ii inputs to farm production

31 I.6 Farmer Demographics

California farmers use a variety of inputs to produce agricultural products. Financialcapital, machinery, fuel, family and hired labor, livestock feed, chemicals and fertilizer,and water are some of the inputs that are commonly associated with agriculturalproduction. Research and development and new technology are also importantcontributors to California agriculture that, over time, have led to productivity increasesand changes in farming practices.

Contents1 Capital2 Hired Farm Labor3 Chemicals and Fertilizer4 Water5 Technology6 Research and Development

II Inputs to Farm Production

32 II Inputs to Farm Production

Expenditures by California farmers on production inputs increased by over 30%between 1987 and 1997, in constant (1996) dollars. The largest increases (in nominaldollars) were in hired labor, livestock feed and contract labor.

California Farm Production Expenses, 1987, 1992, 1997 1987

($1,000) 1992

($1,000) 1997

($1,000)

($1,000)

Percent Hired Farm Labor 2,385,242 2,922,390 3,392,577 1,007,335 42.2

Feed for Livestock and Poultry 1,707,608 2,108,719 2,588,982 881,374 51.6

Commercially Mixed Formula Feeds

1,075,145 1,137,098 1,483,026 407,881 37.9

Contract Labor 613,340 967,377 1,386,159 772,819 126.0

Interest 697,449 738,910 958,431 260,982 37.4 Agricultural Chemicals 544,779 694,549 957,006 412,227 75.7

Repair and Maintenance 503,218 630,574 777,097 273,879 54.4

Livestock and Poultry Purchased 776,540 935,152 759,223 -17,317 -2.2

Commercial Fertilizer 427,924 568,772 746,325 318,401 74.4

Custom work, Machine Hire, and Rental of Machinery and Equipment 335,292 448,923 595,872 260,580 77.7

Cash Rent 381,871 492,662 554,077 172,206 45.1

Electricity 330,538 500,264 526,592 196,054 59.3

Seeds, Bulbs, Plants, and Trees 215,542 274,495 526,323 310,781 144.2

Petroleum Products 332,166 414,984 488,226 156,060 47.0

Property Taxes Paid 245,512 291,385 360,348 114,836 46.8

All Other Expenses 1,420,571 1,815,826 2,200,014 779,443 54.9

Total Farm Production Expenses 10,917,593 13,804,983 16,817,253 5,899,660 54.0

Average Expenses per Farm 131,205 177,755 226,868 95,663 72.9

Average Expenses per Farm in .1996 Dollars*

168,557 193,851 223,159 54,603 32.4

*GDP Deflator from Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts, online data.

Change 1987- 1997

TABLE 15

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1997 Census of Agriculture.

■

33 II.1 Capital

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Per

cen

t

California

United States

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Per

cen

t

California

United States

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Farm Business Economics Briefing Room.

alifornia has about 7.5% of the nation’s farm assets, 9.6% of its debt, and 7.1% ofits equity. This leaves the aggregate California farming sector with higher debt-to-

equity and debt-to-asset ratios than the United States as a whole.

II.1 Capital

Farm Balance Sheet, December 31, 1998 (excluding households) CALIFORNIA UNITED

STATES $ million $ million

Assets Real Estate 67,461 822,838 Non Real Estate 12,637 241,461

Livestock & Poultry 4,183 62,028 Machinery & Motor Vehicles 4,378 88,595 Crops 636 30,137 Purchased Inputs 298 5,259 Financial Assets 3,141 55,443 Total 80,098 1,064,298 Debt

Real Estate 9,657 89,615 Non Real Estate 6,864 83,247 Total 16,522 172,862

Equity (assets minus debt) 63,577 891,436 Debt to Equity Ratio (percent) 26.0 19.4 Debt to Asset Ratio (percent) 20.6 16.2

Farm Debt to Equity Ratio, 1960-1998 Farm Debt to Asset Ratio, 1960-1998

TABLE 16

FIGURE 14 FIGURE 15

C


The average value per acre of land and buildings per farm in California is nearly threetimes the United States average.

Half of California�s farms have land and building values between $100,000 and $499,999.

Value of Land and Buildings, 1940-1997 ($ nominal)

CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES

Census Year

Total Value* $1,000,000

Average Value

Per Farm ($)

Average Value

Per Acre ($)

Total Value*

$1,000,000

Average Value

Per Farm ($)

Average Value

Per Acre ($)

1940 2,166 16,331 71 33,578 5,532 32

1945** 3,485 25,084 99 46,389 7,917 41

1950 5,650 41,192 154 75,462 14,005 65

1954** 8,568 69,620 227 97,583 20,405 84

1959** 13,026 131,212 353 128,988 34,763 115

1964 17,355 214,650 468 159,932 50,646 144

1969 16,932 217,429 479 206,717 75,714 194

1974 21,793 322,034 653 342,099 147,838 336

1978 38,152 521,240 1,161 631,436 279,672 619

1982 61,565 746,577 1,918 775,084 345,869 784

1987 48,571 583,668 1,575 604,170 289,387 627

1992 63,693 820,063 2,213 687,432 357,056 727

1997 69,765 941,170 2,605 859,855 449,748 933 * Computed as the product of the average value per farm and the total number of farms. ** Excludes Hawaii and Alaska.

TABLE 17

Sources:1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture, 1940-1992.2. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1997 Census of Agriculture.

■

■

35 II.1 Capital

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

1964 1969 1974 1978 1982 1987 1992 1997

$ T

ho

usa

nd

United States

California

Average Value of Land and Buildings per Acre, 1964-1997(1996 dollars)

California Farms by Value of Land and Buildings, 1997

FIGURE 16

FIGURE 17

Sources:1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture, 1987-1992.

2. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1997 Census of Agriculture.


$100,000 to $499,99948%

$500,000 to $999,99915%

$1,000,000 or More18%

$40,000 to $99,999

10%

Less than $40,000

9%


II.2 Hired Farm Labor

California Hired Farm Workers, 1992-1998

Hired Farm Workers by Region, 1997

Sacramento Valley

San Joaquin Valley

Central Valley*

California

Farms with Hired Workers 5,130 14,947 20,077 36,450

Total Hired Workers 57,657 264,575 322,232 549,265

Workers Hired 150 Days or More 16,308 80,469 96,777 186,358

Workers Hired Less than 150 Days 41,349 184,106 225,455 362,907

Payroll ($1,000) 313,519 1,383,042 1,696,561 3,392,577

*Central Valley is the sum of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys.


n 1997, the Central Valley had about 58% of California�s 549,265 hired farm laborers,according to census data. Most worked in the San Joaquin Valley. Monthly data in Figure

18 (California Employment Development Department (EDD)) displays the cyclical nature of thefarm labor employment market, and an upward trend in average annual employment between1992 and 1998. The higher employment total for the Census of Agriculture data in 1997 (549,265compared to EDD�s monthly high of about 500,000) suggests that different definitions or samplingmethods are employed in the two data sources.

FIGURE 18

TABLE 18

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Jan

-92

Ap

r-92

Jul-9

2

Oc

t-92

Jan

-93

Ap

r-93

Jul-9

3

Oc

t-93

Jan

-94

Ap

r-94

Jul-9

4

Oc

t-94

Jan

-95

Ap

r-95

Jul-9

5

Oc

t-95

Jan

-96

Ap

r-96

Jul-9

6

Oc

t-96

Jan

-97

Ap

r-97

Jul-9

7

Oc

t-97

Jan

-98

Ap

r-98

Jul-9

8

Oc

t-98

Num

be

r of W

ork

ers

s

Monthly Farm Workers

Linear Trend

Source: Martin, Philip, California Agriculture, from California Employment Development Department Statistics.

I

37 II.2 Hired Farm Labor

Characteristics of California Crop Workers, 1995-97 Percent of Workers

Foreign Born 95 Male 82 Under 34 63 Married 61 Family in United States 60 In United States Less than 5 Years 53 2 to 4 Farm Jobs per Year 53 Unauthorized 42

The California agricultural labor market is characterized by (1) an almost entirely foreign-born(mostly Hispanic) workforce, and (2) relatively low annual average earnings compared to otheroccupations. Low earnings are the result of relatively low hourly wages and less than full-timeemployment.

Average Annual Earnings by California Manufacturing andAgricultural Production Workers, 1990-1997

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

ManufacturingAg Prod-CropsAg Prod-LivestockAg Prod-Services

Note: Agricultural Production Services includes establishments primarily engaged in performing soil preparation services, crop services, veterinary services, other animal services, farm labor and management services, and landscape and horticultural services for others on a contract or fee basis.

TABLE 19

FIGURE 19

Source: Martin, Philip, and J. Edward Taylor, �For California Farmworkers, FutureHolds Little Prospect for Change,� California Agriculture 2000.

Sources:1. RAND California, Average Industry Wages, online data, 2000.2. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, online data, 2000.

■


y weight, agriculture accounts for about one third of all pesticides purchased in California. In 1990, California became the first state to require reporting of theagricultural use of all pesticides: insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides, fungicides, and sanitizers.In contrast, much of the non-agricultural uses such as chlorine for swimming pools and homeand garden pesticides are not reported.

Pounds of pesticides sold in the state increased from 1991 to 1999, as did the amountused in commercial agriculture. Weight however, does not necessarily reflect thetoxicity of the pesticides. The Department of Pesticide Regulation noted in 1999 thatagricultural applications of many of the more toxic chemicals were reduced to theirlowest levels in years.

In 1999, about 351,000 pounds of chemicals defined by the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency as �reduced risk� were applied by commercialagriculture in California. This was equivalent to about two-tenths of 1% of total poundsof applied chemicals in agriculture.

II.3 Chemicals and Fertilizer

Pesticide Sales and Use in California, 1991-1999

B

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Mill

ion

Po

un

ds

C om m erc ial A griculture Use

Total Pounds So ld (ag ricultural and non-ag ricultural)

FIGURE 20

Source: California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pesticide UseReporting, online data, 2000.

■

■

39 II.3 Chemicals and Fertilizer

About one-third of all California farms (22,300) did not report using any chemicals or fertilizer in the1997 Census of Agriculture. California has about 1,526 registered organic farmers, only a tiny portionof those farms that did not report using any chemicals or fertilizer. Therefore, care is needed in interpretingthese Census of Agriculture figures, since many farmers may have failed to respond to this particularquestion or were small livestock growers or other operators whose farms used no chemicals or fertilizerwithout being defined explicitly as �organic.�

TABLE 20

Sources:1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture, 1969-1992.2. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1997 Census of Agriculture.

■

Agricultural Chemical and Fertilizer Use Reported by California Farmers

1969 1974 1978 1982 1987 1992 1997

Chemicals or Fertilizer Number of Farms 43,656 37,627 52,746 51,435 57,579 52,917 51,819

Number of Farms 36,337 32,865 42,857 41,909 44,683 42,602 42,312

Expenditures ($1,000) 121,905 290,455 335,444 427,823 427,924 568,772 746,325

Number of Farms n/a n/a 46,449 43,142 52,614 45,721 44,327

Expenditures ($1,000) n/a n/a 288,968 468,604 544,779 694,549 957,006

Insects 23,617 19,297 24,706 30,460 32,959 30,022 28,451Nematodes 2,995 2,512 3,325 3,526 3,603 3,520 3,553Diseases 8,042 6,802 17,553 15,280 17,446 14,693 16,207Weeds 12,602 14,106 22,385 28,192 35,003 28,292 28,807Growth, fruit or Defoliation 3,748 2,761 5,461 5,483 6,173 4,673 5,231

Agricultural Chemicals

Commercial Fertilizer

Number of Farms on which Chemicals were Used to Treat:


California�s annual precipitation is distributed unevenly. Over 70% of the average annualrunoff occurs in the northern part of the state, but about 75% of the state�s water demand issouth of Sacramento. California uses a combination of federal, state, and local water projectsto capture, store, transport, and import surface water to meet demand around the state.The largest water projects are the federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project.

Groundwater provides 30% of the supply used by agriculture and the urban sector in anormal non-drought year. Agriculture accounts for over 90% of the groundwater used inthe San Joaquin, Tulare Lake, and Central Coast hydrologic regions.

Million Acre-

Feet Million Acre-

Feet Water Use Surface Water

Urban 8.8 Central Valley Project 7.0 Agricultural 33.8 Other Federal Projects 0.9 Environmental 36.9 State Water Project 3.1 Total 79.5 Colorado River 5.2

Supplies Local 11.1 Surface Water 65.1 Required Environmental Flow 31.4 Groundwater** 12.5 Reapplied 6.4 Recycled & Desalted 0.3 Groundwater** 12.5 Total 77.9 Recycled and Desalted 0.3

Shortage 1.6 Total 77.9

*Normalized data for a non-drought year based on the distribution infrastructure in place in 1995. **Excludes overdraft.

alifornia receives about 200 million acre feet (maf) of precipitation in a normal non- drought year. Roughly 65% of this is lost to evaporation or vegetation. The remaining71 maf of average runoff, plus imported water, supplies the state�s water �budget,� travelingthrough California�s complex water distribution system to environmental, agricultural, and urbanuses. Groundwater is an additional important source.

II.4 Water

In 1998 the California Department of Water Resources released a normalized water budgetshowing the state�s supply and use of applied water in an �average� non-drought year.Figures in the �average� year budget were based on the distribution infrastructure in placein 1995. The 1.6 maf shortage is largely accounted for by groundwater overdraft that wasnot included in the budget.

C

California Annual AverageWater Budget*

TABLE 21 TABLE 22

Source: California Department of Water Resources, The California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98.

■

■

California Annual AverageWater Supplies*

■

41

FIGURE 21

California Water Distribution Infrastructure, 1998


II.4 Water

TuleLake

ClearLake

TrinityLake

ShastaLake

WhiskeytownLake

LakeAlamanor

Tehama-ColusaCanal

Red BluffDiversion Dam

CorningCanal

Black ButteReservoir

Stony GorgeReservoirEast ParkReservoir

Indian ValleyReservoir

LakeMendocino

ClearLake

LakeSonoma

Glenn ColusaCanal

MokelumneAqueduct

LakeOroville

New Bullards Bar ReservoirEnglebrightReservoir

Lake Tahoe

Folsom Lake

Folsom South CanalLakeBerryessa

Camanche Reservoir

MaderaCanal

North Bay Aqueduct

Contra CostaCanal

South BayAqueduct

Santa ClaraConduit

New MelonesLake

Hetch HetchyAqueduct

GrantLake

LakeCrowley

New DonPedro Lake Lake

McClure

Delta-Mendota Canal

San DiegoAqueducts

HollisterConduit

San LuisReservoir

CoalingaCanal

San AntonioReservoir

NacimientoReservoir

TwitchellReservoir

CachumaReservoir

LakeCasitas

CastaicLake

SilverwoodLake

LakeMathews

San Luis Canal

Aqueduct

California

CoachellaCanal

Millerton Lake

Pine Flat Lake

Lake Kaweah

Success Lake

Friani-KernCanal

Isabella Lake

Cross ValleyCanal

Los AngelesAqueduct

LakePerris

Colorado RiverAqueduct

HenshawReservoir

San VicenteReservoir

Lower OtayReservoir

All AmericanCanal


The amount of water applied to a particular crop depends on many factors including plantevapotranspiration, soil properties, irrigation efficiency, and weather. Plant intake is the primarypurpose of water application, but water is also applied to crops for cultural purposes such asfrost control, facilitating cultivation and leaching of salts out of the crop root zone. There is awide range in water application rates among crops and hydrologic regions. For example,depending on the hydrologic region, anywhere between 2 and 10 acre feet/acre are applied toalfalfa annually.

Only a portion of the applied water is actually used by the crop. The remainder percolatesthrough the soil, flows downstream to other uses, or is irrecoverably lost due to other factors.Crop water use is measured as evapotranspiration of applied water (ETAW). The ratio ofETAW to applied water is an indication of irrigation efficiency.

California Ranges of Applied Water andEvapotranspiration of Applied Water*

FIGURE 22


* Applied water includes the water used for cultural practices such as frost control and leaching salts from below the crop root zone.

Grain

Rice

Cotton

Sugar Beets

Corn

Other Field

Alfalfa

Pasture

Tomatoes

Other Truck

Almonds/Pistachios

Other Deciduous Orchard

Subtropical

Grapes

■

■

Applied Water

Evapotranspiration

Acre-feet/acre per year

43 II.4 Water

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Urban Barley Grapes Cotton DeciduousOrchard

Pasture(improved)

Alfalfa

Acr

e-fe

et W

ater

/Acr

e L

and

dd

d

The amount of water per acre used by urban areas varies according to land use, populationdensity and water use efficiency. In some areas agriculture may use less water per acre thannearby urban development while in other areas the opposite case may be true.

Agricultural surface water costs differ greatly by hydrologic region and source of supply. ADWR survey of water agencies found that in 1996 the weighted average annual price tofarmers ranged from $10/acre-foot (af) in the North Coast region to $373/af in the SouthCoast region. In the Central Valley hydrologic regions, prices varied between $22/af and$61/af. In the Tulare Lake region (which includes parts of Tulare, Kings, Fresno, and Kerncounties) the weighted average cost was $42/af.

Applied Water Use in the San Joaquin Valley

Source: Department of Water Resources, The California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98.

FIGURE 23

FIGURE 24

Water Costs as a Percent of Total Production Costsfor Selected Crops in the Tulare Lake Region

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Irrig

ated

Pas

ture

Alfalfa

Hay

Barley

Dry B

eans

Whea

t

Cotton

Sugar B

eets

Safflo

wer

Dry O

nions

Almonds

Pistac

hios

Proce

ssin

g Tom

atoes

Win

e Gra

pes

Per

cen

t

■

■


California Land Irrigated by Water Distribution Method, 1998

Gravity Flow Systems

Sprinkler Systems

Drip or Trickle

Systems

Sub-irrigation

All Irrigation

Farms 19,575 7,870 14,697 2,710 40,121

Acres Irrigated 1,000 5,820 1,528 1,022 55 8,140

Acres Irrigated percent 71 19 13 1

Almost one-third of California�s irrigated acreage used sprinkler, drip or trickle systems in1998. The rest used gravity flow systems such as furrows. More than one method was usedon some acreage.

California Irrigated Acreage, 1995*(1,000 acres)

Crop 1995

Rice 517Grain 900Cotton 1,244Sugar Beets 178Corn 438Other Field 467Alfalfa 1,094Pasture 933Tomatoes 357Almond/Pistachios 534Other Deciduous 602Subtropical 455Grapes 736Other 1,060

Total Irrigated Crop Area 9,515

Multiple Crop 447

Irrigated Land Area 9,068

* Normalized data.

TABLE 23

TABLE 24

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture, Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey, 1998.

Source: Department of Water Resources, TheCalifornia Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98.

■

45

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1949 1960 1970 1980 1991

Inp

ut

and

Ou

tpu

t In

dic

es w

ww

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Pro

du

ctiv

ity

Ind

ex w

ww

Total Input

Total Output

Productivity Index

echnological innovation, fueled by research and entrepreneurship, has been a driving force in U.S. agriculture during the past century, leading to both higher yields andlower prices. In California, technological change has facilitated significant yield increases formany crops as well as other changes. Up to and through the late 1990�s, inputs were usedmore efficiently to produce greater quantities of output. For instance, cash receipts (in constant1996 dollars) per irrigated acre increased by 35% between 1960 and 1995. This can beattributed partially to the development and implementation of more efficient irrigation, such asdrip systems, and partially to a change in the type of crops produced.

The most recent analysis available finds that the productivity index for California agriculture(the index of total farm production outputs divided by the index of total farm productioninputs) doubled between 1949 and 1991.

II.5 Technology

T

Input and Output Use in California AgricultureFIGURE 25

Source: Alston, Julian M, and David Zilberman, "Science and Technology in California Agriculture," CaliforniaAgriculture Issues and Challenges, 1997.

II.5 Technology

■


3-Year Average Yield Per Harvested Acre, Representative Crops

1976-78 Average 1986-88 Average 1996-98 Average Crop Units Other

49 States California Other

49 States California Other

49 States California

Corn for Grain bushels 93 117 108 152 129 163

Cotton, Upland pounds 393 880 556 1,121 628 1,082

Lettuce, Head hundredweight 204 266 247 322 306 333

Rice, Med. Grain pounds 4,111 5,483 4,948 7,439 5,955 7,583

Strawberries hundredweight 60 405 99 495 130 570

Sugar Beets short tons 19 26 20 26 21 30

Tomatoes, Processing short tons 17 23 20 30 27 34

Wheat, Winter bushels 26 52 30 72 43 66

TABLE 25

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Cas

h R

ecei

pts

/Acr

e-fo

ot w

ww

* GDP deflator from Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts, online data.

California Agricultural Cash Receipts per Acre-foot of AppliedWater, Selected Years, 1960-1995 (constant 1996 dollars)*

FIGURE 26

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics, selected years.

Sources:1) California Department of Water Resources, The California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98.2) USDA, Economic Research Service, Farm Business Economics Briefing Room, online data.

47 II.5 Technology

During the 1990s, particularly toward the end of the decade, computers wereincreasingly incorporated into farming operations. In only two years, between 1997and 1999, the number of California farms with Internet access doubled to 46%. Overall,about 40% of California farms reported using computers in their business operationsin 1999, compared to 24% for the United States as a whole. Colorado was the onlystate with higher usage than California, though Arizona reports a much higher shareof farms with computer access.

Farm Computer Usage, 1997 and 1999

Farms with Computer

Access

Farms that

Own or Lease Computers

Farms Using

Computers for Business

Farms with

Internet Access

P e r c e n t o f F a r m s 1997 1999 1997 1999 1997 1999 1997 1999

California 51 61 47 55 30 40 23 46

Arizona 46 80 42 75 35 39 16 44

Colorado 47 64 43 59 31 42 16 37

Iowa 46 51 37 45 25 32 12 30

Texas 41 48 32 39 21 23 18 31

United States 38 47 31 40 20 24 13 29

In 1998, California farmers invested $2.4 million in computers to operate irrigationsystems on 273,047 acres. About 675 farms reported using computer simulationmodels to decide when to irrigate3 .

3 USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture, Farm and RanchIrrigation Survey, 1998.

TABLE 26

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Farm Computer Usage and Ownership, 1999.

■

■


250

300

350

400

450

500

550

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Fu

ll-ti

me

Eq

uiv

alen

t ww

w

UC Agricultural Experiment Station Academic FTE

Cooperative Extension County Advisor FTE

II.6 Research and Development

While the number of AES scientists and cooperative extension county advisorsdecreased between 1990 and 1998, the funding per scientist and per advisorincreased.

n 1998, U.S. agricultural experiment stations (mainly associated with land grant universities) collectively spent $1.9 billion on scientists’ agricultural research, ofwhich $176 million (9% of the national total), was spent in California4 . The University ofCalifornia Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Agricultural Experiment Station(AES) includes scientists with the UC Berkeley College of Natural Resources, the UCDavis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, the UC Davis School ofVeterinary Medicine and the UC Riverside College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences.

4 National expenditures from: USDA, Current Research Information Service, Online Data, 2000.

UC Agricultural Experiment Station Scientists and Cooperative ExtensionCounty Advisors, Full-time Equivalents (FTE), 1990-1998

FIGURE 27

Source: University of California, Office of the President, 2000.

■

I

49 II.6 Research and Development

Expenditures per UC Agricultural Experiment Station Scientist and Cooperative Extension County Advisor, 1990-1998 ($1996)

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

$ T

ho

usa

nd

UC Agricultural Experiment Station Scientists

Cooperative Extension County Advisors

UC Cooperative Extension County Advisor FTE by Program Area, 1990

(326 Total FTE)

Agriculture55%

Human and Community

Development27%

Natural Resources

11%

Food and Nutrition

7%

Food and Nutrition

7%Natural

Resources12%

Human and Community

Development23%

Agriculture58%

Although the number of cooperative extension county advisors decreased by about 17%between 1990 and 1998, their distribution among program areas has changed little.

UC Cooperative Extension CountyAdvisor FTE by Program Area,1990 (326 Total FTE)

UC Cooperative Extension CountyAdvisor FTE by Program Area,1998 (272 Total FTE)

Expenditures per UC Agricultural Experiment Station Scientist andCooperative Extension County Advisor, 1990-1998 (1996 dollars)

Expenditures per UC Agricultural Experiment Station Scientist andCooperative Extension County Advisor, Full-time Equivalents,1990-1998 (1996 dollars)

FIGURE 28

FIGURE 29 FIGURE 30


■


During the 1990s UC AES aggregate funding for scientists and cooperative extensioncounty advisors ranged from $225 to $244 million, and was about $239 million in1998. In that year, more than three-quarters of total funding came from governmentsources.

UC Agricultural Experiment Station and CooperativeExtension Funding, 1998

FIGURE 31


Other*9%

Private Gifts, Grants and Contracts

13%

Federal23%

State 55%

* Other includes county government, endowments and similar funds, sales, services, and other sources.

■

ii inputs to farm production

Documents