Month: July 2023

Posted on

Surface water originates from both on farm and off farm sources

Globally and within the United States, the cost of energy associated with crop irrigation is increasing as growers convert to higher pressure systems and pump more groundwater from greater depths as water tables continue to drop . Additionally, parts of the electric grid are under a significant or increasing amounts of strain due to elevated demand and ambitious Renewable Portfolio Standard targets . Consequences of increased reliance on groundwater pumping extends beyond the energy implications and can results in irreparable environmental damages. Those consequences include aquifer contamination by seawater intrusion or depletion beyond the point of recharge, land subsidence, infrastructure damage, and harm to groundwater dependent ecosystems . Demand management strategies such as Demand Response can help farmers better manage electricity consumption and unlock new revenue streams while providing benefits to the electricity grid and the environment . Traditionally DR has been a strategy primarily used to shift and/or lower electrical loads during peak hours . In recent years, due to evolving grid needs, the value of DR has expanded beyond load shifting to include various services as dictated by the grid needs . The goal of this paper is to establish a clear understanding of current and future needs of the electricity grid, available electricity market mechanisms, and electricity consuming/generating equipment on farms. This paper aims to achieve that clear understanding by putting forward a standardized framework similar to the illustration shown in Figure 1, which allows farm equipment to be mapped to respective grid needs through available market mechanisms. This mapping will allow for the widespread adoption of DR within the agricultural industry by removing a significant knowledge gap that exists between the farm, utilities, and the grid. Such analysis can also identify market mechanism that are required for addressing current and future grid needs and are not captured through existing ones. While there are promising technologies under development aimed at increasing the reliability of agricultural DR participation,arandano azul cultivo little attention has been given to educating the farmer, utility/DR aggregator, and grid operator about the electricity grid, electricity consuming/generating equipment on farms, available electricity market mechanisms, and how all those connect and interact with each other.

As discussed by Aghajanzadeh, et. al. , agricultural loads, with their potential flexibility, can help reduce their energy cost, and improve grid stability as energy markets move into a future of increasingly distributed and renewable electricity generation. However, agriculture’s operational constraints, conventional irrigation system design and management standards, and low penetration of in field automation limit farms from taking advantage of more flexible energy and water use strategies that could benefit the grower, utility, and the grid. Several studies have highlighted the technological and operational hurdles for widespread adoption of DR in the agricultural sector. Olsen, et. al. provide foundational information on the status of agricultural DR in California . In this work Olsen et. al. identified several factors as barriers for farmers to participate in existing DR programs. Those barriers include insufficient irrigation capacity, lack of communications, controls, and financial incentives. Other factors hindering DR adoption include inflexibility of water delivery, application methods, and labor. According to Pacific Institute and Ringler et. al., the agricultural industry has the opportunity to improve its bottom line by tapping into new revenue streams such as DR incentives or implementing energy and water efficiency practices that reduce farm operation costs . However, agricultural demand management programs have proven to be unsuccessful in facilitating the needs of the farm and helping the utilities manage their demand and reduce cost . Many DR programs offered by electric utilities are developed with no regard to on farm operational constraints. Many customers may not even be aware of available DR enabling technologies or operational measures . Marks et al., also point out that the complex process of DR program enrollment, enablement, and participation has led to unsuccessful adoption of existing demand management programs within the agricultural industry .The electricity grid has evolved and integration of intermittent renewable sources such as wind and solar has made balancing the grid more complex. Figure 2 shows the generation mix of California’s grid under a 50% RPS scenario which is expected to be achieved by the year 2030 . Intra-hour variability and short-duration ramps are one of the immediate challenges faced by a 50% renewable California grid. In a 50% RPS scenario, thermal power plants need to ramp down as solar resources come online in the early hours of the day . However, they cannot drop to zero since a minimum capacity need to remain spinning for contingency as well as the evening ramp up, and in the absence of cheap energy storage, excess solar generation needs to be curtailed in order to maintain grid stability . As the solar resources stop generating electricity in the evening hours , thermal power plants need to ramp up to make up for the lost solar generation. The ramp up to meet the evening peak will be more pronounced due to lower than usual net demand due to high solar penetration .

Market mechanisms are platforms that connect electricity end users, generators, and grid operators. These mechanisms are needed to ensure that the needs of the electric grid are satisfied while entities providing services to the grid are fairly compensated. While more intermittent renewable sources are integrated into the grid as dictated by the RPS targets, grid operation becomes more complex thus giving rise to more complicated and nascent market mechanisms. While new systems such as Automated Demand Response 3 are seen crucial in addressing the challenges faced by the future grid, today’s wholesale DR systems seem experimental, and retail DR systems typically work on slow time scales as open loop systems to address peak load reduction . In order to address the variable generation mix and the dynamic demand of electricity, new market mechanisms are introduced and existing mechanism are constantly modified. The constant evolution of market mechanisms has led to a lack of understanding and a knowledge gap in how the electricity markets operate and the ways through which end users can participate in them. Moreover, the DR needs and availabilities of different actors may evolve over time needing constant modification of existing market mechanism which can further widen this knowledge gap. Another layer of complexity is the hardware requirements and communication protocols used for each market mechanism and by various service providers . This will leave many end users unaware of technological or operational measures available to them . Although this paper does not discuss communication protocols, telemetry, and settlement metering requirements, it lays the groundwork for further exploring those requirements by providing conceptual DR participation pathways. All DR service types fall into two main categories. Demand Side or load modifying resources, which reshape or reduce the net load curve; and Supply Side or supply resources, which are integrated into the Independent System Operator energy markets. Figure 8 summarizes these two categories and requirements for participating in each category.Energy efficiency and load management programs offered through the utilities in many US states are collectively called demand side resources. Such retail DR systems typically work on slow time scales as open loop systems to address peak load reduction . Currently agricultural loads can only participate in demand side DR by enrolling in a TOU, DR,macetas 25 litros or ADR program offered by their local utility.

Any resource that transacts with the electricity grid by providing a bid, price, and duration with short or no notification is treated as a generator and required to adhere to the same requirements . Transaction for such resources happen in wholesale ancillary services markets, operated by the ISO. This type of advanced DR will become more valuable over time, as the ISOs across the US integrate additional renewable energy sources and curtailment becomes more significant during the midday hours . There are currently no mechanisms in place that allows agricultural loads to directly provide supply side DR. Agricultural operations consume a variety of energy types for different purposes: directly as gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane, or electricity , and indirectly as fertilizer or pesticide . Given that the focus of this paper is providing DR services to the grid, only direct electricity consumption is discussed. The number of farms producing electricity on site through renewable sources doubled between 2007 and 2012 . Farms that produce their own electricity are linked to energy markets on both the supply side and the demand side. This exposes farms to volatility in energy prices as energy consumers and uncertainty of revenue from the production of electricity generated on site and sold back to the grid . For example, electricity prices affect the costs of crop irrigation due to water pumping but also affect the value of renewable power generated on farm . While similar analysis can be carried out for other energy types consumed or generated on a farm, the focus of this paper is only on direct electricity consumption or generation on a farm specifically for the purposes of crop irrigation. Agriculture is a major user of ground and surface water in the US, accounting for approximately 80% of the nation’s consumptive water use. In many Western drought prone states that number increases to 90% . In Western states, irrigation provides most of the crop water requirements, while in eastern areas irrigation is largely supplemental . Unlike turf irrigation, which is mostly done at night, irrigating farms require a constant supply of water to meet crop requirements . Therefore, a large amount of agricultural pumping occurs during period of high evapotranspiration4  including summer afternoons which are prone to having the highest levels of ET. Irrigation pumps are primarily powered by electricity. According to 2013 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey, 85% of irrigation pumps are electric and only 13% of pumps are powered by diesel . Since most pumps on farms use electricity to convey water, the large water pumping demand for agriculture can be translated to large electricity consumption. About 70% of the electricity consumed on a farm is due to water pumping .

Electricity is consumed on a farm to either pump water out of the ground, divert surface water, or pressurize water for irrigation applications. While pumps use the majority of the electricity on the farm, there are other equipment and generation sources that complicate the analysis of energy consumption on a farm. Those equipment include solar panels, variable frequency drives on pumps, and water storage. Presence of those components can affect the timing and manner of electricity consumption and its controllability on a farm. To take full advantage of available loads on farms, their DR potential, level of automation, response time , and required notification time should be characterized. Figure 10 illustrates a generic representation of available assets on a farm as well as the electricity and water flows. Figure 10 is representative of a generic farm and does not include all possible equipment found a farm . This paper focuses on water related energy consumers on a farm; therefore, all the equipment listed in Figure 10 and the rest of this analysis include equipment that are involved in water conveyance, pressurization, and storage. In the following sub sections, each relevant piece of farm equipment will be analyzed in detail, including its manner and timing of energy use, level of automation, and ways through which they can impact electricity consumption on a farm. A summary of farm equipment characteristics discussed in this section is presented in Table 2. In order to integrate agricultural loads into the grid their level of automation, response time, and demand flexibility need to be characterized. Three levels of automation is assigned to each farm end use . Surface water pumps divert water from surface water sources and distribute the water throughout the farm for irrigation purposes.On farm surface water comes from ponds, lakes, or streams and rivers, while off farm water sources are generally supplied to the farm through local irrigation districts; mutual, private, cooperative, or neighborhood water delivery companies; or from local or municipal water systems . Surface pumps are low static head systems with most of the energy expended to overcome the dynamic head. As of 2008, 52% of irrigation water needs were satisfied through surface water sources, but that number has been decreasing in recent years with groundwater withdrawals increasing to make up for the surface water shortage.

Posted on

Technology is likely to be the solution to many of these new problems as well

Furthermore, the percentage increase in gross sales is reduced when growers with sales above the $5 million reporting ceiling accurately report increased acreage but do not report the corresponding increase in gross sales, only the requisite $5 million. Organic fruit crops posted a sales increase of 28 percent between 1998 and 2002, with a 40 percent increase in acreage . The most important commodities for sales growth were strawberries, raspberries, wine grapes, dates, avocadoes, apples, and peaches. Organic wine grapes increased in sales by over $4 million and acreage expanded by over 3,000 acres.In contrast, sales of table grapes almost halved over the period while acreage reduced only slightly.The most important nut crops remained almonds and walnuts, with sizeable increases in sales and acreage for both.Field crops grew in acreage from 1998-2002, with the number of farmed acreage increasing by over 50 percent . One third of the increase in acreage is attributable to pasture and range land paralleling the increase in livestock and dairy production. Another 25 percent reflects increases in rice, alfalfa, and wheat acreage. Rice remained by far the most important field crop during the period but with stagnant sales at around $7 million. Alfalfa was the second most important field crop with sales increasing from less than half a million dollars in 1998 to $1.3 million in 2002. The importance of field crops to organic agriculture remained small, falling from 6 percent of sales in 1998 to less than 5 percent of sales in 2002. This decrease in importance is explained by an absolute decrease in sales over the five year period in almost every region. The decrease in importance is also related to the dramatic increase in sales of livestock, poultry and products. Sales from livestock, poultry,macetas 30l and related products increased by 389 percent over the past five years, although they remained less than 3 percent of the organic industry. Dairy production increased from $4 million to over $11 million.

Sales of organic meat were not permissible prior to 1998 due to differential labeling requirements for organic meat and other foods. Sales of organic chicken reached over $6 million in 2002 with beef and turkey each at about $300,000. Organic eggs sales were $3.6 million in 2002. California agriculture today is known around the world for its diverse product mix, remarkable productivity, and technological sophistication. It is also known for its large-scale farm firms, vertical coordination in food marketing and processing, and, less happily, its environmental problems and farm-labor concerns. The development and adoption of improved technology has been a central element in all of the changes during the twentieth century that have led to the marvel that is today’s California agriculture, and the problems that it faces in the twenty-first century. In this chapter we review the role of new technology in the development of California agriculture, emphasizing the period since World War II.First, we document the changes in the inputs and outputs over the 1949-91 period showing the general trend to save land and labor, to increase the use of capital and purchased inputs, and to increase the output of all categories, but especially vegetables, and nursery and greenhouse marketings. Along with the growth in measured productivity, there have been some important changes in the structure of agriculture as well as in the nature of farms and farming, with a trend to fewer and larger, more specialized farms being an important element of the structural change.The second part of this chapter focuses on the evolution and adoption of various technologies in California agriculture. California is a part of the United States, and its agriculture has shared in many general developments such as the mechanical innovations that displaced the horse over the first half of this century, and other nationwide chemical and biological advances; still, California agriculture remains unlike farming in most of the rest of the country in many ways.

We describe major changes in the elements of technology that have facilitated California’s agricultural development, using examples of mechanical harvesters, pest-control strategies, and irrigation technology. We also discuss some examples of integrated systems involving multiple elements of production technology and marketing—such as the development of tomato varieties that could withstand mechanical harvesting, and the development of new strawberry varieties along with pest-control and production technology to match market requirements. In the last part of the chapter we consider the sources of new agricultural technology and the role of government in providing resources for research and development, as well as institutional structures to facilitate private-sector activity.California agriculture today is very different from what it was in the gold rush years and through the early part of the twentieth century. In the early years, even in this century, there were few people to feed within California, and transportation costs and technology were such that perishable commodities were not economic to produce for shipment over long distances to the population centers in the East. The main focus of the state’s agriculture was on producing grain under dryland conditions, either for human consumption or for livestock feed. Feeding horses was a primary role of California agriculture up through the 1920s. The development of irrigation, transportation infrastructure and technology, postharvest storage and handling technology and facilities, food preservation technology, and the growth of the state’s population, along with the replacement of the horse by motorized vehicles, changed all that. The seeds for the radical transformation of California agriculture during the twentieth century were sown in the last decades of the nineteenth century. In the first chapter of this volume, Olmstead and Rhode provide an overview of the history of California agriculture; they emphasize the role of technology.1 We build on the foundation laid in that chapter. The key elements of technical change have included mechanization , irrigation, agricultural chemicals , improved varieties and other biological improvements, and improved management and information systems. These changes in technology have been made in conjunction with changes in the output and input mix, for related reasons.

Indexes of output in California agriculture in the post-World War II era are shown in Table 1. In terms of total agricultural output, California farmers produced over three times as much in 1991 as in 1949 . Different components of agriculture grew at different rates at different times. For instance, greenhouse and nursery products grew almost tenfold , while output of field crops grew much more slowly . There was considerable variation within individual categories, with some individual products growing very rapidly and others shrinking to negligible amounts. Thus the composition of California production changed markedly over the post-war period. Higher-valued products such as vegetables, greenhouse and nursery products, as well as fruits and nuts, account for a larger share of the value of agricultural output in the 1990s than they did in the immediate post-war period; the shares of livestock and field crops are smaller, accordingly,maceta 25 litros even though all sectors of California agriculture grew significantly over the period. The use of inputs in California agriculture also changed markedly over the postwar period, as seen in Table 2. California agriculture’s use of purchased inputs more than trebled from 1949 to 1991 . The use of capital services—including physical inputs such as automobiles, tractors, trucks and combines, as well as biological inputs such as dairy cows, ewes, and breeder pigs—grew by over 75 percent from 1949 to 1991 . However, quality-adjusted land and labor use in agriculture declined. Land use fell by 8 percent , while labor use decreased by 10 percent . Across all input categories, the index of input use increased by 58 percent, from 100 to 158.That the 237 percent increase in agricultural output was achieved with only a 58 percent increase in agricultural inputs is a reflection of the changing productivity of those inputs. Expressing aggregate output per unit of aggregate input provides a measure of productivity, as shown in Table 3. Productivity in California agriculture doubled between 1949 and 1991 . This means that, if input use had been held constant at the 1949 quantities, using 1991 technology would have resulted in twice as much output as using 1949 technology. Alternatively, to produce the output in 1991 using 1949 technology would require using twice as many inputs as were actually used. In other words, more than half of 1991’s agricultural output is directly attributable to improved technology; and less than half is attributable to conventional inputs. Growth rates of output, input use, and productivity have varied widely from decade to decade. The period of greatest productivity growth was during the 1970s when global commodity markets boomed. The 1980s was a decade of relatively slow growth in output and productivity. Based on similar data ending in 1985, Alston, Pardey, and Carter estimated that the rate of return to public-sector agricultural R&D in California, to which much of that productivity growth could be attributed, was around 20 percent per annum in real terms.3 Complete, specific data on inputs, outputs, and productivity in California and U.S. agriculture, comparable to those in Tables 1 through 3, are not yet available for the years after 1991.However, the data that are available suggest that the 1990s reflected are turn to a more-normal rate of productivity growth in California, sustaining the longer-term average rate, in the range of 2 percent per annum.Mullen et al. applied California’s 1949-1991 average annual agricultural productivity growth rate of 1.81 percent per year to the period 1949-1999. They found that with 1950s productivity and the actual inputs used, output in 1999 would have been only 42 percent of the actual value of $25.3 billion. Hence, the factors that gave rise to productivity growth since 1950 accounted for $14.8 billion worth of output in 1999 alone. Considering the period 1949-1999, Mullen et al. estimated that if public agricultural R&D accounted for one-sixth of the productivity growth the benefit-cost ratio for public investments in agricultural R&D would still be 6:1 . Changes in inputs, outputs, and productivity in California agriculture paralleled similar changes in other states and around the world, but with some important differences reflecting elements unique to California.

As a result of these changes, farms and farming today are very different from what they were in the early part of the twentieth century. Clearly, new technology has been a major driver in the development of California agriculture—and not just agricultural technology. Important changes off the farm have included improvements in methods of food preservation, storage, transport, and handling, along with general improvements in the transportation infrastructure. A host of other technological changes have been applied on the farm. Many of these have been shared with agriculture in other places, and beyond agriculture. In what follows we emphasize those developments that have been specific to California and important here, focusing for the most part on technology applicable at the farm level.The process of technological innovation in California has much in common with the process of technological innovation in the United States more generally. Nonetheless, there are some unique features. Like other regions in the United States in the early part of the twentieth century, changes in technology in California emphasized the adoption of mechanical technology—improved plows, various kinds of harvesting machines that were initially powered by animal power or steam engines, tractors, and so on. All of these innovations reduced costs, especially labor per acre.4 Such mechanical inventions enabled the establishment of land-intensive agriculture and, together with the Homestead Act of 1862, were crucial elements in the settlement of California. As in the rest of the United States, California agricultural production in the twentieth century has grown primarily through increases in yield per acre. California farmers were early in their adoption of chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, and swiftly took up more advanced agronomic and biological management practices. Recently, California has become the leader in introducing biotechnology and computerized systems into agriculture.Unlike other states, however, the growth of agriculture in California required diversion of water. From the nineteenth century on, California agriculture emphasized the introduction and adoption of institutions and technology to facilitate irrigated agriculture.The institutions ranged from local collective arrangements for diverting the water to massive state water projects. Technology emphasized physical innovations in delivering water to improve control and efficiency. In California, as in other western states, much emphasis was given to improved irrigation technologies.

Posted on

Earned legalization is billed as the compromise between guest workers and legalization

Farmers and worker advocates argued over the details of a revised AgJOBS program that included earned legalization throughout 2000, with farmers wanting more days of farm work to qualify for eventual immigrant status, and worker advocates fewer days. After the November 2000 elections, some worker advocates, noting that both U.S. President Bush and Mexican President Fox favored a new guest worker program, agreed to a compromise that won the endorsement of the United Farm Workers and the National Council of Agricultural Employers. Under this December 2000 compromise, unauthorized workers who did at least 100 days of farm work in the preceding 18 months could qualify for temporary legal status, and they could convert this temporary legal status into an immigrant status if they did at least 360 days of farm work in the next six years. The compromise included freezing the minimum wage that had to be paid to foreign workers for several years and giving farmers the option of providing a housing allowance rather than housing to workers. The AgJOBS compromise came close to Congressional approval in December 2000, but was blocked by those opposed to any type of amnesty for unauthorized foreigners. The atmosphere changed in 2001, especially after U.S. President Bush and Mexican President Fox met in Mexico in February 2001 and agreed to establish a migration working group that was charged with creating “an orderly framework for [Mexico-U.S.] migration that ensures humane treatment [and] legal security, and dignifies labor conditions.” Senator Phil Gramm became the leading proponent of the guest worker-only approach, favoring a program that would permit unauthorized Mexicans already in the U.S. to obtain seasonal or year-round work permits: seasonal workers could return to the U.S. indefinitely,macetas de plástico and year-round workers could remain in the U.S. three years, and then they would have to stay in Mexico at least one year before returning legally. U.S. employers and guest workers would pay social security taxes to a trust fund that would reimburse U.S. hospitals that provided emergency medical care for injured guest workers; the balance of the social security taxes paid would be placed in individual IRA-type accounts that workers could receive when they surrendered their work permits to U.S. consulates in Mexico.

Gramm’s proposal covers Mexicans employed in all U.S. industries, but does not include a path to immigrant status. The other extreme is legalization. Under a plan embraced by the AFL-CIO and many church and ethnic groups, unauthorized foreigners in the U.S. from any country, and employed in any industry, could become immigrants, and then sponsor their families for admission. Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez introduced a bill that would grant immigrant status to all persons who were in the U.S. at least five years, and temporary legal status to those in the U.S. less than five years. When unauthorized foreigners reach the five-year U.S. residence mark, they could apply to convert their temporary status to an immigrant status.Only unauthorized foreigners who have worked in the U.S. would be eligible, and they must continue working to maintain their temporary legal status and to eventually become immigrants. Earned legalization appeals to those who associate immigration with work in the U.S., and allows Mexican President Fox to keep his promise of improving conditions for the migrants he calls “heroes” for working in the U.S. and sending remittances to Mexico. A spokesperson said President Bush supports “a new temporary-worker program that would allow for some of the [unauthorized] workers to achieve permanent residency status over a period of time.” In 2003, it appears that Democrats, unions and immigrant rights groups will settle for earned legalization, but they oppose new temporary worker programs, while Republicans and most employers favor new temporary worker programs, but oppose an easy transition to legal immigrant status.Many human activities have had a significant effect on the environments in which they take place, and agriculture is no exception. California’s natural waterways have been greatly modified to enable conveyance of water to its farmlands as well as its cities, and to provide facilities for flood control, navigation, and hydroelectric power generation. Most of the natural wetlands in the state have been drained and transformed into fertile, highly productive agricultural land. Farmers have introduced many new species of plants and animals to California and in the process changed many of its ecosystems. While modifications of California’s environment have generated immense good, they have also increasingly become a cause of concern.

Over the last half-century many policies and regulations have been introduced to control some of the effects that California agriculture has had on its environment.Two main types of policy intervention have been made. First, numerous policies have sought to control agricultural externalities. These center on issues such as reducing groundwater contamination from animal waste; worker safety, environmental contamination, and food safety problems associated with pesticide use; water-logging problems associated with excessive irrigation and lack of drainage; air pollution from agricultural waste burning such as rice, and earth mining activities; and odor pollution associated with livestock. A second set of policies has specifically attempted to preserve ecosystems and species. These policies identify and protect the environmental amenities that may be threatened or damaged by agricultural activities. Environmental policies affecting California agriculture have continually evolved over the last fifty years. The evolution has been affected by changes in technology as well as by changes in the political environment and public beliefs and preferences. For example, new knowledge about the impact of agricultural chemicals on human health and the environment, the discovery of new methods of pest control, and the introduction of new monitoring or pollution-detecting strategies have led to changes in environmental laws and regulations affecting agriculture. Similarly, changes in the relative political power of environmental groups or various farm groups and/or changes in public perception and concern about certain environmental issues have led to changes in regulations. Farming in California is subject to policy-making and regulation by a wide variety of agencies. In addition to traditional agencies in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, they include other federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; state agencies such as the California Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, California Department of Public Health, State Air Quality Control Board, and State Water Quality Control Board; and county and municipal agencies. These many agencies that control various aspects of California’s environment have operated under a complex set of policies that are not necessarily consistent and are subject to modification. The complexity and the changing nature of environmental policies in California have provided an ample background for research in agricultural and environmental economics. Agricultural economists have assessed the impacts of various policy proposals, attempted to provide an economic rationale for proposed policies, and introduced proposals for policy reform and modification. Some of this research may have affected the existing policies and regulations in California; some has provided general background knowledge for the body of literature in agricultural and environmental economics. A survey of the environmental policies affecting California agriculture identifies some of the difficulties that policy makers are faced with in their attempts to establish environmental regulations. Problems with detecting and monitoring agricultural pollutants have sometimes led to overly strict policing of agricultural activities that are likely to cause environmental side effects. For example,cultivo del frambueso a chemical may be banned or its use restricted even though policy makers may be concerned only with the environmental side effects of some of its residue. Similarly, animal production in a certain area may be restricted or limited even though the only local concern may be with the waste that the animals are producing. The evolution of new technologies will likely help to develop policy measures that will relate more to specific environmental side effects rather than to the general related activities . Establishment of straightforward and efficient policies is influenced by difficulties in measuring the impacts of externalities. The assessment of health risk effects and environmental side effects associated with pesticide use, for instance, is subject to much uncertainty. These uncertainties have contributed to the constant debates and controversies regarding environmental regulation affecting agriculture. One of the challenges facing the scientific community is to provide data to reduce such uncertainties. As Baumol and Oates have suggested, uncertainty regarding outcomes has led to policies that aim to reach a target level of environmental quality based mainly on biological or ecological criteria, even in instances where balancing marginal benefits with marginal costs might be more appropriate. Another practical difficulty in determining environmental quality is its multi-dimensionality. The same chemical can cause several types of environmental problems—worker safety, food safety, groundwater contamination, or damage to wildlife. The benefits of chemicals, as well as the magnitude of their environmental side effects, can vary significantly according to crop and location. The way a chemical is applied can alter its impact on the environment; a chemical sprayed from an airplane is likely to generate more environmental side effects than one applied by low-pressure, precise-application techniques. Thus the social costs associated with the use of certain chemicals may vary significantly across locations and applications, and policies such as uniform taxation or direct regulation of agricultural chemical use may be economically inefficient in many situations. Efficient regulation of the environmental side effects of agriculture may call for policies that vary by location and agricultural activity, and the need for flexibility may also provide a challenge in terms of design and implementation. Much of the economic research on the environmental regulation of agriculture has simply estimated the economic impacts of proposed regulation. However, some research has also suggested improvements in policy design and demonstrated how changes in policy instruments might result in attaining environmental objectives at much lower economic costs. This chapter discusses some of the major environmental issues arising from California agriculture, and describes the conclusions of recent economic research that has analyzed the efficacy of various approaches to handling these issues. The diversity of problems and policy issues is illustrated here through discussion of control of animal wastes, pest control and the regulation of pesticides, endangered species protection, climate change, and the growing role of agricultural land as a source of recreational amenities.California is the United States’ major dairy producer, and is home to approximately one-sixth of the nation’s dairy cow population. These 1.64 million cows account for over one-fifth of all milk produced in the United States . Although the United States milk cow inventory decreased by approximately 130,000 head between 1997 and 2001, the number of milk cows in California increased by 14 percent during this time. Milk production per cow has also increased by approximately five percent during the same period . In short, California dairy production has been increasing both in scale and efficiency in recent years. Until recently, the dairy industry in California had been closely concentrated near the larger population centers in Los Angeles and Northern California. The largest dairy-producing region in the state had been the Chino region near Riverside, not far from Los Angeles. These patterns were in accordance with the models of agricultural land use first developed by Johann von Thünen almost 200 years ago. Von Thünen modeled the allocation of land uses around a city as a function of the economic return, or “rent” to the land, which in turn is a function of transportation costs. In the city’s core, urban uses such as residences and industry will determine the highest value of the land. Von Thünen hypothesized that dairying and other intensive farming industries would be located immediately outside of the urban core, because they had the highest transportation costs, both in absolute terms and in terms of the losses that would be suffered by any delays in getting easily spoiled products to market. Less intensive industries such as forestry, extensive field crops, and ranching would be located further outside of the central city. The allocation of land predicted by von Thünen’s model does not take environmental externalities into account, however. Recent studies suggest that when the cost of environmental quality is taken into account, then the location of various activities have to balance transportation and pollution costs . Thus, pollution-intensive industries either have to reduce their pollution or relocate farther away from the city.

Posted on

Under the new law premium levels at higher levels of coverage have increased

The 2002 Act also created a new Conservation Security Program . This program provides annual payments to farms that use environmentally approved practices in their production operations. Because many farms here in California already apply a number of environmentally approved practices in their operations, this program would provide an additional direct subsidy to farmers on a per acre basis up to relatively small payment limits. But this program has not yet been fully implemented and is very small in total funding.Based on recent data, the Federal Crop Insurance Program provided about $37 billion in protection on about 78 percent of the nation’s insurable acres in 2001 . The crop insurance program has experienced rising participation during the past decade as subsidies have increased and coverage has been extended to more crops. The 2001 level was nearly three times as high as the level in 1990, when crop insurance guarantees amounted to about $13 billion. This protection cost taxpayers about 2.8 billion in 2001. Producers paid about $1.2 billion in premiums and received about $3.1 billion in indemnities. The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 resulted in increased premium subsidies and adjustments to the formulas used to calculate coverage.For example, the old subsidy level for a coverage level of 50/100 was 55 percent. It now amounts to 67 percent. For a higher coverage level of 75/100, the subsidy level increased from 24percent to 55 percent. This change produced significant cost savings for producers purchasing revenue insurance compared to previous years and also led to a higher number of producers choosing a higher level of coverage. This policy reform has the effect that the crop insurance plays a more important role in the present PSE calculations than it has done under past calculations, because more producers are likely to participate in the program due to the lower cost . On a nationwide basis, the 2000 Act invests an additional $8.2 billion over 5 years to improve federal crop insurance. With regard to California crops, the subsidy resulting from crop insurance in 2001 was substantial for cotton, all grapes, almonds, prunes, apples and wheat. Most other fruits,macetas de plastico vegetables and field crops received only little subsidy as a consequence of participating in the crop insurance program.Irrigation is a key element of the current pattern of agriculture in California.

Water subsidy to California agriculture derives from access to surface irrigation water at prices below cost and below likely market prices for irrigation water if a market were allowed. Much of the reservoir and distribution system that serves agriculture was developed by the federal and state governments. The federal Central Valley Project and the California State Water Project systems of dams and canals are important providers of water storage and delivery to growers. In these projects, water is accumulated and stored in large reservoirs in the northern part of the state and then released into the Sacramento River canals for delivery. Almost half of the water available for use in the San Joaquin Valley comes from CVP and SWP sources. In addition, the All-American Canal diverts water from the Colorado River for use in the Imperial Valley in the far south of California. Imperial Valley dependence on canal water is acute; over 90 percent of valley water comes from federal or state projects. For the PSE calculations we assembled data on irrigation water usage by crop and then developed estimates of the subsidy implicit in the CVP. Based on data from the California Department of Water Resources, we were able to obtain figures on irrigated acreage per crop and irrigation region. This enabled us to calculate the total amount of acre-foot of water applied per crop and region. These calculations are based on average irrigated crop acreage during the 1988-1998 period. For commodities without individual number in DWR data, the share is determined by value of production . The subsidy rates for irrigated water from the Central Valley Project are based on data from the Bureau of Reclamation. We calculated the subsidy rate as the difference of the contract rate that a water district pays per acre-foot and the actual cost per acrefoot. Generally, the contract rate ranges from $10 to $30 per acre-foot for most regions, but it is very low at $2 dollars per acre-foot for most contractors in the Sacramento River region. Subsidy rates varied from $10 to $40 per acre-foot depending on region. The water subsidy for California is estimated to total almost $88 million.Marketing assistance encompasses many programs and departments that provide resident assistance to the agriculture industry. Cooperative Extension and the Agricultural Cooperative Service provide advisory assistance. Inspection services are provided by the Federal Grain Inspection Service, the Food Safety Inspection Service, and the Packers and Stockyards Administration.

The state government also provided approximately $147 million for agricultural plant and animal health, pest prevention and food safety services. Outlays for the Foreign Agriculture Service, Agricultural Marketing Service, and Office of Transportation comprise the federal portion of processing and marketing assistance. For the 1999-2001 period, the average state outlays for California Department of Food and Agriculture marketing, commodities and agricultural services totaled around $60 million. For those commodities with relatively small amounts of total support, marketing assistance provides the bulk of the support. Assessments are subtracted from outlays to determine the contribution to the PSE. Finally, there are state and federal marketing order, board and commissions for many California commodities. These are generally financed by check-off systems that apply a kind of excise tax on the marketed commodity to support promotion or research .Infrastructure support includes federal soil conservation programs, which provide assistance in reducing soil erosion and degradation of resources. While the contribution of these programs to overall support of California agriculture is small, they are included as a separate category for consistency with the PSE calculation. Economy-wide policies include taxes and federal transportation spending. There are various tax benefits for agriculture and foreign sales corporations that indirectly support the agricultural industry. Nelson, Simone and Valdes have compiled the total value of federal tax benefits to agribusiness and have also calculated the value of inland waterway construction and railroad interest rate subsidies. In general, the value of transportation subsidies is relatively small, usually around 2 percent of total support for each commodity. This is likely an over-estimate, however, because the California share in these benefits is likely smaller than the California share of agricultural output . Tax breaks were a larger share of the support, but were not substantial by themselves. We did not include in our PSE calculations the value of state and local real estate tax benefits to agriculture. California, like many other states in the United States, provides for a special taxation rate on agricultural real estate. The state’s Williamson Act, introduced in 1965,macetas rectangulares provides a preferential assessment program for agricultural land. Williamson Act acreage currently represents almost half of California agricultural land. Under the Williamson Act, landowners sign a contract with the appropriate local government agency restricting urban use of that land for ten years.

In return, property under Williamson Act protection is assessed for tax purposes according to its capitalized agricultural income. Capitalized income assessments are usually about half of the market value-based assessments for Williamson Act land; thus landowners receive approximately $120 million in tax benefits. Contracts may be terminated through non-renewal or cancellation. Non-renewal gradually phases in the market value-based assessment over nine years; at the end of the ten-year contract, the land is appraised at full market value. Cancellation of Williamson Act contracts must be approved by the local governing board after conducting public hearings. If the contract cancellation is approved, the landowner pays a penalty of 12.5 percent of the current market value of the land .Dairy policy is discussed in detail above. Here we note only that, in addition to trade protection and internal price policies, the dairy industry receives support from several smaller programs as well. In addition, the dairy industry receives indirect support in the form of subsidies to the grain industry and, especially, the alfalfa hay industry. Hay is important in dairy production, accounting for about 20 percent of total costs. The major subsidy for alfalfa is irrigation water; some have argued that the water subsidy to alfalfa is a major contributor to lower dairy production costs in California. Let’s examine this proposition. Total alfalfa support is about $34 million. Most of this, about $15 million is attributable to the irrigation water subsidy. Some of the alfalfa and other hay grown in the state is consumed by other livestock. Approximately $12 million of the water subsidy to hay is ultimately of benefit to the dairy industry. If the $12 million were added to a subsidy of about one billion dollars, it would raise the overall dairy subsidy from 33.4 percent to 33.6 percent. In other words the effect of irrigation subsidy on dairy is very small, especially compared to the subsidy from other sources.Commodities in this category have little government intervention in their markets. The PSEs range from about 3 to 5 percent of the revenue. There are no significant trade barriers or direct payments for these commodities. The main portion of support comes from input assistance, marketing assistance, broad government infrastructure and economy-wide policies. While these commodities have no explicit export subsidies, they do benefit from foreign market development funding to some degree, especially almonds and strawberries . Crop insurance benefits and disaster payments are also a source of a small amount of support for this group . In the citrus industry, crop insurance and disaster payments comprise almost 30 percent of the support; large payments were made following the 1990 freeze that took a heavy toll on the California citrus industry . Most commodities in this group have some sort of marketing order, either federal, state, or both. The marketing order share of total support ranges from 3 percent to around 25 percent . The share of support from research is relatively high for these commodities, around 25 percent. Nevertheless, since these percentages equal very small PSEs for the horticultural commodities, the overall subsidy is quite small.

One of the major problems in California is that the state’s water is concentrated in the north, but the majority of the state’s urban population and irrigated agriculture is located in the south. California contains 32 million acre-feet of developed water, of which 84 percent is used to irrigate 9.68 million acres of agricultural land. Because such a large proportion of water resources is used for irrigated agriculture, most water management conflicts involve the movement of water to or from irrigated agriculture. While most of the water is used to irrigate field and fodder crops, the high value vegetable and fruit crops generate the majority of agricultural revenues.From the 1950’s to 1970’s different government agencies at the State and Federal level implemented a massive water development program in California. This program was built upon the traditional supply augmentation approach to water development. Unfortunately this approach to water development is flawed. The main weakness of the traditional supply based method is that it assumes that the demand for water is perfectly inelastic and unchanging over time. An inelastic demand assumes that there is little quantitative response to changes in the price of water. Under this planning approach the quantity of water to be delivered by a water project is fixed, and the only question is how to minimize the costs of supplying it. Economic analysis is then performed to see if the total costs of the water project are less than the total benefits. Both the State Water Project and the Federal Central Valley Water Project were developed using the principles of the supply-based approach to water development. The SWP was originally projected to supply an average annual quantity of 4.2 million acre-feet of water in two stages. The first stage of 2.2 million acre-feet was built and put into service in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. However, subsequent attempts to build the remaining 2 million acre-feet capacity have met with effective opposition from environmental interests, who want to prevent any further water development, and current contractors, who know that the average cost of water delivered by the system will have to increase by up to 300 percent to finance the completion of the planned project.

Posted on

The Japanese Government continues to impose a high import tariff on fresh oranges

Trade remedy laws are intended to offset “unfair” trade that injures domestic producers as a result of either foreign sales that are “dumped” into the U.S. at less than fair value or influenced by foreign government subsidies. The regular use of trade remedy laws within NAFTA illustrates the fact that any transition to freer trade in agriculture, even between countries at relatively similar stages of development, may be politically difficult. An example of the agricultural trade tensions between Canada and the U.S. is the recent “tomato wars,” in which U.S. producers accused the Canadians of “dumping” tomatoes in the U.S. market. In October 2001, the United States government made a preliminary ruling that Canadian growers were dumping greenhouse tomatoes into the United States at prices below the Canadian cost of production. As a result of this finding, Canadian sales into the United States were assessed an average tariff of 32 percent. Several weeks later, the legal tables were turned as the Canadian government initiated an anti-dumping investigation against the U.S. fresh tomato industry . The Canadian counterclaim may not have been a coincidence. Rather, it may have been a tit-for-tat reaction to the steep U.S. duties imposed on Canadian greenhouse tomato sales to the United States. By July 2002, both cases were resolved with identical rulings of no material injury. While U.S. exports of fresh tomatoes to Canada declined 10 percent over the previous year during the period of investigation,planter pots drainage Canadian imports of greenhouse tomatoes to the United States actually increased 17 percent over that year .Despite the fact that Japanese agriculture receives high levels of government support and has limited market orientation , it is also the world’s largest net importer of agricultural products. The United States supplies roughly one-third of Japan’s agricultural imports, and in 2002, Japan’s agricultural imports from the U.S. were valued at $8.3 billion .

About 20 percent of these U.S. exports to Japan originated in California. Japan is California’s third largest export market for agricultural products, with rice, cotton, almonds, beef, and oranges ranking as the top commodities . Japan’s weak economy has dampened its total agricultural imports in recent years . In the 1990s, the most significant import growth in Japan was in the area of fruits and vegetables, wine, and beef . More recently, grains and oil seeds have done better . Japan continues to restrict imports of horticultural products, livestock products, and processed foods, all of which are important exports for California. Recently, beef exports to Japan were halted in response to the BSE scare in Europe; and Japan continues to consider implementing a “beef import safeguard,” which could further lower imports even further. At the time of this writing, Japan had halted all imports of U.S. beef, due to the discovery of BSE in the U.S. . Citing phytosanitary concerns, Japan blocks imports of U.S. fresh fruit, vegetables, and other horticultural crops, keeping Japanese domestic prices of horticultural products artificially high. Government subsidies are also provided to farmers to encourage them to divert land out of rice production and into vegetables . Japan also has country-of-origin labeling requirements for agricultural products that principally affect fruits, vegetables and animal products . This acts as a non-tariff barrier to trade. Japan maintains high tariffs on beef, citrus, and processed foods. In addition, imported high quality California rice is strictly controlled and rarely reaches the consumer food table in Japan. The over quota rice tariff in Japan exceeds 400 percent. Until recently, Japan’s system of food imports used mainly non-tariff barriers such as quotas and licenses, instead of tariffs. Sazanami et al. found that Japan’s tariffs on food imports averaged only 8 percent, but the quantitative import barriers averaged 272 percent, with the rice tariff equivalent barrier at 737 percent. Despite the tariffication required by the Uruguay round of trade liberalization, of Japan’s agricultural imports remain highly protected . In addition, Japan continues to use health and safety regulations to serve as barriers to trade.In the case of fresh oranges and lemons, the U.S. is the largest supplier to Japan, accounting for over 80 percent of Japan’s imports.

Other exporters of oranges and lemons of lesser importance in Japan are Australia, Chile, and South Africa.The tariff rate is 32 percent for imports during the December-May period, and 16 percent during June-November. California’s second most important market, the EU, provides export subsidies for beef, cheese, other dairy products, and processed fruit, in competition with California. It also provides generous production subsidies on horticultural products such as tomatoes, grapes, peaches and lemons. The EU’s subsidized production of these products affects California’s competitiveness in third markets. More generally, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy significantly isolates European farmers from international competition. The CAP is a system of subsidies and market barriers that include mandatory land set-asides, commodity specific direct payments, and export subsidies . Support to agricultural producers as a share of total agriculture receipts is 40 percent higher in the EU than in the U.S. . Much of this support comes in the form of higher prices paid by domestic consumers. Recently, there has been increasing pressure to significantly reform the CAP; the program has been called by the popular press an “extravagant folly” and “demented” . These publications and others have argued that reform of the CAP will be a critical element of the next round of trade negotiations, if these talks are to be successful. Enlargement of the EU to include ten Central and Eastern European countries will also create pressure for further reform. Structural reforms of European agricultural policy will have important implications for California, both because the region competes in third markets with California, and because the region is an important customer, as discussed earlier. If the existing EU agricultural policy is applied to the 10 new member countries, the incentive will be to increase production and agricultural exports. Several of the new member countries have a comparative advantage in agriculture, especially in the area of wheat, coarse grains, and livestock. California agriculture will benefit if this expanded production results in budgetary pressure to reform the CAP. In addition, California agriculture may well benefit from projected income growth in Central and Eastern Europe that results from EU membership. Higher incomes in this region will lead to increased demand there for high-valued food,draining pot for plants of the type exported from California. An ongoing trade dispute between the US and the EU concerns the use of geographical indicators . The EU wants to prohibit foreign producers of food and beverage products from labeling products with European regional names .

The list of products that will receive this protection is an on-going subject of negotiation at the WTO. For California there is a trade-off associated with GI protection. On the one hand, California would have to stop using certain names if the EU is successful . On the other hand, California agriculture could use GI protection to develop niche markets for its food and beverage products, potentially capturing a price premium.Mexican agricultural trade is highly dependent on its two partners in NAFTA. Agricultural provisions were an important component of the NAFTA agreement , with agricultural tariff and non-tariff barriers being phased out over varying time periods up to 15 years. Within U.S. and Mexican agriculture, some groups supported the agreement while others opposed it. In response to these concerns, NAFTA gives special consideration to the centrality of corn in Mexican agriculture, so the country maintains significant tariffs on corn imports even as other trade barriers have been removed more quickly. In 2003, the tenth year of the NAFTA agreement, a new round of tariff reductions within the free trade area came into affect. These tariff reductions are expected to significantly affect Mexican farmers, who will face new competition from American and Canadian producers in such products as potatoes, barley and wheat, and, importantly for California, cotton, fresh apples, frozen strawberries and certain milk products . According to reports in the popular press, the competitive pressures generated by NAFTA have been economically painful for Mexican producers. This is at least partly due to the fact that structural inefficiencies in the Mexican economy increase costs of production and marketing . Some Mexican policymakers suggest that it is also a result of the subsidies received by U.S. farmers that the Mexican government cannot hope to match . At the outset of NAFTA, there was significant opposition to the agreement from U.S. agriculture. Opposition came from producers of wheat, sugar, peanuts, citrus, and winter fruits and vegetables . Some agricultural interests in California opposed NAFTA because of fear of competition from low-wage Mexican agriculture in the production of labor-intensive crops. Proponents argued that NAFTA would drive down agricultural wage rates in California and thus restore the competitiveness of California’s agriculture. Factor price equalization lies at the root of the debate over the effects of liberalized trade on the competitiveness of California agriculture precisely because a large percentage of California’s agricultural production is labor intensive, using a relatively high proportion of labor relative to other inputs such as land and capital. This includes the production of fruits and vegetables, nuts, and various horticultural crops, where labor costs range from 20 to 50 percent of total production costs .

Prior to NAFTA these crops were protected by import tariffs ranging from 5 to 30 percent, and other non-tariff barriers such as marketing orders. Much of this labor is unskilled and most of the workers are immigrants from Mexico. This labor-intensive production means that California and Mexican agriculture differ less than might be predicted by comparing incomes per capita; thus the two regions are likely to compete against each other in third markets. Despite protectionism on both sides of the border, there has been progress towards freer trade and cross-border investment between the U.S. and Mexico since NAFTA. For instance, in 1996 the U.S. opened its market to Mexican avocados for the first time in 82 years. Prior to this ruling, phytosanitary rules banned unprocessed Mexican avocado imports and provided considerable protection to California growers.The U.S. decision to import avocados will extend beyond that single market and probably help in alleviating trade barriers to Mexican peaches, nectarines and cherries. Accumulated U.S. investment in Mexican agricultural production equaled $45 million from 1994 to 1997, with even greater investment in the food processing industry in Mexico of about $5 billion in 1999 .California agriculture receives relatively few subsidies from the federal government compared to other states. However, California does benefit from several programs designed to either explicitly subsidize exports or promote demand for California products in foreign markets. Funding for these programs continues in spite of the public commitment by the U.S. government to phase out export subsidies, and the cap placed on this form of support by WTO commitments. The programs that explicitly subsidize exports are the Export Enhancement Program and the Dairy Export Incentive Program . The Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Program subsidize the cost of market development activities overseas. A new program called Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program is intended to fund projects that address technical barriers to the export of specialty crops. Among these programs, the most important to California producers is the MAP, which received increased funding in the 2002 Farm Bill. In this subsection, we describe each of these programs, and their importance to California agriculture.The 2002 Farm Bill, as with previous Farm Bills, authorized Export Enhancement Program export subsidies for such commodities as wheat, rice, barley, eggs, and frozen poultry. FAS authorizes export subsides for these products either when prices are low or as “self-defense” when other countries engage in what FAS defines “unfair” trading practices . The 2002 Farm Bill allocated $478 million annually to EEP , but the share of this subsidy that will flow to California will probably be small. In recent years only frozen poultry has qualified for EEP subsidies , because world market prices have been sufficiently high for other eligible commodities, though the potential scope of the EEP was expanded in the 2002 Farm Bill. This may increase the size of the EEP subsidy captured by California producers.

Posted on

Consolidation occurring at the food manufacturing level has progressed rapidly for some time

The farm share for fruits and vegetables tends to be much lower and does not differ much between fresh and processed fruits and vegetables.The second major measure of food marketing costs in the U.S. is the marketing bill, which is calculated as the difference between what consumers spend for domestically produced farm foods and what farmers receive. In 2001 the farm share of the food marketing bill was 19 percent. This measure of the farm share has also been declining steadily over time, falling from 41 percent in 1950 to 31 percent in 1980 and then to 24 percent in 1990. The marketing bill takes account of food expenditures both at home and in restaurants. The proportion of the U.S. food dollar spent outside the home has been rising rapidly. In 2002, such expenditures accounted for 46 percent of the food budget compared to 37 percent in 1990 and 32 percent in 1980.While the overall U.S. food market is characterized by slow growth, eating habits are becoming more diverse. Demographic and psychographic trends, such as ethnic diversity and new attitudes about food consumption as it relates to self-identity and well-being, have contributed to a much more segmented market. Food marketers must increasingly target specific consumer segments rather than employing mass marketing strategies. More retailers are looking to their suppliers to assist them in understanding and better serving different types of consumer segments. In response, many suppliers are becoming involved in new types of marketing services, including consumer research and category management. The latter is designed to help retailers improve net profitability for a category of products through efficient assortment, pricing, promotion and shelf-space management. For suppliers the aim is to focus on identifying and servicing the evolving needs of specific accounts as a preferred supplier,nft channel rather than marketing more homogeneous products with fewer support services on a spot market basis. The U.S. retail industry is dominated by chain stores. In 2002, retail chains accounted for 83 percent of supermarket industry sales vs. 58 percent in 1954 .

The remainder of sales is by independent stores, although the vast majority of these stores are affiliated to buying groups, either voluntary chains such as Supervalu or to a lesser extent retailer cooperatives such as Associated Wholesale Grocers. In 2002 there were 32,981 supermarkets including all format types. Firms in the U.S. food-marketing sector often view a large market share, including, if possible, the position of market leader, as a key requisite to success. Pursuit of market share has led to a dramatic consolidation in the U.S. food chain at all levels, ranging from the farm through food retailing. Due to the difficulty of capturing sizable market share from rival firms, many U.S. food marketers have pursued share growth through mergers and acquisition of rivals. Mergers and acquisitions in the food sector occurred at a rapid pace in the 1980s, temporarily peaked in 1988 at 573 mergers, declined and then reached an all-time high of 813 in 1998, since declining to 415 in 2003 . Although the growth in merger activity has temporarily abated, cumulative activity in recent decades has likely had important implications for the structure of competition in the U.S. food sector.About 16,000 food and tobacco processing companies operate in the U.S., but in 1997 about 75 percent of sales were by the 100 largest of these firms. The largest sales growth, fueled mostly by mergers and acquisitions, has been recorded by the top 20 of these 100 firms, which in 1997 were estimated to account for about 50 percent of value added in food manufacturing . Most of the 53 food and tobacco industries surveyed in the U.S. Census of Manufacturing have experienced increasing concentration over time. The average market share held by the four largest firms in these industries has risen from 43.9 percent in 1967 to 53.3 percent in 1992, the most recent year for which data are available. In contrast to the food manufacturing sector, over the decade 1987-97 retail concentration ratios were quite stable with the share of U.S. food sales accounted for by the top 4, 8 and 20 retailers at about 20, 30, and 40 percent, respectively. During this decade new players were emerging in the U.S. food system, including value oriented retailers such as Wal-Mart with its fast expanding super center and club store formats, specialty food retailers like Trader Joe’s, European entrants into U.S. food retailing, and other mass and drug store merchandisers entering the food business.

This phenomenon is called channel blurring and continues with the recent emergence of “Dollar Stores,” on-line food shopping and the on-going competition from the food service sector for the consumer food dollar. This challenging marketplace motivated many conventional retailers to become larger in hopes of improving their competitiveness. From 1997-1999, in particular, mergers occurred between several already large retail chains, beginning to induce important and still unfolding changes in relationships between buyers and suppliers. By 2002 the estimated share of U.S. food sales accounted for by the top 4, 8 and 20 retailers had reached 31, 45, and 57 percent, respectively. This means that in 2002 suppliers faced a market where only 20 retail firms sold at least $276 billion in food. Despite the mergers, the United States has no truly national supermarket chains. In 2002 only eight chains had over 1,000 stores, and only one of these has over 2,000 outlets. Given the large geographic size of the United States, chains tend to be regional in focus. However, the recent high merger activity has contributed to much larger chains than ever before, with five surpassing $25 billion in sales in 2002, and four with stores in over half of the country. Still, many local and regional chains remain quite competitive by staying in close contact with their customers and implementing highly targeted marketing strategies. The regional,hydroponic nft ethnic and demographic diversity of U.S. consumers leads some to predict that small to mid-size chains may have an important role to play for some time to come. Within the retail channel the super center concept has emerged as a major industry force, which further concentrates buying power in the hands of a few very large new players. Super centers are a type of mass merchandising format combining a full-line supermarket with a full-line discount department store and range up to 24,400 square meters in size , compared to 4,900 square meters for the average supermarket. Total 2002 grocery-equivalent sales of super centers were estimated at $45.5 to $50.3 billion with total super center sales reaching $116.7 billion . The largest entrant to this format is Wal-Mart, with an estimated $29.3 billion in U.S. grocery-equivalent 2002 food sales, a 75 percent share of national super center sales and 1,333 super centers as of mid-2003. Already the largest retailer in the world, operating in ten countries, Wal-Mart is opening over 200 new super centers per year in the U.S. alone, and is fast becoming the dominant global player in grocery retailing with $244.5 billion in 2002 global sales among all its store formats, including large discount stores and warehouse club stores .

Wal-Mart has also entered the conventional grocery-retailing sector in the U.S. with 52 neighborhood markets in 2002, and growing. Wal-Mart’s immense buying power combined with its approach of driving non value-adding costs out of the food system appears to have raised the competitive benchmark for conventional retailers. It emphasizes supply chain management via covendor managed automatic inventory replenishment procurement systems. Vendors have shared responsibility for growing the category and have real-time access to data on sales of their products via Wal-Mart stores. In exchange, they provide special services, packs and support, such as category management, tailored to the needs of the Wal-Mart account. Even for volatile fresh produce items Wal-Mart tends to operate on a seasonal or annual contract basis with a small number of preferred suppliers per product or category. Other retailers are also developing closer linkages with preferred suppliers, gradually causing a shift away from the spot market, the traditional modus operandi in fresh produce procurement. Another factor contributing to greater food retailer market power is the intensifying battle for their limited shelf-space by food marketing firms. During 2003, food-marketing firms introduced 11,574 new food products . Since the average supermarket carries about 30,000 product codes, competition among firms introducing new products has led to the common practice of retailers charging fees known as “slotting allowances” for allocating shelf space to new products. Supermarket space allocations and the competition for display areas are critically important to California marketing firms. Until recently, fresh produce was exempt from slotting allowances, but these fees entered the produce department in the latter half of the 1990s with the introduction of branded fresh-cut produce. These items, like other consumer packaged goods commonly subject to slotting allowances, require dedicated shelf-space year-round. While bulk produce items are still not usually subject to slotting allowances, payment of other types of fees has increased marketing costs for growers and shippers . Increased retail buying power is influencing supplier strategies and inducing marketing alliances and joint ventures at the shipper level. Shippers have increasingly sought to come closer to matching the scale of the fewer, larger buyers. Marketing alliances between shippers appear to be the mechanism of choice as they allow each party to maintain its own growing, packing and cooling operations. This seems important for fresh produce shippers, most of which are family-owned and not publicly traded even if their businesses are structured as corporations. The larger scale obtained from marketing alliances helps firms to make greater investments in marketing systems and services, since they can be spread over a higher sales volume. Each year more suppliers are offering category management services, broadening their product lines, and becoming year-round, either via domestic or international diversification of supply sources. This greater vertical coordination can enable both suppliers and retailers to plan more effectively and reduce transaction costs, thereby improving the horizontal competitiveness of each party.U.S. food demand trends reflect the preferences of an older, wealthier, more ethnically diverse and more educated population today than 20 years ago. The entrance of more women into the workforce, in conjunction with higher incomes, has led to an increased demand for convenience in food preparation and consumption. In general, lifestyle and demographic trends have stimulated demand for eating out as well as for more value added, higher-quality, specialty and convenient food products sold in retail establishments. In response to decades of market share erosion to food service, food retailers increasingly seek to compete by providing ready-to-eat home meal replacement offerings. This implies greater retail recognition that their offerings have traditionally been “ingredients to prepare” while consumers have increasingly sought“meals to eat.” Food suppliers are actively assisting retailers in launching these more convenient new products. More and more, differentiated, specialty food products may also be organically grown, as both growers and marketers seek points of difference to compete in a saturated food marketing system. Organic foods are estimated to account for around 2 percent of U.S. retail food sales, about $9-9.5 billion in 2001 . As the nation’s largest producer of organically grown commodities California producers are major participants in the growth of this sector . Fruits and vegetables have benefited from many demographic and lifestyle trends occurring over the last 25 years, a plus for California’s horticultural-reliant agriculture. For example, higher-income households on average consume more fresh produce than do lower-income households; in 2000 households earning more than $70,000 per year on average spent $496 dollars on fresh produce annually, compared to $302 for households in the $15,000 to $29,999 range . Hispanic households, the most rapidly growing segment of the population, consume more fresh produce than do non-Hispanic Whites or African Americans . Hispanics currently represent around 13 percent of the population and are projected to reach 18 percent by 2020. However, despite the forces favoring healthful diets, U.S. consumers have become more overweight, with two-thirds of adults estimated by USDA to be overweight in 2000, including one-third obese. According to ERS’s loss-adjusted annual per capita food supply series, average daily calorie consumption was 12 percent, or roughly 300 calories, above the 1985 level .

Posted on

The co-op could also help increase demand by advertising and developing new markets

The wage differentials with traditional producing countries in the Mediterranean Basin were much larger, with California farmers paying roughly 4 to 8 times more. Moreover, most fruit and nut crops were characterized by high labor-to-land ratios. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that in 1939 producing almonds on the Pacific Coast required 96 hours per bearing acre, dates 275, figs 155, grapes 200, prunes 130, and walnuts 81 hours; this compared with only 6.6 hours of labor per acre of wheat.Underlying the Hechsher-Ohlin analysis is the notion that wheat farmers competed directly with fruit and nut growers for the labor and land. But this notion needs to be qualified in ways that help explain the success of California fruit producers. On the Pacific Coast, the labor requirements of both activities were highly seasonal and their peak harvest demands did not fully overlap. In California, for example, the wheat harvest was typically completed by early July whereas the raisin and wine grape harvest did not commence until September and continued through late October. Hence, a worker could, in principle, participate fully both in the grain and grape harvests. Rather than conceiving of the different crops as being competitive in labor, we might be better served by considering them as complimentary. As an example, in the lush Santa Clara Valley harvest workers would migrate from cherries to apricots to prunes to walnuts and almonds over a roughly six month season. Adding other semi-tropical crops, such as cotton and navel oranges, stretched the harvest season in large sections of California into the winter months. By filling out the work year and reducing seasonal underemployment, the cultivation of a range of crops in close proximity increased the attractiveness to labor of working in Pacific Coast agriculture. The succession of peak-load, high-wage periods allowed California workers more days of high-intensity and high-pay work in a year than was possible in most other regions.It is also important to recognize that the land used for grain and fruit crops was largely “non-competing.” Prime quality fruit lands,led grow lights with the accompanying climatic conditions, were so different from the lands that remained in grain production that they constituted a “specific input.”

Differences in the land values help bring these points home. According to R. L. Adams’ 1921 California farm manual, the market value of “good” wheat land in the state was approximately $100 per acre in the period immediately before the First World War.“Good” land for prune production was worth $350 even before planting and valued at $800 when bearing. The “best” land for prunes had a market value of $500 not planted and $1000 in bearing trees. Similarly, “good” land for raisin grape production was worth $150 raw and $300 in bearing vines; the “best” sold for $250 not planted and $400 bearing. Focusing on physical labor-to-land ratios in comparing wheat and fruit production can be seriously misleading because the acreage used for fruit cultivation was of a different quality than that used for grains.A further reason why horticultural crops could compete was that, unlike the key agricultural staples, many fruit and nut products enjoyed effective tariff protection during the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Tariffs almost surely sped up the growth of Mediterranean agriculture in the United States and were strongly supported by domestic producers, railroads, and packers.One of the recurrent justifications for tariffs offered by domestic growers was to help offset high transportation differentials. Almost across the board, Mediterranean producers enjoyed lower freight rates to the key markets of the northeastern United States than their American rivals did. For example, circa 1909, shipping currants from Greece to New York cost 17 cents per hundred weight while the freight on an equivalent quantity of California dried fruit averaged about one dollar.For the Pacific Coast fruit industry, the cost of transportation remained an important factor, shaping production and processing practices. This is reflected in an observation that has entered textbook economics, that the best apples are exported because they can bear the cost of shipping. It also helps explain one of the defining characteristics of the region’s fruit industry, its emphasis on quality. Local producers and packers devoted exceptional efforts to improving grading and quality control, removing culls, stems and dirt, reducing spoilage in shipment, and developing brand names and high quality reputations. This focus makes sense given the high transportation cost that western producers faced in reaching the markets of the U.S. Atlantic Coast and Europe. To a large extent, the ability of Californians to compete with the growers in southern Europe depended on capturing the higher end of the market.With only a few exceptions, California dried fruits earned higher prices than their European competition because the state’s growers gained a reputation for quality and consistency.

As an example, the U.S. produced far higher quality prunes than Serbia and Bosnia, the major competitors, and as a result American prunes sold for roughly twice the price of the Balkan product in European markets. Not only were California prunes larger, they also enjoyed other significant quality advantages stemming from the state’s better dehydrating, packing, and shipping methods.Similar quality advantages applied virtually across the board for California’s horticultural crops. It is interesting to note that at least some of California’s current problems with foreign competition stem directly from the ability of others to copy the state’s methods. After the California horticultural industry established its strong market presence, the message eventually got through to other producers. The extensive efforts that producers in other New Areas and in Europe made to copy the California model provides another indicator of the importance of superior technology and organization in establishing California’s comparative advantage.California agriculture was uncommonly successful with collective action. By the 1930s, the state’s farmers supported a powerful Farm Bureau, organized labor recruitment programs, numerous water cooperatives and irrigation districts,vertical grow system and a vast agricultural research establishment. Here we will focus on the state’s experience with cooperatives designated to provide farmers with an element of control over the increasingly important marketing, middleman, and input supply functions. One of the most notable was the California Fruit Growers Exchange organized in 1905. By 1910 it marketed 60 percent of the citrus shipped from California and Arizona under its Sunkist label; in 1918 it marketed 76 percent of all shipments, and for most years between 1918 and 1960 Sunkist accounted for over 70 percent of citrus shipments.The Exchange also entered the farm supply business through its subsidiary, the Fruit Growers Supply Company. In the late 1920s it was purchasing for its members $10,000,000 a year worth of nails, tissue wraps, fertilizer, orchard heaters, box labels, orchard stock and the like. The company also controlled 70,000 acres of California timber land and manufactured huge quantities of boxes.Other co-ops emerged catering to California’s specialized producers. After more than 20 years of unsuccessful experiments, raisin growers banded together in the California Associated Raisin Company in 1911. Between 1913 and 1922 the CARC handled between 87 percent and 92 percent of the California raisin crop, successfully driving up prices and members’ incomes. But success brought Federal Trade Commission investigations and an anti-trust suit, which the CARC lost in 1922. In 1923 CARC was reorganized into Sun Maid Raisin Growers of California.

Although that brand name still survives, the co-op was never again as successful as it was in its first decade. Co-ops potentially offered their members several services. First, they could help counteract the local monopoly power of railroads, elevators, packers, banks, fertilizer companies and the like by collectively bargaining for their members; or as in the case of the California Fruit Growers Exchange, the co-op could enter into the production of key inputs and offer its own warehouses, elevators, and marketing services. Several coops representing various specialized crops have developed very successful marketing campaigns that have significantly increased consumer awareness and consumption. While perhaps providing countervailing power and overcoming market imperfections on the output side, many co-ops strove to introduce their own imperfections by cartelizing the markets for agricultural goods. A leader in this movement was a dynamic lawyer, Aaron Sapiro, who had worked with several of California’s co-ops in the early twentieth century. His plan was to convince farmers to sign legally binding contracts to sell all of their output to the co-op for several years. If a high percentage of producers in fact signed and abided by such contracts, then the co-op could act as a monopolist limiting supply and increasing prices. Since the demand for agricultural products is generally thought to be highly inelastic, farm income would rise. The surpluses withheld from the market would either be destroyed or dumped onto the world market.The whole scheme depended on: avoiding federal anti-trust actions like that which hit the raisin growers between 1919 and 1922; preventing foreign producers from importing into the high priced American market; and overcoming the free rider problem. Even if these problems could be solved in the short-run, the longer-run problems of controlling supply in the face of technological change and increasing productivity in other countries would still exist. The first two problems were fairly easily dealt with. The cooperative movement received federal encouragement in the form of highly favorable tax treatment and considerable exemption from anti-trust prosecution with the passage of the Capper Volstead Act in 1922. Subsequently, the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926 and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929 further assisted the cooperative movement by helping to gather market information , and by helping co-ops enforce production and marketing rules. In addition, the 1929 Act provided up to $500 million through the Federal Farm Board to loan to cooperatives so they could buy and store commodities to hold them off the market. The federal government also provided a shot in the arm to the cooperative movement through a series of tariff acts that separated the domestic and foreign markets. The tariffs were in large part endogenous because co-op leaders and California legislators lobbied furiously for protection. But overcoming the “free rider” problem was a harder nut to crack. Every farmer benefited from the co-op’s ability to cut output, and every farmer would maximize by selling more. There was thus a tremendous incentive to cheat on the cartel agreements or to not sign up in the first place. The early California fruit co-ops were successful in large part because they dealt with crops grown in a fairly small geo-climatic zone for which California was the major producer. Many growers were already members of cooperative irrigation districts and thus linked by a common bond. These factors made it much easier to organize and police the growers, and it reduced the chance that higher prices would immediately lead to new entrants who would, in a short time, drive the price level down. The fact that most output was exported out of the state via relatively few rail lines also made monitoring easier. If California raisin prices increased, it was not likely that Minnesota farmers would enter the grape market; but if Kansas wheat farmers banded together to limit their output, farmers in a dozen states would gladly pick up the slack. For these reasons the success of cooperatives in California was seldom matched elsewhere in the United States.California agriculture defies simple, accurate generalizations. This chapter gives the reader two of many possible cross-sectional views of the state’s agriculture to portray the diversity and complexity which make simple descriptions impossible. California’s agriculture has always been sufficiently different from farming and other related activities found elsewhere in the United States, or in the world for that matter, to befuddle visitors and the uninformed. When discussing farming with visitors from the other 49 states, and places even more afield, my father, a life-long Yolo County farmer, always proudly stated, “Anything that can grow anywhere, can grow somewhere in California!” He was right, of course. The state’s agriculture, founded on self-sufficiency goals of early Alta California missions, developed in less than two centuries from a predominantly livestock grazing economy, providing wealth to large, Rancho land holdings from the sale of hide and tallow products in the early 1800s, to today’s agriculture which includes highly capitalized, intensively managed firms as well as a large number of “small” and part-time farming operations.

Posted on

Collected specimens that were damaged were identified to the closest identifiable morphospecies

Existing literature on the effects of urbanization on species occurrence, abundance, and diversity often relies on urban-rural gradient studies . These studies generally find that increased urbanization decreases the diversity of organisms . Confirming these findings are an abundance of patch-matrix literature suggesting that the quality of the habitat patch itself, its size, and the composition of the matrix surrounding it are determining factors for species occurrence in fragmented landscapes . Specific to UA, higher imperviousness surrounding urban farms has been related to decreased parasitoid abundance and richness , decreased predator abundance and richness , and even decreased predation on sentinel prey . To better understand PH richness and abundance in urban farms and associated biological control services, we conducted an in-situ survey at urban community farms in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area, USA. Eleven farms participated in 2018 and ten farms in 2019. Farms were asked to participate in research based on two factors: 1. farm size, to ensure a comparative sample of small, medium, and large farms, and 2. high or low levels of surrounding impervious surface per the National Landscape Cover Database . Landscape factors and APM practices of farms were measured. APM practices included area of non-crop usage , area of production, crop plant abundance , crop richness, floral richness,plastic plant pot sizes and percent of farm surface with complex ground covers including mulch and leaf litter. Landscape factors included percent of impervious surface at 200-, 500-, and 1000-meter radii. Sampling iterations occurred from May to mid-October each year. On-farm non-crop area was defined as a not actively managed area of the farm occupied by non-crop flora. Farm size in m2 was calculated through Google Earth Pro and ground-proofed during on-farm spatial measurements. Brassica abundance was determined by counting all brassicas on the farm when sampling occurred.

Crop plant richness was determined by eight meter transects measured perpendicular to garden beds three times during the growing season. Different cultivars of the same species were counted separately when measuring crop richness. Floral richness was surveyed three times per growing season by completing a comprehensive count of each flowering plant at each survey site. Randomized 4m2 quadrats were used to estimate percent of and type of cover . Ground cover quadrats were measured across crop and non-crop areas. Percent of surrounding impervious surface for each farm was measured using the NLCD at 8m resolution .Collection of PH was accomplished by using an insect vacuum on Brassica oleracea cultivars, including broccoli, kale, collards, and tree collards. Each sampled plant was randomly selected and was only sampled if it was standing free of other herbaceous cover and flowering plants. A total of nine plants of each cultivar present were sampled per visit. Vacuum sampling occurred monthly from May to October. Vacuuming of each plant lasted for five seconds. For this work, we assume that sampled wasps were performing foraging or host-seeking behaviors on selected plants . Each sample was frozen until processed by extracting all PH and identifying them to the lowest taxonomic level possible per previous literature . PH identification was accomplished using Hymenoptera of the World . Chalcidoidea were identified with the Annotated keys to the Genera of Nearctic Chalcidoidea , and Braconidae using the Manual of the New World Genera of the Family Braconidae .Cabbage aphids, Brevicoryne brassicae were visually identified and abundance was assessed by doing a total count on three random leaves on nine brassicas per cultivar, including counts of apterous, alate, and parasitized aphids. Aphid abundance counts were performed monthly from May to October on non-vacuum sampling days to reduce PH disturbance. Parasitism rates were calculated as number of parasitized aphids divided by number of total aphids on each leaf.

Generalized linear mixed models were constructed using the MASS R package to explore whether APM practices or landscape factors affected PH abundance on common brassicas. Each response variable: All PH, PH super family, family, and subfamily abundance, overall site PH diversity, and rates of aphid parasitism were modeled with both local and landscape factors. Local factors include the percent of mulch ground cover, floral and crop richness, production, and non-crop area. Landscape factors include percent impervious surface at 200, 500, and 1000m radii, and farm size. Seasonal factors included both year and season and were assessed as categorical variables: early-season , mid-season , and late-season . The fitdistrplus package in R was used to find appropriate distributions for modeling . A negative binomial or Poisson distribution with a log link function was selected as appropriate given the zeroinflation of the count data. Models were fitted with the glmer.nb or glmer function in R package MASS . Preliminary models with all measured local and landscape factors were constructed for each response variable. Explanatory variables of low importance for all response variables were excluded from subsequent models. Final models were assessed for fit using the Akaike Information Criterion and diagnosed for over or under-dispersion by comparing observed residuals with expected residuals using the DHARMa package in R. Poorly fitted models were excluded from the results . Partial regression plots for final models were developed using the “effects” package in R and are reported in Results . The slope of the line in these plots represents the association between a single explanatory variable and a response variable accounting for the effects of each other variable within the fitted model.To test the local and landscape effects on the enemies hypothesis vis-a-vis APM on populations of PH in urban agroecosystems, we collected data from twelve urban farms in the San Francisco Bay Area over a period of two growing seasons. Participating farms were selected to represent a continuum of size, spatial composition, and surrounding imperviousness.

Non-crop area was a significant predictor for all PH, cynipoid, and braconid wasps. Effects of APM practices were varied, but increased crop richness and mulch coverage were associated with increased abundance of all Chalcidoidea, including the Aphelinidae. Increases in crop richness also showed an increase in parasitism rates of aphids on brassica crop plants. Unexpectedly, Floral richness showed a negative relationship to the abundance of all PH, as well as chalcids, and all Braconidae. All PH showed a significant decline in abundance during the late season of 2019. All measures of impervious surface surrounding urban farms had no effect on PH abundance or aphid parasitism on the urban farms. Landscape effects to arthropod mediated ES continue to have mixed results and this research supports previous findings in urban agriculture which show both negative and positive effects to natural enemy abundance and diversity . Non-crop areas identified in this research are difficult to identify explicitly as either managed or unmanaged and existed on a spectrum that was often difficult to quantify in interviews or through survey work. However, these areas most frequently had been improved with flowering perennials or annuals, medicinal or “native” flora, and farmers typically stated the purpose as providing a resource for wildlife or beneficial insects. Previous research supports farmer efforts. Structural diversity has been found to elicit positive responses with regard to diversity and abundance of predators and PH in previous UA studies . These areas may provide critical over-wintering habitat in annual cropping systems,blueberry plant container additional hosts or prey, shelter, floral nectar resources for nectarivorous insects . Our findings suggest that these non-crop areas have the potential to influence agroecosystem function in UA, and may be an important part of APM practices, even in highly fragmented landscapes. Moreover, floral richness had little effect on PH abundance, or parasitism of aphids, signaling that increase in PH abundance were not due to floral nectar within these non-crop areas. Another mechanism that may be of importance are the spatial composition of the agroecosystem. Our research did not take into account the overall distribution of non-crop area within the farm, which may have failed to account for spatial heterogeneity that has been found to illicit positive and negative biological control responses in agroecosystems . Future research on urban farms should account not only for the proportion of non-crop areas, but also spatial heterogeneity to further explore these effects. Overall, APM practices, such as increased mulch coverage and crop plant richness were important predictors of PH abundance, and increased aphid parasitism rates. The connection between mulch, complex ground covers, and increased abundance and diversity of parasitic wasps has been previously observed in urban agroecosystems , a variety of natural habitats, and rural agroecosystems . It is unlikely that mulch would provide a direct resource for PH, but PH may benefit from mulch as a potential overwintering habitat or it may provide habitat for potential hosts. Many of the collected PH were parasitoids of dipteran larvae; these larvae are herbivorous but complete part of their life cycle in soils. I suggest that the overall biodiversity of urban farms with increased mulch coverage may create a bottom-up trophic cascade that increases overall soil arthropod diversity benefiting PH populations. Floral richness had a negative effect on PH abundance in all models. Floral richness was chosen as an explanatory variable as it has previously been found to increase PH abundance in UA . The vast majority of PH are nectarivorous, and this additional nectar resource has been suggested frequently as a strategy for increasing populations, potentially leading to increased parasitism . However, conflicting data raises questions about this on farm manipulation and whether PH seek hosts in the same area they feed, or they disperse to increase fecundity . A large proportion of our overall sample of PH were cynipoids, potentially from the genus Alloxysta, known hyperparasitoids of both dominant primary aphid parasitoids in our sample, Aphidiinae, and Aphelinidae . These reductions in primary aphid parasitoid populations may be due to direct or indirect negative effects from this hyperparasitoid that also feeds on floral nectar . In urban agroecosystems, floral provisioning as a habitat manipulation may be complicated by the inherent fragmentation and quality of the urban matrix.

For floral resources to be an effective APM practice, this resource must be limited. Potential concentrations of alternate off-farm floral resources may complicate this affect. While this research expanded upon previous findings and can be of utility for urban agroecosystem management, many questions remain. Firstly, the effects of hyperparasitism on biological control in UA. Our third most collected taxon was Cynipoidea, many of which are often hyperparasitoids of aphid parasitizing wasps . Given that these cynipoids were collected from plant foliage in close proximity to many primary aphid parasitoids, there is some anecdotal evidence that these cynipoids were engaging in host-seeking behavior. If some of the measured on-farm management practices, such as increased non-crop areas also increase abundance of Cynipoidea, this could result in decreased biological control services. In this case, floral provisioning may potentially be acting as an ecosystem disservice . Unfortunately, we were unable to collect parasitized aphids and rear any hyperparasitoids during this research, but these findings suggest that hyperparasitism in fragmented UA landscapes may be a mechanism affecting APM strategies in UA. Crop plant richness positively affected the abundance of all Chalcidoidea and the subfamily Aphelinidae. Crop richness was also a predictor of greater parasitism rates of cabbage aphids on sampled brassica. Similar findings in rural and urban agroecosystems, including increased PH abundance and biological control services in relation to increased crop diversity have been previously documented . Given that intercropping is commonly practiced in UA, these results validate the efficacy of the practice, and offer an opportunity to investigate the extent of the effect in future research efforts. 4.3 Seasonal factors Seasonal effects on PH abundance were mixed, but many affects were measured in the second year of our sampling. Of note, in 2019, we had fewer sampling events as one farm was unable to participate in our study, but more PH were collected in that year despite the smaller sampling pool. Rates of aphid parasitism were significantly decreased between mid- and late season in 2019. It is unknown what drove these effects, but notable that such a significant difference could occur between sampling seasons. Future research efforts should consider seasonal differences and weather when drawing conclusions about on-farm or landscape factors to PH abundance or diversity or associated biological control services.

Posted on

Do Plants Grow Faster Hydroponically Or In Soil

Plants can grow faster hydroponically under certain conditions compared to traditional soil-based cultivation. Hydroponics is a method of growing plants without soil, using a nutrient-rich water solution as the growing medium. There are several reasons why plants can grow faster in growing hydroponically:

  1. Nutrient availability: In hydroponics, plants receive a balanced nutrient solution directly, allowing them to access essential nutrients in optimal concentrations. This eliminates the need for plants to expend energy searching for nutrients in the soil. Consequently, plants can allocate more energy towards growth and development.
  2. Water and oxygen availability: Hydroponic systems provide a constant supply of water and oxygen to the plant roots. This ensures that the roots receive an ample amount of both elements, promoting efficient nutrient uptake and faster growth.
  3. Reduced disease and pest pressure: By eliminating soil, hydroponic systems can reduce the risk of soil-borne diseases and pests that can hamper plant growth. The controlled environment of hydroponics also allows for better disease and pest management.
  4. Increased control over growing conditions: Hydroponics allows growers to have precise control over environmental factors such as light, temperature, humidity, and pH levels. Optimizing these conditions to suit plant growth requirements can result in faster growth rates.

However, it’s important to note that the actual growth rate can vary depending on the specific plant species,blackberry cultivation the hydroponic system used, and the level of expertise of the grower. Some plants may exhibit better growth in soil-based systems due to their specific nutrient requirements or adaptation to soil environments. Ultimately, the choice between hydroponics and soil-based cultivation depends on the specific goals, resources, and expertise of the grower.

Posted on

Costs added along the marketing chain to the final consumer often add as much or more than farm costs

That means crops Flexibility and resourcefulness by California farmers have minimized drought-induced supply reductions for tree, vine and vegetable crops, for which California has large market shares and for which retail prices would be sensitive to California disruptions. Water is being shifted away from field crops that enter the food supply indirectly and for which California is not a dominant producer. These facts mean that even a severe drought is having only slight impacts on supplies to consumers and thus only slight impacts on consumer food prices. Of course, the longer the drought lasts, the larger the impacts. grown in the Central Valley have been more subject to government mandated water cuts than crops grown in regions with a higher reliance on groundwater or local deliveries. Crops such as fresh vegetables, berries, avocados, and high-priced wine grapes are grown mostly in regions that have faced fewer mandated cuts in water supplies. Crops such as tree nuts and tree fruit, lower-priced wine grapes, and field crops tend to be grown in the Central Valley where they have been subject to more surface water cutbacks . Second, when droughts occur, farmers have strong incentives to shift water to crops with higher net revenue per acre-foot of water in order to minimize economic losses. Forage crops such as hay, corn silage, irrigated pasture, grain crops, and other field crops have much lower revenue per acre and require more acre-feet of water than tree and vine crops or vegetables . During a drought year, multi-crop farms have strong incentives to reallocate their water to crops that generate more potential profit or at least minimize losses—including losses of capital invested in orchards and vineyards. A farm growing say, grapes and wheat, will naturally leave the wheat field unirrigated to save water and keep vines alive and productive. And, farms that have the physical and legal ability to shift water to others, hydroponic grow systems will naturally be more willing to transfer water away from low revenue per acre field crops and toward other farms, either nearby or, often, much further south, that use water for tree nuts, fruits, or vegetables.

Geography and irrigation infrastructure reinforces the tendency for concentrating supply reductions on field crops. The primary regions for growing fresh vegetables and berries in California include the central and southern coastal valleys and Imperial County. Imperial County receives irrigation water from the All American Canal and the Colorado River system, thus insulating the region from this California drought. The coastal valleys have had low precipitation but rely primarily on local groundwater aquifers that have not been under as much pressure during this drought as those in the Central Valley. Table 1 lists lettuce as the representative fresh vegetable crop, but the Central Coast is also home to most production of crops such as celery, broccoli, and spinach. The Central Coast, from Santa Cruz County down the coast to Ventura County, also produces most of the strawberries and raspberries. The high revenue per acre and per acre-foot of water for crops such as strawberries and lettuce also provide great incentives to apply the irrigation water needed to sustain production. Irrigation water per acre varies widely by crop and region, from around one acre-foot per acre for winter and spring vegetables grown in cool coastal regions with ample humidity, up to perhaps five acre-feet per acre for some trees and alfalfa in the hot and dry southern San Joaquin Valley. Of course, crop yields are also high where irrigation use is high. Water costs per acre-foot also vary widely from lows of $20 to $50 per acre-foot for surface water in the north, in places where water has been plentiful or where groundwater tables are near the surface. Regular pumping costs or delivery costs can exceed $1,000 per acre-foot in some regions and during drought periods. In general, however, it is clear that where physically feasible and allowed by regulation, farms will tend to use available water on tree, vine, and a few other crops while shifting water away from field crops. The drought affects California production of livestock commodities mainly through impacts on forage crop output. Poultry, egg, dairy, and finished beef production relies mostly on grains shipped in from other states. But, California-produced hay, silage, and irrigated pasture are important for cattle. Hay and silage, mostly produced in California, comprise about 20% of California milk production costs.

Therefore, a 50% increase in costs of hay and silage due to the drought would increase milk production costs at the farm by a bit less than 10%. Many observers point to the large share of California produce in the nation’s supply. Table 2 indicates California’s large share of U.S. production for tree, vine, and vegetable crops. These are the crops for which the current drought is not causing large supply cuts. California has smaller market shares for livestock and field crops where California supply reductions are large. These facts mean that even when California supply falls significantly, say for wheat, rice or hay, the amount in the U.S. or relevant global market falls by a much smaller percentage. Two caveats affect the interpretation of these production shares. First, for some important crops, the relevant markets are global. For example, Table 2 indicates that about two thirds of California almonds and about half of California rice are exported. Global market share is crucial. For almonds, California also has a large share of the global market so if supply were to fall , price would indeed rise. Exports are also important for dairy products, processing tomatoes, and rice. Markets for each of these commodities faces particular conditions. In the case of milk and tomatoes, California ships processed products into competitive national and global markets. For rice, California is a tiny part of global markets, but produces a specialized style of rice for which California production shortfalls do affect price somewhat. Finally, in the case of wine, imports matter as well as exports. While California dominates U.S. wine production, the market is quite competitive— especially in the case of wine from Central Valley grapes that are most likely to be affected by drought.Of course, farm price changes are not the only driver of retail prices.For example, the farm share of retail cost for strawberries or lettuce is 30% but only about 7% for bread. These relationships mean that even if prices rise at the farm, the percentage impact for retail consumers is generally muted—and more muted for processed products and those subject to costly and specialized marketing and transport. Flexibility by retailers and consumers also moderates price impacts.

Given that drought has slowly evolving impacts with substantial warning, wholesale and retail buyers have ample time to plan ahead and source products from where they are most available. Finally, many consumers are willing to substitute across products such as types of melons or lettuce, or from table grapes to some other fruit if relative prices change. California produces about 20% of the U.S. milk supply,hydroponic channel which can be processed into cheese. The farm share of the retail price for cheese is about 30%. That is, the price of milk before it has been processed into cheese makes up 30% of the cheese retail price. The own-price elasticity of demand for milk, a measure of the responsiveness of quantity demanded to a given change in price, is -0.3. Given the reduced hay and forage supplies to the dairy industry and associated higher prices, we estimate that California milk production may decrease by 5% due to the drought. Plugging these parameters into the equation tells us that the retail price of cheese would increase by 1%. California is the dominant supplier of fresh produce in the U.S. during much of the year, and its share of the U.S. lettuce market is about 80%. Given a 3% decrease in the quantity of lettuce supplied by California farms, retail price would increase by about 1.5%. California produces japonica rice for the U.S. and international markets. California rice accounts for about half of the relevant U.S. market, some of which uses specialized California rice and some of which uses medium grain rice produced elsewhere. The market share and demand elasticity reflect that California rice is unique for certain uses in some markets and has close substitutes for other uses. Because of severe reductions in surface water availability, California quantity of rice will likely fall by about 33%, and is therefore likely to cause a 10% increase in retail price. As a highly processed farm product, grapes account for only about 10% of the retail price of wine. We use an average elasticity of demand for wine grapes of about -0.5. We estimate that California makes up about half of the relevant market for U.S. wine sales, with imports comprising much of the rest. The reduction in grape quantity of only 1% due to the drought reflects the relatively low share of water costs in grape production costs and the limited supply flexibility for a perennial crop. These parameters imply the drought is likely to cause an increase in the retail price of California wine of about 0.10%.A convenience sample of 300 field workers was recruited from 15 farms in agricultural regions of California’s Central Valley during the summer of 2014. To gain access to the work sites, we invited employers to participate in the study through outreach at local meetings and events, flyers, and word of mouth. About 30% of the farms we approached agreed to participate in the study. Bilingual, bicultural field staff recruited employees of the farms by explaining the purpose and protocol of the study in Spanish and obtained consent. Eligible participants were 18 years of age or older, worked in the fields for at least 6 hours per day, understood Spanish and were neither pregnant nor had any impediment to swallowing the ingestible sensor .

All eligible participants who volunteered were enrolled in the study for a single day of data collection and were given a small monetary gift of appreciation. Preshift measures—A brief, preshift questionnaire was administered orally in Spanish to assess participant eligibility and to collect demographic information. A capillary blood sample was taken and analysed using the handheld i-STAT point of care test to measure serum creatinine . The i-STAT measurements are traceable to isotope dilution mass spectrometry through the standard reference material SRM967.Weight was measured in a base layer of clothing using a Seca 874 medical scale, and height was measured without shoes using a Seca model 213 stadiometer . Field staff recorded base layer clothing to ensure that the participant wore the same garments for weighing after the shift. Participants swallowed a CorTemp HT15002 ingestible wireless temperature transmitter probe . The probe transmitted core temperature at 1 min intervals.Participants were fitted with a Polar T31 ECG heart rate transmitter around the thorax which transmitted heart rate measurements at 1 min intervals. Signals from the probe and the heart rate strap were recorded using a CorTemp HT150016 Data Recorder attached to their belts. All staff involved in data collection were trained and supervised, and all equipment was regularly calibrated to ensure accuracy. Post shift measures—Following the work shift, ~7–12 hours after ingestion of the CorTemp, workers returned to the data collection station and unloaded all external equipment. They were then reweighed in the same clothing as they wore during the preshift weight, prior to ingesting any water or refreshments. A post shift questionnaire was orally administered in Spanish to obtain information on health history and possible social and behavioural risk factors, such as a personal or family history of kidney disease and work history. A second capillary blood sample was obtained to document serum creatinine, and glycated haemoglobin was measured using a Siemens DCA Vantage Analyzer . A single blood pressure was obtained in the seated position using an automated blood pressure cuff . Participants’ BMI, blood pressure, diabetes risk status and blood creatinine level were shared with them at the conclusion of the day, and participants who had abnormal results were referred to local health clinics for follow-up care.