Tag Archives: garden plastic pots

A main contributor of heterogeneity in gains future geographic distribution of acreage growth

Therefore, by specifying the means and covariance matrix of predicted chill in our five counties for 2025- 2050, we simulate the natural chill realization from a 5D multivariate normal distribution.To determine the potential growth in pistachio output by the year 2030, we consider bearing acreage growth in the past. Since the year 2000, harvested acreage grew by an average 10% yearly. Since 2010, the average rate was 13.5% . To assess the gains from MCE in the year 2030, we need to stipulate the total acreage at that year, and its distribution among our counties. We create acreage growth scenarios to get the edges of a potential acreage range in 2030. Two factors influence scenarios: growth rate and geographic distribution. For a high growth rate scenario, we let the total acreage grow by 13.5% yearly for six years , and then by then 10% yearly until 2030 . For a low growth scenario, we let acreage grow by 10% yearly for six years, then by 5% yearly until 2030 . Some counties are more prone to low chill years than others, and future growth in acreage might take this into account. If the counties’ acreage shares stay the same, i.e. all grow at the same rate, each county’s acreage in 2015 is thus multiplied by the growth factor to calculate county acreages in 2030. This represents a world where growers might not be aware of the perils of climate change, or trust MCE in solving future problems even in the risky counties. However, growers could also divert growth to the less affected counties, Madera and Tulare. To model this, we increase each county’s 2015 acreage by the appropriate growth factor for the first 6 years ,garden plastic pots to account for acres already planted. The difference between the sum of predicted acreage in 2021 and the total predicted acreage in 2030 is then allocated evenly between Tulare and Madera. First, we want to get a sense of the magnitude of loss, brought by insufficient chill without MCE.

Figure 4 shows the empirical cumulative distribution of total potential loss rate by scenario. For each simulation, the chill realization is used to construct a vector of county specific loss rate. This is multiplied by the share of that county in total acreage in 2030, which varies by scenario. Summing these, we get the weighted average loss rate for all our counties. The figure shows, as expected, that scenarios in which acreage growth is shifted north have lower probabilities of large loss events. About 30% of chill portion vector draws result in virtually no loss. The CDFs seem step-like, indicating the sharp decline in yield at the chill threshold for each affected county. The average expected loss by scenario is specified in Table 1. In our simulations, MCE seems to revert the market outcomes of insufficient chill almost completely. When simulated without MCE, the outcome market price ranges between $5,625 / ton and $36,019. However, simulation with MCE result in a price range between $5,625 and $5,704 – a minimal increase. This is probably the result of a relatively low price of MCE, compared to the output price. To get a better sense of the effect, Figure 5 shows the distributions of MCE effects in percent change for price and quantity. That is, the percent increase in quantity and decrease in price when using MCE, compared with the non MCE simulation. The mean price decrease is 13-31%, and the mean quantity increase is 32-88% . These averages include years, where the climate damages are nearly zero for all counties, about a third of simulations. Thus, the actual effects in insufficient chill years are actually higher. We now turn to look at the gains from MCE on aggregate profits, consumer surplus, and total welfare. Figure 6 presents the distribution of these gains, and they are almost exclusively positive. That is not very surprising for consumer surplus, as MCE lowers the price on a good with modeled elastic demand. Average consumer surplus gains from MCE range between $0.68 – 2.60 billion , scenario depending. Grower profits gains are almost always positive as well, with an average ranging between $0.49 – 1.22 billion .

This result was less obvious a priori, as there is some measure of oligopolistic power in each simulation. These gains in grower profits are not distributed evenly between counties. As the baseline climate is not homogeneous among counties, and climate change might be different as well, not all counties would be affected the same. Sharing the market with Kern and Kings counties, which are more susceptible to insufficient chill, the cooler counties of Madera and Tulare are predicted to be less affected by climate change. Yet, MCE lowers the price and their share of the market on years with insufficient chill, compared to the non-MCE baseline. That is, while the industry gains in total are positive, these counties’ profits are mostly negative. Figure 7 shows the profit gains distribution by county. Kern and Kings counties have mostly positive profit gains. Madera and Tulare counties have mostly negative gains, and positive ones only in the worst chill years, when they lack chill portions as well. Fresno county is somewhere in the middle. This result reflects a broader aspect of climate change and adaptation. Areas who are affected very little by climate change can still feel its effects. As there are winners and losers from climate change, there will be winners and losers from MCE.Note how the gain distributions vary between scenarios. The two “Same” scenarios, keeping the distribution of future acreage the same as 2014’s, but varying in total acreage by roughly a twofold, generate gain distributions that are closer to each other than to the “North” scenarios with respective growth rates. To see the effect of other parameters on welfare outcomes, we plot them separately. In Figure 8, the gains are plotted against each parameter, using the “High Same” acreage growth scenario. Recall that, since we did not include parameter realizations resulting in P C > 6, there are slight correlation between the parameters. This is therefore an approximation of an “all else equal” plot, which we still consider useful to see the effects of each parameter on gains. To start, we note that the gains from MCE increase with the potential loss rate, as expected. The profit gains seem to increase linearly with the potential loss rate, but consumer surplus seems to grow exponentially. This is probably due to the choice of our demand function: with elastic demand, the inverse demand function is an exponential function with negative exponent that is greater than .

Therefore, the integral below the inverse demand function, from zero to any quantity, is infinite. As the potential loss rate increases, this integral should grow in a non-linear fashion. When demand is more elastic, gains from MCE increase for growers and decrease for consumers, as expected. When supply is more elastic,raspberry plant pot gains from MCE decrease for everyone, as expected. Looking at the effects of market power, we notice that monopolistic power seems rather uncorrelated with consumer surplus. This is somewhat surprising, as we expected monopolistic power to decrease consumer’s benefits from MCE. However, note that we assumed monopolistic power does not change with loss rate. Had we modeled them with a correlation, the trend line would probably slope up. Monopsony power increases consumer surplus, prob-ably through the monopsony rents: as demand is elastic, restricting quantities lowers surplus. An increase must be the result of the rents. In a more realistic situation, where these rents are not necessarily included in consumer’s surplus, the result might be different. However, this does not change the total welfare outcomes. With respect to the entire market power measure, P C, it seems to increase both consumer surplus and profits from MCE. This also means that the potential losses from insufficient chill increase with market power, a point worthy of consideration in other settings as well. Crop breeding centers in agricultural research institutes around the world played a major role in feeding the world’s population during the 20th century . In the immediate aftermath of World War II and through the 1960s, scientists and politicians forecast serious food shortages and starvation across large parts of the world. Between 1960 and 2000, the world’s population doubled, but over the same period, grain production more than doubled, an increase almost entirely attributable to unprecedented increases in yields. The Malthusian nightmare never materialized, mainly because scientific innovations produced new technological packages that raised productivity and expanded output beyond anyone’s expectations . New crop varieties made up the heart of these packages, although they were supplemented by improved water control, greater use of chemical fertilizers, and increased know-how. Despite the enormous successes in the second half of the 20th century, science has not eliminated the possibility of serious global food shortages, and agricultural research establishments must meet even greater challenges in the 21st century . Growth rates of yields slowed during the 1980s and 1990s and the yield gap—the difference between yields on experimental plots and farmers’ fields—has shrunk .

When the slower growth rate of yield is coupled with rising demographic pressures and water and environmental concerns, new varieties that produce more food under increasingly challenging environments will be essential to meeting world demand, which is predicted to rise by 40 percent between now and 2025 . The task of those responsible for breeding new varieties, however, will have to be executed at a time when support for agricultural research in both developed and developing countries is waning. During the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, agricultural scientists enjoyed rapidly expanding budgets, but during the past two decades the growth has slowed. Pardey and Beintema reported a real growth rate of global agricultural research spending during 1976-1981 of 4.5 percent per annum , but by 1991-96 this growth rate had fallen to 2.0 percent per annum . It has continued to decline since then. China is no exception. China’s real annual growth rate of agricultural research expenditure fell from 7.8 percent in 1976-81 and 8.9 percent in 1971-86 to 5.5 percent in 1991-96 . Similar patterns but in more exaggerated terms can be seen in the expenditures of research institutes in developed or developing countries, and in the international agricultural research system that are dedicated to crop varietal improvement . Hence, in an era of slower growth in agricultural research expenditures and increased demands for output, there will be rising pressure on the research system to come up with ways to produce more for less. In the parlance of production economics, this means that it will be necessary to become increasingly efficient at producing new varieties. Although several authors have recognized the importance of economies of scale and economies of scope in agricultural research , few studies have attempted to measure the nature of the processes used by the agricultural research “industry” to create new varieties—the technology used to produce varietal technology, sometimes called the research production function. Since the seminal work of Baumol et al. , economies of scale andeconomies of scope have been studied in a wide range of industries . However, only two studies—Branson and Foster and Byerlee and Traxler —have produced empirical evidence on economies of size in agricultural research, and there have not been any empirical studies on economies of scope. Moreover, the limited evidence on economies of size in agricultural research is mixed. Based on a unique set of data, collected specifically to examine the production economics of crop breeding centers, we use a cost function approach to estimate economies of scale, economies of scope and other aspects of the technology of crop varietal production in China.1 Although we are interested in the production economics of crop breeding, in general, our focus on China is appropriate for several reasons. First, China has a long and successful history of crop breeding and, although it is a developing country, its breeders have made breakthroughs that rival those of most developed countries . Hence, in some sense, our findings are relevant for the breeding programs of all nations. In addition, China is important in its own right as the largest country in the world, and as an example of a large developing country.

Contributions to transportation technologies evolved throughout the past 150 years

The list includes development of large-grain combines, crawler tractors, the centrifugal irrigation pump, mechanical fruit and nut harvesting systems, aerial application systems, etc. Unlike much of U.S. agriculture, which is dependent on machinery and equipment lines of large national manufacturers, California producers rely on mechanical technologies from several sources—from large machinery and equipment lines for general purpose tractors and combines, from foreign manufacturers for specialized, precision equipment for special production uses , and from local inventor-manufacturers who design and/or take over the manufacture of equipment that was first developed on farms and ranches for very specific needs. The industry will maintain its reliance on productivity-improving and/ or cost-reducing mechanical technologies for continued economic success.An open border and a global economy bring the possibility of new pests that adversely affect the economic productivity of California agriculture. It is increasingly difficult to provide both effective monitoring of local production areas and thorough inspection of incoming plant and animal materials for potential threats to the state’s agriculture. Some examples: the Mediterranean fruit fly threatened the state’s fruit industry in the 1980s; foot and mouth disease, mad cow disease, and Newcastle’s disease are of constant concern to the livestock and poultry industries; African bees could imperil the apiculture industry; the spread of Pierce’s disease by the glassy-winged sharpshooter has already decimated southern grape-growing regions and has the potential to cause great economic damage if introduced into other major grape-growing regions; the spread of phylloxera required removal of grapevines and replanting on resistant root stock, etc. Adaptive pest management, required to maintain the economic viability of agricultural production through variety selection,square plastic pot integrated pest-management programs, eradication programs, cultural practices, and the like, will continue to be critically important to 21st Century agriculture.

Technology will be important in delivering quality products in larger quantities to diverse markets worldwide. Drivers 8 and 9 are listed separately in our table, but here they are discussed together as they are often of joint importance to market delivery of high quality products to both domestic and export buyers. In a demand-driven system, products must be quickly delivered to consumers in an assured form and quality. The produce of California’s farms and ranches has always greatly depended on national and international markets. Early on, international markets, which could be reached by sea, were more accessible than were interior domestic markets. That changed with completion of the transcontinental railroad in the late 19th Century. Ice cooling opened domestic markets for perishables in the early 20th Century. Post-WWII construction of the interstate highway system triggered another shift in the mode of transport—from rail to refrigerated trucks—for servicing domestic and nearby Canadian and Mexican markets. More recent innovations—refrigerated container shipments and air freight—permitted development of overseas export markets. Each major innovation led to structural changes in product mixes from extensive to increasingly intensive types of agricultural production. Efficient, timely transportation will continue to be of paramount importance to the economic viability of California agriculture. Early expansions of commercial agriculture featured livestock products and nonperishable commodities —products that required minimal processing and, in a relative sense, did not require extraordinary storage skills to maintain market acceptability. Subsequent development of the fruit industry went through several major changes, first from dried fruit to development of markets for processed and frozen products and then to a major emphasis on fresh fruits. Simultaneously, the challenge also was to deliver products to markets located more distant from producing orchards and vineyards. Scientific understanding of the post harvest physiology of harvested crops grew to be of paramount importance in the 20th Century, leading to practices that include quick post harvest cooling and control of atmospheric conditions during packing, storage, and shipping.

Parallel shifts are noted for the vegetable industry, which has also moved to a predominantly fresh product form for domestic and foreign consumers. In summary, the import of improved transportation technologies impacted the industry earlier than did a focus on processing and storage. In contrast, contributions to improved or new processing and storage technologies have been of growing significance, especially during the post-WWII period, underpinning the transformation of California agriculture from a majority dependence on extensive field and livestock products to one dominated by more intensive production of fruits, nuts, and dairy products that move to worldwide markets.Financial problems in the last two decades of the 20th Century and the related wave of megamergers of regional banks into national banks have changed the lending environment. Agricultural firms no longer compete in segmented capital pools for agricultural-related loans. This has been a major structural change. Now, credit markets are mostly nationwide markets with little or no differentiation in the designated portions of loan portfolios dedicated to agricultural firms—farms and businesses. The result is that all firms compete in much larger markets, putting additional stress and uncertainty on many small- to medium-sized farms and agribusinesses. Smaller firms may be competitively disadvantaged unless they have an economically viable niche market for product or services or unless they have non-farm sources of income. The distribution of farms by size of farm has become increasingly bimodal as the industry has been exposed to the several financial challenges during the recent two decades. In California and the United States there are growing shares of small-sized farms of minor commercial significance and a relatively small number of large farms that produce the majority of agricultural production. In between there is a group of small-sized commercial farms with operators who are dependent on farm sales as the chief source of income. Our assessment continues to acknowledge the realities of a capital-intensive industry facing significant structural changes in product markets that generally favor larger over smaller producers in meeting the quantity and quality specifications of supply contracts. Some will require capital not only to expand production but also to integrate production with processing and marketing activities , involving themselves in production of a wider suite of products or in other production regions —all efforts to maximize returns on internal and external sources of capital.

Thus, for these firms, access to capital will continue to be important if they are to respond successfully to changing economic realities into the 21st Century. Our assessment also recognizes the increasing scrutiny of the creditworthiness of small- and medium-sized firms, which require higher levels of internal funding for loan security. While changes in capital markets are of limited concern to small farms that are characterized by residential, retirement, or part-time farming interests, financial stress will likely persist for medium-sized operations attempting to remain commercially viable. Viability is challenged by the low return on small levels of production and the difficulty in competing for production contracts favorable enough to attract adequate levels of external financing. Without a successful adjustment outcome, they will be destined to either exit the industry or, at best, experience even lower levels of returns on management and internal capital and/or be increasingly dependent on non-farm incomes.Labor availability and cost, always important to California growers and processors, will be influenced to greater degrees by global political and competitive conditions. The entry of waves of cheap labor pools from Asia and the Americas has been, over time, fostered both by legislated programs and illegal immigration. While past periods of uncertain labor availability and/or rising labor costs have fostered development of important labor-saving technologies, the magnitude of recent growth, as well as the intensification of agricultural production, has resulted in more than offsetting increases in labor requirements. Total hired-worker employment in agriculture grew from about 200,000 man-year equivalents in the early 1960s to nearly a quarter million by the mid-1990s. While the number of regular workers did not increase over the period,square plant pot seasonal employment did increase significantly, rising from 50 percent to 64 percent of average employment . Agriculture’s need for a cheap supply of relatively unskilled seasonal labor, as unattractive as this initial employment opportunity may be, has provided a common starting point for numerous immigrant groups who later move to more attractive jobs throughout the economy. At a time when California agriculture is nervously watching the production potentials of low-labor-cost competitors for U.S. and world market shares, two domestic policy issues loom on the horizon, casting much uncertainty about ample labor supplies. First, continued high recessionary unemployment may reduce prospects for legal, guest-worker types of federal programs. Second, tighter borders instituted as a part of elevated homeland security measures could reduce available supplies of low-cost labor to both agriculture and non-farm service employers. President Bush’s recently proposed immigration reform may reduce labor uncertainty if legislation follows to move a portion of the illegal immigrant workforce to legal, green-card status. Overall, drivers 10 and 11 are judged to be less positive for agriculture in the coming years. Both are critically important. They differ only in their effect on farms with different characteristics. Increased segmentation of financing favors farms with more favorable commercial opportunities; medium-sized farms will continue to be financially challenged. Labor availability issues concern firms of all sizes.Superior management capability and effective implementation are the hallmark of firms that achieve better economic performance even while constantly undergoing structural adjustment. Management expertise is one characteristic of firms surviving turbulent economic challenges. Successful California farmers and producers have accepted forces of change, including those often thrust upon them from external sources, as they seek to reduce per-unit costs of production as well as to react positively to production innovations and opportunities for new commodities and product forms.

Adaptive skills are a necessity, including an acceptance of inherent risks and uncertainties along with strategies for managing potential risks to the firm, whether it be a farm, a ranch, or an agribusiness that extends beyond the farm gate. Our evaluations of the three major historical epochs reflect the ever-increasing contribution of superior managerial skills to development of California agriculture. California farms and ranches, often more diverse in structure than is common elsewhere, are extremely demanding of managerial skills. The existence of multi-product, integrated firms requires higher levels of managerial expertise. Smaller firms also require superior management in order to compete. The premium for a range of superior management skills will continue to be valued in forthcoming responses and initiatives that will be key to success and survival in California agriculture.Marketing is obviously important to California farms and agribusinesses. Management and important institutional innovations contributed mightily to the growth and development of California’s agriculture, especially in the early 1900s. Among the important institutional innovations were an exemption from U.S. antitrust laws, permitting growers to act collectively to process and market their crops and to share information; bargaining through grower cooperatives ; and growers’ ability to act collectively to control various aspects of marketing their products by federal legislation and state legislation . These were especially important to the growth of specialty-crop production . As the state’s capacity to produce specialty crops expanded, several commodities quickly developed a dominant marketing cooperative that controlled a majority of the California market volume. Examples included Sunkist , Sunsweet , Sun-Maid , Almond Growers Exchange , Blue Anchor , Nulaid , Diamond Walnut , Calavo , California Canners and Growers, and Tri Valley Growers . Early emergence of marketing cooperatives especially fostered the growth and development of irrigated agricultural production featuring more perishable fruits and specialty crops, but several cooperatives also emerged for field crops, e.g., RGA and CalCot . Cooperatives gave growers the opportunity to achieve scale economies by integrating collectively to gain benefits of larger volume processing and marketing activities as well as to benefit from joint information sharing and bargaining activity . Government-organized federal and state agricultural marketing agreements also grew from inception in popularity and importance, recently accounting for 54 percent of California’s agricultural output, being most important for animal products, vegetables, and fruits and nuts and least important for field and nursery crops . Depending on the specific marketing order, producers are required by law to contribute toward financing mandated marketing programs, the most common being for quality control involving standardized grades and minimum-quality standards by inspection, generic advertising and promotion in domestic and foreign markets, and research. The contribution of both cooperatives and marketing orders has been increasingly challenged in the recent past, such that we must conclude that their importance has declined in the late 1900s and will likely continue to decline in the future .