|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. 2
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
Page 18 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 18
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
2
U.S. AGRICULTURE YESTERDAY AND TODAY: The Colleges' Changed Environment
This chapter describes some of the main ways in which the U.S. farm and agricultural industry has evolved since the colleges' early years and some of the ways in which the colleges have contributed to those changes through science and technology development. The chapter's main goal is to provide an economic backdrop for a discussion of the current and evolving role of the colleges of agriculture in addressing society's needs and concerns. It draws heavily on data and reports generated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (ERS).
In 1860 at the dawn of the decade that would put the land grant college system in the history books, one-half of the U.S. population lived on farms and more than one-half of the labor force worked on them. The numbers of farms continued to rise until the 1920s. In the decades that followed, however, U.S. citizens left farming in massive numbers for other ways of life and alternative types of employment. By 1990 the farm population was less than one-third of what it had been in 1860, and by 1992 there were slightly fewer farms than there had been in 1860 (Table 2-1).
It is important to understand that these trends, in addition to having changed the profile of the national landscape, are also indicators of economic progress. The same number of farms and farmers can feed vastly larger numbers of people today than 100 years ago. The fact that so many more people could be fed with relatively little farm labor input meant that farm workers became available to other industries—industries that taught them different skills and paid them higher wages. Essentially, the release of labor from farming fueled the growth of the rest of the U.S. economy, although this change did not come without significant adjustment costs for communities and families.
Farm productivity has improved since the inception of and as the result of land grant colleges of agriculture.
OCR for page 19
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
TABLE 2-1
Total U.S. Population Statistics Compared to Farm Population Statistics, 1840–1992
Number (millions)
Percent of U.S. Total
Year
U.S. Population
Farms
Farm Population
Farm Population
Farm Labor Force
1840
17.1
NA
9.1
53
69
1850
23.2
1.4
11.7
50
64
1860
31.4
2.0
15.1
48
58
1870
NA
2.7
NA
NA
47
1880
50.2
4.0
23.0
46
49
1890
62.9
4.6
26.4
42
43
1900
76.0
5.7
29.4
39
38
1910
92.0
6.4
32.1
35
31
1920
105.7
6.5
31.6
30
27
1930
122.8
6.3
30.4
25
21
1940
131.8
6.1
30.8
23
18
1950
151.1
5.4
25.1
17
11
1959
177.8
3.7
16.6
9
8
1960
180.7
NA
15.6
9
8
1969
202.7
2.7
10.3
5
4
1970
205.0
NA
9.7
5
4
1980
227.7
NA
6.1
3
3
1982
232.2
2.2
5.6
2
3
1990
249.9
NA
4.6
2
3
1992
255.4
1.9
NA
NA
3
NOTE: Data are compiled from various sources. Population and labor statistics for 1840 through 1959 are from Chronological Landmarks in American Agriculture, USDA, Nov 1990; 1960 through 1992 are from the Economic Report of the President, 1995; number of farms from the Census of Agriculture, U.S. Bureau of the Census. NA, data not available.
The colleges of agriculture generated many of the scientific and management advances that contributed to the growth of productivity in U.S. agriculture. Such advances include hybrid seeds, improved farm and production management techniques, improved genetic stock of food animals, and sophisticated financial management strategies. Total factor productivity—that is, the output generated by all farm inputs working together—increased almost 150 percent between 1948 and 1991 (Table 2-2).
Many studies of public investments in agricultural science, such as those listed in Table 2-3, show large economic payoffs. They find high rates of return to U.S. agricultural research and development, even though the range of estimates is large and methodological problems make accurate measurement very difficult (Alston et al., 1994).
A significant portion of the gain in productivity in agriculture is the result of the substitution of "modern" inputs—mechanical and chemical—for labor hours and land area. For example, farm labor input decreased 65 percent from 1948 to 1991, while chemical inputs increased 176 percent over these same years (Table 2-2). The application of farm chemicals, combined with other yield-enhancing technologies such as improved crop varieties, has made it possible to produce more food and fiber on virtually the same amount of land. Yield-enhancing technologies have also helped the United States become the world's leading exporter of farm and agricultural products. The agricultural trade balance has been favorable every year since 1960, and agricultural products compose about 10 percent of total U.S. merchandise exports (Executive Office of the President, 1995).
OCR for page 20
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
TABLE 2-2
Productivity and Input Use in U.S. Agriculture (1982 = 100)
Year
Total Factor Productivity
Selected Indexes of Input Use
Farm Labor
Chemical
1948
52
251
34
1950
50
237
43
1955
54
211
45
1960
60
163
58
1965
71
141
73
1970
77
119
76
1975
84
114
91
1980
82
108
131
1982
100
100
100
1985
110
89
101
1990
126
87
90
1991
124
88
94
NOTE: In computing productivity and input use indexes, 1982 is used as the base year. Farm output measures the annual volume of net farm production available for eventual human use through farm sales or on-farm consumption. Total factor productivity is measured by farm output per unit of total factor input.
SOURCE: Adapted from Executive Office of the President. 1994. Economic Report of the President. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office
Despite public benefits, concerns about modern farming technologies, particularly the impacts of farm chemicals on human health, soil and water quality, and wildlife, have intensified in recent years. Mechanical technologies can also have adverse effects on soil quality and soil erosion. There is evidence that agricultural chemicals and sediments are impairing the quality of some surface and groundwater resources and imposing costs on water users (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Natural Resources and Environment Division, 1994). Thus agricultural research has been directed, more recently, toward developing production technologies that are both cost-effective substitutes for machines and chemicals and less risky in terms of environmental and health costs.
Technologies developed and in use that can reduce reliance on mechanical and chemical inputs and, at the same time, enhance farm productivity include integrated pest management and other "best-management" practices, such as crop rotations with legumes, integrated livestock-crop systems with manure applications, and management-intensive grazing (see Vandeman et al., 1994, for an assessment of integrated pest management [IPM] adoption). Also, reliance on conventional chemical pest control is being reduced through the ongoing development of biological controls and through classical plant breeding methods that continue to improve crop resistance to insects and disease.
Frontier developments in biotechnology may also offer the opportunity to achieve greater compatibility between farm productivity and environmental quality. Scientists in both the public and private sectors are working to apply bioengineering techniques to the development of pest-and disease-resistant crops. For example, advances in biological nitrogen fixation technologies could make plants more efficient in absorbing nitrogen and thereby reduce the need for synthetic nitrogen fertilizers derived from fossil fuels. Bioengineering techniques are also being directed toward improving crop tolerance to chemical herbicides, which will reduce crop loss from weeds but, some argue, could reinforce the use of chemical controls (Caswell et al., 1994).
OCR for page 21
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
TABLE 2-3
Studies Reporting Estimated Annual Rates of Return on Investments in U.S. Agricultural Research and Development, 1958–1990
Author
Year
Commodity
Period
Rate of Return (percent)
Griliches
1958
Hybrid corn
1940–1955
35–40
Hybrid sorghum
1940–1957
20
Griliches
1964
Aggregate
1949–1959
35–40
Latimer
1964
Aggregate
1949–1959
NS
Peterson
1967
Poultry
1915–1960
21–25
Evenson
1986
Aggregate
1949–1959
47
Schmitz and Seckler
1970
Tomato harvester
1958–1969
37–46
Huffmana
1974
Maize
1959–1964
>16
Cline
1975
Aggregate
1939–1948
41–50
1949–1958
39–47
1959–1968
32–39
1969–1972
28–35
Peterson and Bredahl
1975
Aggregate
1937–1942
50
1947–1957
51
1957–1962
49
1967–1972
34
Bredahl and Peterson
1976
Cash grains
1969
36
Poultry
1969
37
Dairy
1969
43
Livestock
1969
47
Huffmana
1977
Crops
1959–1964
110
Peterson and Fitzharris
1977
Aggregate
1937–1972
34–51
1937–1942
50
1947–1952
51
1957–1962
49
1957–1972
34
Evenson
1978
Aggregate
1948–1971
110
Evenson et al.
1979
Aggregate
1868–1926
65
1927–1950
95–110
1948–1971
45
Knutson and Tweeten
1979
Aggregate
1949–1972
28–47
Lu, Cline and Quance
1979
Aggregate
1939–1972
23.5–30.5
White et al.
1979
Aggregate
1929–1977
28–37
Davis and Peterson
1981
Aggregate
1949–1974
37–100
Norton
1981
Cash grains
1969
31–57
Poultry
30–55
Dairy
27–50
Livestock
56–111
Otto and Havlicek
1981
Corn
1967–1979
152–210
Wheat
79–148
White and Havlicek
1982
Aggregate
1943–1977
7–36
Lyu, White and Liu
1984
Aggregate
1949–1981
66–83
Braha and Tweeten
1986
Aggregate
1959–1982
47
Huffman and Evenson
1989
Allb
1950–1982
43
Cropsb
1950–1982
45
Livestockb
1950–1982
11
Allc
1950–1982
67
Cropsc
1950–1982
57
Livestockc
1950–1982
83
Alld
1950–1982
83
Cropsd
1950–1982
90
Livestockd
1950–1982
71
NOTE: NS, not statistically significant.
a Huffman (1974) and Huffman (1977) cover the corn-belt regions. The regional coverage of all other studies is national.
b Public-sector applied research.
c Public-sector pre-technology science.
d Private-sector research.
SOURCE: Adapted from Alston, J. M., P. G. Pardey, and H. O. Carter, eds. 1994. Valuing UC Agricultural Research and Extension. Agricultural Issues Center Pub. No. VR-1. Davis: University of California, Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources.
OCR for page 22
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
TABLE 2-4
Dollars (billions) Spent on Food Consumption and U.S. Farm Value's Share
Personal Consumption Expenditures
Year
Total
All Food
Domestically Produced Food
Farm-Level Value of Food Produced and Consumed in the U.S.
1950
192.1
53.9 (28.1)
44.0
18.0 (41.0)
1960
332.4
82.6 (24.8)
66.9
22.3 (33.3)
1970
646.5
142.1 (22.0)
110.6
35.5 (32.1)
1980
1,748.1
341.8 (19.6)
264.4
81.7 (30.9)
1990
3,761.2
604.8 (16.1)
449.8
106.2 (23.6)
1994
4,627.0
679.1a (15.0)
510.6
109.6 (21.5)
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses under ''All Food'' show percent of total personal consumption expenditures. Numbers in parentheses under "Farm Level Value …" show percent of personal consumption expenditures for domestically produced food.
a Preliminary.
SOURCE: Total and all food personal consumption expenditures are from the Economic Report of the President, 1995 (Executive Office of the President. 1995. Budget of the United States Government. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office). Personal consumption expenditures for domestically produced food and farm value are from USDA, ERS, Food Cost Review, AER No. 696, 1993 and personal communication form 1994 update.
Farm-productivity gains translate into lower food costs.
Research targeted to improve farm productivity has benefited consumers in both the United States and other countries. Increased productivity means that the same farm output can be produced at lower production cost; thus the cost of farm commodities to industries that manufacture food and fiber products (or to countries that import farm commodities) is reduced. These savings are passed on, at least partially, to final consumers.
The consumer benefit translates into U.S. families spending, on average, a relatively small share of their personal consumption expenditures on food. That average share is now 15 percent, down from 28 percent in 1950 (Table 2-4). In other words, over the decades total personal consumption of all goods and services has increased much faster than has personal expenditures on food. As concern with food costs has lessened, other consumer concerns have gained visibility. Food safety, the amount of fats and cholesterol in food products, and the application of biotechnology to food production are currently food issues that concern U.S. consumers (see box copy, p. 23).
Affordability of food is still an issue for low-income consumers. Insufficient family income and inadequate food distribution and access are often more at issue, however, than high farm-commodity costs. Because of inadequate access from inner city and poor rural areas to competitively priced retail outlets, food prices in low-income areas tend to be 20 to 36 percent higher than in higher-income areas (McGrath Morris et al., 1992; Troutt, 1993). It is also the case that all U.S. consumers pay higher-than-free-market prices for sugar, dairy, and peanut products because of government programs designed to support prices to domestic producers.
OCR for page 23
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
What Americans Think about Food Issues
A range of polls support the finding that consumers care about food issues. Stated consumer concerns may be in line with or different than scientifically supported knowledge about health and safety risks. There is incomplete evidence regarding the impact of consumer concerns on food purchases and consumption.
According to a nationwide survey commissioned by Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, a national nonprofit advocacy organization, concern among U.S. citizens about the effects agricultural chemicals have on health and the environment is very strong and widespread. The poll, conducted in 1993 by Fingerhut/Granados Opinion Research Company, found that a majority of U.S. citizens were "very concerned" about how chemicals used to grow food affect the health of young children (68 percent); health problems caused generally by chemicals and pesticides used to grow food (60 percent); pesticides and fertilizers getting into the water supply (71 percent); and the risk of severe food poisoning from bacteria in meat (61 percent). The Public Voice poll is interesting in that it contrasts food-related health and environmental concerns with other health and environmental concerns. The poll found somewhat smaller percentages of people "very concerned" about health problems caused by secondary smoke—that is, smoke from other peoples' cigarettes (55 percent); health problems caused by air pollution from cars and industries (47 percent); and the effects of antibiotics and growth hormones used in meat and milk products (54 percent).
The Center for Produce Quality (CPQ), a nonprofit foundation created by the Produce Marketing Association and the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, found in a 1992 nationwide poll that adults were generally confident about the safety of fresh fruits and vegetables, but that 61 percent were nonetheless "very concerned'' about pesticide residues. CPQ found that between 1989 and 1992 increased concern about pesticide residues was paralleled by growing consumer concerns about virtually all food-related issues, including nutritional value, fat, salmonella, cholesterol, and animal growth hormones.
The International Food Information Council of the American Dietetic Association found in 1993 that 44 percent of adults surveyed were "very concerned" about the effects their diet has on their health and that an additional 40 percent were ''fairly concerned." In addition, they found that a strong majority of adults agreed that there are too many conflicting reports about nutrition.
A 1993 poll of 1,000 shoppers, conducted by the Food Marketing Institute, found that taste was the most important consideration when selecting food. Ninety-one percent of the shoppers considered taste "very important." Other factors were also ranked "very important" by a majority of shoppers including nutrition (75 percent), price (74 percent), and product safety (72 percent). The same study found that food attributes considered by a majority of the shoppers polled to be "serious hazards" included residues such as pesticides and herbicides (79 percent) and antibiotics and hormones in poultry and
OCR for page 24
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
livestock (55 percent). Other attributes considered "something of a hazard" included nitrites in food, irradiated foods, additives and preservatives, and artificial coloring.
SOURCES: The following unpublished reports were used: Morris, P. M., A. Rosenfeld, and M. Bellinger. 1993. What Americans Think About Agrichemicals: A Nationwide Survey on Health, the Environment, and Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: Public Voice for Food and Health Policy; Center for Produce Quality. Produce Confidence, Consumption Grow. Alexandria, VA: Center for Produce Quality; American Dietetic Association. 1994. How Are Americans Making Food Choices? Washington, D.C.: International Food Information Council, American Dietetic Association; Food Marketing Institute. 1993 Trends. Washington, D.C.: Food Marketing Institute.
Many U.S. citizens may have little sense of the continuing benefits they receive as a result of farm productivity-enhancing research. One reason the benefits are not readily apparent is that the raw-product component of retail food costs is so small. The effects of lower wheat prices on food prices in the supermarket, for example, may be all but unobservable after processing, packaging, marketing, shipping, and retail costs are added on; and these beyond-the-farm-gate costs have risen substantially over the years. U.S. farmers received only 21 percent of what U.S. consumers spent for domestically produced food in 1994, compared with 41 percent in 1950 (Table 2-4). The increasing share of food consumer away from home further increases the gap between farm-level commodity prices and retail food costs.
THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF U.S. AGRICULTURE
Over the decades, although the number of U.S. farms decreased, the amount of land used for farming stayed more or less the same. As individual farms got larger they also became considerably more unequal in their contributions to national farm output. Concentration of commercial production is perhaps the most striking feature of modern U.S. agriculture. Today, only 3.6 percent of all farms account for one-half the value of all farm output, and 1.5 percent of all farms account for one-third of all output (Table 2-5). Of the approximately 2 million farms, about 280,000 provide most of the food and fiber that enter commercial channels. Although the contribution of agricultural research to farm-sector concentration is uncertain, what is clear is that relatively little research has been directed toward understanding the causes of this trend or its social implications or effects on the food system.
In addition to the fact that only a small fraction of all farms account for most farm output is the fact that most farm households do not rely on farm sales for most of their household income. A recent ERS report (Hoppe, 1994) examined farm businesses and farm operator households in county groupings labeled as follows:
farming-dependent counties (20 percent of local earnings come from farming),
major farming counties (less than 20 percent of local earnings come from farming, but farms in these counties rank in the top 20 percent of U.S. counties in total farm earnings), and
residual counties (all other U.S. counties, including metropolitan counties).
OCR for page 25
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
TABLE 2-5
Total U.S. Farms and Concentration of Farm Output, 1990-1992
Farms Accounting for One-Half of Outputa
Farms Accounting for One-Third of Output
Year
Number of Farms
Percent of All Farms
Average Acres per Farm
Percent of All Farms
Average Acres per Farm
1900
5,751,830
17.1
369
NA
NA
1940
5,938,897
11.6
611
5.2
989
1969
2,736,914
8.1
1,611
1.9
3,305
1987
2,102,278
3.6
2,792
1.5
3,921
1992
1,925,300
NA
NA
NA
NA
NOTE: Output is measured as sales. NA, data not available.
a Includes farms accounting for one-third of all output.
SOURCE: Peterson, R., and N. Brooks. 1993. The Changing Concentration of U.S. Agricultural Production During the 20th Century: 14th Annual Report to the Congress on the Status of the Family Farm. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 671. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
TABLE 2-6
Financial Characteristics of Farm-Operator Households, by County Group, 1990
County Groups
Variable
Farming-Dependent
Major Farming
Residual
Total
Number of farm-operator households
229,811
424,762
1,083,446
1,738,019
Household income ($ per household)
$40,413
$52,624
$33,370
$39,007
Farm-related income
15,127
10,042
2,066
5,742
Off-farm incomea
25,286
42,582
31,304
33,265
Wages and salaries
12,942
19,298
17,239
17,174
Interest or dividends
2,483
4,494
2,846
3,201
Other off-farm incomeb
4,269
6,226
5,133
5,286
Negative income (% of households)
Farm-related income
38.4
53.9
59.5
55.3
Total household income
9.6
11.2
7.4
8.6
Farm income compared with off-farm income (% of households)
No off-farm income
11.0
10.0
6.8
8.1
Farm income less
60.5
71.3
81.8
76.4
Farm income equal or greater
28.5
18.7
11.4
15.5
Net worth of farm operated ($ per household)c
$342,215
$461,407
$278,308
$331,506
NOTE: A "farm-operator household" is one that either works on the farm of makes day-to-day decisions about such things as planting, harvesting, feeding, and marketing. It may share the net worth of the farm with one or more other nonoperator farm households.
a Includes off-farm business income not shown separately.
b Net income from estates and trusts, rental income from nonfarm properties, royalties from mineral leases, retirement/disability income, annuities, alimony, regular contributions from persons not in the household, and any other miscellaneous sources of income.
c Net worth may be shared with nonoperator farm households.
SOURCE: Hoppe, R. A. 1994. Farming Operations and Households in Farming Areas: A Closer Look. Agricultural Economic Report No. 685. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
OCR for page 26
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
FIGURE 2-1
Dependence on income from farming is shown according to county types: farming-dependent, major farming, and residual. SOURCE: Hoppe, R. A. 1994. Farming Operations and Households in Farming Areas: A Closer Look. Agricultural Economic Report No. 685. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Table 2-6 shows that for almost 80 percent of farm-operator households, farm-related income is less than off-farm income. Off-farm income is least important (in relation to farm-related income) in farming-dependent counties, which are located predominately in the northern Midwest and Great Plains states and some parts of the Northwest (Figure 2-1).
Specialized production is another characteristic of the modern farm economy. Whereas decades ago farms may have been integrated production units producing a variety of crop and livestock products to meet home and local market needs, today they usually specialize in products that represent their region's "comparative advantage" in national and international markets. For example, more than 70 percent of total U.S. sales of corn, soybeans, and hogs derive from several midwest "corn belt" states; about 70 percent of poultry is produced in counties concentrated in six or seven southeastern states; and about 70 percent of tobacco is produced in counties concentrated in four to five eastern states (Table 2-7 and Figure 2-2).
In addition, the farm economies of some regions depend heavily on their regional production specialties. For example, the Great Plains counties that specialize in cattle, wheat, and sorghum count on these commodities for more than 80 percent of their farm sales; the poultry-specializing counties count on poultry for almost 70 percent of farm sales; and the dairy-specializing counties of the Northeast and Great Lakes states depend on dairy product sales for more than 55 percent of their farm sales (Table 2-7 and Figure 2-2).
OCR for page 27
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
TABLE 2-7
Production Specialization in the U.S. Farm Economy
Production Specialty/Specialty Group
Number of Specializing Counties
Percent of Total County-Cluster Farm Sales
Percent of Total U.S. Sales of Commodity/Commodities
Corn/soybeans/hogs
508
64
72/73/71
Poultry
248
66
68
Dairy
164
56
42
Gattle/wheat/sorghum
343
81
37/41/65
Tobacco
135
37
69
Cattle (part-time)
371
56
11
Fruit
26
47
60
Other crops
116
27
47
Vegetables/nursery
86
38
63/70
Wheat/oats/other grain
115
51
22/19/42
Cotton
103
45
59
Sheep/cattle/other livestock
75
73
39/4/32
Total counties
2,290
SOURCE: Adapted from Sommer, J. E., and F. K. Hines. 1991. Diversity in U.S. Agriculture: A New Delineation by Farming Characteristics, AER No. 646. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Across the nation, agricultural interests and concerns vary from one constituent group to another and from one state to another.
Vertical integration—a system that combines previously separated stages of the production and delivery system in a single firm—is increasing in some areas of the United States, particularly areas specializing in swine and poultry production. Vertical integration can take a number of forms but may typically involve contractual relationships between the "integrators" and the producers. The trend toward vertical integration results from a number of factors including advances in food technology and greater globalization of agricultural production and trade. In the case of pork, for example, the process of engineering the final product to meet specific consumer demands begins at the hog production level. Vertical integration also assures processors a steady supply of inputs so that they can consistently utilize their plants at optimum capacity and seek expansions in product markets (Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics, 1994).
The above described changes in U.S. farming do not diminish the economic importance of the agriculture complex to the United States. The food and fiber sector of the domestic economy is large, accounting for 18 percent of U.S. employment and about 16 percent of "value added" to domestic production (Table 2-8). Most employment and value added production occurs beyond the farm gate—in food processing, manufacturing, transportation, and retailing in stores and in restaurants—but farm production underpins all these non-farm activities. Furthermore, the forestry sector, which is intertwined with farming in some parts of the country, accounts for another 5 percent of the value of national economic output (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1990a).
OCR for page 28
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
FIGURE 2-2
Map shows patterns of agricultural specialization, by multicounty cluster, based on twelve individual commodities or commodity groups. SOURCE: Sommer, J. E., and F. K. Hines. 1991. Diversity in U.S. Agriculture: A New Delineation by Farming Characteristics, AER No. 646. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
OCR for page 29
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
TABLE 2-8
The Food and Fiber Sector's Contribution to the U.S. Economy, 1982–1992
Year
Item
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Millions of Workers
Employment
Total food and fiber
22.9
23.0
22.6
22.3
22.4
22.4
22.7
23.4
23.5
23.2
22.8
Farm sector
2.4
2.8
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.0
Nonfarm sectors
20.5
20.2
20.3
20.2
20.3
20.5
20.6
21.4
21.4
21.2
20.8
Food processing
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Manufacturing
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3.0
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.0
Transportation, trade and retailing
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.9
8.0
7.9
7.8
Eating
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.3
5.2
All other
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.4
Total domestic economy
110.2
111.6
113.5
115.5
117.8
119.9
121.7
123.9
124.8
125.3
127.0
Percent of Total U.S. Labor Force
Farm sector
2.1
2.5
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
Nonfarm sectors
17.5
16.7
16.5
17.5
17.3
17.1
17.0
17.3
17.2
16.9
16.4
Total domestic economy
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
$ Billions
Value added by activity
Total food and fiber
622.6
630.5
672.1
697.8
716.6
744.7
784.5
850.3
889.8
913.8
950.2
Farm sector
58.7
40.9
55.5
58.5
52.6
53.0
49.7
65.2
68.1
63.4
67.0
Nonfarm sectors
563.9
589.6
616.6
639.3
664.0
691.7
734.9
785.0
821.7
850.4
883.2
Food processing
72.6
76.9
80.5
82.3
87.4
86.2
91.8
96.1
99.8
103.4
106.2
Manufacturing
105.0
108.3
109.9
109.8
113.2
111.5
115.2
124.5
125.6
130.8
135.7
Transportation, trade and retailing
187.2
193.2
201.2
208.9
212.0
222.5
235.7
247.2
257.4
265.6
277.5
Eating
57.4
60.5
62.9
64.5
66.0
73.0
78.5
80.7
85.6
88.3
90.9
All other
141.8
150.7
162.1
173.8
185.3
198.4
213.8
236.6
253.2
262.3
272.9
Total domestic economy
3,149.6
3,405.0
3,777.2
4,038.7
4,268.6
4,539.9
4,900.4
5,250.8
5,546.1
5,722.9
6,038.5
Percent of Total U.S. Economy
Farm sector
1.9
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
Nonfarm sectors
17.9
17.3
16.3
15.8
15.6
15.2
15.0
15.0
14.8
14.9
14.6
Total domestic economy
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
SOURCE: Data are from USDA Economic Research Service (ERS).
The importance of agriculture to other aspects of U.S. life, though harder to measure, is no less important. The relationship between diet and human health, for example, is increasingly recognized by scientists and the general public. Heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes—the four leading causes of death in the United States—have been linked to diet. According to some research, proper diet might forestall at least 20 percent of deaths, annually, from these four causes; other factors include genetic predisposition, smoking, and exercise. Hypertension, osteoporosis, and obesity, which affect productivity and life span, are also diet-related (Frazão, 1995). Also, increasingly recognized is the fact that farmers own or manage the majority of privately held land and thus de facto manage the associated natural resources including watersheds and wildlife.
The ways in which states differ may be significant to the future of the colleges of agriculture. Characteristics of states' farm sectors differ; the role of agriculture in state economies differs, as do the interfaces between agriculture and other state land uses. Characteristics of states' population sectors differ; the importance of rural, suburban, and urban constituencies varies as do the income levels and age and ethnic demographics of each state's communities.
OCR for page 30
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
TABLE 2-9
Total Cash Receipts (thousands of dollars) from Farming, 1990
State
Cash Receipts from Farm Marketings
Government Payments
Cash Receipts from Farming
California
19,205,854 (3)
252,333 (<1)
19,458,187 (3)
Texas
11,826,661 (3)
974,702 (<1)
12,801,363 (3)
Iowa
10,273,202 (18)
753,733 (1)
11,026,935 (20)
Nebraska
8,715,014 (26)
624,646 (2)
9,339,660 (28)
Illinois
7,767,202 (3)
506,603 (<1)
8,273,805 (3)
Kansas
7,019,018 (14)
834,746 (2)
7,853,764 (15)
Minnesota
6,888,461 (7)
511,759 (1)
7,400,220 (7)
Wisconsin
5,718,984 (6)
181,243 (<1)
5,900,227 (6)
Florida
5,717,193 (2)
37,155 (<1)
5,754,348 (2)
Indiana
4,907,626 (4)
244,170 (<1)
5,151,796 (5)
North Carolina
4,962,498 (4)
73,255 (<1)
5,035,753 (4)
Ohio
4,425,163 (2)
197,006 (<1)
4,622,169 (2)
Arkansas
4,251,574 (11)
312,696 (1)
4,564,270 (12)
Colorado
4,218,122 (6)
236,723 (<1)
4,454,845 (6)
Missouri
3,984,520 (4)
299,065 (<1)
4,283,585 (4)
Georgia
3,857,804 (3)
130,593 (<1)
3,988,397 (3)
Washington
3,752,119 (3)
205,425 (<1)
3,957,544 (4)
Oklahoma
3,548,467 (6)
319,040 (1)
3,867,507 (7)
Pennsylvania
3,680,180 (2)
41,414 (<1)
3,721,594 (2)
South Dakota
3,260,859 (25)
332,851 (3)
3,593,710 (28)
Michigan
3,111,876 (2)
168,831 (<1)
3,280,707 (2)
Kentucky
3,102,981 (1)
81,610 (<1)
3,184,591 (1)
North Dakota
2,531,265 (21)
545,378 (5)
3,076,643 (26)
New York
2,966,160 (1)
59,304 (<1)
3,025,464 (1)
Idaho
2,800,678 (15)
133,431 (1)
2,934,109 (15)
Alabama
2,827,260 (4)
82,226 (<1)
2,909,486 (4)
Mississippi
2,432,587 (6)
185,969 (<1)
2,618,556 (7)
Oregon
2,371,412 (4)
89,137 (<1)
2,460,549 (4)
Virginia
2,151,334 (2)
32,378 (<1)
2,183,712 (2)
Tennessee
2,056,909 (2)
91,029 (<1)
2,147,938 (2)
Louisiana
1,915,938 (2)
154,631 (<1)
2,070,569 (2)
Montana
1,653,394 (13)
299,599 (2)
1,952,993 (15)
Arizona
1,908,577 (3)
43,349 (<1)
1,951,926 (3)
New Mexico
1,483,465 (5)
63,840 (<1)
1,547,305 (6)
Maryland
1,359,502 (1)
17,386 (<1)
1,376,888 (1)
South Carolina
1,168,677 (2)
62,637 (<1)
1,231,314 (2)
Wyoming
756,694 (6)
31,283 (<1)
787,977 (6)
Utah
745,154 (2)
34,897 (<1)
780,051 (3)
New Jersey
648,791 (<1)
15,744 (<1)
664,535 (<1)
Delaware
635,845 (3)
3,213 (<1)
639,058 (3)
Hawaii
600,049 (2)
519 (<1)
600,568 (2)
Maine
491,917 (2)
6,982 (<1)
498,899 (2)
Connecticut
473,890 (1)
2,123 (<1)
476,013 (1)
Vermont
457,167 (4)
5,793 (<1)
462,960 (4)
Massachusetts
443,395 (<1)
3,023 (<1)
446,418 (<1)
West Virginia
332,997 (1)
6,049 (<1)
339,046 (1)
Nevada
324,532 (1)
5,347 (<1)
329,879 (1)
New Hampshire
142,282 (1)
1,856 (<1)
144,138 (1)
Rhode Island
71,346 (<1)
191 (<1)
71,537 (<1)
Alaska
26,663 (<1)
1,117 (<1)
27,780 (<1)
Total
169,973,258 (3)
9,298,030 (<1)
179,271,288 (3)
NOTE: Cash receipts from farm marketings plus government subsidy payments equal total cash receipts from farming. Numbers in parentheses are percent of gross state product.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1990. State Financial Summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
OCR for page 31
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
Each state's unique blend of characteristics causes each to contribute differently to the U.S. farm economy. Three states, California, Texas, and Iowa, account for nearly one-quarter of the national value (cash receipts) of farm marketings (Table 2-9). These together with Nebraska and Illinois yield more than one-third of total marketed U.S. farm output, although other states, as noted above, are vitally important for specific types of crop or livestock production.
Despite the fact that these states are major contributors to national farm output, for California, Texas, and Illinois farm marketing receipts amount to only 3 percent of gross state product. On the other hand, in Iowa and Nebraska farm marketings equal 18 and 26 percent, respectively, of the value of gross state product. Across the country, only eight states generate more than 10 percent of their gross state product from farming, with Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota (wheat producing states) being the most dependent on farm income (Table 2-9). (For a discussion of methodological issues in developing conceptually consistent measures of the role of agriculture in state economies, see Leones et al., 1994.)
Across the nation farming rarely provides significant state employment opportunities in relation to other industries. Only North and South Dakota employ more than 10 percent of their labor force in farm jobs. However, many if not most states look to farm-related industries, mostly the wholesale and retail trades, to provide a significant share of state employment. The agricultural processing and marketing industry is particularly important to employment in several southern states (Table 2-10).
Today the population of most states is significantly urban, and the farm sector has decreased proportionately; however, the size of the state's farm sector may have little bearing on the prominence of rural communities. For example, California, Texas, Florida, and Illinois, and to a lesser extent Minnesota and Wisconsin, are all large contributors to national farm production but are predominately urban states. (See Appendix Table 1 for a breakdown, by state, of the distribution of the U.S. population.) This contrast may suggest significant state pressures to balance urban and farm interests. Allocation of water in western states, particularly California, is one of the most prominent examples of competing farm and urban needs. Establishing animal production facilities near urban and suburban areas constitutes another area of friction between urban population and the farming sector in some states.
Some states have significant rural populations—like Delaware, Maine, and Vermont—but small farm sectors that contribute minimally to either national or state farm output. For these states, rural community and economic development issues may diverge significantly from farm issues. A few states, such as Idaho, Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana, have both large rural populations and large farm sectors that contribute significantly to the state economy (Table 2-8 and see Appendix Table 1). In these states, rural and farm issues may still be closely intertwined.
At the same time that the agricultural concerns and priorities of local communities and individual states are changing, U.S. agriculture and its needs are increasingly shaped by international forces. For example, recent international accords like the North American Free Trade Agreement and those reached under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade increase the integration of U.S. agriculture into global commodity and food markets and may limit the use of trade policies and subsidies to protect agriculture from international competition. In this environment, U.S. agriculture looks to other countries for new customers for its products and to science and technology for ways to stay ahead in intensely competitive markets. Also, while U.S. agriculture contributes, along with the agricultural industries of other nations, to today's abundant world food supplies, rapid world population growth leads many to stress the importance of sustaining and enhancing the productivity of the world's food-producing resources.
OCR for page 32
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
TABLE 2-10
U.S. Employment on Farms and in Farm-Related Industries, by State, 1990
Percent of All State Employment
Total Farm or Farm-Related Jobs
Farm Production
Agricultural Services
Agricultural Inputs
Agricultural Processing/Marketing
Wholesale/Retail Trade
Indirect Agribusiness
Percent of All State Jobs
State
Alabama
389,152
3.1
0.3
0.4
6.0
9.1
0.5
19.3
Alaska
51,425
0.2
5.6
0.1
1.8
8.9
0.1
16.6
Arizona
245,101
1.1
0.3
0.1
0.7
11.2
0.1
13.5
Arkansas
255,716
5.6
0.6
0.6
5.2
9.0
0.9
21.8
California
2,277,497
1.6
0.4
0.2
1.9
9.7
0.3
14.0
Colorado
289,135
2.2
0.2
0.2
1.7
10.2
0.2
14.7
Connecticut
222,699
0.4
0.2
0.1
1.0
9.2
0.3
11.2
Delaware
55,458
1.2
0.2
0.2
2.2
9.4
0.3
13.4
Florida
1,054,782
1.4
0.4
0.3
1.3
12.1
0.2
15.7
Georgia
676,391
2.0
0.3
0.3
5.1
10.1
0.7
18.6
Hawaii
114,573
2.1
0.1
0.1
2.1
12.2
0.1
16.6
Idaho
120,723
6.9
0.6
1.1
3.7
10.4
0.6
23.3
Illinois
910,990
1.7
0.2
0.6
1.8
9.6
0.6
14.4
Indiana
481,566
2.9
0.2
0.4
1.7
10.3
0.5
16.0
Iowa
399,904
8.3
0.4
1.9
3.8
10.1
0.5
25.0
Kansas
283,177
5.8
0.3
0.8
2.7
9.3
0.5
19.3
Kentucky
398,446
6.7
0.3
0.4
3.4
10.1
0.5
21.3
Louisiana
306,055
2.5
0.3
0.4
1.8
10.4
0.4
15.9
Maine
115,678
1.8
0.5
0.1
3.9
10.4
0.4
17.2
Maryland
336,347
0.9
0.3
0.1
1.3
9.9
0.3
12.7
Massachusetts
474,847
0.3
0.3
0.1
1.6
10.2
0.4
12.8
Michigan
654,206
1.7
0.2
0.2
1.0
10.6
0.3
14.0
Minnesota
458,945
4.5
0.2
0.6
2.1
9.7
0.4
17.4
Mississippi
246,016
4.8
0.4
0.6
5.5
9.4
0.6
21.2
Missouri
519,557
4.4
0.3
0.5
2.6
9.3
0.4
17.5
Montana
85,951
7.5
0.5
0.6
1.0
10.7
0.5
20.7
Nebraska
220,329
7.3
0.4
1.6
3.6
9.9
0.2
23.0
Nevada
75,596
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.3
9.3
0.1
10.7
New Hampshire
88,704
0.7
0.3
0.1
1.3
11.1
0.3
13.9
New Jersey
553,946
0.3
0.2
0.1
2.0
9.6
0.5
12.7
New Mexico
104,949
2.6
0.2
0.2
0.9
10.7
0.3
14.8
New York
1,232,735
0.7
0.2
0.1
1.9
9.5
0.3
12.6
North Carolina
841,852
2.5
0.2
0.3
8.6
9.8
0.6
22.0
North Dakota
93,489
11.7
0.3
1.4
2.2
10.1
0.1
25.7
Ohio
832,274
1.9
0.2
0.2
1.3
10.3
0.5
14.4
Oklahoma
274,284
5.1
0.3
0.3
1.8
9.7
0.1
17.2
Oregon
277,759
4.0
0.9
0.4
1.7
10.5
0.3
17.7
Pennsylvania
956,095
1.3
0.2
0.2
3.1
10.3
0.4
15.4
Rhode Island
74,301
0.3
0.2
0.1
2.2
10.7
0.4
13.8
South Carolina
380,472
2.0
0.2
0.2
7.1
10.0
0.7
20.2
South Dakota
96,820
11.0
0.3
0.9
2.8
10.0
0.2
25.2
Tennessee
532,984
4.2
0.2
0.3
4.6
9.8
0.6
19.7
Texas
1,325,087
2.5
0.2
0.3
1.8
10.2
0.3
15.2
Utah
127,277
2.2
0.2
0.2
1.7
10.1
0.4
14.6
Vermont
57,205
3.1
0.4
0.3
1.7
11.3
0.2
17.0
Virginia
537,111
1.7
0.3
0.2
3.2
9.2
0.4
14.9
Washington
444,110
3.0
0.8
0.3
1.6
10.4
0.3
16.4
West Virginia
118,841
3.2
0.3
0.4
1.5
10.4
0.3
16.0
Wisconsin
528,714
4.2
0.3
0.7
2.6
10.5
0.8
19.1
Wyoming
44,589
5.0
0.3
0.4
0.6
9.9
1.8
18.0
Total
21,285,425
2.3
0.3
0.3
2.4
10.0
0.4
15.7
NOTE: Farm and farm-related industries provided 25 percent or more of all jobs in Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Total percent of all state jobs may reflect rounding error.
SOURCE: Data were provided by the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS).
OCR for page 33
Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile
ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
How have the dramatic changes in the U.S. economy—particularly in the role of farming—affected the interests of U.S. citizens in the services of the land grant colleges of agriculture? In particular, how are the interests of urban, suburban, and non-farm rural residents shaping the programs and priorities of colleges of agriculture?
Although consumers have clearly benefited from agricultural science and technology, many perceive farmers to be the colleges' ''traditional'' clientele; but what type of farmer does today's and tomorrow's college serve? Are the needs and priorities of large commercial entities and vertically integrated operations the same as those of smaller, part-time, limited resource, or hobby farmers?
Over time, states have become increasingly diverse with respect to the roles of farming, agribusiness, and rural communities and the way in which agricultural issues interact with other state issues. Are colleges of agriculture differently adapting their programs to the particular needs of their states?
What is the role of the land grant colleges of agriculture in working with farmers and agricultural firms in adapting to increasingly open and competitive world markets? As global populations and food needs continue to grow, what is the role of U.S. colleges in contributing to the productivity and sustainability of agriculture world wide?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Alston, Julian M., Philip G. Pardey, and Harold O. Carter, eds. Valuing UC Agricultural Research and Extension. Davis: University of California, 1994.
Caswell, Margriet, Keith O. Fuglie, and Cassandra A. Klotz. Agricultural Biotechnology: An Economic Perspective, AER No. 687. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994.
Cochrane, Willard W. The Development of American Agriculture: An Historical Analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1979.
Dacquel, Laarni T., and Donald C. Dahmann. Residents of Farms and Rural Areas: 1991, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports Series P20, No. 472. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993.
Dahmann, Donald C., and Laarni T. Dacquel. Residents of Farms and Rural Areas: 1990, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports Series P-20, No. 457. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992.
Dodson, Charles B. Profitability of Farm Businesses: A Regional, Farm Type, and Size Analysis, Statistical Bulletin No. 884. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994.
Frazão, Elizabeth. Consumer Concerns About Nutrition: Opportunities for the Food Sector, AIB No. 705. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994.
Hoppe, Robert A. Farming Operations and Households in Farming Areas: A Closer Look, AER No. 685. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994.
Leones, Julie, Gerald Schulter, and George Goldman. "Redefining agriculture in interindustry analysis." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(December 1994):1123-1129.
Kennedy, Eileen, and Howarth E. Boui. Linkages Between Agriculture and Nutrition: Implications for Policy and Research. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute, 1993.
National Research Council. Alternative Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1989.
National Research Council. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993.
Peterson, R. Neal, and Nora L. Brooks. The Changing Concentration of U.S. Agricultural Production During the 20th Century, AIB No. 671. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993.
Pinstrup-Andersen, Per. World Food Trends and Future Food Security . Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute, 1994.
Sommer, Judith E., and Fred K. Hines. Diversity in U.S. Agriculture: A New Delineation by Farming Characteristics, AER No. 646. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1991.
Vandeman, Ann, Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo, Sharon Jans, and Biing-Hwan Lin. Adoption of Integrated Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture, AIB No. 707. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
personal consumption