thousands of acres of the jurisdictional surface area (total area) according to the major categories of vegetation growth found in the region. Column 8, the land area
~
Inside the 50-mile zone, was obtained by summing all the partitioned land areas for each
-county found in Table 7.
- The marshland areas in Brazoria, Calhoun, and Matagorda Counties were all assumed to be located near the gulf coast. These marshlands were distributed uniformly over the nine radial sectors from the border between northeast and east-northeast to the bo between west and west-southwest (see Figure 1). This area included the coastal half of When Brazoria and Matagorda Counties, and practically all of Calhoun County.
marshlands were uniformly distributed over these shoreline regions, the marsh grass produ: tion by sector by distance (per annular sector) could be computed as shown in Table 25. This production assumed that marshlands yield 12,500 pounds of marsh grass per acre, which represents an average of the yield estimates of from 10,000 to 15,000 pounds per acre given by the experts in the sample interviewed.
Areas covered by trees and bushes were assumed to be uniformly distributed over the entire land area of a given county. Thus within any one county the yield of trees and bushes per acre was considered constant and the production was simply distributed according to the proportion of the land area of that county within a given sector. From a Texas forestry expert (Dewayne Weldon, Forest Products Laboratory, Texas Forest Service, 409/632-6666) It was determined that a stand of trees and bushes of medium density and of the types characteristic of this particular region of Texas would weigh approximately 46,000 pounds per acre. In this manner, the annual production for bushes per sector per distance (per annular sector) was determined as shown in Table As can be seen in the table, the production in kilograms per year is considerable, far more
' than that of any other agricultural commodity including pasture grasses, which account for the vast majority of the-growing acreage. This predominance of trees and bushes production as a contributor to the total production in kilograms per year can be a
' for by the extremely high mass found in tree (wood) production relative to grass or crop production. Although no significant portion of the trees are used for timber or commercial wood production, their contribution to the biomass of the region is considera M.
38 t
ed
Table 25 Marshland Grasses: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10 kg/yr)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius W WNW NW NNW (Miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW 1 -
2 -- -- -- 0.6 0.6 0.6 -- -- -- -- -- 0.6 -- -- -- -
! -- 1.2 1.2 1.2 -- -- -- -- -- 1.2 -- -- -- --
3 -- --
4 -- -- -- 1.8 1.8 1.8 -- -- -- -- -- 1.8 -- -- -- --
5 -- -- -- 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 -- -- -- --
u w
0 Marshland Grasses: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10 kg/yr)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius W NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW WNW (Miles) 10 -- -- -- 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 -- -- -- -
20 -- -- -- 81.7 74.8 2.0 -- -- --
20.4 13.6 58.0 -- -- -- --
J 30 --- -- -- 152.6 102.4 -- -- -- -- --
3.6 47.0 -- -- -- --
40 -- -- -- 254.6 56.3 -- -- -- -- -- 36.2 57.9 -- -- -- --
50 -- -- --
311.2 7.1 -- -- -- -- -- 57.9 155.5 -- - -- --
11
Table 26 .
" 5 Trees and Bushes: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10 kg/yr)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius W NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW WNW (Miles) i 1
7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 -- -- -- -- -- 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 2 -
15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 -- -- -- -- -- 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15 3
19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 -- -- 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 4 19.2 19.2 -- -- --
26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 5 26.4 0
e Trees and Bushes: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10 kg/yr)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors
! Radius W NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW WNW (Miles) i 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 10 20 83.4 77.8 77.8 81.7 74.6 17.8 -- -- -- 21.0 14.2 76.9 89.8 86.6 79.2 8 30 123.3 128.4 127.9 131.6 97.3 -- -- -- -- -- 6.0 103.8 167.7 177.2 138.5 122.3 40 178.4 207.7 183.1 177.5 41.7 -- -- -- -- -- 60.3 90.5 247.8 237.2 188.8 170.3 50 304.7 467.9 246.2 216.5 4.3 -- -- -- -- -- 96.5 264.9 509.3 318.6 251.8 225.5 11
D( ,
lf t
i By adding together the production of crops, rangeland (pasture grass), marsh grass, and trees and bushes within each annular sector, one can obtain the total vegetation production for that annular sector. This total vegetation production per sector per distance is given in Table 27. When the total production is divided by the total geometric surface area of the annular sector, the average vegetation density in kilograms per square l
meter may be computed. Table 28 shows this average vegetation density for each of the .
. annular sectors in the 50-mile zone.
t .
t l
I e #
l l
t 41 M.
= == ;
l
Table 27 ,
5 Total Vegetation: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10 kg/yr)
Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S (Miles) N NNE 1
14.9 -- 14.1 13.5 13.5 13.5 14.5 2 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.9 14.9 -- -- -- --
28.5 28.5 -- -- 27.1 25.9 25.9 25.9 27.,
3 27.6 27.6 27.6 28.5 -- -- --
34.9 33.1 33.1 33.1 35.4 4 35.4 35.4 35.4 36.8 36.8 36.8 -- -- -- -- --
48.6 43.2 43.2 43.2 47.4 47.4 44.8 44.8 44.8 48.1 5 48.1 48.1 48.1 48.6 48.6 48.6 6
0 Total Vegetation: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10 kg/yr)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius SW WSW W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW (Miles) 59.4 54.1 54.1 54.1 57.9 57.9 35.7 35.7 35.7 38.5 10 38.5 38.5 38.5 59.4 39.4 39.4 .
20 146.1 136.0 136.0 215.0 199.2 32.0 -- -- -- 53.7 38.1 185.4 143.6 140.6 136.5 14. _
30 212.3 221.2 202.3 355.3 264.4 -- -- -- -- -- 12.0 203.5 245.9 260.0 227.4 214.1 40 298.s 314.9 284.6 512.4 198.7 -- -- -- -- -- 136.7 253.2 362.4 348.9 307.6 296.5 50 460.4 620.7 373.6 630.2 11.4 -- -- -- -- -- 220.1 607.3 693.9 460.7 406.1 389.8 I
Table 28 ,
2 Average Vegetation Density per Sector per Distance (x 10-I kg/m )
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius W NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW WNW (Miles) 1 9.4 9.7 9.7 9.7 -- 9.2 8.8 8.8 8.8 9.4 2 9.4 9.4 -- -- -- --
11.2 11.2 11.2 -- -- 10.6 10.2 10.2 10.2 16.
3 10.8 10.8 10.8 -- -- --
9.9 10.3 10.3 10.3 9.8 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.9 9.9 -- -- --
4 9.9 -- --
10.9 10.9 10.9 9.7 9.7 9.7 10.7 10.7 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.8 5 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.9 10.1 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 14.2 14.2 14.2 15.2 15.2 9.4 9.4 9.4 10.1 10 10.1 10.1 0 20 9.6 8.9 8.9 14.1 13.1 2.1 -- -- -- 3.5 2.5 12.2 9.4 9.2 9.0 9.3 10.4 0.5 8.0 9.7 10.2 9.0 8.4 30 8.4 8.7 8.0 14.0 -- -- -- -- --
5.6 3.9 7.1 10.2 9.8 8.7 8.4 40 8.4 8.9 8.0 14.4 -- -- -- -- --
8.2 13.8 0.2 -- 4.8 13.3 15.2 10.1 8.9 8.5 30 10.1 13.6 -- -- -- --
l 12 1
t
6.0 CONCLUSION
The above data reveal the agricultural activity and production of the area
, surrounding the nuclear power plant site. They provide the fundamental food cycle Information upon which dose calculations may be made to assess the consequences of any potential radioactive releases from the plant.
The primary agricultural commodities of the area are pasture grasses and animal ~
, feed to support a large beef production activity. Considerable rice is also grown, and some shellfish is produced. Although they cover only a small part of the land area, trees and bushes do contribute significantly to the total blomass in the region because of their relatively high density.
REFERENCE
- 1. " Texas County Statistics", Compiled by Texas Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, for the years 1977 to 1982. (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Statistics Reporting Service, Agricultural Statistician, P.O. Box 70, Austin, TX 78767.)
4 9
l t
I ,
I
\ Colorado Fort Bend
/
f i
NNW NNE Lavaca NW NE .
Whart Bra la E
Ja kson t
E y w ,
Victoria e51 Calh
- ' +**' ESE l
O i
sc SE
s I
Figure 1. 50-Mile Zone Surrounding South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 45 i
i
--W
'U2 '
Ns? 7: LSW ~M.N - y k ? ?,.'Dje.i I
&,y y i *,:4lt k ,. ,2. .r .
, O/ ;r ; .
s MM;f%9C 4 ,
.i tc,1 -- . .
l-tu'.
_g -$ .. r ' :-- '_4 _'__ <- ....
T -l ,/ .
7
,.'_.@27.f. h.. k._.,f f_ .~ l ,,
fi.NNE,...~ t. t' s : -
-"> 1
> 1 tr}.. c, ,
' .)
(NNW S iI -
ic . - 1-1 i
. _r :3- 7. - 4
\ l -. .\
. 1 h1 l(E % , ~ Q, .T .'
/ ,-
s j ,.I!,:. j; ?.% -- y---s ks -<y .<
. 9.
- ' - - --r - -
, : .. c.- '
/\, ',-"Y-/M.h. '\ NE I's -;Q i % , W.3_ '
s- ( ,. / '
- T.~
d \- ,
lf.. ) # 8:+' '.- .
> ~
. . ' ' \ .(-
. . l.
g .,.
.i
...--- r. 1 _- - , ..- ,
- l in h; .:: M. Y....
1
~
i- . .r-} gt, .j, h.- [ ~ J ' ~7__
T(HI [f: \ <././ Y,.'.-
i j;. L ..- NM ., . * - - , .- y i. h d ,' -
t
, 4- l (e
[ 4. p s 4 /".I,,- _.
\. A./o N' Pl.%
N x- ,
N - x - { i
.pt-i ',. 4.- ,s f h- g r - Q.\
r , , -
e ENE H 'b w '.. x i
- I Y t .
- F , #.
W- 6 N. ..~
I
- es r .y _ r. ..
. ~ v.-:.t..
.(
'p .s
,x ~g: ,/ - \
I t -
=
- Nas s
t (c .
N
,_.i
+ "- 7' s 'v1 \
i
.- .s 1-
' ':~-'
k[r,.e#' y ,'
/!..-
m- \.g*."~ .[ e- D. <
. y. s) *' {y '
u_ q - ,g - ,
)}
,/ ';< , . .e ss. p s x '
M '
s.e.[f.[ , s.Q - 'E
.s.y __ _i:':M---
~
m,' .s -
, ' , '. .', Jg'A_ r^
g f- '.'s STP ,.
'](. -<
', ,---.,.A ;#~_t- ;-tW .
_h r7 i >.
c' . , -
- - s .
n' N s
_. . s,, 3 __ l i}'
'/ .(/- -
- , .f
- -- . t d , .-
- < L
.' i
..' ; .. _f .f q ,.s ' ,i _ , , , ,
l
?,.'
- !k T_ .
_ T % '
- 4
_? ' J
's l, i
') . s-j g, w l "h s. i;. id( e. t -~
, v i
H :.;' .& . /,:
u_.[,
/ /
~
ii ,- s
';e
(
L ,'
7
[
I l
[ j(
4 l*
-t sf
- a. .r l l, l .u s #n .g y4's.' ,-
' -'- -. . . :N 6 .
> _1 , ,
s ,,
7 :.
h.W," g" ",, $-'Q-jm g .A
& .( [.
l j'sw 1.M;t '[ h,( . %) : h. Y j j se[. f' i
'7~ e-_-_
N~. , .,
M'. ~
s* -g' -
J ,- , k.,/\ .
d
/r- --- =
- cn . , ~/se9.,<<i. +',,,
, i#x.
-- H i v'
i r 3 j
4 g
y
%-/
3.
- M i/<}
y kg,, , ,4 <
.w g [
e, g
-l -
m s\ zs ' J) ~' ,( Ml - -
~h,
.=2w, hy ~
.q f c
.c.- f..O N g Q" :w f-J p// ,
t
./ +
+ .e,dhgV,N- =-
l Figure 2. 10-Mile Zone Surrounding South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 46
)
l
^
Alvine 4
r Dnmon Angleton SBrazoria Figure 3(a). County Sector Map for Brazorla County.
47 M LASORATOfhtje
1
)
j l
( Pt. Comfort Port j
bOVOCO q LongMott Port O'Connor e Seedrift b
Figure 3(b). County Sector Map for Calhoun County.
o wyu_
i
7
't i
i i
t 9 Rosenberg i
Kend eton _
9 Needville ,
i i
I i
I i
i a
Figure 3(c). County Sector Map for Fort Bend County. f 49 M LA80RATOmES
t P
l I
I
\
Cot 0* \"
Gonado#
S Edno i
gWordS \
1 t
\
y y Sa\\*
1 t -
i i
l 1
Figure 3(d). County Sector Map for Jackson County.
l l
l l
i l
50 gl LABORATORES i
I
- l l
i I
Bay City 4
EItssing .
4 SQ%entQ y
STP *AWorth Palacio,
- !Q9ord I
l l
t Figure 3(e). County Sector Map for Matagorda County.
1 l
i I
51 M
LASORATOfuES c
---n__ - . _ - -. , - - . - . - _. . _ . - - . . . _ _ _ . . _ . - . _ , .
\
\
\
\
\
g blursefY
)
Tettemef0
\
lVictorio$ Placed0 gjendn9 ton 4 i
\
l l l l
l Figure 3(f). County Sector Map for Victoria County.
l l
4 i
g LASQRATomES i i
)
1 I
East Bernarde 1 EgyptS I
l l
9 Wharton l
SBoling l
\
~
l l
El Compo l
l 1
j Louise l
[
4 Figure 3(g). County Sector Map for Wharton County.
~ .
- I k
53 M LABORATORES
lf Brazorin County Ccmmodity: Sources f Is any of this commodity produe:d in this county? Yes Na l No N '
Is production uniformly spread across the county? Yes r
If not, how is it distributed? Imagine that the county were divided into four sectors each of w '
equal area as shown to the right. Please fill in the percentage of total county production " l coming from each of the four sectors. The total must equal 100 percent. 3 Please fill in the ;
Imagine, that the county were divided into the four (4) sectors shown below.
percentage of total county production coming from each of the sectors. The total must equal l
_ _ 10p peyce_nt: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , ,
t i
Alvin e l
0 Damon Angleton
' l I
I i
S Brazoria All percentages should represent an average over a six-year period.
1 Figure 4(a). Simplified County Sector Map for Brazoria County. Muscanoans f .3%
Calhoun County l l
Commodity: Source:
Is any of this commodity produced in this county? Yes No Yes No N Is production uniformly spread across the county?
If not, how is it distributed? Imagine that the county were divided into four sectors each of W E equal area as shown to the right. Please fill in the percentage of total county production coming from each of the four sectors. The total must equal 100 percent. 3 {
Imagine that the county were divided into the four(4) sectors shown below. Please fill in the l The total must equal i percent. age of total county production coming from each of the sectors. )
100 percent. _______...-__________
Y goint Comfort i ,
Port Lavaco I l
Ol ,
l p 3
ong Mott Port O'Connor9 g Seadrift t
?
All percentages should represent an average over a six-year period.
Figure 4(b). Simplified County Sector Map for Calhoun Courity. ,
6 55 M-
Ft. B:nd County 1 Commodity: Source:
Is any of this commodity produced in this county? Yes No Is production uniformly spread across the county? Yes No_ N If not, how is it distributed? Imagine that the county were divided into four sectors each of W E cqual area as shown to the right. Please fill in the percentage of total county production caming from each of the four sectors. The total must equal 100 percent. S Imagine that the county were divided into the two (2) sectors shown below. Please fill in the percentage of total county production coming from each of the sectors. The total must equal 100 percent.
4 Rosenberg
/
9 Kendleton 3 Needville l
l
~
t i
1 All percentages should represent an average over a six-year period.
Figure 4(c). Simplified County Sector Map for Fort Bend County.
56 M -
I
{
l
3rckson County Commodity: Source:
Is any of this commodity produced in this county? Yes No Yes No N Is production uniformly spread across the county?
If not, how is it distributed? Imagine that the county were divided into four sectors each of W E cqual area as shown to the right. Please fill in the percentage of total county production c: ming from each of the four sectors. The total must equal 100 percent. 3 Imagine that the county were divided into the five (5) sectors shown below. Please fill in- the percentage of total county production coming from each of the sectors. The total must equal 100 percent.
Cordele 3 Ganadog Edna e I e LaWord e La Solle a
All percentages should represent an average aver a six-year period. 5 Figure 4(d). Simplified County Sector Map for Jackson County. g***
57
Matagorda County ,
Commodity: Source:
Is any of this commodity produced in this county? Yes No Is production uniformly spread across th county? Yes No N If not, how is it distributed? Imagine that the county were divided into four sectors each of W E (qual area as shown to the right. Please fill in the percentage of total county production coming from each of the four sectors. The total must equal 100 percent. 3 Imagine that the county were divided into the eight(8) sectors shown below. Please fill in. the ,
percent. a ge of total county production coming from each of the sectors. The total must equal !
J 100 percent.
l I
(
O Boy City Bles' sin Sorgent 4 STP Wadsworth I Polacios Motagord O
6
- I All percentages should represent an average over a six-year period..
i Figure 4(e). Simplified County Sector Map for Matagorda County. .
58 LA80RANS l
I
, Victoria County )
Commodity: Source:
Is any of this commodity produced in this county? Yes No Yes No N Is production uniformly spread across the county?
If not, how is it distributed? Imagine that the county were divided into four sectors each of W E cqual area as shown to the right. Please fill in the percentage of total county production coming from each of the four sectors. The total must equal 100 percent. 3 Imagine that the county were divided Into the two (2) sectors shown below. Please fill in. the percentage of total county production coming from each of the sectors.
The total must equal 100 percent.
e Nursery Inez4 Telfernere Victoriae e Placedo Bloomington e i
f N
?
All percentages should represent an aver" age over a six-year p'eriod.
l i
Figure 4(f). Simplified County Sector Map for Victoria County.
59 LamonAf0MES I
b Wharten Ccunty Ccmmodity: Source:
1 Is any of this commodity produced In this county? Yes No Is production uniformly spread across the county? Yes No N If not, how is it distributed? Imagine that the county were divided into four sectors each of W E cqual area as shown to the right. Please fill in the percentage of total county production coming from each of the four sectors. The total must equal 100 percent. 3 Imagine that the county were divided into the seven(7) sectors shown below. Please fill in the percentage of total county production coming from each of the sectors. The total must equal 100 per. cent.
i k East Bernard 9 i EgyptG
& Wharton i
Boling g I
El Compo j\
Louise l .
i All percentages should represent an average over a six-year period.
Figure 4(g). Simplified County Sector Map for Wharton County.
60 Mmems
FULL FORM t County: All estimates should be county cvarages Ver a six-year Period.
Source: -
(For human Eggs A. Animals consumption) Beef Milk Hogs Chicken
- 1. Production / Year
- 2. Fraction Shipped Out (For human B. Vegetables consumption) Rice Wheat 1, Harvested Acres
- 2. Yle!d/ Acre
- 3. Growing Time
- 4. Hold-Up Time
- 5. No. of Harvests / Year
- 6. Fraction Shipped Out
- 7. Production / Year
- 8. Fraction of Surface Area Hay Grain Sorghum Sorghum Corn Soybeans Hay C. Animal Feed
- 1. Harvested Acres
- 2. Yield / Acre
- 3. Growing Time 4, Hold-Up Time
- 5. No. of Harvests / Year
- 6. Fraction Shipped Out
- 7. Production / Year
- 8. Fraction of Surface Area D. Pasture All Grasses
- 1. Grazed Acres
- 2. Yield / Acre
- 3. Production / Year
- 4. Grazing Fraction of Year ,
- 5. Summer Grazing Time l l
- 6. Winter Grazing Time j J
- 7. Grass / Feed Ratio (Summer)
- 8. Grass / Feed Ratio (Winter) ,
- 9. Pasture Grass Wet / Dry Ratio . .
- 10. Fraction of Surface Area Figure 5(a). Full Form Administered to Agricultural Experts.
61 w uo .
I i
SHORT FORM CA" 1
i All estimates should be county averages County: _
over a dx-year PerlW.
i Source:
i (For human Hogs Chicken Eggs A. Animals consumption) Beef Milk .
- 1. Fraction Shipped Out l
i (For human B. Vegetables consumption) Rice Wheat 4
l 1. Growing Time
- 2. Hold-Up Time
- 3. Fraction Shipped Out Hay Grain Sorghum Sorghum Corn Soybeans Hay C. Animal Feed
- 1. Growing Time
! 2. Hold-Up Time l 3. Fraction Shipped Out D. Pasture All Grasses I 1. Yield / Acre I
- 2. Summer Grazing Time j 3. Winter Grazing Time
! 4. Grass / Feed Ratio (Summer) 1
- 5. Grass / Feed Ratio (Winter) 1 6. Pasture Grass Wet / Dry Ratio Figure 5(b). Short Form "A" Administered to Agricultural Exkrts.
b2 M
LamonaT0AIES s
SHORT FORM "B'
{
i All estimates should be county averages County:
ver a six-year period.
Source:
~
I (For human Eggs A. Animals consumption) Beef Milk Hogs Chicken
- 1. Production / Year (For human E. Vegetables consumption) Rice Wheat
- 1. Harvested Acres
- 2. Yield / Acre
- 3. No. of Harvests / Year
- 4. Production / Year
- 5. Fraction of Surface Area Hay Grain Sorghum Sorghum Corn Soybeans Hay C. AnimalFeed
- 1. Harvested Acres
- 2. Yield / Acre
- 3. No. of Harvests / Year
- 4. Production / Year
- 5. Fraction of Surface Area D. Pasture All Grasses
- 1. Grazed Acres
- 2. Production / Year
- 3. Grazing Fraction of Year
- 4. Fraction of Surface Area
' Figure 5(c). Short Form "B" Administered to Agricultural Experts.
I 63 ,,..
h,
)
,i i
County: Source:
Please fill in the fo!!owing information for your county: .
- Animal Weights in Pounds Live Carcass Retail Beef Hogs
' Chickens Commodity Weights in Omces Jumbo Average Small
. Eggs t
Figure 5(d). Commodity Weights Form Administered to Agricultural Experts.
1 1
I l
64 j t l
)
SPECIAL QUESTIOWs i f All estimates should be county averages County:
over a six-year Period.
hrm i
t A. Geography Acres _
- l. Total Area
- 2. Total Land l
- 3. Total Marsh
- 4. Total Water B. Fish All Kinds
- 1. Yield / Year in bay at river mouth :
l
- 2. Yield / Year from river downstream C. Vegetation
- All Kinds
- 1. Growing Acres
- 2. Yield / Acre 8
- 3. Production / Year
- 4. Vegetation Wet / Dry Ratio
- 5. Fraction of Surface Area 1
- Includes all growing vegetation: crops, woods, grasslands, marshlands, etc.
Figure 5(e). Special Questions Form Administered to Agricultural Experts.
WYLE
= ^ '
- l 65
) i Matagorda County Source:
Nearest Foodstuff Symbol Table .
Letter Meaning How Determined?
A Nearest Cow B Nearest Goat C Nearest Hog i D Nearest Chicken E Nearest Home Garden Plot F Nearest Rice or Wheat Field G Nearest Commercial Pasture H Nearest Feed Growing Field (Corn, Hay, Sorghum, Soybeans, etc.)
Instructions:
Place the appropriate letter on the map and draw a circle around it.
Example:
E l
t Figure 5(f). Location of Nearest Commodity Form Used in Study.
I
' 66
/ ' ~ "" %
p I c f N 125 MWes ," Y#f b
- ,LI ib )k/ '
I 8
( y . I t'O .- $, ~
. , !,l L i % 5 s
's. '~~
~
,g
~
a . . .. i
^
, l .
g ,
-- F e -(A( ~iT\
7 Y_f$m- W'N kf ,, ,
I (,
s
/,._ . ', r r:c.s
' s j 1- s. , . .
r; -
s .- Q .
\ .
l
/ .
- \
9' I l [es .
N \
N' _
~ '_
j.- P
\
) ,
y .
- r. ..
j- - s
. Si
- I .
3 L ')
~ '
% r A- \
/g ?_
_ y_ ~ 'C) ( -
/ /
/- - I f
/ I l
,. / 1 SO T ' OJE
'h f , -/si -
\ ? s - Lj l \
' 2 i
{
~I ,
)V[_'k'
,.- , ; a a /
w
/
d
[ N E S E V I R
.s 7 -
-/
Figure 5(g). Two-Mile Radius Map Used to Locate Nearest Commodity.
/
' 67 MLASOftAtoftets
~
j c' ,.
L in
'\'
'l ',
[ ~' ' ' ' , s '
{th A ,
f.f iv3
\
s i
q-c s d ~.y(4 ~'
\
\3 N\
V. , N -
p c,. >r. '
r[ -Ex Q.
g mr. t ws >
, d d ti e, i L'4L y ? -1 t t r 3 1 y' ;
ki bj._
heff'l'\N[g , y $ f -\1 ,i , .)hk v/{kI- _
~
fVL_.1 s
- 3s p,a'l p,4 . i ~ t 7>-
N
.d 'g te ,
N.-
N i g' '
-i s j
%&._s/c r~ h-r - 'e b c
+'
I M n
tW9~ ,
k I .? O r
z' '
--- g' ,r j(,., \ f '^j f:
s V'f J n) *-',
_u f~ - \
I w '. VT1 Q * -u. j$. ~
- * "$ ' _^ ;; ~,'
i h '
b ~ ~N
,A h
/ *
^
.. Li f i, c'. ^*~
,N;-
^-
,[ p q ; ,; < _' '_ s n m, ,s ,
9 .-
k., ~-
l' 1 , '
m s?) . -
i
\!f ',I 'Y I
s ..l j /ql) .. N . ' j' ~ - h. .?
l '
'rs [e s'blj yA*
~
A -. ,---
,t
.I i c.
' _ / y _j
% r f . dliy -7l J_
, d'-Q v,- <L .t ; ; /, p> .
',4 H D ' i
'.; - gL[' ;, ~j_u-o/i 5 r t
.' da .rp \y" , -i.i' s ,.( '
s F,>i kk's,L _ _h - .I L r . ,:
/
sd! s yqct \
b s
(,
- r t ir_T r n: ~ ~ ~"'On b w ; s.a
~
n:= = aR...,
~
,j -*
. >Q'\\ y
C g f _,, g v., 3.,.
- . r, i y
,/
._,g
- _s,,,,37 4 vr jb.
j %t
<r @e..eg' , ..., . " . y-
,gL,M,
- s J 3.,
< s sj m- '
f ' + .,
j
, 4 ,, Q i
' \ -
- 6-
- s -
N ( ',
\( ' Uk- JO 1 ' Y N' '
g s ,, ~
k C-u%4"l ,' i s ]'r ( / }
1 i
- Figure 5(h). Ten-Mile Radius Map Used to Locate Nearest Commodity.
68 M
LA&ORATOstIES l
r_ t 3 ,r -- .- --.
r'v. 6,,, -.&: % :.e. > . L.b . ',.
-r, Fv,t
.rs_, ,;._ r- _ i _. _,e ,-: V . -
/ .d. . .
i s.--
u- Lli
. ,_; _m% ' R, <p: ); r.o .
.- v. s% J ,..' .
....e.,,
9 b'NNE:.'_y1.1z,
.. ~, ,,a. .
- . M s- '
t F7. f-@;; .c.. .
eq_L . ,,NNW' e
4'. .t/..'
i: <g .. 't, . ..
f.
- s. .s s s.,
- -- i ._
., i .e s
. 4 -
,s m
- e. . s s
).,,., .,.._.__,.f__
,,- e.
. . . n, _ .._._m___~
., s _,,.- -
, =-..x s.
./
1 3- ,.;
h - .,,.f
{ -,, { .- , w. 1, g'5 -c, V- ~.
%. .- <, .- ._ i .! *\. ,
< , .r
- .c c. \
- t. ,. .
., N -
.= : -e .v
- . J-
... jr . -.A-e: ; s...a
. - p.p-
- q. - 1.3 - - L... ; ' . , - ~. .
.'4 s.
.v .. :i <. y.; .
,, L.
y / . a s,t. :
v ,
-~-c. '! -
s.'\ * --+ r'- ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ r: -
2 ,4.s. . . ,
.. ,' N
- . . - N . ' . .,..,4 t
- :. .
,; g f-
- y. e 'p .l 'e ,i .: -; _, /
S .- f w - ;; _.. . . .~,; ,t ~L ~ ') < . ,
. .*. -**_ u.. . -....
- - c ,.-----'
ey.
- _m_-
.,g .s,- i, g 4
i.
u, .r_
- 1. . ---. - .
- .. y 1 gn=..
._ . s . -: .. ,%
pr0 m,q.: .
8
.__: m i; -
s al__4 --
"..,j T.-
.: - . , __.r*#'
, *e
. . , , . - .. - ,s.
P . ._.::.,-- . ,' . . s- .:- 6~-. -. -- - ..._ .-
. ~ ' 1 '
^t- '
s s,, i. ,
.f',,_
'.,es; / . _I 1., . _ . _ _ -
u; .s .e:-
. s :.. s ,.>e- . . . . -
t i
. ,8 .s1 ,
1
-,,,_~- .
.'.,.n .,#'
y 1. i .'~ -. ,
- ).- I I; , _ , - _
- ~ . ". .
.< . ./ . v. .
s
. g, ,. _~ . < g
'b,' *
"A .N'."- -7 a- '
-, / . eO J s C'-
k' -? .I ' . 'A'
. ,p ~ I ..N-I j- M-- 'a ' , e A.
STP s.
- ~
. .- - . . .? -
g._ y \-Q. , x.
. . ,., y.! -*y, .
y --
.E e ,.
-t, ,, f.%.~
s ..
.- s / .-' ' _
.c
! t..!' )
.a.
.f_,, %'"N.
{ :-> ' . s ?_
'[,
1_.
y s s, ,- ,
c,.3 - s 's, s . .. e 1' ..
_. . . 1 t'
s
, l J% Dx .R. A- .s s.-
_ .,g-
.s.j. _ _&.h , - .,. .s ' . __ , .
l' O g,cn - L - 1 r-t .
- U___j _._
,. , (.1N/. ..dSE . i s.; y .
,e>.c:- ,. .. .-
. -- s. . c .;
,m.
- s. 8 i
.,' e.
.m. ;-)
,..e.
s <. , .
- j. .
1 m - -
. -c ~ - t . .
.: 2 <
/
. ni I e
-- @: =.
s .-
\ JJ '\.,..., - / ._r7 mq:s ' .w ,..f21-
,.ew ll. - t,.i n~ i.
,1 Y.. r .. %s. .
t.
t a
/- \ --
_g- ~ . ,. .
0
- 4..t ; k,d( p,. @ l.I, ..:. x
%:.c i^ s M ; (6j W x,.
/_ _ _ _ _ . ,
i x,,
d i .
-. t.r. 14 .- 4 [e SE .
l , c _ _ _4 . c. .
$ ~~ '~ .
/
} r , s ',, .&
4 \' @... '] ,. _/
. .,. e.n
)E ,,4 p..a sy y: -e a
i' -
s-
. ~ --<4 -
, u.c.. s.. : . e.
.. . ;_ q ,',,n .
nn
- g. .-
S l
~ - ,
t - s :-),.!s>SSE }. .. _D
- .' , -t.- ' "; ',.,\!'-fl .t\4 G.i. 4 : -/"" ~~q4. Q'- .~ .l. ., I . .ge g. ,
,f, . } v n .- p. - ....,-
T ih ' -.:~0. h.$y1*
N g- .- .i -Q '
V-Y 'N / V
- 9'4D[Np A - Cow E - Home Garden Plot B - Goat F - Rice or W1. eat Field C - Hog G - Commercial Pasture D - Chicken H - Feed Growing Field Figure 6. Location of Nearest Commodity 69 LApostAfosists
Table 1(a)
Brazorla County Annual Production .
Annual Production x 103 (by Year) Average 6
Annual Description 3 1980 1979 1978 1977 Production x 10 1982* 1981 l Crop 2,375.0 2,190.0 2,713.0 2,411.0 2,372.0 Rice (ibscwt) 1,960.0 2,583.0 14.0 4.3 14.1 Wheat (bush.) 23.0 15.0 - -
962.8 445.0 900.0 1,125.0 809.3 Soybean (bush.) 348.0 1,075.0 626.1 591.9 466.5 694.6 574.8 Sorghum Grain (lbscwt) 425.8 643.7
- - 1.6 - 1.7 - 1.7 Sorghum Hay (ton) 9.7 10.0 2.8 11.6 10.5 Oats (bush.) 9.0 20.0 382.0 282.0 664.5 420.9 416.5 Corn Grain (bush.) 222.5 523.8 16.9 - 6.9 5.9 11.1 Rye (bush.) 14.7 -
g 3.2 4.7 Alfalfa (ton) - - 4.1 -
21.7 18.4 23.2 22.0 22.0 May (ton) 19.4 27.2 Livestock / Poultry 67.0 76.0 84.0 92.0 73.4 Beef (head) 61.0 73.0 7.5 7.3 6.7 9.0 9.6 Hogs (head) 4.2 22.8 16.0 16.0 29.0 51.0 26.4 Laying Hens - 20.0 Livestock / Production 4,560.0 4,320.0 7,800.0 11,500.0 6,626.0 Eggs
- 4,950.0 5,700.0 5,100.0 5,400.0 5,100.0 5,200.0 Milk (lbs) 4,900.0 5,000.0 1982 value for annual production for beef and hogs is the average of 1983 and 1982.
Table 1(b)
_ Calhoun County Annual Production ,
Annual Production x 103 (by Year) Average Description Annual 3
1982* 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 Production x 10 Crop Rice (Ibicwt) 620.0 687.0 538.0 681.0 567.0 535.0 604.7 Wheat (bush.) 19.0 17.0 35.0 - - 3.3 19.1 Soybean (bush.) 29.4 26.9 34.0 - 44.0 75.0 41.9 '
Sorghum Grain (Ibicwt) 1,170.4 2,044.5 1,698.8 1,741.0 1,729.1 1,603.6 1,664.6 Sorghum Hay (ton) - - - - - 6.8 6.8 Oats (bush.) -
512.6 291.2 224.0 386.4 433.5 137.6 330.9 Corn Grain (bush.)
5 Rye (bush.) - - - - - -
Alfalfa (ton) - - - -
Hay (ton) 4.6 4.9 3.6 4.9 1.3 1.9 3.5 Livestock / Poultry 27.0 24.0 28.0 26.0 33.0 29.0 27.7 Beef (head)
Hogs (head) - - 0.7 - - - 0.7 Laying He s - - - -
Livestock / Production Eggs - -
Milk (Ibs) - -
1982 value for annual production for beef and hogs is the average of 1983 and 1982.
11 .
Table 1(c)
Colorado County Annual Production -
Annual Production x 103 (by Year) Average Description Annual 3
1982* 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 Production x 10 Crop Rice (lbscwt) 2,348.0 2,752.0 2,506.0 2,393.0 2,634.0 2,283.0 2,486.0 Wheat (bush.) - 60.0 - 15.7 20.0 15.0 27.7 ,
Soybean (bush.) 115.0 138.0 131.0 325.0 339.0 150.0 199.7 Sorghum Grain (lbscwt) 61.2 215.6 148.7 98.6 109.5 190.1 137.3 Sorghum Hay (ton) - - 1.4 1.5 5.8 1.3 2.5 Oats (bush.) 6.4 62.0 13.3 53.3 19.5 2.7 26.2 Corn Grain (bush.) 2,552.6 1,499.4 1,703.0 823.6 891.4 731.1 1,366.9
, y
" 6.0 7.7 3.5 5.7 Rye (bush.) - - -
Alfalfa (ton) - - - - - -
Hay (ton) 50.2 63.0 34.5 37.9 31.0 39.5 42.7 Livestock / Poultry Beef (head) 79.0 68.0 91.0 99.0 112.0 120.0 94.8 Hogs (head) 10.9 10.3 11.3 11.5 13.8 16.2 12.3 l Laying Hens - 120.0 108.0 114.0 120.0 120.0 116.4 -
. Livestock / Production Eggs - 27,000.0 22,820.0 34,940.0 25,400.0 26,600.0 27,352.0 Milk (lbs) 6,300.0 5,200.0 5,500.0 5,200.0 6,500.0 7,800.0 6,100.0 1982 value for annual production for beef and hogs is the average of 1983 and 1982.
l
~
-- -- L. - . . .
' Table 1(d)
Fort Bend County Annual Production -
Annual Production x 10 (by Year) Average Annual Description 3 1980 1979 1978 1977 Production x 10 ,
1982* 1981 1 Crop _
1,103.0 988.0 1,205.0 1,107.0 1,109.5 Rice (Ibscwt) 1,017.0 1,237.0
- - 13.0 13.0 15.0 8.7 12.4 Wheat (bush.)
539.3 412.0 360.0 516.0 448.9 Soybean (bush.) 406.0 460.0 1,030.7 1,232.8 1,688.8 1,911.3 1,531.8 Sorghum Grain (1bscwt) 1,537.8 1,789.2
- - 1.5 2.0 3.2 2.9 Sorghum Hay (ton) -
6.6 2.0 8.4 3.9 4.6 Oats (bush.) 2.0 -
688.0 879.2 870.1 679.7 848.4 Corn Grain (bush.) 1,148.0 825.3 w - 3.4 - 3.4 w Rye (bush.) - - -
- - - - 3.0 3.0 l Alfalfa (ton) -
14.6 19.8 13.5 18.5 15.0 May (ton) 10.2 13.2 ,
. Livestock / Poultry 61.0 59.0 74.0 72.0 58.7 Beef (head) 53.5 38.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.7 3.6 Hogs (head) 2.0 0.8 20.0 29.0 36.0 11.0 24.6 Laying Hens - 27.0 _
Livestock / Production 5,700.0 7,500.0 8,000.0 2,400.0 6,000.0 Eggs
- 6,400.0 j - - -
l Milk (Ibs) -
1 1982 value for annual production for beef and hogs is the average of 1983 and 1982.
Table 1(e)
Jackson County Annual Production ,
Annual Production x 103 (by Year) Average Annual 3 Description 1978 1977 Production x 10 1982* 1981 1980 1979 Crop 2,190.0 1,992.0 1,990.0 2,067.0 1,732.0 1,945.5 Rice (Ibicwt) 1,702.0 10.0 15.6 - - 19.9 Wheat (bush.) 14.0 40.0 134.4 172.0 210.0 377.0 163.6 Soybean (bush.) 17.8 70.1 3,871.0 2,194.4 2,309.4 2,457.3 2,538.5 2,729.6 Sorghum Grain (lbscwt) 3,007.0
- 1.8 - 1.8 11.0 ,
4.9 Sorghum Hay (ton) -
- - - - - 1.9 1.9 Oats (bush.) ,
1,289.5 1,119.0 1,278.9 1,546.6 927.0 1,283.3 Corn Grain (bush.) 1,538.7
- - - - 6.0 6.0
% Rye (bush.) -
Alfalfa (ton) -
14.5 10.0 8.2 9.3 9.7 Hay (ton) 5.8 10.3 Livestock / Poultry 42.0 37.0 34.0 40.0 53.0 43.0 Beef (head) 47.5 0.9 0.8 0.9 - 0.8 Hogs (head) - 0.6 5.0 5.0 - - - 5.0 Laying Hens -
Livestock / Production 1,250.0 - 1,d95.0 Eggs
- - 940.0 - -
Milk (Ibs) -
- (
1952 value for annual production for beef and hogs is the average of 1983 and 1982.
I
Table 1(f)
Matagorda County Annual Production .
Annual Production x 103 (by Year) Average Description Annual 3 1982* 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 Production x 10 Crop 2,432.0 2,984.0 2,670.0 2,700.0 2,538.0 2,442.0 2,627.7 Rice (Ib: cwt)
Wheat (bush.) - - - - - 3.3 3.3 Soybean (bush.) 465.0 390.0 938.0 1,600.0 1,893.0 2,000.0 1,214.3 Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt) 2,650.5 3,242.7 1,984.1 1,915.8 2,230.6 2,790.9 2,469.1 Sorghum Hay (ton) - - - - - 7.2 7.2 Oats (bush.) - - 3.5 - - - 3.5 94.9 153.6 226.0 136.0 384.9 205.3 200.1 l Corn Grain (bush.)
3.0 3.0 '
0 Rye (bush.) - - - - -
Alfalfa (ton) - - -
Hay (ton) 13.3 13.1 9.0 11.3 9.5 ' 19.9 12.7 Livestock / Poultry Beef (head) 76.0 64.0 59.0 62.0 69.0 91.0 71.0 '
Hogs (head) - - - 0.6 - 0.5 0.6 Laying Hens - - - _
Livestock / Production Eggs - - -
Milk (lbs) - - -
1982 value for annual production for beef and hogs is the average of 1983 and 1982.
Table 1(g)
Victoria County Annual Production .
Annual Production x 103 (by Year) Average Annual 3 Description 1978 1977 Production x 10 1982* 1981 1980 1979 Crop 463.0 353.0 357.0 273.0 233.0 328.0 Rice (Ib: cwt) 289.0 15.0 - 11.0 13.0 Wheat (bush.) 8.0 18.0 -
- - - - 21.0 18.0 19.5 Soybean (bush.)
1,477.3 1,792.8 2,156.4 1,875.5 1,952.9 Sorghum Grain (Ibicwt) 1,984.1 2,431.2
- - - - 9.0 9.0 Sorghum May (ton) -
2.0 - 19.4 9.1 Oats (bush.) 2.0 12.9 -
1,166.0 1,468.8 1,155.9 631.4 1,301.6 Corn Grain (bush.) 2,038.2 1,349.2 M Rye (bush.) - -
2.5
- - - 2.5 2.4 Alfalfa (ton) -
10.0 13.0 9.0 9.9 10.3 Hay (ton) 8.7 11.3 Livestock / Poultry 69.0 79.0 89.0 89.0 72.4 Beef (head) 63.5 54.0 3.1 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.2 Hogs (head) 1.7 6.0 7.0 - 6.7 Laying Hens - 7.0 -
Livestock / Production 1,500.0 1,120.0 - - 1,306.7 Eggs
- - 1,300.0
! Milk (Ibs) l 1982 value for annual production for beef and hogs is the average of 1983 and 1982.
I
. u Table 1(h)
Wharton County Annual Production .
Annual Production x 10 (by Year) Average Annual Description 3 1982* 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 Production x 10 Crop 4,188.0 4,628.0 4,290.0 3,652.0 4,002.0 3,438.0 4,033.0 Rice (Ib: cwt) 57.0 46.0 77.0 - - 1.4 45.4 Wheat (bush.)
Soybean (bush.) 834.0 540.0 1,035.0 1,650.0 1,465.0 1,740.0 1,210.7 8,793.0 7,089.6 4,120.5 3,828.7 3,836.7 4,356.7 5,337.5 Sorghum Grain (Ibicwt)
Sorghum Hay (ton) - - - - 3.1 12.8 8.0 7.0 6.6 - - 3.9 5.8 Oats (bush.) -
3,806.5 3,183.4 2,750.0 2,470.6 3,125.4 1,996.0 2,888.7 i Corn Grain (bush.)
D Rye (bush.) 18.3 - 4.9 6.2 - - 9.8
- 2.4 1.6 2.0 Alfalfa (ton) - - -
17.9 24.7 25.0 13.7 7.9 12.5 17.0 Hay (ton)
Livestock / Poultry 78.0 31.0 72.0 79.0 92.0 90.0 77.1 Beef (head) 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 Hogs (head) -
258.0 5.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 56.6 _
Laying Hens -
Livestock / Production 65,300.0 1,250.0 1,360.0 1,200.0 1,400.0 14,102.0 Eggs -
Milk (lbs) - -
1982 value for annual production for beef and hogs is the average of 1983 and 1982.
Table 2 Agricultural Commodities Included in Study ,
County Description Brazorla Calhoun Colorado Fort Bend Jackson Matagorda Victoria Wharton Crop Rice X X X X X X X X Wheat X X X Soybean X X X X X X Sorghum Grain X X X X X X X X Sorghum Hay X X Oats Corn Grain X X X X X X X X U Rye Alfalfa Hay X X X X X X X X Livestock / Poultry Beef X X X X X X X X
) X Hgs X X Laying Hens -
Livestock / Production
~
Egs X X X X Milk X X Other Pasture Grass X X X X X X X X
1 Tabla 3(n)
' Brazorla County Annual Harvested Acres AV rage Annual Harvested Acres x 103 (by Year) gnn }
Crop 1979 1978 1977 Harveste4 g,, 9 1982 1981 1980 68.9 61.2 63.8 58.0 60.4 Rice,(lbacwt) 48.9 61.7 0.7 0.3 0.7 Wheat (bush.) 1.2 0.5 - -
43.0 25.0 36.0 38.6 35.0 6 Soybean (bush.) 24.1 43.0 21.7 22.2 17.0 15.8 18.6 :. 1 Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt) 13.0
- - 0.5 - 0.5 - 0.5 Sorghum Hay (ton) 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.5 Oats (bush.) 0.3 1.0 7.4 5.0 12.0 7.6 6.6 Corn Grain (bush.) 2.2 5.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.6 Rye (bush.) 0.8 - -
- 0.8 - 1.3 - 1.1 Alfalfa (ton) 10.0 8.8 8.8 7.1 9.4 Hay (ton) 9.1 12.5 Table 3(b)
Calhoun County Annual Harvested Acres 3 AY* 8 Annual Harvested Acres x 10 (by Year) g,nua1 l Harve 1980 1979 1978 1977 ge e, x 10 1982 1981 i
13.2 11.7 11.5 12.6 i 12.3 13.0 14.0 Rice (Ib: cwt) 0.9 0.6 1.5 - - 0.3 Wheat (bush.) 1.3 1.7 3.0 2.0 I Soybean (bush.) 2.1 1.5 1.7 -
42.7 41.4 48.2 45.7 Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt) 43.0 52.9 '45.7
- - - - 1.8 1.8 Sorghum Hay (ton) -
I - -
Oats (bush.) 4.4 6.7 3.2 3.8 4.6 5.4 2.5 Corn Grain (bush.) -
Rye (bush.)
l - - - - - -
l l Alfalfa (ton) 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.0 0.8 1.2 Hay (ton) 1.5 79 M-i
Tr I'
Table 3(c) i Colorado County Annual Harvrsted Acrcs 3 AV 8 Annual Harvested Acres x 10 (by Year) gn ua1 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 Ac es x 10 51.2 47.9 47.0 48.4 46.5 47.6 Rice (ib: cwt) 44.8
- 1.9 - 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 Wheat (bush.)
4.3 5.7 12.8 11.9 12,7 9.1 Soybean (bush.) 7.1 5.8 4.6 4.0 3.7 5.7 4.3 Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt) 2.2
- 0.8 0.7 2.5 0.5 1.1 Sorghum Hay (ton) -
- - 0.4 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.6 Oats (bush.)
15.3 16.5 11.5 11.1 9.4 15.6 Corn Grain (bush.) 29.8
- - 0.4 0.6 - 0.5 Rye (bush.) -
Alfalfa (ton) - -
22.3 16.5 14.8 14.7 16.6 17.8 Hay (ton) 21.9 Table 3(d)
Fort Bend County Annual Harvested Acres 8
Annual Harvested Acres x 103 (by Year) gn AVIu1
""'V*
1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 gy,, x 10 26.6 25.7 27.1 25.7 25.7 Rice (Ib: cwt) 21.5 27.7
- - 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 Wheat (bush.)
27.5 13.3 21.0 22.2 Soybean (bush.) 28.1 20.0 23.0 39.6 46.1 50.9 43.3 Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt) 42.5 46.1 34.3
- - 0.6 0.5 1.3 0.8 Sorghum Hay (ton) -
0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 j Oats (bush.)
10.1 15.8 12.5 13.1 Corn Grain (bush.) 21.7 8.0 10.5 l
- - - - 0.3* 0.3 Rye (bush.i -
- - - - 0.7 0.7 Alfalfa (ton) -
'8.0 6.4 7.9 9.0 10.1 7.3 7.4
. Hay (ton) i 80 u.aumes
6 Tabla 3(o)
Jackson County Annual Harvested Acres
^V rage Annual Harvested Acres x 103 (by Year) Ann { ,
Crop " d 1979 1978 1977 3 1982 1981 1980 A s x 10
)
41.8 35.5 41.3 )
36.8 45.1 46.1 42.4 Rice (Ib: cwt) 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.6 - - 0.7 Wheat (bush.)
1.1 3.7 6.4 8.8 8.4 18.6 7.8 Soybean (bush.)
79.5 95.7 59.2 61.5 65.0 78.0 73.2 Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt)
- 0.5 - 0.6 2.7 1.3 Sorghum Hay (ton) -
- - - - - 0.1 0.1 ;
Oats (bush.)
19.0 13.9 19.5 16.0 21.1 11.6 16.9 Corn Grain (bush.)
- - - - 0.4 0.4 Rye (bush.) -
Alfalfa (ton) - -
3.3 4.1 5.7 4.4 3.7 3.9 4.2
' Hay (ton)
Table 3(f)
Matagorda County Annual Harvested Acres Annual Harvested Acres x 103 (by Year)
^ 8 A ua1 Crop H 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 gc es x 10 55.3 56.5 53.6 50.5 46.5 51.8 Rice (Ib: cwt) 48.3
- 0.4 2.0 Wheat (bush.) 3.5 - - -
26.0 46.9 58.5 68.0 59.4 47.6 Soybean (bush.) 26.8 53.0 53.9 54.7 66.5 61.7 Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt) 69.0 72.8
- - - - 1.9 1.9 Sorghum Hay (ton) -
- - 0.1 - - - 0.1 Oats (bush.)
1.6 3.5 1.6 4.5 3.7 2.7 Corn Grain (bush.) 1.4 Rye (bush.) - - - - - 0.2 ' O.2 Alfalfa (ton) -
6.4 5.5 4.4 3.3 4.9 4.8 Hay (ton) 4.4 81 M LA30mAfonES
Tabl2 3(g)
Victoria County Annual Harvested Acres AV* 8 AnnualHarvested Acres x 103 (by Year) g ,nua1 Crop 1979 1978 1977
- 1982 1981 1980 Ac es x 10 7.8 7.6 5.8 5.0 6.5 5.3 7.8 Rice (Ib: cwt) 0.8 0.7 0.9 - - 0.7 Wheat (bush.) 0.7
- - -- 0.9 0.9 0.9
- - Soybean (bush.) 56.1 61.9 42.2 .55.2 57.2 59.5 Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt) 60.5
- - - - 2.0 2.0 Sorghum Hay (ton) 0.5 0.6 0.1 - 1.0 Oats (bush.) 0.1 -
21.4 20.4 20.5 9.8 9.0 Corn Grain (bush.) 25.9 16.1 Rye (bush.) 0.6
' - - - - 0.6 0.6 Alfalfa (ton) 5.0 4.6 6.5 5.5 3.6 4.7 Hay (ton) 5.2 Table 3(h)
Wharton County Annual Harvested Acres AnnualHarvested Acres x 10 (by Year) 3 A*]g' g
1980 1979 1978 1977 Ac es 10 19t? 1981 82.6 76.3 67.2 80.8 79.9 90.1 88.4 Rice (ib: cwt) 2.2 1.4 3.5 - - 0.1 Wheat (bush.) 3.7 61.5 61.0 72.0 50.9 39.0 27.0 45.0 Soybean (bush.) f44.0 116.0 98.8 101.2 120.0 Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt) 218.0 165.0
- - 1.3 3.3 2.3 Sorghum May (ton) 0.2
- 0.3 0.2 - - 0.2 Oats (bush.) 34.3 30.8 39.6 29.1 35.9 30.4 Corn Grain (bush.) 39.9 0.3
- 0.5 1.0 - 0.2 -
Rye (bush.) 0.6
- - - - 0.6 0.5 Alfalfa (ton) 5.0 '7.5 8.9 9.6 8.8 4.1 Hay (ton) 8.3
, 82 M
Tabla 4(s)
Brazoria County Annual Yield per Harvested Acre Annual Yield per Harvested Acre (by Year)
Crop Annu 1 ield 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 Per H V sted A re Rice (Ib: cwt) 40.1 41.9 34.5 35.8 42.5 41.6 39.4 Wheat (bush.) 19.2 30.0 20.0 - -
14.3 20.9 Soybean (bush.) 14.4 25.0 22.4 17.8 25.0 29.1 22.3
.{ Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt) 32.8 30.0 28.2 34.8 29.5 37.4 32.1 Sorghum Hay (ton) - - 3.2 -
3.4 -
3.3 Oats (bush.) 30.0 20.0 32.3 20.0 28.0 19.3 24.9 Corn Grain (bush.) 101.1 97.0 51.6 57.0 55.4 55.4 69.6 Rye (bush.) 18.4 - 24.1 - 17.3 14.8 18.7 Alfalfa (ton) - - 5.1 -
4.0 -
4.6 May (ton) 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.6 3.1 2.4 Table 4(b)
Calhoun County Annual Yield per Harvested Acre Annual Yield per Harvested Acre (by Year) Annual ield 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 Per Harvested Rice (Ib: cwt) 50.4 52.8 38.4 51.6 48.7 46.5 48.1 Wheat (bush.) 14.6 28.3 23.3 - - 17.7 21.0 Soybean (bush.) 14.0 17.9 20.0 - 25.9 25.0 20.6 Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt) 27.2 38.7 37.2 40.8 41.8 33.3' 36.5 Sorghum Hay (ton) - - - - - 3.8 3.8 Oats (bush.) - - - - - -
Corn Grain (bush.) 76.5 91.0 58.9 84.0 80.3 55.0 74.3
- . Rye (bush.) - - - - - -
Alfalfa (ton) - - - - -
l - -
Hay (ton) 3.1 2.3 1.5 2.4 1.6 1.6 2.1 83 M-
Tabla 4(c)
Colorado County Annual Yield per Harvested Acre Annual Yield per Harvested Acre (by Year) Ann 1 ield Crop 1978 1977 Per H vested 1982 1981 1980 1979 53.8 52.3 50.9 54.4 53.0 52.8 Rice (Ib:c*t) 52.4
- 31.6 - 22.4 39.0 27.1 30.0 Wheat (bush.)
32.1 23.0 25.4 28.5 25.6 25.1 Soybean (bush.) 16.2 37.2 32.3 24.6 29.6 33.4 33.2 Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt) 27.8
- 1.8 2.1 2.3 1.6 2.0 Sorghum Hay (ton) -
- 32.0 33.3 48.5 - 29.5 35.8 Oats (bush.)
85.7 65.0 71.6 80.3 69.7 78.4 Corn Grain (bush.) 98.0
- - 15.0 12.8 11.7 13.2 Rye (bush.) -
Alfalfa (ton) -
2.8 2.1 2.6 2.1 2.4 2.4 Hay (ton) 2.3 Table 4(d)
Fort Bend County Annual Yield per Harvested Acre Annual Yield per Harvested Acre (by Year) Ann al ield 1977 Per Harvested 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 41.5 38.4 44.6 43.1 43.3
. Rice (Ib: cwt) 47.3 44.7
- - 21.7 26.0 30.0 12.4 22.5 Wheat (bush.)
23.5 15.0 27.1 24.6 21.3 Soybean (bush.) 14.4 23.0 38.8 30.1 31.1 36.5 37.5 35.0 '
Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt) 36.2
- - 2.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 Sorghum Hay (ton) -
33.0 20.0 28.0 19.5 24.1 Oats (bush.) 20.0 -
65.5 87.0 55.1 54.5 69.7 Corn Grain (bush.) 52.9 103.2
- - - 17.0 15.0 16.0 Rye (bush.) -
- - - - - 4.3 4.3
', Alf alf a (ton) 1.6 2.0 1.8 2.5 1.9 Hay (ton) 1.6 1.7 84 MLAaORATORES f
Tabla 4(c) t Jackson County Annual Yield per Harvested Acre l l
Annual Yield per Harvested Acre (by Year) Annu 1 ield Crop 1977 Per Harvested 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 ,
46.3 48.6 43.2 46.9 49.5 48.8 47.2 Rice (!b: cwt) 40.0 25.0 26.0 - - 27.8 Wh, eat (bush.) 20.0 18.9 21.0 19.5 25.0 20.3 20.2 I Soybean (bush.) 16.2 40.5 37.0 37.6 37.8 3' ,5 37.2 Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt) 37.8
- 3.6 - 3.0 4.1 3.6 Sorghum Hay (ton) -
- -- - - - 19.0 19.0 Oats (bush.)
92.8 57.4 79.9 73.3 79.9 77.4 Corn Grain (bush.) 81.0
- - - - 15.0 15.0 Rye (bush.) -
Alfalfa (ton) - -
1.8 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.3 Hay (ton)
Table 4(f)
Matagorda County Annual Yield per Harvested Acre Annual Yield per Harvested Acre (by Year) Annua ield 1977 M'"
1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 A re 47.3 50.4 30.3 52.5 30.8
- Rice (ib
- cwt) 30.4 54.0
- 8.2 17.3 Wheat (bush.) 26.3 - - -
20.0 27.4 27.8 33.7 23.6
. Soybean (bush.) 17.4 15.0 37.4 35.5 40.8 41.9 39.8 Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt) 38.4 44.5
~
- 3.8 3.8 Sorghum Hay (ton) i ' - - 35.0 - - - 35.0 Oats (bush.)
64.6 85.0 85.5 55.5 75.7 Corn Grain (bush.) 67.8 96.0
-- - - - 15.0 15.0 Rye (bush.) -
l - -
' Alfalf a (ton) -
1.6 2.6 2.9 4.1 2.7 Hay (ton) 3.0 2.0 l
- 85 5
LA80RATOsut$
{
i
i Victoria County Annual Yield per Harvested Acre i
Annual Yield per Harvested Acre (by Year) Annu ield 1979 1978 1977 Per H V sted 1982 1981 1980 Ace i e 54.5 59.4 45.3 47.0 47.5 46.6 50.1 Rice (Ib: cwt) 11.4 25.7 16.7 - - 15.7 17.4
, Wheat (bush.)
- 23.3 20.0 21.7 I Soybean (bush.)
32.8 39.3 35.0 32.5 37.7 31.5 34.8 Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt)
- -- - - 4.5 4.5 Sorghum Hay (ton) -
20.0 21.5 - 20.0 - 19.4 20.2 Oats (bush.)
78.7 83.8 54.5 72.0 56.4 64.4 68.3 Corn Grain (bush.)
Rye (bush.) -
- 4.1 4.0 4.1 Alfalfa (ton) - - -
1.7 2.5 1.5 2.4 2.5 2.1 2.1 Hay (ton)
Table 4(h)
Wharton County Annual Yield per Harvested Acre Annual Yield per Harvested Acre (by Year) A al ield 1979 1978 1977 Per H vested
-1982 1981 1980 g ,e 1
52.4 31.4 48.5 44.2 52.5 51.2 50.0
, Rice (Ib: cwt) 15.4 32.9 22.0 - - 14.0 21.1 Wheat (bush.)
21.4 20.0 23.0 26.8 24.0 24.2 23.2
. Soybean (bush.)
40.3 43.0 35.5 38.8 37.9 36.3 38.6 Sorghum Grain (Ib: cwt)
- - 2.4 3.9 3.2 Sorghum Hay (ton) - -
- 23.3 33.0 - - 19.5 25.3 Oats (bush.)
103.4 69.4 84.9 87.1 65.7 84.3 Corn Grain (bush.) 95.4
~
18.3
' Rye (bush.) 18.3 - -
- - 4.0 3.2 3.6 Alfalfa (ton) - -
2.2' 2.8 2.6 1.6 1.9 2.5 '2.3 Hay (ton) 86 -
l
l,
'r Table 5 Pasture Grass Summary Percent Area in ""I Count * ' "
M Product on Yi d County d,' angeland g
(%) .
(x 10 Tons / Year) (x 10 Acres) 912.0 456.0 2.0 Brazoria 57.0 382.5 153.0 2.5 Calhoun 85.0 652.5 435.0 1.5 Colorado 7.0 427.5 285.0 1.5 Fort Bend 30.0 594.0 297.0 2.0 Jackson 94.0 917.5 367.0 2.5 Matagorda 100.0 750.0 ?,75.0 2.0 Victoria 22.0 550.5 357.0 1.5 Wharton 95.0 I
s O
.o s
87 N
Table 6 Percent Agricultural Commodl*les Consumed Within the County - ,
Percent Consumed (%) By County Description Brazorla Calhoun Colorado Fort Bend Jackson Matagorda Victoria Wharton Crop 0
- O O O O O Rice 10 0 * -- -- -- 0 Wheat 0 --
0 0
- O -- 0 -- 0 Soybean 0 0
- 1 2 0 0 0 Sorghum Grain
- 95 -- --
-- 95 Sorghum Hay -- --
Oats -- -- --
0
- 8 2 0 0 0 Corn Grain 5
- e. --
- Rye -_ -- -- -- -- -- --
Alfalfa -- -- -- -- --
100 100
- 95 85 75 100 95 Hay Livestock / Poultry 2
- 10 10 0 8 5 Beef 5
- 40 -- -- 60 --
Hogs -- --
Livestock / Production
- 100 -- -- 0 Eggs 100 -- --
O * -- -- -- -- 0 MUk --
-- = Not included in study.
0
- 100% shipped out of County.
- = Not tabulated; only a small portion of the County in the 50-Mile Zone. The percent consumed can be assumed to be the 1 same as bordering Wharton County.
i Tabl2 7(R)
Area Per County by Radial Distance for the North (N) Sector l
Sector County Area (x 10" Acres) .g.o tM
. Direction - Surface ter Radius Wharton Fort Bend Matagorda Water Area *
( ge,)
~
N-1 0.01 0.01 N-2 0.04 0.04 N-3 0.06 0.06 N-4 0.09 0.09 N-5 0.11 0.11 N-10 0.94 0.94 N-20 3.76 3.76 N-30 ,
4.90 1.37 6.27 N-40 8.58 1.37 8.78 N-50 7.83 3.47 11.30 Table 7(b)
Area Per County by Radial Distance for the North-Northeast (NNE) Sector Sector County Area (x 10" Acres) TotM Direction -
Outer Radius Wharton Fort Bend Matagorda Brazoria Water Area *
( e) i NNE-1 0.01 0.01 NNE-2 0.04 0.04 NNE-3 0.06 0.06 NNE-4 0.09 0.09 NNE-3 0.11 0.11 NNE-10 0.94 0.94 NNE-20 3.76 3.76 i NNE-30 0.61 5.15 0.51 . 6.27 NNE-40 2.45 1.51 0.51 4.31 8.78 j
NNE-50 10.41 0.90 11.30
- Area covered by the Gulf of Mexico is excluded. g
= =*
89
I
!: Tabla 7(c)
... Arca Per County by Rcdid Distence for the Northeast (NE) Sector Sector County Area (x 10" Acres)
Totd Direction - Surface Outer Radlus Fort Bend Matagorda Brazorla Water Area *
( g )
~
NE-1 0.01 0.01 NE-2 0.04 0.04 p
NE-3 0.06 0.06 NE-4 0.09 0.09 NE-5 0.11 0.11 NE-10 0.94 0.94 NE-20 8.78 8.78 q NE-30 2.49 3.78 6.27 NE-40 8.78 8.78 t
NE-50 0.65 10.65 11.30 Table 7(d)
Area Per County by Radial Distance for the East-Northeast (ENE) Sector Sector County Area (x 10" Acres) Totd Dkection - , Surface Oute dius Matagorda Brazoria Water Area *
(Mile)
ENE-1 0.01 0.01 ENE-2 0.04 0.04 ENE-3 0.06 0.06 ENE-4 0.09 0.09 ENE-5 0.11 0.11 ENE-10 0.94 0.94 ENE-20 3.76 3.76 ENE-30 3.64 2.63 6.27
~
ENE-40 8.78 8.78 ENE-50 10.74 10.74
- Area covered by the Gulf of Mexico is excluded.
90 M
1 6
J
'I i
Tabl2 7( )
-t Area Per County by Radial Distance for the East (E) Sector Sector County Area (x 10"' Acres) TotM j
, Direction - Surface Outer Radius Matagorda Brazorla Water Area *
( ge )
. E-1 0.01 0.01 E-2 0.04 0.04 E-3 0.06 0.06
}
- E-4 0.09 0.09 E-5 O.I1 0.I1 l
E-10 0.94 0.94 E-20 3.61 0.14 3.75 E-30 4.61 0.08 0.24 4.93 i
E-40 0.41 1.78 2.19 E-50 0.18 0.18 Table 7(f)
Area Per County by Radial Distance for the East-Southeast (ESE) Sector
- Sector County Area (x 10" Acres) TotM Direction - Surface Outer R dius Matagorda Water Area
- 0.01 0.01 ESE-1 0.04 0.04 ESE-2 0.06 0.06 ESE-3 0.09 0.09 ESE-4 0.11 0.11 ESE-5 0.94 0.94 ESE-10 1.27 2.00 3.27 ESE-20 0.18 0.10 0.28 ES,E-30 ESE-40 ESE-50
- Area covered by the Gulf of Mexico is excluded.
91 LAsonATORES
J '
\
4.
Tabla 7(g)
-l
' Area Per County by Radial Distance for the Southeast (SE) Sector Sector County Area (x 10" Acres) Total Direction -
Outer R dius Matagorda Water rea*
~
SE-1 0.01 0.01 SE-2 0.04 0.04 SE-3 0.06 0.06 SE-4 0.09 0.09 SE-5 0.11 0.11 SE-10 0.92 0.02 0.94 SE-20 0.39 1.53 1.92 SE-30 SE-40 SE-50 Table 7(h)
Area Per County by Radial Distance for the South-Southeast (SSE) Sector Sector County Area (x 10" Acres) Total Direction -
Outer Radius Matagorda Water Area *
( {) ,)
SSE-1 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 SSE-2 SSE-3 0.06 0.06 SSE-4 0.09 0.09 f '
O.11 SSE-5 0.11 SSE-10 0.88 0.06 0.94 0.33 1.43 l' SSE-20 SSE-30 1.10 l -
' SSE-40 SSE-50
- Area covered by the Gulf of Mexico is excluded.
- 92 M LASORATOnES
' ')
Tabla 7(i)
Area Per County by Radial Distance for the South (S) Sector Sector County Area (x 10" Acres) Total 4
Direction -
Outer R ius Matagorda Water rea*
{ ge S-1 0.01 0.01 -
~
S-2 0.04 0.04 j
- S-3 0.06 0.06 i S-4 0.09 0.09 0.11 l
S-5 0.11 S-10 0.86 0.08 0.94 S-20 0.41 1.33 1.74 S-30 5-40 S-50 i
Table 7(J)
Area Per County by Radial Distance for the South-Southwest (SSW) Sector Sector County Area (x 10" Acres) Total Direction -
Outer Ra ius Matagorda Water rea*
( ge SSW-1 0.01 0.01 SSW-2 0.04 0.04 SSW-3 0.06 0.06 SSW-4 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11 SSW-5 SSW-10 0.94 0.94 SSW-20 1.27 2.31 3.58 0.86 1.16 2.02 SSW-30 SSW-40 0.25 0.25 l
SSW-50
- Area covered by the Gulf of Mexico is excluded.
93 M_ _
j
l \
' Tabla 7(k)
Area Per County by Radial Distance for the Southwest (SW) Sector
, Sector County Area (x 10' Acres) Total
! Direction - Surface Outer Radius Calhoun Matagorda Water Area *
. (Miles)
~ -
SW-1 0.01 0.01 SW-2 0.04 0.04 l
SW-3 0.06 0.06 l SW-4 0.09 0.09 l SW-5 0.11 0.11 SW-10 0.63 0.31 0.94 51V-20 0.49 3.27 3.76 SW-30 0.20 0.20 5.87 6.27 SIV-40 3.47 0.16 4.78 8.41 51V-50 5.51 2.45 7.96 Table 7(1)
Area Per County by Radia1 Distance for the West-Southwestst (WSW) Sector Sector County Area (x 10' Acres) Total Direction - Surface Outer Radius Calhoun Victoria Matagorda Jackson Water Area *
( {)e )
0.01 0.01 WSW-1 0.04 0.04 WSW-2 0.06 0.06 WSW-3 0.09 0.09 ,
WSW-4 0.11 0.11 WSW-5 0.92 0.02 0.94 WSW-10 0.20 2.68 0.61 0.27 3.76 WSW-20 0.90 1.90 6.27 WSW-30 3.47 4.80 8.78
- WSiV-40 3.98 0.10 11.30 WSW-50 11.20
{
- Area covered by the Gulf of Mexico is excluded.
94 M.o u
\
Tcbin 7(m)
Area Per County by Radial Distance for the West (W) Sector j Sector County Area (x 10" Acres) TotM l
Direction -
Outer R dius Calhoun Victoria Matagorda Jackson Water Area
- W-1 0.01 0.01 W-2 0.04 0.04 W-3 0.06 0.06 W-4 0.09 0.09 W-5 0.11 0.11 IV-10 0.94 0.94 IV-20 1.67 1.67 IV-30 1.67 1.67 IV-40 0.23 0.78 7.37 0.40 8.78 W-50 0.02 10.65 0.63 11.30 Table 7(n)
Area Per County by Radial Distance for the West-Northwest (WNW) Sector Sector County Area (x 10" Acres) Totd Direction -
Surface Outer Radius Victoria Matagorda Jackson Water Area *
(g ) )
WfIW-1 0.01 0.01 WNW-2 0.04 0.04 WNW-3 0.06 0.06
. WNW-4 0.09 0.09 WNW-5 0.11 0.11 WNW-10 0.94 0.94 WNW-20 2.45 1.31 3.76 6.27 6.27 WN,W-30 '
WNW-40 8.78 8.78 WNW-50 0.78 10.52 11.30
- Area covered by the Gulf of Mexico is excluded.
95
- E
1P' 3 " Tabla 7(c)
Area Per County by Radial Distance for the Northwest (NW) Sector
, Sector County Area (x 10" Acres)
Direction - Total Outer Radius Surface
- j
{ ge ) Wharton Colorado Matagorda Jackson Water Area *
~
NW-1 0.01 0.01 NW-2 0.04 0.04
{
NW-3 0.06 0.06 NW-4 0.09 0.09 NW-5 0.11 0.11 NW-10 0.94 0.94 NW-20 0.39 3.35 0.02 3.76
. NW-30 4.82 1.45 6.27 NW-40 6.49 2.29 8.78 NW-50 3.58 2.31 3.41 11.30
~
Table 7(p)
Area Per County by Radial Distance for the North-Northwest (NNW) Sector i Sector County Area (x 10" Acres)
Direction - .g.o tal Oute dius Wharton Colorado Matagorda Water Area *
(MH )
NNW-1 0.01 0.01 NNW-2 0.04 0.04 NNW-3 0.06 0.06 NNW-4 0.09 0.09 NNW-5 0.11 0.11 NNW-10 0.94 0.94 NNW-20 0.47 3.29 3.76 NNW-30 6.27 6.27 NNW-40 8.78 8.78 NNW-50 9.36 1.94 11.30
- Area covered by the Gulf of Mexico is excluded.
96 g
~ ~~
I, _ _ _
Tabla 8 i
List of Agricultural Experts Contacted City Telephone No. Code Name Title l ?,- ._y l
BRAZORIA COUNTY B-1 3erry Locke Range Manager (Cattle)
Farms of Texas Co. Alvin 713/331-6481 Agr. Agent Angleton 409/849-7451 B-2 JoAnn Stanzel ASCSa ~
Waverly Jefferson Co. Ext. Agent Angleton 409/849-7451 B-3 Co. Ext. Officeb B-4 John Campbell Soll Conserv. Agent SCSc Angleton 409/849-6820 CALHOUN COUNTY 512/552-9747 C-1 Gilbert Heideman Co. Ext. Agent Co. Ext. Office Port Lavaca John Wayne Stepp Soil Conserv. Agent ASCS Port Lavaca 512/552-2969 C-2 512/552-6661 C-3 Diane Arnold Rangeland Specialist SCS Port Lavaca General Manager Rice Farmers' Co-Op Port Lavaca 512/552-3404 C-4 Rick Nickols !
{
Port Lavaca 512/552-6778 C-5 Jean Marwitz Clerk
! Farmers' Gin '
' FORT BEND COUNTY 713/342-3034 F-1 Johnnie Cooper Co. Ext. Agent Co. Ext. Office Rosenberg Richmond 713/342-3064 F-2 Walter Kelley Co. Exec. Director ASCS D 3ACKSON COUNTY 512/782-3312 3-1 Marvin Lesikar Co. Ext. Agent Co. Ext. Office Edna j Edna 512/782-2172 3-2 Elmer Jones Co. Exec. Director I ASCS Lester Hahn Soll Consery. Agent i Edna 512/782-3361 3-3 '
j SCS Manager Ganado 512/771-3371 3-4 Dick Otis
- Rice Co-Op Grant Crawley Manager Jackson Co. Elevator, Inc. El Toro 512/782-5891 3-5 MATAGORDA COUNTY 409/245-8415 M-1 Jas. Enbrock Co. Ext. Agent Co. Ext. Office Bay City ,
+
Bay City 409/245-1138 M-2 Albert Kinsey District Conservationis' SCS Clarence McDanle! Agent Bay City 409/245-1201 M-3 ASCS Jack Wikoff Asst. Mgr., Commodities M-4 Farmer's Co-Op Bay City 409/245-9131 l
Bay City 409/245-5821 M-5 David Reid Agent
! TX Parks / Wildlife M-6 Arnold Ravinca Pres., Co-Op, Farmer Farmer's Co-Op Bay City 409/245-5552 M-7 Norm Trowdy Manager i Lwr.Co. Riv. Auth.(LCRA)d Bay City 409/245-4631 Owner / Manager Bay City 409/245-2712 M-8 Jimmy Stewart Bay City Feed Co. Willie Younger Co. Marine Agent Co. Marine Life Agency Bay City 409/245-8415 M-9 ,
M-10 Jim Yeaman Owner, Y's Oyster Pl.
Yeaman's Oyster Place Matagorda 409/245-7827 l
409/245-7434 M-Il Raymond Cox Fishing Guide !
j g Commercial Fishing Matagorda Fishing Guide !
Commercial Fishing Matagorda 409/245-9207 M-12 Albert Garrison t
Frankle Harrison Rancher /V.P. - CP&L j Rancher Farm / Ranching Bay City Bay City 409/245-3909 409/245-2234 M-13 M-14 William Green Farmer / Rancher !
t: .
~*
b Ttble 8 (Continued)
City Telephone No. Code Name Title ,
f Agency , ,
i I
VICTORIA COUNTY I
Victxla 512/575-4581 V-1 Joe Janak Co. Ext. Agent l Co. Ext. Office Conservationist SCS Victoria 512/575-9542 V-2 Ronnie Boston l
Victoria 512/575-9521 V-3 Stan Ranke Rangeland Specialist SCS l
Victoria 512/576-1129 V-4 Evelyn Walters Clerk ASCS Victoria 512/575-5275 V-5 Lyndon Shatz Agent TX Parks / Wild!!fe WHARTON COUNTY Wharton 409/532-0367 W-1 Ronny Grantland Co. Exec. Director ASCS Wharton 409/532-0077 W-2 Harold Graf Conservationist
{ SCS Wharton 409/532-0077 W-3 Walter Garrett Agent SCS i
Wharton 409/532-3310 W4 Johnnie Cosper Co. Ext. Agent
! Co. Ext. Office TEXAS A&M EXTENSION SERVICE College Station 409/845-2761 T-1 Dr. Don Dorsett Forage Specialist Forage Dept. Poultry Specialist Poultry Dept. College Station 409/845-4381 T-2 Fred Thornberry j T-3 Dr. F. Smeins Grassland Ecologist Grasslands Dept. College Station 409/845-2755 l
Marine Fisheries Dept. College Station 409/845-5777 T-4 Dr. Linton Assoc. Professor i Dr. Silvy Assoc. Professor j 2 Wildlife Ecology Dept. College Station 409/S45-5777 T-5 i
Forestry Service Dept. College Station 409/845-2641 T-6 John Halslet Forester College Station 409/845-5560 T-7 Dr. Jos. Schuster Super., Ext. Specialists
] Range Science Dept.
l TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Sugarland 713/491-2146 TD-1 Frankle Thorp Livestock / Poultry Manager Animal Husbandry STATE SOfL CONSERVATION SERVICE OFFICES Temple 817/774-1291 S-1 Herb Senne Range Conservationist Grasses / Shrubs / Trees Temple 817/774-1291 S-2 Dan Caudie Range Conservationist Grasses / Shrubs / Trees TEXAS CROP / LIVESTOCK REPORTING SERVICE Austin 512/482-5581 C/L Doug Spellman Statistics Co. Statistics l
) a. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service I b. County Extension Office
- c. Soil Conservation Service
- d. Lower Colorado River Authority i ie ,
i
)
Table 9 Table of Conversions I lb = 0.4536 kg I lb = 16 oz -
. I lb: cwt = 100 lbs i
Iton = 2,000 lbs 1 acre = 43,%0 ft2 2
1 acre = 4,046.86 m 1lb/ acre = 1.1209 x 10-0 kg/m 2 6
'- I bushel corn grain = % lbs i i bushel cats = 32 lbs
! I bushel rye = % lbs 1 bushel sorghum grain = % lbs I bushelsoybeans = 60 lbs 1 bushel wheat = 60 lbs l
I broiler chicken (Retail) = 2.5 lbs I head of beef (Retall) = 450 lbs I hog (Retail) = 113lbs 1 Jumbo egg = 2.1 oz 1 gallon oysters = 8.5 lbs t
s i
i 99 ,
M LAs0RATORES
- _ . . - . .. i _. @
Table 10 Average Annual Production by County .
6 Average Annual Production (x 10 kg/yr)
Description Brazorla Calhoun Colorado Fort Bend Jackson Matagorda Victoria Wharton Crop Rice 107.6 27.4 112.8 50.3 88.3 119.2 14.9 182.9 Wheat -
0.4 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.5 ---
0.4 1.2 Soybean 22.0 1.1 5.4 12.2 4.5 33.1 0.5 33.0 Sorghum Grain 26.1 75.5 6.2 69.5 123.8 112.0 88.6 242.1 Sorghum Hay 1.5 6.1 2.2 2.6 4.4 6.5 8.2 7.3 Oats 0.2 ---
0.4 --- --- ---
0.1 ---
Corn Grain 10.6 8.4 34.7 21.6 32.6 5.1 30.1 73.4 y Rye 0.3 --- 0.1 ---
0.2 --- --- 0.2 Alfalfa 4.3 --- ---
2.7 --- ---
2.3 1.8 Hay 20.0 3.2 33.7 13.6 8.8 11.5 9.3 15.4 Livestock / Poultry Beef 15.0 3.6 19.4 12.0 8.8 14.5 14.8 15.7 Hogs 0.5 ---
0.6 0.2 --- --- 0.2 ---
Livestock / Production Eggs 0.4 ---
1.6 0.4 --- --- ---
0.8 Milk 2.4 ---
2.8 --- --- --- --- ---
Other Pasture Grass 827.4 347.0 591.9 387.8 538.9 832.3 680.4 499.4
~
E t ,
1
1 1
Table 11' Average Annual Yleid by County l
2 Annual Yield (10-I kg/m )
Description Brazorla Calhoun Colorado Fort Bend Jackson Matagorda Victoria Wharton Crop .
Rice 4.4 5.0 5.9 4.9 5.3 5.7 5.6 5.6 Wheat 1.4 1.4 2.0 1.5 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.4 Soybean 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.6 '1.5 1.6 Sorghum Grain 3.6 4.1 3.7 3.9 4.2 4.5 3.9 4.3 Sorghum Hay 7.4 8.5 4.5 7.8 8.1 8.5 10.1 7.2 5 Oats 0.9 -- 1.3 0.9 0.7 1.3 0.7 0.9 Corn Grain 4.4 4.7 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.8 4.3 5.3 Rye 1.2 -- 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 --
1.1 Alfalfa 10.3 -- -- 9.6 -- -- 9.2 8.1 Hay 5.4 4.7 5.4 4.3 5.2 6.0 4.7 5.2 Other Pasture Grass 4.5 5.6 4.5 3.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.4 II -
lll lljll W 5 5 5 U 8 _4 1 0
" N 1 2 3 4 N 3 8 0 8 4
- N - N 2 2 3 W 5 3 2 2 W 0 8 4 9 2 N - 0 0 1 1 N 1 6 5 0 2
._ 1 2 2 W 5 8 2 2 W 0 9 3
, N 0 0 N
W 1 1 1 3 0
- W - -
5 8 2 2 0 4 5 9 .
~
W 0 0 1 1 W 1 3 0 3 W
S 5 8 2 2 W 0 3 6 9 S
W - 0 0 1 1 W 1 4
- 2 0 1
W 2 0 0 0 6
)
r S
)
r W
y - - - 1 y S 1 1 5 8
/
- /
g g k s k s r r 3
0 o W 6 0
o W 0 t S t S 1 c S - - - - -
1 c S - 1 x e x e
( S ( S e s s e s s
c a c a n p S n p S a - - - a t
s m - - t m - - - - -
i o i s o D C D C
)
a r e e E r e E
(
p e r S e p r e S 2 S S 1 r g - - - - - r g - - - - -
e o e o e l t c
D t D b
e
- c -
a S
M E 4 e M E 5 T 2 S S 2 S r 2 - - - - 2 r 2 2
_ e e - - - -
p p n n o E 3 2 1 4 o E 5 3 i
t S i t S c E - 1 2 3 2 c E 2 0 -
_ u u
_ d d o
r o r
3
_ P 2 1 4 P 5 2 6 1
_ E . E .
1 2 3 2 2 1 1 0
_ r : -
e e i
c i c
R E 3 2 1 4 R E 5 4 7
_ N N E - 1 2 3 2 E 2 1 1
_ E 5 5 5 5 E 8 6 9 3 1
_ N 1 2 3 4 N 3 8 5 1 4
- 1 1
- E 5 5 5 5 E 8 6 2 1 9 N N N -
1 2 3 4 N 3 8 3 1
9 0 1
i 5 5 5 5 8 2 1 2 8 N 1 2 3 4 N 3 8 4 4 6
- 1 r s) us reisue)s ei e 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 tdl i t ua u dl a i 1 2 3 4 5 O R (m ,
O R (m 11 w
i ll
,1 1jllll
- W 0 U 4 0 7 N
7 1 N E.
2 4 5 0 1 ! 9 4 N -
1 N ! 1 W 4 7 W
N - - - - - N - 0 5 - -
W W N N W - - - - - W - - - - -
- W W .
W W 7 S S W - - - - - W - - - -
1 5
)
r W )
r y
W y S S - - -
/ - - - - - / - -
g g k k s s 2 r " r 0 o W 0 o W 1 t S 1 t S c S - - - - - x c S - - - - -
(
x e ( e S S e s e s c s c s n a n a a p 5 t a p S t
s m - - - - - s m - - - - -
i o i D o D C C r r
)b e e E e e E
( p e S p e r S 2 r S S r g - - - - - r g - - - - -
1 o e o e l
e t c D t c D b
a e -
4 e
M 3
S M E S E T r 2 S 3 r 2 S 0 e 2 - - - - e 2 - - - -
p p _
n n o o
i E 5 5 5 4 i E 3 t S t S _
c c E 1 2 3 3 u E 0 - - - -
u -
d d o o r
r P 5 5 5 4 P 3 E E
- 1 2 3 3 : 0 - - - -
t - t a a e e h h E W E 3 W N 5 5 5 4 N
E 1 2 3 3 E 0 - - - -
E 7 8 0 1 E 4 2 8 .
. e N 1 2 4 5 N 0 1 0 - -
E 7 8 0 1 E 4 2 0 9 N . N 4 N 1 2 4 5 N 0 1 3 -
7 8 0 1 4 4 3 9 N . N 5. .
1 2 4 5 0 0 1 7 5
- 1 1 1 r s) us eie reie su )s t I 2 3 4 5 t dli 0 0 0 0 0 u dl a i ua 1 2 3 4 5 O R (m O R (m 1
y I l
Table 12(c) .
Soybean Production per Sector per Distance (x 10" kg/yr)
Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 5 SSW SW W5W W WNW NW NNW 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 - - - - -
2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 - - - - - 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.~
4 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 - - - - -
4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 5 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 - - -
6.2 6.2 6.2
- 6.2 6.2 6.2 y Soybean: Production per Sector per Distance (x 105 kg/yr)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 5 SSW SW W5W W WNW NW NNW 10 3.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 - - - 3.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 20 17.2 16.3 16.3 17.2 15.9 3.8 - - -
4.4 3.0 11.8 9.3 10.9 16.8 17.'
30 27.2 23.6 10.9 16.8 20.9 - - - - - - - - - 22.2 27.r 40 38.1 22.7 19.5 0.9 1.7 - - - - -
1.7 1.3 0.1 - 29.9 38.1 50 38.1 14.1 24.0 1.1 - - - - - -
2.7 5.4 - -
27.2 45.4 1 .
I - _ . . - _.
Table 12(d) .
Sorghum Grain: Production per Sector per Distance (x 105 kg/yr)
Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 - - - - -
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 - - - - - 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 4 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 - - - - -
1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 5 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 - - -
2.1 2.1 2.I' 2.1 2.1 ' 2.1 Sorghum Grain: Production pc Sector per Distance (x 106 kg/yr)
Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 10 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 - - -
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.3 1.8 20 6.4 5.4 5.4 5.9 5.4 1.3 - - - 1.5 1.0 3.3 6.9 6.6 6.2 7~
30 17.6 9.8 5.1 6.9 6.8 - -- - - - -
2.1 13.7 14.5 19.2 20.6 40 27.1, 13.8 5.0 0.2 0.5 - - - - -
4.5 9.5 20.1 19.1 25.9 28.1 50 31.8 21.9 7.2 0.' 2 - - - - - -
7.3 39.8 26.9 24.5 26.1 31.0 15 IE -
1
, I i I l l W W ~ ~1 3 0 N . N 0 6
N - - - . - N - 8 9 W W 4 9 4 4 N - - -
. - N - 0 4 6 3 W W N N W - - - - W - - - - -
W . W W W S S .
W .
- - - . - W - - - - -
) )
r r y y
/
/
g W g W k S . k S
- - - . - 3 - - - - -
0 s 1 s
x r r
( o W (
x o W e t c S . e t
c S c e S - - - . - c e S - - - - -
n S n a a S
t s s s s t s s i
D a p S i a S
. D p r m - - - . - m - - - - -
e p o r e o r C p C
)
e o e E r o e E
( t c e r S t e S 2 S . c r S -
1 e g - - - . - e g - - - - -
e S e S e l r e
D- r D-b e a p M E p M E T n 2 S . 2 S o 2 - - - . - n 2 - - - - -
i t i o
c t c
u E u d E or S d o S E - - - - r E - - - - -
P P y :
y a E a E H - - - - H - - - - -
m m u u h E g h g E r
o N r N S E - - - - o E - - - - -
S E E ~
3 N - - - .
N 0 E E 6 0 2 N N N - - - - - N - - 0 3 3 7 7 0 N . N
- - - - - 4 8 0
. - 1 reisu e)s reie su )s tdl i 1 2 3 4 5 t 0 0 0 0 0 ua u dla i 1 2 3 4 5 O R (m .
O R (m Ee l _;!
i ' l j, ! jl , ' , ) :
Table 12(f) ,
Corn Grain: Production per Sector per Distance (x 103 kg/yr) i Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 - - - - -
3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 - - - - - 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.
4 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 - - - - - 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 3 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 - - - 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 k Corn Grain: Production per Sector per Distance (x 105 kg/yr)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 10 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 - - -
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 20 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.5 0.6 - - -
0.7 0.5 5.1 11.7 9.7 3.3 5,'
30 38.1 8.6 2.8 3.3 3.0 - - - - - -
5.6 35.6 38.1 22.6 35. f ~
40 195.0 ,
76.2 33.0 1.3 0.5 - - - - -
6.4 12.5 30.8 30.8 13.2 72.6 50 199.6 68.0 43.2 1.7 - - - - - -
10.4 53.3 106.7 68.6 33.1 86.2 11 .
4 i
Table 12(g) ,
Hay: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10' kg/yr) 1 Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius
. (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW
! 1 - - -
i j 2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 - - - - - 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 - - - - - 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.'
~
i 4 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 - - - - -
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 5 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 - - -
2.2 2.2 2.2' 2.2 2.2 2.2 5
Hay: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10 kg/yr) g Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius ,
, (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW l 10 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 - - - 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 20 6.5 5.9 5.9 6.4 5.7 1.4 - - -
1.5 1.1 3.4 6.1 5.9 6.4 7.5 30 12.7 10.0 11.8 11.8 7.5 - - - - -
0.1 1.6 10.0 10.0 12.7 12. r 40 17.2 18.1 19.1 19.1 4.2 - - - - - 2.4 5.1 13.6 13.6 17.2 18.1 50 25.4 28.1 25.4 21.8 0.5 - - - - -
3.9 18.1 5.1 16.3 49.9 45.4
Table 12(h) ,
Beef: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10' kg/yr) i Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors -
Radius W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW (miles) l -
1.2 1.2 1.2 - 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 2 0.7 0.7 0.7 - - - -
1.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 - - - 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.~
3 1.1 1.1 - -
2.8 2.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 4 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.8 - - - - -
2.7 2.7 2.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.3 ' 1.3 1.3 2.1 5 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.7 5
Beef: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10 kg/yr) g Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius W WNW NW NNW (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.7 10 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.3 8.8 10.4 9.4 2.2 2.0 0.9 4.1 4.3 4.7 4.3 6.-
20 6.5 8.8 - - -
12.7 12.3 14.1 12.3 - - - - 0.5 9.4 10.2 10.2 12.3 13.I' 30 12.3 -
3.5 9.2 5.1 13.4 14.3 17.2 18.6 40 18.6, 13.2 14.3 14.3 - - - - -
0.4 19.5 10.2 13.9 17.2 24.5 26.8 50 26.5 36.7 18.6 17.2 - - - - -
11 .
- W W ~
0 N N 0 N - - -
_ - N - - - - 2 .
W 6 W
N - - -
N - - - - 3 2
W W N N W - - - -
_ W - - - - -
1 W _
W 5 W W S S W - - - -
_ W - - - - -
W )
r W
)
r S _ _ y S - -
- y - - - _ _
/
/ g
- g k s k s r r
o W 3 0 o t
W S
t S
. c S - - -
1 c S - - - - -
(
x e _
x e S
- e S
s
(
e s c s c s n a n a S a p S _ a p t
s m - - - _ - t s m - - - - -
i o i o D C D C r r e
) e e E e e E 1
(
2 p e r S p r S S - -
g S - - - - -
1 r g - _ _ r e o e o e l
t c D t c
D b e - -
a S M E e M E T 2 S 2 S r S _ _
e 2 - - - r 2 - - - -
p e
p n n i
o E o E t S i
t S c E - -
c E - - - - -
u - _ _
u d d o
r o r
P P E E s - - -
g s g
o o H E H E N N E - - -
_ E - - - - -
E 0 E
N _ _ N - - - - 3 E E 7 2 N N 6 8 N - - -
_ N - - - 4 7 4 N _ _
N 0 5
- - - _ _ - - - 1 reisue)s r s )s eiue 2 3 4 $ 0 0 0 0 0 tdl 1 t dli 5 ua i ua 1 2 3 4 O R (m O R (m g
W -
W _.
9
. N - N
- N - - - - N - _ - - 0 W W 7 N -
- N - _ 5
. W W N - N W - - - _. - W - _ - - -
W - _
W .
W S
W S
W - .
- - - . - W -
)
W ) W r S - r S y - - - - - y - _
/ /
g g k s k s r r o W 4 0 o W t S t S c S -
1 c S _
(
x e - _
x e - _ - - -
S ( S e s e s c s c s n a n a a p S
- a p S t
s m - _ t m - . - - -
i D o i s o r
C D C
)j e e E r e E
(
2 p e r S e p e S S - _ r S .
1 r g - - - _ - g - . - - -
e o e r o e l
b t
c D t D a e - c e
T S 5 E M E r 2 S - _
S 2 S e 2 - - - r 2 -
p e _ - - -
p n
i o E n o E t S i S
c E - . t E
u - - - . - c u - - - - -
d r
o d o
P r E P E s - - - _ - : - - - - -
g s g g E g E E E N - N E - - - _
. - E - - - - -
E E 9 N -
N 9
- _ - - - - 3 E E 3 3 N - N N - -
- - - N - - - 3 8
8 i
1 6 N - _
N .
- - - - - 0 2 r s)us r uss) eie t I 2 3 4 5 eie t 0 0 0 0 0 u dla i u dla i 1 2 3 4 5 O R (m O R (m 1I
' .l 1: .lI '
W W _
9 N N 0 N - - - - - N - - - -
W W 4 N - - - - - N - - - - 2 W W N N -
W - - - - - W - - - - -
- W W '
W S
W S
W - - - - - W - - - - -
)
W ) W r S r S y - - - - - y - - - - -
/ /
g g k s r
k s r
o W 5 0
o W t S t S c S - - - - - 1 c S - - - - -
(
x e x e S ( S e s e s c s c s, n a S n a t
a p a p S s m - - - - - t m - - - - -
i o s o D C i
D C
) r e k e E r e E
( p e r S e p
e r S 2 S S 1 r g - - - - - g - - - - -
e o e r o e l
t c D t D b e - c -
a S 5 E e M E
~.
T r 2 S S 2 S e 2 - - - _ - r 2 - - - - -
p e p
n n i
o E o E t S i S
c E - - - _ -
t c E - - -
u u - -
- d o
r d
o P r E P E k
l i
k l
i M E M E N N E - - - - - E - - - - -
E E 9 N - - N 0
_ - - - - - - - 2 E E N N
. N - - - - - N - - - - -
i N N r s)us r s) eie 2 eie us t dli 1 3 4 5 t 0 0 0 0 0 ua u dla i 1 2 3 4 5 O R (m O R (m
- _ b
~ . - - .
Table 12(1) ,
Pasture Grass: Production per Sector per Distance (x 105 kg/yr)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors -
Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 - - - - -
4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 - - - - -
8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.-
4 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 - - - - - 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 5 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.24 14.2- 14.2 14.2 14.2
'\
{ 6 Pasture Grass: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10 kg/yr)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW
, 10 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 20 45.4 41.7 41.7 41.7 40.8 10.0 - - -
9.1 7.8 38.7 40.8 40.8 41.6 42.'
30 49.0 65.5 60.8 65.3 53.2 - - - - -
2.4 49.9 59.9' 63.5 48,1 42.tr 40 63.2 ,
74.1 78.0 78.0 19.2 - - - - -
29.9 45.4 87.5 86.2 65.3 56.3 50 89.8 108.5 96.9 99.8 1.9 - - - - -
48.1 128.5 142.6 108.8 94.4 80.7
- __ ___ __ __=_
%s *: p ,
Table 13(a) 5 Non-Leafy Vegetable: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10 kg/yr)
O' uter 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1 - -
2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 - - - - - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.2 - - - - -
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 2.'
4 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.1 3.1 - - - - - 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 3.5 5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 - - -
1.2 1.2 1.2' 1.2 1.2 4.5 0
- Non-Leafy Vegetable Production per Sector per Distance (x 10 kg/yr)
Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 10 3.8 3.8 3.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 - - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.8 20 8.2 8.6 8.6 1.4 1.2 0.3 - - -
1.0 1.0 4.3 3.4 3.9 6.8 3.'
30 14.1 13.2 5.9 1.7 1.6 - - - - - - - - -
15.4 20. 4--
40 4.2, 9.1 11.3 - 0.1 - - - - - 5.0 2.6 0.5 - 20.9 28.1 50 6.8 10.9 14.1 - - - - - - -
8.6 10.9 3.9 0.3 22.2 34.0 ll .
Table 13(b) .
Animal Feed: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10' kg/yr)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW l -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 -- -- -- -- -- 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 -- -- -- -- --
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1~
4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 -- -- -- -- --
2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 -- -- --
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 6
l- Animal Feed: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10 kg/yr) u Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 10 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 -- -- --
2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 20 9.1 7.9 7.9 8.5 7.8 1.9 -- -- -- 2.2 1.5 7.5 9.6 9.3 8.9 10.
- 30 25.9 14.1 7.7 10.1 9.9 -- -- -- -- -- --
2.8 18.3 19.3 25.4 28.8~
40 53.0 ,
24.0 12.2 2.3 1.1 -- -- -- -- --
5.3 II.s 26.6 25.5 32.6 41.8 50 39.1 33.4 16.5 2.7 -- -- -- -- -- --
9.0 47.5 38.1 33.0 37.7 49.6 i
l
Table 14(a) ,
Rice: Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (Acres)
.l Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius I (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1 -
2 65.0 65.0 65.0 56.4 %.4 56.4 - - - - -
21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 65.0 3 108.4 108.4 108.4 95.4 95.4 95.4 - - - - -
34.7 34.7' 34.7 34.7 108
4 151.7 151.7 151.7 134.4 134.4 134.4 - - - - -
52.0 32.0 52.0 32.0 151.7 5 195.1 195.1 195.1 104.0 104.0 104.0 - - - -
52.0 32.0 52.0' 52.0 32.0 195.1
= Rice: Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (x 102 Acres)
I Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 10 16.5 16.5 16.5 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 - - - 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 16.5 20 35.6 37.3 37.3 6.1 5.2 1.3 - - -
4.3 4.3 18.6 14.7 16.9 29.5 35 ' _
l 30 62.2 57.2 26.0 7.8 6.9 - -- - - -- - - - - 68.0 90.v i 40 18.5 46.9 63.5 -
0.4 - - - - - 24.7 12.9 2.3 - 92.2 124.0 50 31.7 %.1 79.2 - - - - - - -
42.5 53.9 17.2 1.3 96.2 150.0 11 .
Table 14(b) ,
Wheat Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (Acres)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1 - -
2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 - - - - - - - - - 0.4 ,
3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 - - - - - - - - - 0' 4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 - -- - - - -- - - - 0.8 5 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 - - - - - - - - 1.1 2
- Wheat: Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (x 10 Acres)
G Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 10 8.2 8.2 8.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 - - -- -- - - - - 8.2 20 8.2 24.7 24.7 - - - - - - - - - - - 7.1 22
- 30 199.4 57.0 16.5 - - - - - - - - - - - 10.1 20.I' 40 308.9, 86.5 - -- - - - - - - - - - .- - 158.9 50 280.6 - - - - - - - - - -
912.5 - - - 227.0
-d -
.m
_- ~ ~
=
i Table 14(c)
Soybean Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (Acres) i Outer Radius 22M-Degree Compass Sectors (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 37.1 37.1 37.1 37.1 37.1 37.1 - - - - -
37.1 37.1 37.1 37.1 37.1 3 49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4 - - - - -
49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4 49 4 75.7 75.7 75.7 75.7 75.7 75.7 - - - - -
75.7 75.7 75.7 75.7 75.7 5 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.8 - -
95.8 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.8 95.8 Soybean: Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (x 102 Acres)
E Outer Radius 22M-Degree Compass Sectors (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 10 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 - - -
8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 20 26.6 25.2 25.2 26.6 24.6 5.9 -
6.8 4.6 18.2 14.4 16.8 26.0 26.
30 42.0 36.5 16.8 26.0 -
32.3 - - - - - - - - -
34.3 42.0 40 38.8 37.4 32.1 1.5 2.6 - - - - -
3.0 2.3 0.2 -
46.2 58.8 50 58.8 24.9 39.5 1.8 - - - - - -
4.8 9.5 - -
42.0 70.1 11 -
m ^ $& m, we .m m Table 14(d) ,
Sorghum Grain: Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (Acres)
Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 5 SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 43.9 43.9 43.9 43.9 43.9 43.9 - - - - -
43.9 43.9 43.9 43.9 43.9 3 60.4 60.4 60.4 60.4 60.4 60.4 60.4 60.4 60.4 60.4 60,f .
4 93.4 93.4 93.4 93.4 93.4 93.4 - - - - -
93.4 93.4 93.4 93.4 93.4 5 115.3 115.3 115.3 115.3 115.3 115.3 115.3 - - -
115.3 115.3 115.3' 115.3 115.3 115.3 Sorghum Grain: Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (x 102 Acres) -
C.
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 10 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 - - -
9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 20 35.1 29.7 29.7 32.4 29.7 7.1 - - -
8.2 5.5 29.8 39.7 37.1 34.1 38.6 30 101.1 55.0 32.3 38.8 37.3 - - - - - - 12.4 80.6 85.3 110.3 118.4-40 155.7 83.2 34.3 1.4 2.8 - - - - -
27.1 57.3 118.3 112.4 148.8 161.5 50 187.1 138.8 48.1 1.4 - - - - - -
44.0 239.9 170.4 144.1 150.0 178.1 11 .
U W 2 8 1 N - -
N 0 m 2 3 N - - - - - N - '
_ W W N
1 7 2 9 N -
- - 0 1 2 1 W W N - -
N W - - - - - W - - - - -
W - -
W W W S ) S W - -
- - - - s e W - - - - -
) r s c e
r A c W 2 W A S - 0 S
( - - - - - 1 - - - - -
_ e x
_ c s ( s n r e r W
t a o W S c t o
S s t c S - n c S - - - - -
i e - - - - - a e D S t
s S r s i
s e s D s p a S r a p S r p - e o m - - - - - p m - - - - -
t c o r o e C t o C
) S e E c e E
(
e r e S e e S 4 e p
r g S -
- - - - S r g S - - - - -
1 e r e e l
e s e D- p D-b r s a c M E e M E T A 2 S - - r 2 2 S d
2 - - - - - c - - - - -
e A t
s d e E e E v
r S t
s S a E -
e E - - - - -
H v r
a y
H a E -
E H - - - - - y - - - - -
a m H u E h E m g
r N - - u N o E - - - - - h E - - - - -
S g ,
r o
S E E N - - N - - - - -
E E 2 0 6 N .
N N - N - 0 1 1 6 0 4 N -
N 1 3 3 r s) r s) us us ei e ei e 0 0 0 0 0 tdl i 1 2 3 4 5 t dli ua ua 1 2 3 4 5 O R (m O R (m 3o i
Table 14(f) ,
Corn Grain Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (Acres) i Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 - - - - -
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 - - - - - 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2 4 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 - - - - -
3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 5 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 - - -
4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 g Corn Grain: Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (x 102 Acres)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors .
Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 5 SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 10 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 - - -
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 20 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 0.3 - - - 0.4 0.3 2.6 3.9 4.9 1.6 2 i
30 17.8 4.2 1.5 1.7 1.6 - - - - - -
2.8 18.0 19.2 11.0 16 4 l 40 90.9, 37.7 18.5 0.7 0.3 - - - - -
3.4 6.6 26.2 25.6 6.7 33.9 30 94.9 38.2 24.3 1.0 - - - -- - -
3.4 28.0 61.3 33.3 16.7 41.0 11 .
~
Table 14(g) .
Hay: Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (Acres) l Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius W WNW NW NNW N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW (miles) 1 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 - 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 2 3.7 3.7 - - - -
4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 - - - 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.*
3 4.9 - -
7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 - - 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 4 7.4 7.4 - - -
9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9. I' 9.1 9.1 9.1 5 9.1 9.1 9.1 - - -
2 Hay: Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (x 10 Acres) g Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW (miles) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 - 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 I
10 0.8 - -
2.4 2.4 2.6 2.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.7 3.I 20 2.7 - - -
~
3.1 0.8 4.8 4.8 6.0 6.9 30 5.8 4.3 5.2 5.1 - - - - - -
1.3 2.7 6.5 6.5 8.2 8.6 40 8. 2, 8.8 8.7 8.7 1.9 - - - - -
0.2 - 2.1 9.5 2.6 7.7 23.3 21.7 50 12.8 15.8 11.8 10.0 - - - -
11 -
Table 14(h) 2 '
Pasture Grass: Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (x 10 Acres)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1
2 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 -- -- -- -- -- 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 3 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 -- -- -- -- -- 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.4 4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 -- -- -- -- -- 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.s 5 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 2
- Pasture Grass: Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (x 10 Acres)
U Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 10 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 20 20.0 18.4 18.4 18.4 *18.0 4.4 -- -- -- 4.0 3.4 17.7 19.4 19.0 18.7 19.3 30 29.5 30.0 30.0 31.0 23.5 -- -- -- -- -- 1.1 22.8 32.9 34.9 32.1 31. _.
40 45.9 44.7 42.8 42.8 10.1 -- -- -- -- --
13.2 20.0 48.0 47.3 42.5 40.9 50 65.3 76.6 54.4 54.8 1.0 -- -- -- -- --
21.2 56.7 78.3 59.7 61.4 58.7
- Grazed Acres Per Sector Per Distance.
lE gg . .
Table 14(1)
Non-Leafy Vegetables: Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (Acres)
Outer 22bDegree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW I -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2 65.0 65.0 65.0 56.4 56.4 56.4 -- -- -- -- --
21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 65.0 3 108.4 108.4 108.4 95.4 95.4 95.4 -- -- -- -- --
34.7 34.7 34.7 34.7 10&,.
4 151.7 151.7 151.7 134.4 134.4 134.4 -- -- -- -- -- 52.0 52.0. 52.0 32.0 151.7 5 195.1 195.1 195.1 104.0 104.0 104.0 -- -- -- --
52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 195.1 0
Non-Leafy Vegetables: Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (x 102 Acres)
Outer 22bDegree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 10 16.5 16.5 16.5 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 -- -- --
4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 16.5 20 35.6 37.3 37.3 6.1 5.2 1.3 -- -- -- 4.3 4.3 18.6 14.7 16.9 29.5 3> --
30 62.2 57.2 26.0 7.8 6.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 68.0 90.0 1
40 18.5 46.9 63.5 -- 0.4 -- -- -- -- --
24.7 12.9 2.3 --
92.2 124.0 50 31.7 56.1 79.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
42.5 53.9 17.2 1.3 96.2 150.0
Table 14(j) -
Animal Feeds liarvested Acres per Sector per Distance (Acres)
Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius
.1 (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1
2 86.7 86.7 86.7 86.7 86.7 86.7 -- -- -- -- --
86.7 86.7 86.7 86.7 86.7 3 117.3 117.3 117.3 117.3 117.3 117.3 -- -- -- -- -- 117.3 117.3 117.3 117.3 11, 4 180.4 180.4 180.4 180.4 180.4 180.4 -- -- -- -- -- 180.4 180.4. 180.4 180.4 180.4 i 5 225.1 225.1 225.1 225.1 225.1 225.1 225.1 -- -- --
225.1 225.1 225.1 225.1 225.1 225.1 T3
- 2 l
Animal Feed: Harvested Acres per Sector per Distance (x 10 Acres) i Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 10 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 -- -- -- 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.4 20 65.8 58.6 58.6 63.0 37.9 13.9 -- -- -- 16.0 10.9 52.9 62.6 61.4 64.5 7 j 30 239.2 100.2 35.8 71.6 74.3 -- -- -- -- -- --
16.0 103.4 109.3 163.3 185.1 40 316.6 168.1 93.6 12.3 7.6 -- -- -- -- --
34.8 68.9 151.2 144.5 212.1 265.6 50 357.0 219.3 123.7 14.2 0.2 -- -- -- -- -- 56.3 286.9 234.3 187.1 233.9 314.0
. _._.a e 1 Table 15(a)
Rice: Yield per Sector per Distance (x 10-I kg/m2)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NME NE ENE E ESE SE SSE SSW S SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 - - - - -
5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5..
3 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 - - - - -
5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 4 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 - - - - -
5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 - - -
5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 h 10 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 20 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 - - -
5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 30 3.6 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.7 - - - - - - - - -
5.6 5.6 40 5.6 4.8 4.4 -
5.7 - - - - -
5.0 5.0 5.3 -
5.6 5.6 50 5.3 4.8 4.4 -
3.0 5.0 5.6 5.6 5.7 5t _
11 -
l Table 15(b) ,
' Wheat: Yield per Sector per Distance (x 10-I kg/m2)
Outer 22Fa-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1
2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 - - - - - - - - - 1-3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 - - - - - - - - - 1.2' 4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 - - - - - - - - - 1.2 5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 - - - - - - - - 1.2 10 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 - - - - - - - - 1.2 Q
20 1.2 1.2 1.2 - - - - - - - - - - - 1.4 1.3 30 1.4 1.3 1.2 - - - - - - - - - - - 1.4 1.4 40 1.4 1.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.4 50 1.4 - - - - - - - - - -
1.4 - - - 1.4 S 4 11 .
l 1I J l!l{ I
- W 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 _
N 1 1 1 1 1 1
. N - 1 1 1 e.
W 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 N -
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W 6 6 6 6 6 6 N
W - 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 .
W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W
S 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 W - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W 6 6 6 4 4
)
2 S 1 1 1 1 I m - - - - -
/
g s k r I
t o W S
6 0 c S - - - - - -
1 1 e S
(
x s s
e a p S
- c n m - - - - - - - - - -
- t a o
)
i s C c D e e
E
(
r S 5 r S 1 e p g - - - - - - - - - -
e e l r o D- -
b a t c 4 E 6 6 T e 2 S S 2 - - - -
1 1 r
e p
d E 6 6 6 6 6 6 i S l
e E -
1 1 1 1 1 1 Y
- 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 n E a 1 1 1 1 1 1 e - 1 1 by o
S E 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 N
E -
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 N - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 N
N - 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r s) us tei e 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 u dl a i 1 2 3 4 5
_ O R (m -
l l
i
-S l
~
W 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 N - 4
~
W 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 N - 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 W 5 5 5 5 5 4 2 2 2 N 4 4 4 4 W - 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 3 2 2 9
- W 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
- z -
W 5 5 5 5 5 4 2 1 1
_ S . .
_ W - 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
~~ )
2
~ m W 5 5 5 1 1
/ S g - - - - 4 4 4 4 4 k -
~
I
- s -
r 0
1 o W 5 t S x c S - - - - - - 4
( e -
e S c s n s a
t a p S s - - - - - - - - - -
i m
~ D o r C
)
d e
p e E
(
5 e
r S
r S
_ 1 o g - - - - - - - - - -
e t e c D l
b e T
a S r
b 2
E 5 5 e 2 S 4 4 p - - - - - - - -
d l
. i e E 5 5 5 5 5 5
._ Y S -
E - 4 4 4 4 4 4 - - -
i m
a r 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 G E 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 m
u
_. h g
r E 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 6 6 o N 4 4 S E - 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 E 5 5 5 5 5 5 9 6 7
- N - 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 E 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 1 9 N .
N - 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
- N 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 3
4 3
4 2
4 r s) us teie ! 2 3 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 u dlai 1 2 3 4 3 O R (m l(1 l
i 1 11l
~ .
W 2 2 2 4
- . N -
N - - - - -
- 7 7 7 7 W 2 2 2 2 N - -
- - - - 7 7 7 7 W
. N -
W - - - - -
W - -
W S
W - -
)
2 m W
/ S - -
g - - - - - - -
- k I s r
'0 1 t o W S
c S -
(
x e - . - - - - -
S e s c s n a t
a p S s m - - - - _ - - - -
i D o
) r C
(
e e e e
E 5
p S r S - -
1 r g - - - - - - -
o e - - -
e t D-l b c a e M S E
_ T r e
2 2 S p - - - - - - - -
d l
e E i
S Y E -
y a
H E m - - - - - - - - - -
.
- u .
h g
r E o N S E -
E 8, N - -
- - - - - - - - - 7 E 2 N 3 8 N - - - .
- - 7 7 7 N 2 2 3
- - - - - - - 7 7 7 r
e us s) t i e 1 2 3 4 u dl $ 0 0 0 0 0 ai 1 2 3 4 5 O R (m I
I Co lll
illl a-
- W 8 8 8 8 9 3 3 -
N 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 N -
. W 8 8 8 8 8 0 1 9 9 N - 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 W 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 8 N 4 4 4 4 W - 4 4 4 4 4 .
- _ 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 8 3 W 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 W
S 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 7 7 W - 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
) 8 8 8 2 W S
7 7 m - - - - 4 4 4
- 4 4
/
g k s r
I
- o W 3
8 0 t 1 c S - - - - - - 4 x e
( S e s s
c n a p S a
t m - - - - - - - - - -
- i s o
)
D C f r e E
(
5 e e r
S p S 1 g - - - - - - - - - -
e r o e l
b t D-a c M T e 2 E 8 8 S S 4 4 r 2 - - - - - - - -
e p
d E i 8 8 8 8 8 8 e S l
Y E - 4 4 4 4 4 4 i
m 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 4 a
r E
- 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 G
n r
o E 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 4 4 C N E - 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 E 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 4 4 N - 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 E 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 0 4 N .
N - 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 3 3 N ?.
- 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 r s) us eie 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 3 0 0 t dli ua 1 2 3 4 3 O R (m
l
- W 0 0 0 0 9 2 2 N 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 N -
0 0 0 0 9 2 2 3 W 0 5 5 5 5 N - 6 6 6 6 6 W 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 2 2 .
N 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 W -
- 0 0 0 7 2 2 8 0 0 W 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 W 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 7 7 S 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 6 6 W -
0 0 0 7 7 7 W
S 6 6 6 4 4 4
) - - - -
2 m s
/ r 0 g o W S
k t 6 - - -
c S - - - - - -
I e
"0 S 1 s s
(
x a p S e - - - - - - - - - -
c m n o t
a C
)
g s e E
(
i e S 5 D r g S - - - - - - - - -
1 r
e e l
e p D b - 0 0 a r M o E T t 2 S 6 6 - - - -
c 2 - -
e S
r 0 0 0 e E 0 0 0 p S 6 6 6 d E - 6 6 6 - - -
l i
e Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 E 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 y -
a H
E 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 4 0
N 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 E -
. 0 0 0 6 4 3
. E 0 0 0
. 5
- N - 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 E 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 4 0 .
N 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 N -
0 0 0 0 0 4 2 9 0
N 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 r s) us eie 3 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 tdl i 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 ua 11 _
OR(m _
l
Table 15(h)
Pasture Grass: Yield per Sector per Distance (x 10'I kg/m2)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (mlies) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 - - - - - 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.'
3 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 3 .,6 - - - - - 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 4 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 - - - - -
5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 C
- 10 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 20 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 - - -
5.6 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.4 30 4.1 5.4 5.0 5.2 5.6 - - - - - 5.6 5.4 4.5 4.5 3.7 3.4 40 3.4 4.1 4.5 4.5 4.7 - - - - -
5.6 5.6 4.5 4.5 3.8 3.4 50 3.4 3.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 - - - - -
5.6 5.6 4.5 4.5 3.8 3.'
0 18 a -
}
. _ W 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 .
N '. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 '.
N -
W 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 N - 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 W 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 W - - -
7 7 7 7 7 7 3 6 '
W 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 W 7 7 7 7 7 7 0 0 S
W 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2
) - -
m
/
g 7 7 7 0 0 @
k W h S 5 5 5 5 5
. I 0
1 s
(
x r o W 7 e t S 5 s c c S - - - - - - - - -
n e a S t s s s i
a S D p r m - - - - - - - - - -
e p o r
C
)
(a o e E t
r e S 6 c S - - - - - - - - - -
1 e g e
e S l
r D-
. b a e p M 7 7 T 2 E
d 2 S 5 5 l - - - - - - - -
i e
Y E 7 7 7 7 7 7
- S l
e E - 5 5 5 5 5 5 - - -
b t
a e
g 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 e E 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 V - 5 -
y f
a E e 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 L- N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 n E - - -
o N
E 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 4 4 N - 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 E 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 N 5 5 5 5 4 4 N 5 5 5 S
7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 3 N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 r s) eiu es I 2 3 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 tdl ua i 1 2 3 4 5 O R(m iei Y
Table 16(b)
Animal Feed: Yield per Sector per Distance (x 10-I kg/m2 )
Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 -- -- -- -- -- 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3 3 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 -- -- -- -- --
3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 -- -- -- -- --
3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 -- -- --
3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 C
10 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 -- -- --
3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 20 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 -- -- --
3.4 3.4 3.5 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.5 30 2.7 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.3 -- -- -- -- -- --
4.3 4.4 4.4 3.8 3.8 40 4.1 3.5 3.2 4.6 3.6 -- -- -- -- -- 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.4 3.8 3.9 30 4.1 3.8 3.3 4.7 -- -- -- -- -- -- 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.4 4.0 3 8
1
--= - , m 2 i y.
Table 17(a)
Rice: Percent of Surface Area per Sector per Distance (%)
!at,x 225-Degree Compass Sectors r:d c us
+
.es) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. --
- . 17.1 17.1 17.1 14.8 .14.8 14.8 - - - - -
5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 17.,
I 17.2 17.2 17.2 15.1 15.1 15.1 - - - - -
5.5 5. 5. 5.5 5.5 17.2
- 17.2. 17.2 17.2 15.3 15.3 15.3 - - - - -
5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 17.2 5 17.7 17.7 17.7 9.5 9.5 9.5 - - - -
4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 17.7 2 17.6 17.6 17.6 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 - - -
4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 17.6
- 9.5 9.9 9.9 1.6 1.4 0.3 - - -
1.1 1.1 4.9 3.9 4.5 7.8 9.5 7 *$ %.1 4.1 1.2 1.1 - - - - - - - - - 10.8 14.4 40 11 %.3 7.2 - - - - - - -
2.8 1.5 0.3 -
10.5 14.1
- 18 5.0 7.0 - - - - - - -
3.8 4.8 1.5 0.1 8.5 13. . -
3 1 1 i
._ W '1 1 1 7 1 2 1
- N 0 0 0 0 8 6 3 8 0 N - 1 2 W 9 6 N - - - - - -
1 1 W
N W - - - - - - - - - -
t W
W 8 S
W - - - - - - - - - 0 8
)
( W e S c - - - - - - - - - -
n a s t r i
s o W D t S c S - - - - - - - - - -
r e e
p S
s r s o a p S t
c m - - - - - - - - - -
e o S
C
)
b
(
cp e e
E S
7 r S 1 a g - - - - - - - - - -
e e r e l
b A D-a e 5 E 6 T c 2 S - 6 f
a 2 - - - - - - - - -
r u
S f E 1 1 1 1 6 o S . . .
t E - 0 0 0 0 6 - - - -
n e
c r
e 1 1 1 1 6 P E . .
- 0 0 0 0 6 - -
t a
e E 1 1 1 1 6 h
W N 0 0 0 0
6 E - - - - -
E 1 1 1 1 7 6 6 N 0 0 0 0 8 6 2 - -
E N
1 1
1 1
7 if, 1 9
N 0 0 0 0 8 6 9 9
- h 1 1 1 1 7 ? 8 2 8 N 0 0
0 0
8 > 1 5 4
- 3 3 2
\
k r uss) eie t 1 2
- 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 u dl a i 1 2 3 4 5 O R (m
,w" i
N -- _
Table 17(c)
- ,t Percent of Surface Area per Sector per Distance (%)
Outer 22M-Der Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 9.8 9.8 9.R 9.8 9.8 9.I - - - - -
9.8 9,8 9.8 9.8 9, 3 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 - - - - 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.6 8.6 8.6 r R.6 - - - - -
8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 5 8.7 8.7 3.7 E. 8.7 - - 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 C
- 10 8.8 1.s '
,.3 8.8 S.8 2 3.8 -
8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 20 7.1 6.7 6.7 7 6.5 IA - - -
1.8 1.2 4.8 3.8 4.5 6.9 7.1 30 6.7 . 2.7 4.2 1.2 - - - -- - - - -
5.5 6.7 40 6.7 0.3 3.7 0.2 0. 7 - - - 0.3 0.3 - -
5.3 6.7 50 5.2 2.2 3.5 0.2 - - -- - -
0.4 0.8 - -
3.7 6.
ll 1
Table 17(d)
Sorghum Graim Percent of Surf ace Area per Sector per Distance (%)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 - - - - -
11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11 3 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 - - - - -
9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 4 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 - - - - -
10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 - - -
10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 C
10 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 - - - 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 20 9.3 7.9 h.9 8.6 7.9 1.9 - - -
2.2 1.5 7.9 10.6 9.9 9.1 10.2 30 16.1 8.8 5.2 6.2 5.9 - - - - - -
2.0 12.9 13.6 17.6 18.9
._.a 40 17.7 9.5 3.9 0.2 0.3 - - - - -
3.1 6.5 '13.5 12.8 16.9 18.4 50 16.6 12.3 42.6 0.1 - - - - - -
3.9 21.2 15.1 12.8 13.3 15
.t s
11 .
J.
- W ._ 3 3 _
r N
1,
. _ . _ 0 0 0 0 N . _ . - _
W 3 3 2 e N -
. - 0 0 0
_. W N
W - _ . _ - _ - - - -
W . . _ .
9 S
W
) W - -
(
_ e
_ c n W S - .
_ t a - - .
i s
D s r
r o W e
p t
c S .
S - - - - - - - -
r e _ _
o S t s c s e a p S S . _
r m - _ . _ - - - - - -
e p o C
_ )
e a e E
_ ( e r e S 7 r S _
1 A g - _ - ._ - - - - - -
e e e l
c D-b a a f r
5 E T u 2 2 S - -
^ S - - - - - - - - - -
f
~
o t E n S e
c E - ._
r e
P y E
_ a - - - - - - - - - -
H m E u
h g
N -
~
r E - - - - - - - - -
o S
E N - - - - - - - - - -
~
E 1 1
~
N 0 0
N - - - - - - - -
S 3 3 3 N 0 0 0 #
r s) us teie I 2 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 0
~ u dl a i 1 2 3 4 3 O R(m .
~
~
.-eQ i l'1! , i:I 2 '
Table 17(f)
Corn Grain: Percent of Surface Area per Sector per Distance (%)
Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (mlies) N NNE NE ENE E .ESE SE SSE 5 SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 - - - - -
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.
3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 - - - - - 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 - - - - - 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 - - - 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 5
- 10 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 - - -
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 20 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 - - -
0.1 0.1 0.7 1.6 1.3 0.4 0.7 30 2.8 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.3 - - - - - -
0.4 2.9 3.1 1.8 2.6 40 10.4 4.3 2.1 0.1 - - - - - -
0.4 0.8 3.0 2.9 0.8 3.9 50 8.4 3.4 2.2 0.1 - - - - - -
0.5 2.5 5.4 3.1 1.5 3.'
15
!FTl
Table 17(g) s Hay: Percent of Surface Area per Sector per Distance (%)
Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - - - -
1.'0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.
3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 - - - - -
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 - - - - -
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
- 5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 - - -
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0
10 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 - - -
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 20 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.2 - - -
0.2 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 ,
30 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.5 - - - - - -
0.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 40 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.2 - - - - -
0.1 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.0 50 1.1 1.4 1.0 0.9 - - - - - - 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.7 2.1 1 S , . ,
Table 17(h)
Pasture Grass: Percent of Surface Area per Sector per Distance (%)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW I -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2 47.4 47.4 47.4 47.4 47.4 47.4 -- -- -- -- --
47.4 47.4 47.4 47.4 47, 3 57.1 57.1 57.1 57.1 57.1 57.1 -- -- -- -- --
37.1 57.1 57.1 57.1 57.1 4 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 51.1 31.1 -- -- -- -- --
31.1 31.1 51.1 31.1 31.1 5 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3 57.3
- 10 32.1 52.1 32.1 52.1 32.1 52.1 52.1 32.1 52.1 52.1 32.1 52.1 52.1 52.1 52.1 52.1 20 33.2 48.9 48.9 48.9 47.9 11.7 -- -- -- 10.6 9.0 47.1 31.6 50.6 49.7 51.3 30 47.0 47.8 47.8 49.4 37.5 -- -- -- -- -- 1.8 36.4 52.6 55.7 31.2 49.3 40 52.3 30.9 48.7 48.7 11.5 -- -- -- -- --
15.0 22.8 54.7 53.9 48.4 46.6 4
50 37.8 67.8 48.1 48.5 0.9 -- -- -- -- --
18.8 50.2 69.3 32.8 54.3 51.
l 1
j l
l l
5 ,
1
. --- ~ -- -- -- . -
Table 18(a)
. Non-Leafy Vegetable: Percent of Surface Area per Sector per Distance (%)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 17.2 17.2 17.2 14.9 14.9 14.9 - - - - -
5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 17, 3 17.3 17.3 17.3 15.2 15.2 15.2 - - - - - 5.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 17.3 4 17.3 17.3 17.3 15.4 15.4 15.4 - - - - -
5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 17.3 5 17.8 17.8 17.8 9.6 9.6 9.6 - - - -
4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 17.8
- 10 26.3 26.3 26.3 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 - - -
4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 26.3 20 11.7 16.5 16.5 1.6 1.4 0.3 - - - 1.1 1.1 4.9 3.9 4.5 9.7 15.6 30 41.7 18.2 6.7 1.2 1.1 - - - - - - - - -
12.4 17.6 40 37.3 15.2 7.2 - - - - - - -
2.8 1.5 0.3 - 10.5 32.2 50 27.6 5.0 7.0 - - - - - - -
3.8 85.6 1.5 0.1 8.5 33 9
i m we ~~--- nn,..
i ,
Table 18(b)
! Animal Feed: Percent of Surface Area per Sector per Distance (%)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (mlies) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 l 2 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 - - - - - 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 22 l 3 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 - - - - - 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.9 18.9 i
4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 - - - - - 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4
,i 5 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 - - -
20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4
- 10 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 - - - 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 1
20 17.5 15.6 15.5 16.8 15.3 3.8 - - - 4.3 2.9 14.0 16.7 16.4 17.1 18.9
! 30 26.3 16.0 8.9 11.4 11.9 - - - - - -
2.5 16.6 17.5 26.2 29.5 i
i
! 40 36.0 19.2 10.7 1.5 0.8 - - - - -
3.6 7.9 17.2 16.4 24.2 30.3 1
50 31.6 19.4 49.3 1.3 5.0 25.'3 20.7 16.6 20.8 27 *
) -
l
!11 -
ll l 4
)
\
I Table 19 l
I Fish Production 3
(Pounds x 10 )
i
~
Sport !
Bay / Gulf River Downstream Finfish 50 50 Shellfish (Oysters) 5 0 Subtotal 55 50 Total Sport: 105 Commercial Bay / Gulf River Downstream I
i Finfish 0 0 2,600 0
( Crabs Shellfish q Shrimp 1,300 10 (Baltboats)
I, Oysters 145 0 Subtotal 4,045 10 Total Commercial: 4,055 Sources: Albert Garrison and 31m Yeaman (see Table 8).
-e 9
146 --
I t
j Table 20 l
Growing Seasons for Yarlous Crops
~
l Begir! End Moaths Rice (Two Harvests) March 15 October 1 6M Wheat November 1 May 15 65 Soybeans May 15 October 1 4M Sorghum Grain March 15 July 15 4 Sorghum Hay April 15 September 15 5 Corn Grain March 1 August 15 5M Hay April 1 October 1 6 8
e 147 M
l i
l Table 21 I .
Hold-Up Times for Various Crops Begin End Months Rice (Two Harvests) July 15 March 15 8 Wheat May 15 June 15 1 Soybeans August 15 January 15 3 Sorghum Grain July 15 February 15 7 Sorghum Hay June'15 February 15 8 Corn Grain August 1 March 15 7 Hay June 15 March 15 9 Worst-Case Estimate: 12 months for all commodities, except wheat.
l e
148 M uno===s i
^
I I )
Table 22 1
Weights and Moisture Contents of Crops
~
M*I'#* Weight After Moisture Weight (Wet) Content g (Ibs Dry Rice 56* 19 52 12 Soybeans 60* 15 59 13 IFheat 60* 15 58 12 Corn Grain 56* 17 54 14 Sorghum Grain 100 17 97 14 Sorghum Hay 2000 50 1200 10 Hay 2000 30 1600 10 Pasture Grasses 2000 20 1800 10
- Weight per bushel, kernels only.
- No milling.
Main Source: Diane Arnold (see Table 8).
O i
149 .
M)
LABORATORES
j
, l l
Table 23 l
Feed / Grass Ratios During Winter Grazing (December, January, February)
I County Averaute Feed / Grm Ratio
- Brazoria
~
55 / 35 ,
Calhoun 75/25 Jackson 80 / 20 Fort Bend 75 / 25 i
j Matagorda 65 / 35 l 1
. Victoria 60 / 40 l Wharton 50 / 50 Average 65 / 35 (Approximate)
- Ratio of portion of food intake by weight that is supplemental (feed, grain, hay, etc.) to portion of food intake that is growing pasture grass during the time that cattle are winter grazing.
4 9
150 M
. . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . J Table 24
! County Area Summary Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
- b*d Percent County A'**3
- ateg Crop 3 Rang 9 Marsg I", Area x 10 x 10 3 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 Trees) x 10 7 3 Inside Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres ""
Acres Brazorla 926 911 15 175 456 189 91 531 57 Calhoun 584 337 247 75 153 75 34 283 85 Colorado ---
607 --- 111 435 --- 61 425 7 b Fort Bend 567 560 7 166 285 ---
110 162 30 3ackson 549 544 5 175 297 ---
72 515 94 Matagorda 908 722 ** 267 180 367 120 74 722** 100 Victoria 572 570 2 98 375 --- 97 123 22 Wharton 700 695 5 366 267 ---
70 665 95 i
1
- Estimate of area covered by trees and bushe:. exclusive of rangeland.
- Excludes Matagorda Island.
i 11 .
Table 25 Marshland Grasses: PrAtton per Sector per Distance (x 105 kg/yr)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors -
Radius (Miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2 -- -- -- 0.6 0.6 0.6 -- -- -- -- --
0.6 -- -- -- -
3 -- -- --
1.2 1.2 1.2 -- -- -- -- --
1.2 -- -- -- --
4 -- -- --
1.8 1.8 1.8 -- -- -- -- --
1.8 -- -- -- --
-- 5 -- -- -- 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 -- -- -- --
O 0
Marshland Grasses: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10 kg/yr)
Outer 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (Miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 10 -- -- -- 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 -- -- -- -
~
20 -- -- --
81.7 74.8 2.0 -- -- -- 20.4 13.6 58.0 -- -- -- --
30 -- -- --
132.5 102.4 -- -- -- -- --
3.6 47.0 -- '-- -- --
40 -- -- --
254.6 56.3 -- -- -- -- --
36.2 57.9 -- -- -- --
50 -- -- --
311.2 7.1 -- -- -- -- --
57.9 155.5 -- -- -- --
11 .
Table 26 .
5 Trees and Bushes Production per Sector per Distance (x 10 kg/yr)
Outer 225-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (Miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW I -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
2 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 -- -- -- -- --
7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 -- -- -- -- -- 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15 4 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 -- -- -- -- -- 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2 5 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 6
b Trees and Bushes: Production per Sector per Distance (x 10 kg/yr)
Ou'er 22M-Degree Compass Sectors Radius (Miles) N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW 10 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20 83.4 77.8 77.3 81.7 74.6 17.8 -- -- -- 21.0 14.2 76.9 R9.8 86.6 79.2 8' w~
30 123.3 128.4 127.9 131.6 97.3 -- -- -- -- --
6.0 103.8 167.7 177.2 138.5 122.3 40 178.4 207.7 183.1 177.5 41.7 -- -- -- -- -- 60.3 90.5 247.8 237.2 188.8 170.3 50 304.7 467.9 246.2 216.5 4.3 -- -- -- -- -- 96.5 264.9 509.3 318.6 251.8 225.5 e
as
_ .