V E R S I T Y F O R N PROJECTIONS OF CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE -.'■■■ ..-■■■ T0 1980 AND 2000 G. W. DEAN • G. A. KING • H. O. CARTER • C. R. SHUMWAY CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 847 CONTENTS Introduction 3 < Objectives 4 Framework for projections 4 Projection of U. S. economy and agriculture, 1980 and 2000 4 ? Procedure for projecting California's crop and livestock production 7 Crop projections for California, 1980 and 2000 8 State yield projections 14 * State acreage projections 15 Livestock projections for California, 1980 and 2000 21 Dairy cattle 22 A Beef cattle 24 Sheep and lambs 27 Hogs 27 ' Poultry 30 , Projected feed-livestock balances in California 32 Projected land use and water resource use in California 34 * Irrigated acreage requirements 35 Planned irrigation development 38 Features of the California Water Plan 43 ' Irrigated acreage required and planned rates of irrigation development 48 r Comments on land and water use projections 50 Projected adjustments in farm organization and management in California .... 51 * Summary and conclusions 56 Literature cited 58 This replaces Bulletin 778 SEPTEMBER, 1970 THE AUTHORS: Gerald W. Dean is Professor of Agricultural Economics and Economist in the Experi- ment Station and on the Giannini Foundation, University of California, Davis; Gordon A. King is Professor of Agricultural Economics and Economist in the Experiment Station and on the Giannini Foundation, University of California, Davis; Harold O. Carter is Professor of Agricultural Economics and Economist in the Experiment Station and on the Giannini Foundation, University of California, Davis; C. Richard Shumway was formerly Agricultural Economist with the USDA, stationed at Davis. An abstract appears on page 60. PROJECTIONS OF CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE TO 1980 and 2000 1 INTRODUCTION (^alifornia's economy has undergone far-reaching changes since World War II. The state's favorable climate and physical environment have made it a particularly attractive place in which to live. High- technology, foot-loose industries (those re- lying on a highly trained labor force rather than being tied to particular geo- graphic locations because of mineral de- posits, power sources, or other natural factors) have grown rapidly in California, partly because of the availability of amen- ity resources (climate, mountains, coast- line, etc.) attractive to their employees. External economies accruing to high-tech- nology firms which locate near renowned centers of higher learning also appear to have been a factor in the growth of foot- loose industries in California. In addition, California has become a favored retire- ment community. Largely because of these sources of growth, California's population increased from about 10.6 million in 1950 to about 20 million in 1969; projections are for a California population of 26.5 million in 1980 and 38.6 million by 2000 [California Department of Finance, 1968]. Along with rapid industrial growth and employment have come attendant pres- sures on California's agricultural econ- omy. Urban pressure on land and water resource use are among the foremost problems facing California agriculture. Urbanization and industrialization in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay metro- politan centers, as well as in parts of the Central Valley and southern Coastal Val- ley, have removed sizable acreages of high- quality farmland from agricultural use. Land values and taxes in surrounding areas often have risen to levels unjustified by strictly agricultural pursuits. A rapidly growing, affluent populace in California also has expanded the demand for recrea- tional facilities and second-home sites in the foothill and mountain regions. Land values and real estate taxes in many of these areas have risen to the point where traditional agricultural uses such as cattle ranching and grazing are of questionable economic feasibility. Decreases in crop land due to urban ex- pansion have been offset by additional de- velopment of irrigated land. State and fed- eral water development projects — set up for the dual purpose of servicing water- deficit urban areas and providing irriga- tion water for agriculture — will critically affect the future of California agriculture. Technological change in agriculture, new irrigation developments, and shifts in location of agricultural production within the state have thus far permitted Cali- fornia to retain its traditional share of U.S. markets for agricultural products despite the growing competition for land and water resources. Crop production has increased significantly in the past 15 years with no net increase in crop land em- ployed. Livestock production has also grown substantially in the state, despite competition for resources from within the state and from livestock production from other parts of the U.S. The questions posed in this study con- cern the possible future development of the agricultural sector of the California economy as it attempts to adjust to re- source use pressures within the state, and to changes in the demands for its products. The increases in demand are greatest for some of the products for which California has a unique climatic advantage (such as certain fruits and vegetables). Will the land and water resources available to Cali- fornia agriculture in the future permit the state to continue to supply a constant or increasing share of the market for these 1 Submitted for publication April 9, 1970. [3] products? What changes in the "mix" of cropping patterns and livestock produc- tion must be made to satisfy these shifts in demand? What implications do these changes have for the operation of in- dividual farming units in the state? Farmers, businessmen in industries re- lated to agriculture, and government offi- cials periodically make decisions based on assumptions, explicit or implicit, about future changes in California agriculture. Clearly these decisions should be based on the best possible information available. This bulletin offers information which should prove useful as one input to the complex decisions which must be made continuously at farm, business, and govern- mental levels. OBJECTIVES The specific objectives of this study are to make the following projections of California agriculture to 1980 and 2000: • Acreage, yield, and total production of major crops. • Numbers, feed utilization, and total production of major types of livestock. • Feed imports to balance feed production and utilization. • Land and water use by agriculture, by region. • Changes likely to occur on individual farms. FRAMEWORK FOR PROJECTIONS All long-range economic forecasting tech- niques have severe limitations. The con- ventional quantitative tools of economic analysis (econometric models of commod- ity demand and supply, input-output an- alysis, linear programming) are better suited to short-run analysis than to long- range forecasting. Therefore, most long- range studies employ a combination of techniques, including both quantitative and qualitative elements. The term "pro- jection" rather than "prediction" or "forecast" generally is used to make clear that the results are conditional on the basic assumptions used. That is, if the basic assumptions of future population, income, consumption patterns, competi- tive advantage, technological change, etc., are not realized, the projections derived therefrom will be distorted. This study contains limitations inherent in any attempt to make long-term projec- tions. While a large number of previous in-depth studies on particular commodi- ties employing statistical or other quanti- tative techniques have been utilized, the backlog of such research does not cover all areas of interest in a comprehensive study of the entire agricultural economy. The thread which weaves this patchwork of previous studies into a complete fabric of projections is the judgment of special- ists in many diverse phases of agricultural research. Unfortunately, results of such analysis are not subject to statements re- garding standard errors or confidence limits, and there is no guarantee that other informed and competent researchers, given the same information, would arrive at exactly the same results. Still, even rough approximations as to directions and magnitudes of change often aid in long-range planning. Projections of U.S. Economy and Agriculture, 1980 and 2000 The demand for many agricultural com- modities produced in California is nation- wide. Therefore, developments in our national economy — such as population growth, income growth and distribution, and level of employment — have a direct impact on California agriculture. Even products produced primarily for in-state markets are affected indirectly by develop- [4] ments in the national economy. For ex- ample, population and income in Cali- fornia largely determine in-state demand for farm products, but these in turn are affected by rates of migration into the ; state and by the level of industrial activity in the state, both of which are heavily dependent on the national economy. Therefore, projections for California ag- riculture must proceed within a frame- work of assumptions regarding the U.S. and world economies. The Economic Research Service and the Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculture [1967] have published a set of projections of U.S. agriculture to 1980, 2000, and 2020, which is based on the following set of assump- tions: • U.S. population will increase from 194.6 million in 1965 to 235.2 million by 1980 and 308.1 million by 2000 (series C estimates of the Bureau of the Census). • Total employment will increase from 74.5 million in 1965 to 90.9 million in 1980 and 119.0 million in 2000. • Gross national product will increase from $684.9 billion in 1965 to $1,164 billion in 1980, and to $2,377 billion in 2000 (in terms of 1965 dollars). • Per capita personal income will in- crease from approximately $2,769 in 1965 to $3,840 in 1980 and $5,965 in 2000 (in terms of 1965 dollars). • Food consumption patterns will shift toward products with higher income elasticities as incomes increase — away from lower cost, starchy foods toward more costly high-protein and proc- essed foods. • Exports will increase at the same rate as during the 1950-60 decade. (This may be low for feed grains and vege- tables if recent trends continue.) • Projected prices for farm products generally will fall into the range of recent years. On the basis of the above general as- sumptions and the work of Daly and Egbert [1966<7, 19666] and others, the USDA [1967] has made projections of the quantities which would be required from U.S. agriculture to meet prospective de- mand in 1980 and 2000. The conceptual framework underlying these projections is that of general price equilibrium. The price equilibrium for each commodity takes into account both the prices of com- peting products in supply and demand and the supply and demand shifters over time. The major demand shifters are pop- ulation and per capita income. In high- income countries such as the U.S., the growth of domestic demand for food is primarily dependent on population growth. However, as per capita incomes increase, people substitute higher value, more nutritious foods such as meat, fruits, and vegetables for lower cost carbohydrate foods. 2 Trends in per capita consumption unrelated to income effects were also in- corporated into the projections. For ex- ample, despite lower prices and rising incomes the per capita uses of eggs and pork have declined. These demand shifts appear to be related to health considera- tions, rural-to-urban population shifts, and possibly other factors. The major shifter of agricultural supply is new tech- nology—hybrid seed, fertilizers, insecti- cides, and other disease controls, im- proved machinery, improved livestock feeding practices, etc. Table 1 shows historical and projected (1980) per capita consumption of a range of agricultural products as presented by Daly and Egbert [19666]. Changes in con- sumption patterns often are quite pro- nounced. For example, in 1949-51, the per capita consumption of pork and beef 2 Quantification of this phenomenon is provided in empirical estimates of income elasticities of demand. Income elasticity of demand is defined as the percentage change in quantity de- manded per 1 per cent change in per capita income, the influence of other variables held constant. The income elasticities for many farm products are positive; i.e., as real incomes rise, per capita consumption increases. However, certain farm products such as wheat, dry beans, potatoes, and sugar exhibit negative income elasticities of demand — income and per capita consumption changes historically have been negatively correlated after the effects of price have been eliminated. [5] Table 1 U.S. PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, 1949-51, 1959-61, 1964, AND PROJECTIONS TO 1980 Commodity Year 1949-51 1959-61 1964 1980 (projected) pounds per capita Livestock: 71.2 70.6 3.8 24.9 391.0 733.0 47.6 202.4 201.2 115.0 9.0 221.0 7.6 51.3 10.1 104.0 17.6 91.3 64.9 4.8 35.7 337.0 657.0 48.8 194.4 204.9 110.0 8.0 165.0 8.1 46.2 10.0 104.0 15.9 106.6 65.4 4.2 38.5 314.0 636.0 50.7 177.5 200.2 110.2 8.4 159.3 10.1 53.0 10.5 103.0 15.3 117 Pork, excluding lard (carcass weight) 58.0 3 5 Chicken and turkey (ready-to-cook) 45.5 290 570 Crops : Food fats and oils (actual weight basis) 49.5 206 Vegetables (fresh equivalent) Potatoes (white) 216.0 110.0 7.5 Wheat 143.0 Rice Corn Other cereals 10.0 52.0 9.6 Sugar, raw value Coffee, green bean equivalent 104.0 16.0 Source: Daly and Egbert [19666]. (including veal) were about the same; by 1980 per capita pork consumption is pro- jected to be only half that of beef. Per capita increases in chicken and turkey consumption are projected, but historical downtrends in per capita consumption of eggs and milk are expected to continue. Within the crop category, moderate per capita increases are projected for fruits and vegetables. (The 1964 consumption of fruit was low primarily because of earlier freeze damage on citrus.) Declines are projected in per capita consumption of dry beans, peas, and wheat. Most other commodities are projected to change only slightly in per capita consumption. The USDA study cited above [1967] has incorporated the above and other studies to make aggregate 1980 and 2000 projections for U.S. agriculture. Per capita consumption projections for individual agricultural commodities were held un- changed beyond 1980. This assumption was made primarily because of the diffi- culty of projecting the influence of new products and changes in consumer tastes, but also was based on the assumption that further increases in personal income be- yond the 1980 level would have little significant influence on per capita con- sumption of agricultural products. The v demand and supply components for com- modities and commodity groups were brought together by price equilibrium models. In general, the projected equi- librium prices of farm products derived by this method fell in the range of farm prices in the early 1960's. Livestock prices were projected to increase slightly and crop prices to decline slightly. However, on balance, price levels projected for farm products as a whole were close to 1965 levels. The projections of the aggregate demand-supply quantities — i.e., the quan- ■ tities of agricultural commodities supplied (required) from U.S. agriculture to meet demand at equilibrium (near-constant) prices — are shown in table 2 for those individual products or commodity group- ings of relevance to California. [6] Procedure for Projecting California Crop and Livestock Production The U.S. projections in table 2 are taken as a point of departure in making most of the California crop projections. The translation of the dimensions of the national economy into those of a single state, however, poses formidable method- ological and data problems. California producers and processors of farm products compete with their counterparts in other regions in meeting the national demands for food and fiber. Similarly, California agriculture must compete with other sec- tors of the California economy for the use of land, water, capital, and labor re- sources. To adequately portray these re- lationships would require a multiproduct, multiregion, multisector, and multitime formulation approaching a general equi- librium model of the economy. Such a project would require research resources far beyond those available to the authors. (For related studies on some individual components of such a formulation, see: Shumway, et al. [1969]; George and King [1969]; Kip and King [1969]; and Demir and Carter [1969].) Table 2 PRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES: U.S. 1961-65 AVERAGE, WITH PROJECTIONS OF PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS TO 1980 AND 2000 Commodity U.S. production 1961-65 U.S. projected production requirements Index of U.S. projected production f 1980 2000 1980 2000 1,000 tons* 133 115 126 167 154 122 188 122 117 145 119 138 146 108 111 140 130 115 120 191 140 113 Feed grains: 106,253 15,417 9,758 15,355 36,460 3,405 3,882 937 13,626 7,592 10,568 270 21,114 3,734 62,830 16,229 9,967 709 583 893 3,665 64,080 141,500 17,800 12,300 25,600 56,208 4,165 7,300 1,145 15,955 11,000 12,600 371 30,795 4,042 69,686 22,753 12,974 815 698 1,706 5,132 72,613 178,400 15,800 12,200 37,700 63,825 4,680 11,400 1,445 21,030 14,100 17,200 537 40,090 4,702 90,745 30,294 16,995 1,082 912 2,224 6,646 95,251 167 Oats 102 125 246 Food crops: Wheat 175 137 294 154 Potatoes Fruits: 154 186 Noncitrus Tree nuts (unshelled) Vegetables Cotton Livestock and products: Milk 163 199 190 126 144 187 Pork Lamb and mutton 171 153 156 Turkeys 249 181 149 * With the exception of eggs, for which the unit is 1,000 eggs. t Data in these columns are relative to 1961-65 = 100. For example, the 1980 index of 133 for corn means that a 33 per cent increase is projected by 1980 compared with the 1961-65 average. Source: 1961-65 data from U.S. Department of Agriculture [1961-68]; 1980 and 2000 projections from Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, [1967, Appendix Table 1, adjusted]. [7] Given the limitations of research data now available, crop projections for Cali- fornia rely largely on projections of trends in key parameters such as population, in- come, yields per acre, and market shares. The procedures are as follows: • U.S. production required to meet demand at equilibrium prices in 1980 and 2000 is taken from the USDA study, as reported in table 2. • California's projected share of the U.S. production of each product or com- modity category is based on the state's historical share of the market; if that share has been changing either up- ward or downward over time, the share is projected to continue chang- ing in the same direction but at a de- creasing rate, reaching a stable per- centage share by 1980. In essence, this procedure is based on the premise that economic forces have favored a change in the market shares by re- gion, but that, in an exchange econ- omy, counter forces such as changing resources prices will tend to stabilize the system over time. If there is no discernible trend in California's mar- ket share for a product, the projection is taken to be equal to the 1961-65 average share. • Probable future yield levels of indi- vidual California crops are estimated, based on the judgment of crop spe- cialists and historical trends. • Projections of the acreage required for crop production in California is based upon the above projections of output requirements and per acre yields. California's livestock industries are less clearly related to national demand than most crop production, as is explained later. California livestock projections are derived as follows: • Outputs to meet 1980 and 2000 de- mands for California livestock prod- ucts are estimated individually. Cali- fornia's production of milk and eggs is expected to be determined primar- ily by demand from within the state. Projected state outputs of individual meat and poultry products are based primarily on evidence from previous research studies, past trends, and judgment of future prospects. • Production per animal or bird and feed efficiency are projected on the basis of previous studies, trends, and the judgment of livestock specialists. • Total production, per animal or per bird production, and feed efficiency are combined to estimate projected livestock and poultry numbers and total feed utilization. Given the above independent crop and livestock projections to 1980 and 2000, two kinds of balances can be made. The first is a balance between the state's production of feed grains and hay and the aggregate demands for these feeds by the state's livestock industries. Thus, the state's po- tential surplus or deficit position in princi- pal livestock feeds can be estimated. The second balance is between the demand (requirements) for land and water by agri- culture in the state and the potential supply of land and water for agricultural purposes, given urbanization of agricul- tural lands and prospective new irrigation developments. A final section of the report touches on some of the expected changes to occur at the microlevel in agricultural production and processing, such as firm size, organi- zation, and ownership. CROP PROJECTIONS FOR CALIFORNIA, 1980 AND 2000 Tables 3, 4, and 5 provide detailed pro- jections for individual field crops, vege- tables, fruits, nuts, and grapes, based on the general procedures outlined above. The left-hand portions of tables 3, 4, and 5 give projections of U.S. production. In general, these are taken from the USDA study [1967] summarized in table 2. How- [8] H O < W O > ^ O zn ° Q O H < o OS 2g Eh Eh O H 1 >o ^ CM r~ OJ -, o t^ C>J cr> ^ t^ CO o o co C00i-H00lf)O©C0C0t^r^lf)O©O o-*i'* l »cooo>(Mco^«)ooooe^ooo N OO !D »' -h N (D ffi" ID (D » N H N ff)' co CO M 03 o o Oi CM tO'flfO^M'fiOOlDNOlOO*') 1 t^ ^NNNrtCCNOO-H CC N N ID h t^ CO S3 t-H .— < co T3 CO nNOOOON^^NOMOlOMOO OOCOOOO^OlNOlNOONNMOO co ") CO > S 2 © >— it^cOlf)COCMCDCMlf)''»<»f)CO©aO Ifl *' N 'f M f 6 N M f !D M -h (O ffl CM NnooHa>!OiDno>!OONiOH— i CO OS rJi CD oo© — -h©cd_coo<- ^h r~ •*»< if) n oo ro ro o '3 t- rt pH CO -H O c3 "■5 O CO CO cocNj-»»tiO , ^ , fO'>*<'^Tt— i iq ^ ^h" co ^-<" o ^HOlflO-tl^OJOOCOOOCM MlOif)lf)*tOO)N ^Z ooocMifir-H'^'fcooor-co . ° +3 CM CM ^ rt CO ^h rt >-, CO g K ^HOiOO-^^ftOJOOcoOOCM CC"f)'N 00 OeMlO-H^TfCCOOOt^CO s cn k Is R. CM CM .-h i-H CO ^h H if) SP CO rtNlf)Of'(iO)«ISIOOOIN MN^NHT((ll)NO)tD01N CSw_ O o CO 02 000N'*(Oif)i01< o o oo ■* ra j m —i © © r— CM i-fCOCOTHO^T-H if) (M CM i-H co co ^i ih rt u: oq in ■* ■* tO CM O0 rH f-l CO d .2 1-1 CO CO 3 T3 o o o to ■* to t o 2; o> t^tocoo oo O OS C3 8 If) .— c t- < .— I ©-> £^ 0OO0O0CD h." (D Tf rn" if) Ol" O) O) N CM if) i-i -^< 3 ^ > O J= 1 > i c . ::- a V- 13 b a f > 3 c p. if < c c a i- c C * c J: (. S PC (2 "5 >- C 5 1- 1 c C o H • s? fe S3 •si T3 rt 5 as i ss e« - u3 J3 3 »2 '£ M Si ft "a f- 5 H Q S ^ wg H ^ W • o^ fe ° H Q 2* ^ s CQ O > ^ S Q r G CM o i •>»< © CO 00 -- h us ^-»— oo £ CO 00 ^H i— c io co 03 e>« as e>) !6 o CM 00 t-i » N CO ^ ■i us us rt r. o ■'J'" i- < CO CO* !-< OO ©" -1 * ■*# as [ CU O0 -if •f co - < OS "3 M J3 US O O © © o o © © © © 1 2 CO Tf< O N OO OO ^ CM O0 CO i *^ *" ■1 OS r^ >o © r-- <- H ■* t^ . CO co •>* t~-T CO 0 O0 CO OC^CO 1 ■* ra t- (M CM CO * H rt *" H o O » ? 00 CO O0 00 O) N as co 2 CM CO C CO -h CM « — c3 £ 's "" o oo 3 O O © CM t^ CO © © N M N O) : SS <£ S3 — ° CO CM CO H i- IS a cS T~~ US ? O CO t-» » H IN KJ . 1 © co co t~ -*i © © ' Q. 00 i 1-1 •**! CO c« as CO 00 © © ■>* co ID H N T(( © - - 00 CO co a 5 C35 rt CO H © ©a »o lO 1—1 8 o Si 3 US 3 t^ © © © © CM © © © © © © CO © © ! us a D 00 ©' 00 CO i- 1 © r IO g§ CM CO o J IO a> co cm -*i ^t< e ■* o "-3 ■g O ©c © c 3 lO 3 t^ © © © © CM *A © © © © © .|I 00 as " us a D 00 © 00 CO ^ ■i © © us ! CO c ) lO as co cm -ti occ p, *~ < ! 9£ ! OS c 3 -h rl CO t^ C£ 3 OS ©CM J 3 © © co i: o^3 OS C 3 iO (M © t^ C CO OS OO o Tf< CO © C£ \ £> §^S j lO c ] »o t-- CO CM C © ex 3 00 N U3 Ol 01 3 ■* r- .-1 s o f 0< 3 CM Tf N O) (C > oo Esra as cm" o H OS CO -H Tj< Tj ■* N N if | it< coT as I r os ,-" us i 3 CO CO CO US -h 3 13 CO r- ^ t-~ > CM -f -h s cs as r- H © CO t^ t^ o © © CO O § t^-" c > OO co' ■* in •fl OO ~X-i rj<" P. •«f c 3 t^ CM CO >~T 1-1 '-' I © If S IC US tl f~ «N 00 S — < > CM CM CO OS cv CO oo co •"*! cc CO cc 5 CT2 cm as as a us co co — " C )" -h" cm* co" co" c t^ OS as o •— i CM rt 1 4 r~; '^ o a "« ' o >J I O p. 3 : "o8 T3 *4) "a o c3 -Q c 1S» .. bb C 6 j § £ ft 1 fi h 5 eg 111? l< 19 t> Q BOMB 5 Mi 3 m t5 ft -i a O ^J3 t— c© oo -t oc oc oc Cs 1- u; r— cc "0 t- 00 00 ■>»< «MhOhOW«hn« COOO-nOO'fOOCOCOCOCN r- oc 00 CM CO 00 CM .-h OO .- c\ IC "5 O OO ^ oo >r> oo cm cm" -•«" •><»«" ■& co" C cm" •>* c^ t^T cr CT> t- i!f « CM CM CM ^* N M f) 00 r- <= 5< »c en cof~cMcniO"* 05 OO O ""> co i- 00 a 00 CO C" CN t— 10 10 en en t— co ^ en co o co i*'- co t^- kC — -I5 00 OS JO 10" -h 1« CO 00 (O M 1C ■* 'J *■- c t^ «<9 CN I- en CM CM IT en *■* 1 CO co iS0>0>X*Nffl*»^C CM -*t COCOO-H(Mt^."5^»o — «5 -o « •«t CM -» h N U5 (M^^HCO CM .00 T < Tt t— ^ CO •*»< C5 1ON0)»NNO(0hN0( > CO OS C CN —c -h CO CO CO <— 1 CO 00CO CO r- co «- t- CM «» OOMOOnOlOlNHOOHf < u- I— C IO 00 Ol^rtiliNlNlOHttlOOf r". 00 00 O Cs >c »r CN ^H CO * M (N d -<" N CO © >«j* a e> e'- co C5 »-l CO <-H CM -CO cocococoeMr—©co©t- ~» •*0)ifi0500'Hll3NOc< i 00 cc 02 •>* en 00 > co c- _g : s c a) UOOnOONlf > 00 oc US >o Cm" »-H lC rt l-H CSl" t»" b-T cc c c cm" 0" «* CO 7-1 0>M»OOONOOOC -H C ">J< © •^ c a> c CO CM CO 00 iftrtdcoiooortOioN^ -JOOO>— lO^Ct^-^ CM © t— (^ CM t--i t» 01 H N U) >— 1 -H CO CM CO CC CN ■«»< CO ©r-~-r-CMCNir-©©©-«» Cnt,O00COCOt--CNI©COCMC: CO CM ■« — t^ CM uf5 co cr CO cr CN 00 en *O-h©©COC0.-<©0000U" CO CC t^ oc ■* CM CO /: t— CN Tf .OCOOCOCO— if— CN co © ?<- «> en ic COCO t— CO - CM OONlO'f'CNlNi- 1 ■*< I-- r- © CN CO oc CC CM CO OS N M 1- 1 OO CO >-< (— 1— it— © c CO •*»■ ■^ c cr I— ilOOOl^NffiOOUJOONl'' O CO 9 cc oc •*■. CM -m .— 1 1— co co co © to S If 00" lO CC cr IO t--" -H o t§ MOb^m»tOWlOlNt CO O- CO CC oc 00 c "5 CO oc cr t— -"»< oi^oionH^MOiixitc O CC ci- CN CN 00 1- ■*f< , -" co" cm" ■*" co" co" 00" uo" c CO* CN Cr cr co" *o 1" CM rtr-Hrt COCMt- CO T- e t co 00 co -a a a of a a 1 a 03 cu M CP > ■• c cr a c c ml a — a .2 « O 0) ■ -• a DO - « * to -? CD 3 O s > n, sweet umbers lie c p a c c a b ~c~ c 1 a a T 1 c c ,1 a a c X "a t t/ 1 1 g J 1 2 "J 2 1 ? K ^ a 1 "c3 °3 cq u c HH c Ph CD C fE is c H OX 1§ O, 'o Sec 4» "o h cf c«tf Eh .9 8f2 Table I PRODUCTION AND PROJECTIONS OF HARVESTED [ YIELD, AND PRODUCTION TO 198C Crop U.S. production 1961-65 2000 California as percentage of U.S. production '"■ 2000* 1,000 tons per cent Citrus fruits:* Oranges Lemons Grapefruit Subtotal Semitropical fruits: Avocados Dates Figs Olives Subtotal Deciduous fruits: Apples Apricots Cherries Nectarines Peaches, clingstone. Peaches, freestone. . . Pears Plums Prunes, dried weight Subtotal Tree nuts:| Almonds Walnuts Subtotal Grapes Total 5,130 599 1,626 7,355 191 2,959 200 273 61 747 1,040 614 101 180 6,175 64.5 80.2 144.7 3,623 17,488.7 8,516 851 2,423 11,790 231 4,202 248 341 99 1,258 1,029 761 125 234 8,297 227.5 142.8 370.3 4,348 25,036.3 11,030 1,108 3,154 15,292 80 300 5,445 322 442 129 1,631 1,335 989 150 295 10,738 310.3 190.8 501.1 5,652 32,483.1 21.71 91.15 7.50 24.23 82.20 100.00 100.00 100.00 95.81 8.20 95.50 9.60 100.00 100.00 29.50 49.20 100.00 85.00 34.53 100.00 95.00 97.44 91.20 43.12 21.71 80.00 9.00 23.30 82.20 100.00 100.00 100.00 93.94 8.20 98.00 9.60 100.00 100.00 29.50 45.00 100.00 88.46 35.64 100.00 98.00 99.24 91.20 40.95 21.71 86. DO 9.00 ._ 23.32 82.20 100?, 3 U3 2 p •* ID 1(5 N CO ^h rt ifl !D UJ ^f rt CO t— O t- O CD >C O ■»* »« o CO CO t^ CO o CIS o* •«< ^h o o CO CO t^ © 00 CO •<*> «-i i-i iC r^ "* 1-1 CO CO CO 0C S » rt M © 00 CM l-H CO CM •*}< 1-1 00 en 00 O ^ -H -<* ^ (M -h CO ^h O0 «fl CD ^H ■* «c >o «o CO 5 00 i g 1,484.3 1,434.3 198.7 1,633.0 1,795.5 249.1 — CM OO 5 CO 3 CM 185.3 176.1 27.8 203.9 220.4 34.9 CO CM co o> -<*< co 615.8 601.4 76.0 677.4 752.9 95.3 1.2 ^ 3 "ca * ■g a JO fi - o fi o3 £ ^ 03 aj a> cp tn co o a> a> « 3 CO g "3 "5 5 '« '55 « 9 o W W S3 PQ All _ !^ O CM ■ ■ t^ 00 OO (^ CO • • CO US CM ■ oj o y-i CO "5 cm" CM CO 00 PL. ^ " ^ & ^t. o CO • >o • CO 00 00 CO CM ■ O • CM 00 ,_; 05 «5 CM 00 CO CO Tf< -^ CO CM •*»< w c~ 00 co co W5 00 US «5 U5 tf5 oo CM »-i 00 CO 03 CM ^h o to CM ~c oo o . in oo . CO U0 i Jg« 05 o tM CO CO OO, >c O " e« o> >o oo CO "5 OO .is Hg£ • tv. i w >o esT >o 00 CM CM CM ft p, "3g2 oS2 o «5 . . o • ■"f ■* • 00 "g o CO s oo CM o d co 00 t^ -c H o* 3 k t> CM CM o> p. a 53 a cu .a 3 cr cu 8*1 e 3 o o .... 00 Tt< .... o o . o "* Oi ■ 00 ■ ^3 -* d «5 CO ^ ' Tt«' 00 CT> CM CM t^ 00 o CM T3 « cv S o »o . o CO if5 . o OO oo ■ o >c o O • O OO cc s e» CO • CO O CN CO • CO Ol OC ■ ■ o a> OO CO CM "5 cm" o CO CM CO h a o CO • U) 00 OC o co • m oo oc ■ £ 3 fcg £ d •^tl CM lO l~- d rf ' N lO N aSg o CO CM CO o CO CM CO fe co CO T- +i Id " o "c -5 "^ t3 B 73 0> IB c cv | a> s £ . T3 c fc 0) T3 eg esi rt co CJ cc 0) 01 a >> CV -2 M o u fe a > g t3 m CO CO 111. C -a CO if O a a3 "a ► g "d cv CO oo 13 H 03 o> G? >• C -u ~ S3 cv 7 ^ S -P -^ 03 ± 1300 •= "c8 cv cv 4,-3003 O PQ w O PC O PQ w Q PQ M CO M o 1 CO > 00 OS nJ H £ B o> w « Q W w En <: H C Eh Q Q <1 o H oo B 2 tf g ^ o o pq ? P OS H H <^ O PQ CD « oc to oo e>q l^ © • •f OO CO t~- to OS to 00 1 -£S to" (M ■>*' co Oh ^^ " CM «B CM CO 00 • C3- >> cr> <-H lO >o CC 03 •* CM Oi OS cc CM ffl 00 CM CM CO to * H cm" a tO 1 "3 §.£ _; 00 CO o S «« S3 as ,-H »o >> 1 sS >, CD a 1 CD in CD CD c oc C3- a CD s .a a © 3 a £ <2! CD c "S T3 CD CD a a "3 a cd. a £& CD o CM ■**> CM co tr • J3 U*U §"3 o «*l CO O oo C • o a cd c« B o, CD 8 o S CM co -^ CO OO <- H »<*•< co r " 1 ^ a £ 9 68 I O co to OO oc CM to l> »- g O O0 CM CO & co TJ _o *o " "3 CD CO a CD 6 CD CD s *3 03 'o a >> Eh a * CD CD t: CM to" O o . c3 • a cd a «- •- > CD 03 f £ (h CD >- -g | cm g; 03 jS -h "3 1 a _« la o "5 O O -= o m ffi o cc o3 CD >H CM ■g CD Ph'S e 4 a< a £ 2 ^d CD a a .5 a to »o CO CO ,00 03 ^« 1« 03 QQ feedlots have also declined by about 200,000 head from the 1965 high of nearly 2.3 million head. Thus, the weight of evidence seems to indicate a probable slowing down of the '? sharp uptrend in California feedlot mar- ketings experienced over the past decade. A reasonable projection for 1980 would appear to be 2.5 million head, an increase of approximately 0.4 million over num- bers in 1967 and 0.2 million over the peak number in 1965. This would imply a drop V from around 50 per cent in the 1961-65 period to 37 per cent in 1980 in the share of California beef consumption coming from California feedlots. (The share in 1967 was around 45 per cent; Hopkin and Kramer [1965], however, project that feed- lot capacity in California would be ade- quate to produce 48 per cent of the state's supply in 1975.) Assuming a further drop in this share to 30 per cent by 2000 would imply feedlot marketings of 3.2 million head. It is recognized that California feed- lot projections cannot be made with great confidence, yet they are of considerable importance in calculating future feed production-consumption balances in Cali- fornia. Therefore, the feed implications of alternative feedlot numbers are examined in a later section. In recent years, inshipments of stockers and feeders have been slightly over twice the number of calves raised in the state. Increasing substantially the number of calves produced off range appears unlikely in view of the keen competition in grazing areas, particularly at higher elevations, by recreation, water development, and tim- ber interests. These factors, coupled with the fact that cattle ranching generally returns low profits, suggest only a limited possibility for expansion in range cattle numbers in the state (Dean, Finch, and Petit, 1966; Ching, 1967). Thus, it is as- sumed that beef calves raised in California as a per cent of feedlot marketings will continue to drop from 40 per cent in 1961-65 to 37 per cent in 1980 and 2000. With a calf crop of 88 per cent, this im- plies beef cow numbers increasing from 889,000 head in 1961-65 to 1,049,000 and 1,342,000 in 1980 and 2000, respectively. Table 9 shows the 1961-65 numbers of beef animals by category with projections to 1980 and 2000 as indicated above. Feed requirements for 1961-65 have been esti- mated by Snider and King [1970], Pro- jections of feed requirements to 1980 and 2000 shown in table 9 are based on the medium level gains of feed efficiency (1980 and 2000 index = 91, 1961-65 = 100) shown in table 7. Sheep and Lambs Sheep production in California has de- clined gradually over the past decade, with mature ewe numbers dropping from about 1.4 to 1.2 million. Strong competi- tion for available range land from beef cattle, as well as from nonagricultural uses, has been a factor in reducing num- bers. Most of the lambs from these flocks are fed on pasture in the state, although the numbers have been supplemented with annual inshipments of around 350,- 000 head of stocker and feeder lambs. Almost all of California's fed lambs are finished on pasture rather than being fed in drylot (Spurlock, 1968). Pasture feed- ing results in cheaper gains than drylot feeding because of high concentrate prices. The principal lamb-feeding areas are Imperial Valley, where lambs are fed over the winter on alfalfa pasture and vegetable and sugar beet aftermath feeds, and the Sacramento Valley, where a larger percentage are fed on summer irrigated pasture as well as on grain, beet, or vege- table aftermath feeds. In general, how- ever, lamb feeding is not in a strong com- petitive position for land resources in the irrigated areas, and consequently numbers fed have dropped in the past decade from about 1.3 to 1.0 million head. With the above in mind, the downward trend in mature ewe numbers has been projected to level out at 1,150,000 head in 1980 and remain constant to 2000. Lamb feeding is projected to contract propor- tionately. The resulting numbers are re- ported in table 10, together with feed re- quirements per head and total require- ments. Because most of the feeding is on pasture and aftermath grazing, no increase in feed efficiency is assumed in 1980 and 2000. Hogs Hog production in California has been declining steadily since World War II. In [27] m H I— I P G? W Q fa H O H Q Q < W w OC H cd O « tf w w fa ^ OS eo 05 • N (O « CO • M ffl p- CO • N Ol r O • O CN C CO i CO ^ co ^ CM l-H "* =P CO CO ■ i-l -*f -* CM ^H • OO ■* "0 w O CO CM CC OS CO ^H O ^ " ■ag* • CM CM . o - o £32 i-i 1-1 ^H § E-i o* 3 § Jg 8" § , § - U5 »c . «o . "5 .fi >»rt 8 o c o o ■3 *"■ "cJ O H b, a 1? c . CO . . cc . »o . «0 fe " c o o CB 09 5 ^ CO • O CO w i fc> ^ Ph ■^ S3 CO O ■ CD !£ >> W CM o> a 1 "5 CO CO 111 . o • ■ 1* 1—1 o CD 03 a S3 , § "3 e 3 . © . . ■3 Zr* CO co 0> a 03 CO -g •»1 £"§ W 2-° £ Ph a a 1> i . o a> e3 ^& ■* 8"« O CO CO © -3 E s a s,s » n n io ^ CM i-h CM KO CM O CO ** ^H ©CM M SkoS O CO CM O OC O CO CM O OC • as.2* O CM l^ O CO © 00 CM © cm t^ © c- O OO CM z tH 3 fi 03 a •a c5 on 03 a *T fi -1-2 S cr +. c a F O 09 a CD > CP > o o -g a G C. SP fi - a S c E-i -a "2 « £ T3 =3 8 ft 03 8 Si a £ fi 03 £ _ 03 oq S a £ -^ s fi2 "c 1 S T3 ** h " ^ 03 d C 3 o -- .§ J5 JS * H ■ 5 -S -3 2 H | "S a s a i » § i 1 HhhlHtf Wfei-lHrt S3 09 s a 1 c3 3 CI) CT> > CT> O « ""a o£ ■S.8 ||| > 1-^ 127.4 94.0 94.0 88.9 14.2 10.5 10.5 9.9 • o co • 00 © CO • o oo cm CO O ! &£ IS 3 co en 8 o > T3 I a 0J. 3 n M 4) * COM O, cu l-H 4, -*"2 a a o o the past decade the number of pigs saved annually in the state has halved, reaching a level of about 260,000 in 1966 and 1967. Over the same period, the percentage of total California hog slaughter coming from pigs raised in the state has dropped from about 25 per cent to 15 per cent. Major factors in the decline are high con- centrate prices in California relative to the midwest, and a decline in garbage- fed hogs in the state. The long-term downtrend in the num- ber of California pigs saved appears to have leveled off somewhat in recent years, although numbers decreased sharply in 1968. The authors have projected a slight further decline to below 250,000 head in 1980 and 2000 (table 11). Feed efficiencies in 1980 and 2000 are expected to improve to the rates shown earlier in table 7. Poultry The poultry industry is comprised of three distinct enterprises: egg production, tur- key production, and broiler and fryer production. Separate projections are made for each. Egg Production In the past decade California's apparent per capita egg consumption has exceeded that of the U.S. average by about 22 eggs. Projections by the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture [1967] show U.S. per capita egg consump- tion declining to 308 per capita in 1980 and 2000. Retaining the 22 egg per capita difference for California results in a pro- jected consumption of 330 eggs per capita in the state. Taking into account Califor- nia population increases, correcting for hatching eggs, and assuming a return to self-sufficiency rather than exporting around 5 per cent of California eggs as has been the case in recent years, total egg production in California would in- crease from about 6,837 thousand an- nually in 1961-65 to 8,527 thousand in 1980 and 12,430 thousand in 2000. Egg production per layer in California has been consistently above the U.S. av- erage until the past few years when the margin has narrowed until the two figures were nearly equal in 1967. U.S. egg pro- duction per layer is projected to continue increasing but at a decreasing rate, from 225 annually in 1961-65 to 235 in 1980 and 250 in 2000. Adopting the same rates per layer for California leads to increases in the number of layers for egg production from 29.9 million annually in 1961-65 to 35.8 million in 1980 and 49.3 million in 2000. These numbers, together with per bird and total feed requirements, appear in the first row of each section of table 12. Projections of per bird feed requirements to 1980 and 2000 were derived from the medium increases in feed efficiency shown in table 7. Broiler Production U.S. consumption of broiler meat is projected to increase from 7.3 billion pounds annually in 1961-65 to 10.3 billion pounds in 1980 and 13.3 billion pounds in 2000, according to a study by the Eco- nomic Research Service, USD A [1967]. California broiler production has in- creased from around 150 to 250 million pounds in the past decade. However, U.S. production has increased even faster, causing California's share to drop slightly below 3 per cent. Because of the intense competition from low-cost broilers shipped in from the southeast, California's share of U.S. production is projected to decline slightly and level off at about 2.5 per cent in 1980. However, large-scale aggressive broiler producers in California should be able to continue to compete favorably with inshipments. Given the U.S. projection, California's share at 2.5 per cent and an average mar- ket live weight of 3.8 pounds per bird, the numbers of California broilers are projected to increase from 60.1 million annually in 1961-65 to 67.5 million in 1980 and 87.5 million in 2000. Table 12 shows these numbers, together with broiler breeding flock numbers. Feed require- ments per bird in 1961-65 are from Snider and King [1970], with projections to 1980 and 2000 based on the medium feed effi- ciency projections given in table 7. Turkey Production U.S. consumption of turkey meat is projected to increase tremendously from 1.8 billion pounds (live-weight basis) an- nually in 1961-65 to 3.4 billion pounds in [30] m H s? & Q* W Q W << H o O 8 Q Q *5 Q oo H £ g go Z 1-5 w o tf O Q ^ *% CQ CD Is p H P P O PL, •5 ° O ft ■5 ° o S. Oi 113 113 ffl lO o » US 00 N O 00 © NIN »< ~* ■>»< CM CM CO "3 O O CO © -< • _l CM *"* CM CM ^h - O ,_, ,_ CO "3 CO o Oi ^ CO Oi CM cc _ CO CO h l-H ro — , __ CQ r- CO _ "f m 3 C-} O CM t~ 00 CM o CI CM o 3 — CO 00 ^ 00 «o ^ o C Oj •««< t^ CM O "3 CO •*< oo « h M B3 h W N N » © CM ^H lO © © O * © H CO O CM O t- •"I' CM CO *" 1 ,-H CM * H 8.8 161.5 75.5 165.4 96.5 7.8 145.8 65.0 142.2 82.1 7.4 122.1 61.5 133.5 3 N M N © H © ■* t~ T-l t~- CO © CO »-l Oi O CM CO O 8.3 0.6 11.1 6.3 9.4 O ■>* CO OO OO M H N CO N CO O <-> "3 I-H ffl N Ol N O ^H N H M CO CM CO U3 1< rt N rt CO 1< CM CM •«*« CM •■H IN rt CO 3 t^ CO © © «j N C> ■* — 1 >o ^ 70.0 5.1 105.8 43.1 98.1 59.5 4.8 88.6 40.7 92.1 Oi ^H ■* CO "3 O O ■"»< CM CO CM "3 "3 >0 00 "O ■* Ol N lO © h lO CM •>»< «3 CM «3 > T3 i 3 .a 2 $ ; *£ % £ ■* ■* 3 o i- s oj fc, t. 3 3 CD c3 QJ 60 "3 S c "2 ■- B o a> -3 §j 8 »h a> g £ R o u <-• 3 cs n ja co -^ " 2 (- S? S^ L II (I V 0) £ ^3 r3 -^ -« ca 2 £ 3 3 S 1 1 JB J £2 2 3* 3" ^ pq « H H 1980 and 4.4 billion pounds in 2000 (table 2). Substantial increases in consumption have already been observed through 1968. California is presently the leading state in turkey production, supplying 18 per cent of the U.S. total production annually in the 1961-65 period. However, this per- centage has been declining slightly in the past few years. A study by Bawden, Car- ter, and Dean [1966] suggests that, be- cause of high-priced feed grains and higher labor costs, California is at a dis- advantage with the midwest and south unless it can achieve offsetting efficiencies in production, processing, and transporta- tion. So far, such efforts appear to have been successful. However, because of the competitive situation, California's share is projected to decline slightly to about 15 per cent by 1980 and remain at that level. Using the above assumptions and an av- erage live-weight projection of 19.5 pounds per bird, it is projected that Cali- fornia turkey numbers would increase from 16.4 million birds annually in 1961- 65 to 26.3 million in 1980 and 34.2 million in 2000 (table 12). Feed requirements per bird are projected to 1980 and 2000 based on the medium feed efficiency projections given earlier in table 7. PROJECTED FEED-LIVESTOCK BALANCES IN CALIFORNIA The foregoing projections for crop and livestock production permit a comparison of expected future supplies of feed grains, hay, and other feeds in California with expected livestock feed requirements. Table 13 is a feed supply and distribution table, employing data primarily from Snider and King [1970] for the 1961-65 base period, and providing a summary of projections to 1980 and 2000 from data developed primarily in the preceding tables. Feed grain imports into California in 1961-65 averaged about 2.1 million tons (table 13). With feed grain production averaging only about 2.6 million tons annually over this period, imports were thus around 80 per cent of state produc- tion. Table 13 shows that even if Cali- fornia increases feed grain production to 3.3 million tons in 1980 as projected earlier, imports of feed grains would need to remain at current levels to meet de- mands from livestock and other sources. Imports would increase to 2.3 million tons by 2000 under the projected conditions. The beef feeding industry in the state is probably the key to future feed grain import levels. The projections for dairy and egg production are tied closely to California population and income growth, and these industries should be able to compete effectively at high feed grain prices. The other livestock and poultry categories appear unlikely to grow signifi- cantly and with the exception of turkeys, are minor users of the aggregate supply of feed grains in the state. However, the projections for beef cattle feeding in Cali- fornia are extremely uncertain. The fu- ture would appear to hinge on the rate of development of large, efficient cattle feed- ing operations in the Great Plains and other areas, and on relative freight rates for feed grains, live animals, and dressed meat to California. To illustrate the im- pact which cattle feeding would have on the demand for feed grains in California, consider two widely divergent cases: (1) Suppose California continues to feed out about 50 per cent of the cattle required to meet future state demand. This would require an additional 0.6 million tons of feed grains by 1980, and 1.4 million tons by 2000 beyond the supplies shown in table 13. The increased demand would be met by some combination of state produc- tion and inshipments, probably largely the latter because prices of feed grains in California would not be affected by a larger deficit. (2) Suppose competition from other regions forces the California feedlot industry to stabilize at 2.0 million head (approximately the 1961-65 average). [32] Table 13 CALIFORNIA FEED SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION WITH SELECTED PROJECTIONS TO 1980 1961-65 AVERAGE, AND 2000 Item Feed grains High protein by-products Other by-products Total concen- trates Hay Silage t 1961-1965 Beginning stocks Production Imports and inshipments . Total supply Livestock feed : Dairy cattle Beef cattle Sheep and lambs Hogs Poultry Other (residual) Total Ending stocks Exports and outshipments Seed Food and industry Total distribution Projected 1980* Production Imports and inshipments. Total supply Livestock feed : Dairy cattle Beef cattle Sheep and lambs Hogs Poultry Other (residual) Total Exports and outshipments . . Seed Food and industry Total distribution Projected 2000* Production Imports and inshipments. Total supply 587.0 573.4 111.4 ,271.8 615.8 ,520.0 0.6 109.3 ,843.6 168.8 258.1 449.6 313.0 91.7 159.4 6,271.8 323.0 005.1 5,328.1 677.4 ,761.0 0.5 80.7 ,075.6 4,764.0 313.0 91.7 159.4 5,328.1 113.0 345.8 6,458.8 40.3 623.2 211.1 874. 185.3 144.7 14.2 527.8 2.6 874. 874. 203.9 162.7 10.5 602.3 2.6 982.0 1,193.2 1,232.4 485.1 1,717.5 683.2 767.1 0.5 3.9 257.5 2.8 1,715.0 2.5 1,717.5 t t 1,943.8 751.7 891.8 0.5 2.9 291.9 2.8 1,941.6 2.5 1,944.1 2,435.7 1,627.3 4,429.0 2,807.7 8,864.0 1,484.3 2,431.8 1.2 127.4 2,629.0 174.1 6,847.8 1,449.6 315.5 91.7 159.4 8,864.0 t t 8,843.9 1,633.0 2,815.5 1.0 94.0 2,969.8 174.3 7,687.6 315.5 91.7 159.4 8,254.2 t t 10,087.7 7,410. 166. 7,577.5 5,363.0 1,866.8 16.4 3.7 100. 7,350.7 226. 7,577.5 8,224.0 166.9 8,390.9 5,898.9 2,054.8 14.5 2.7 193.2 8,164.1 226.8 8,390.9 10,143.0 166.9 10,309. 1,557 1,557 1,557 1,557 1,713 1,713 1,713 1,713 1,713 2,144 2,144 (Continued on next page) Table 13 — Continued CALIFORNIA FEED SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION, 1961-65 AVERAGE, WITH SELECTED PROJECTIONS TO 1980 AND 2000 Item Feed grains High protein by-products Other by-products Total concen- trates Hay Silaget Pasture 1,000 tons Livestock feed : Dairy cattle Beef cattle Sheep and lambs Hogs Poultry Other (residual) Total Exports and outshipments Seed Food and industry Total distribution 848.2 2,254.0 0.5 76.2 2,468.7 247.1 5,894.7 313.0 91.7 159.4 6,458.8 255.3 941.1 2,044.6 7,387.7 208.1 1,141.4 3,603.5 2,629.1 0.5 1.0 14.5 9.9 2.7 88.9 2.5 719.9 347.5 3,536.1 247.1 49.3 1,193.2 2,433.2 9,521.1 10,083.1 2.5 315.5 91.7 159.4 226.8 1,193.2 2,435.7 10,087.7 10,309.9 2,144 2,144 2,144 1,000 AUM's 9,591 23,832 4,336 37,759 37,759 * Beginning and ending stocks are assumed to balance. Exports, seed, food and industry uses are held at 1961-65 average levels, t Not projected individually. t Entire state production of silage assumed fed to dairy cattle. Projections to 1980 and 2000 increase in same ratio as other feed inputs for dairy cattle. Sources: Snider and King [1970], data from preceding Tables 3 and 6-11, and projections by authors. In this case, the state demand for feed grains in 1980 could be met with a de- crease of about 0.5 million tons in feed grain inshipments compared with the 1961-65 situation shown in table 13, or, alternatively, a lower projected increase in California feed grain production. Table 13 also gives the aggregate de- mand and supply for by-product feeds which along with feed grains comprise the concentrate portion of livestock and poul- try rations. No attempt is made to break down the sources of supply of by-product feeds since they are many, varied, and constantly changing. Hay, silage, and pasture supplies in the state are projected to approximately equal state demand, as interstate movements are likely to be small or nonexistent. Minor supplies of hay are shipped interstate but for California these nearly cancel out. The state production of hay is projected to continue to be nearly 85 per cent alfalfa. For simplification, the entire state produc- tion of silage is assumed to be fed to dairy cattle even though minor amounts are actually fed to beef cattle. Pasture require- ments increase by only about 10 per cent to 1980; this increase should be met through continued pasture and range improvement practices such as brush clearance, fertiliza- tion, and higher yielding varieties of grasses and clovers. The 38-per cent in- crease in range requirements by 2000 would likely require some increase in acreage unless the rate of range improve- ment accelerates. PROJECTED LAND USE AND WATER RESOURCE USE IN CALIFORNIA Land and water resources — primarily irri- gated crop land — constitute the major physical limitations to future agricultural production in California. The purpose of this section, therefore, is to focus on the question: Is the planned rate of irrigation [34] development in California sufficiently rapid, given the projected losses of agri- cultural land to urbanization, to provide levels of irrigated acreage "required" to meet California's share of projected future demands for food and fiber? (Levels of demand and acreages required are based on the assumption of price levels remain- ing constant at recent average levels.) The discussion is divided into three major sub- sections. First, the harvested crop acre- ages projected earlier in this report are used to determine the increase in net irrigated crop acreage in the state which would be required to meet demand. Sec- ond, the planned increase in irrigated acreage according to the California Water Plan is presented. Considerable discussion in this section is also devoted to the closely related question of urbanization of agri- cultural land. Third, the irrigated acre- ages required to meet demand are com- pared with the acreages to be supplied by the California Water Plan. This compari- son provides a tentative answer to the question posed at the beginning of this paragraph. Irrigated Acreage Requirements Figure 1 provides a convenient over-all summary of harvested crop acreages of field crops, permanent crops, and vege- tables in California from 1950 to 1968, together with projections (see table 6) to 1980 and 2000. The total harvested acre- age of these crops shows no discernible trend over the 1950-68 period, but reveals considerable year-to-year variation. A quick review of this period suggests some of the difficulties and uncertainties in projecting field crop acreages. The in- crease in field crops to nearly 7.0 million acres in the early 1950's is explained pri- marily as a buildup in cotton acreage in anticipation of impending allotments; cotton acreage increased from 581,000 acres in 1950 to 1,340,000 acres in 1953. With the imposition of cotton allotments in 1954, roughly 0.5 million acres were shifted from cotton to feed grains — mainly to barley. Feed grain acreage remained high, reaching a peak of over 2.5 million acres in 1957. Since that time, feed grain acreage has dropped by about 0.5 million acres. This decline, along with the long- term downtrend in wheat acreage in the state, explains most of the decline in total field crop acreage from the mid-1950's to the mid-1960's. Just as in the past, future field crop acreages in California will be influenced strongly by various federal farm programs. Because of the uncertainties of future farm programs, the projections shown in figure 1 have been based on the assump- tion of no drastic changes in government programs. This assumption, of course, could be in considerable error as is pointed out later. The projected future general upward trend in harvested acreages of fruits, nuts, grapes, and vegetables shown in figure 1 is borne out by actual trends in the past decade. The reasons for these past trends — strong increase in U.S. demand, strong competitive position of California be- cause of climate and established growers, processors, and distributors — are expected to continue in the future. While the level of aggregate harvested crop acreage has changed little in the state over the 1950-68 period, the per- centage of harvested crops grown on irri- gated land has increased considerably, and is expected to increase. Table 14 shows by crop and crop category the estimated proportions of harvested acreage which are grown on irrigated land. For such crops as sugar beets, rice, cotton, potatoes, vegetables, and irrigated pasture essen- tially the entire acreage is irrigated. Through time, higher percentages of the other crops, primarily wheat, feed grains, hay, trees, and vines have also been irrigated. These trends are expected to continue. Table 15 shows the translation of total acreage harvested in the state into total net irrigated acreage (irrigated acreage planted). The left-hand portion of the table shows harvested acreages for field crops, vegetables, tree fruits, and nuts and grapes. In addition, estimates are pro- vided of irrigated pasture and double cropping. The figures at the bottom of this portion of the table, therefore, repre- sent total acreage harvested in the state. The center portion of table 15 shows the results of converting total acreage har- vested to irrigated acreage harvested, us- [35] o a ■B oo 2 a o o 'E | o u saaDv Nomiw [36] Table 14 ESTIMATED AND PROJECTED RATIOS OF IRRIGATED ACREAGE HARVESTED TO TOTAL HARVESTED ACREAGE, AND RATIOS OF IRRIGATED ACREAGE HARVESTED TO IRRIGATED ACREAGE PLANTED IN CALIFORNIA Crop Ratios of harvested irrigated acres to total harvested acres 1950 1960f 1961-65 1965t 1968 1980 2000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19 0.22 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.36 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.60 0.60 0.81 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.38 0.38 0.33 0.50 0.53 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.58 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.26 0.46 0.50 0.54 0.57 0.68 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.82 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ratios of irrigated acreage harvested to irrigated acreage planted § Field crops: Sugar beets Wheat* Rice Dry beans Potatoes Safflower Alfalfa seed Cotton Corn Oats* Barley* Grain sorghum Alfalfa hay Other hay Miscellaneous field crops. . Total Vegetables Tree fruits, nuts, and grapes Irrigated pasture Double-cropped acres 0.96 0.90 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.98 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.94 0.94 0.98 0.98 1.00 * Projections of percentages to 1980 and 2000, a result of 1980 and 2000 projections of actual acreages. t From U.S. Census of Agriculture [1959]. t From U.S. Census of Agriculture [1964]. § From California Department of Water Resources [1969, p. 57]. ing ratios presented in table 14. The right- hand portion of table 15 shows the conversion of irrigated acreage harvested to irrigated acreage planted, using ratios presented in the last column of table 14. Planted acreage exceeds harvested acre- age due to crop failure, green manure crops, market conditions, overplanting of allotment acreages, reclamation of salt- affected lands, freezing, labor problems, and related causes. The total irrigated acreage planted shown in table 15 increased from about 6.4 million acres in 1950 to 8.1 million acres in 1960. Rather surprisingly, how- ever, table 15 shows that the irrigated acreage declined slightly between 1960 and 1965. This apparent decline is probably due to statistical deficiencies rather than an actual decrease in irrigated acreage. Several factors could help explain the statistical decline. First, irrigated pasture declined by about 160,000 acres in that period. These figures are census data for 1959 and 1964 and may be inaccurate, as well as not applying exactly to the de- sired years 1960 and 1965. Second, the total harvested acreage of field crops drops by about 320,000 acres over the 1960-65 period, even though irrigated acreage planted increases by about 50,000 acres. Third, the vegetable acreage in the par- ticular year 1965 was the lowest in the previous decade, and also lower than in the years since 1965. Fourth, the conver- sion factors in table 14 undoubtedly fluc- tuate from year to year even though their trends are discernible and fairly predic- table over time. Table 15 shows that irri- gated acreage planted in 1968 increased to 8,351,000 acres. Thus, the general pat- tern of increase from 1950-68 is quite reasonable, and the data for the particular [37] Table 1& SUMMARY OF BASE YEAR AND PROJECTED TOTAL ACREAGE AND TOTAL IRRIGATED ACREAGE Crop Total acreape harvested 1950 1961-65 average 1965 1968 2000 Field crops: Sugar beets Wheat Rice Dry beans Potatoes Safflower Alfalfa seed Cotton Corn Oats Barley Grain sorghum Alfalfa hay Other hay Miscellaneous field crops. . Total Vegetables Tree fruits, nuts, and grapes Irrigated pasture* Double-cropped acresf Total 209 651 238 311 121 10 115 581 42 196 1,765 114 1,058 855 154 6,420 1,536 978 - 330 9,208 207 286 310 254 325 347 301 278 379 234 288 318 327 432 288 221 217 206 214 215 103 101 107 92 94 167 261 284 165 364 141 114 110 98 160 946 765 725 687 838 130 103 144 185 193 155 123 109 85 65 1,586 1,447 1,402 1,406 1,266 233 250 316 360 374 1,192 1,161 1,176 1,152 1,151 741 683 679 712 616 158 150 123 130 150 6,615 6,282 6,296 6,351 6,332 721 693 649 825 833 1,464 1,485 1,529 1,617 1,817 1,179 1,100 1,023 1,025 1,025 - 330 - 330 - 330 - 355 - 462 9,649 9,230 9,167 9,463 9,545 442 208 256" 247 102— 348 22? *_ 847 186 66 1,380 393" 1,281 647* 150 6,780 958* 1,995 1,02$ - 504 10,254 * From U.S. Census of Agriculture [1959, 1964]. t From California Department of Water Resources [1969, p. 58]. Mini acreages to get net acreage of land required. Source: Tables 3, 4, 5, 14. signs mean that double-cropped acreage is subtracted from other year 1965 probably underestimate the actual irrigated acreage in that year. Table 15 shows that irrigated acreage planted is projected to reach 8,755,000 acres in 1980 and 9,548,000 acres in 2000. Compared with 1968, these represent in- creases in irrigated land required to meet demand of about 0.4 million acres to 1980 and about 1.2 million acres to 2000. We turn now to increases in irrigated acreages projected to be developed by the Cali- fornia Water Plan. Planned Irrigation Development There are several available sources of data on current and past land use in California. However, as these data are frequently collected on different bases, in different time periods, and for different purposes, there are a number of apparent inconsistencies which must be reconciled. Given these difficulties, the authors have attempted to compile the available in- formation into an internally consistent overall picture of total land use in the state. Various agencies have also made projections of particular land uses to vari- ous dates. For our purposes, the most critical land use categories are urban use and irrigated crop land. Consistent with the purpose of this section, we will use estimates and projections of urban use and irrigated crop land provided by the California Depart- ment of Water Resources (DWR) in their bulletin entitled "Implementation of the [38] \RVESTED, TOTAL IRRIGATED ACREAGE HARVESTED, LANTED IN CALIFORNIA Total irrigated acreage harvested Total irrigated acreage planted }50 1960 1961-65 average 1965 2000 1950 1960 1961-65 average 1965 1980 2000 124 238 233 121 6 93 581 34 22 582 66 973 222 154 3,658 1,213 978 330 6,123 207 286 310 254 325 442 218 216 298 323 264 338 76 84 83 117 84 83 138 84 93 92 130 93 288 318 327 432 288 256 245 297 328 337 445 297 197 195 187 195 200 235 248 210 207 199 207 213 103 101 107 92 94 102 129 110 107 114 98 100 97 151 165 96 218 209 6 103 161 176 102 232 138 112 109 97 160 226 99 147 119 116 103 170 946 765 725 687 838 847 593 965 781 740 701 855 124 98 137 176 185 180 38 138 109 152 196 206 23 22 22 20 25 25 24 26 24 24 22 28 793 767 771 773 696 759 647 881 852 857 859 773 219 238 303 346 363 385 73 243 264 337 384 403 1,120 1,103 1,129 1,106 1,116 1,255 1,024 1,179 1,161 1,188 1,164 1,175 341 342 367 406 419 485 247 379 380 408 451 466 158 150 123 130 150 150 164 168 5,146 160 131 138 5,264 160 4,830 4,732 4,865 4,927 5,161 5,639 3,893 5,044 5,194 5,509 721 693 649 825 833 958 643 767 737 690 878 886 1,318 1,351 1,407 1,488 1,744 1,935 1,238 1,345 1,379 1,436 1,518 1,783 1,179 1,100 1,023 1,025 1,025 1,025 998 1,203 1,122 1,044 1,046 1,046 - 330 - 330 - 330 - 355 - 462 - 504 - 330 - 330 - 330 - 330 - 355 8.351 - 462 7,718 7,546 7,614 7,910 8,301 9,053 6,442 8,131 7,952 8,034 8,759 460 92 264 250 108 222 240 864 200 28 843 428 1,321 539 160 6,019 1,019 1,974 1,046 ■ 504 9,554 California Water Plan" [1966]. The top two land use categories of table 16 show the DWR estimates of urban and irrigated land use for 1960, together with their projections to 1980 and 2000 for the eleven hydrologic study areas of California (fig. 2). As will be discussed in more detail below, subsequent studies suggest that the DWR urban land use projections are quite reasonable. The projections of irrigated acreage, while undergoing periodic re- view and revision, have not been officially revised and are still considered quite rea- sonable by agency personnel contacted. The discussion to follow concentrates primarily on urban and irrigated land uses, but the authors have attempted (table 16) to provide estimates and pro- jections of the remaining land uses in California which would be consistent with the DWR data on the first two use categories. As a basis for the projections of the remaining land uses, the authors have relied primarily on a study by the California Conservation Needs Committee of the Soil Conservation Service [1961] which shows land use by county in 1958 with projections to 1975. 4 The categories 4 Because hydrologic study areas of table 16 do not always conform to county lines, the SCS county data were subdivided where necessary into two or more hydrologic regions using (1) a study by the California State-Federal Interagency Group [1966], which gives acreages of each of the 58 counties in the 1 1 hydrologic regions, and (2) maps of the hydrologic regions from the California Department of Water Resources [1966] showing the location of irrigated, irrigable, and urban uses in each county and hydrologic region. [39] J3S ■fa i|2 U a S A-S.S a c3 o> o DO co S3P5 O "5 cm co" «o o o 00 CD N O © Oi 05 © ■* ■* oo ■* m n in 00 M U5 -<*l Oi OO © t^ t^ cm" cm" ci i<5 s m m m n "* CO rH O t^- rH cm" co" kj o> ra H rH H CO » "O OO tN CO rH OO IN tN h" KJifl rH i— i r^ 115 co cm io> O * to 115 N OO OO t^ rH CO IC Oi rH tN (N OO CM 00 U5 n h o> O CT> OS CO IN M" CO «5 to co" co co O © 05 OO OO o rH CO « » rt 115 «3 to CO CT3 CO CM rH O CM* CM CM* f~ O H5 tN tN 1(5 CM CM rH CO O O ■* tN to ^ 00 © CO CM CM "5 -rfi CO CM CM CM O ■«* t- "* «M O r- r- t- ,-« H rH 11) 115 115 O O OO O OS O CD OO o o o o CO 00 O OJ OS O o o o CO OO O 02 OS O (h * O "" g -a co<£ HYDROLOGIC STUDY AREAS OF CALIFORNIA OREGON NC — NORTH COASTAL SF - SAN FRANCISCO BAY CC - CENTRAL COASTAL SC - SOUTH COASTAL SB - SACRAMENTO BASIN DC - DELTA - CENTRAL SIERRA SJ - SAN JOAQUIN BASIN TB - TULARE BASIN NL - NORTH LAHONTAN SL - SOUTH LAHONTAN CD - COLORADO DESERT DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1965 Fig. 2. Hydrologic study areas. (Source: California Department of Water Resources.) [41] of agriculturally related land uses (non- irrigated crop land, pasture and range, and forest and woodland) in table 16 were projected to 1980 and 2000 by the authors based on the rates of change projected between 1958 and 1975 by the SCS Needs study [1961.] 3 The final category of "other uses" in table 16 is a residual figure made up principally of federal land but includ- ing water areas, farmsteads, idle land, and wildlife areas. Substantial increases in urban acreage and irrigated crop land in table 16 imply, of course, corresponding decreases else- where. Although quantification of the pre- cise shifts between all pairs of categories is not possible, the major shifts are as follows: (1) from crop land, pasture, and range to urban uses; (2) from nonirrigated to irrigated crop land; (3) from pasture and range to crop land; and (4) from forest and woodland to pasture and range. The SCS Needs study [1961] summarizes expected shifts from 1958 to 1975 among categories. An updating SCS Needs study now being done, together with the earlier study, should give a good picture of the actual shifts between 1958 and 1967. Table 16 shows that these shifts are projected to take place with little change in the "other use" category. The following two subsec- tions examine in more detail the expected shifts of land to urban use and the planned increases in irrigated acreage un- der the California Water Plan. Urban land use projections Several studies related to the rate of urbanization of land in California are available. They differ in definitions used, methods of measurement, and methods of projections. A recent study by Shumway [1970] estimates 2,031,000 acres in urban use in California in 1964 with a projection of 2,971,000 acres in 1980. The Shumway study is based on an extension to the entire state of a study of 25 urban coun- ties by Ruth and Krushkhov [1966]. The California DWR estimates 2,068,000 acres of urban land in 1960, with a projection of 3,568,000 (see table 16). Thus, although the base figures in the two studies are similar the rate of urbanization projected by DWR is higher. The rate of urbaniza- tion implied by Shumway's projections is about 60,000 acres per year compared to about 75,000 acres per year for DWR. A recent study by the Economic Re- search Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture [1970] provides another check on these estimates. Based on air photos of California and other states over approxi- mately 10-year intervals ending in 1959- 1965, the USDA study estimates an av- erage relationship of 0.07 acres per capita as a general guide for urban land use planning in large heterogeneous areas. Based on a California population increase of 537,000 people per year between 1965 and 1980 [California Department of Fi- nance, 1968], the urban land requirement (at 0.07 acres per capita) would be only about 40,000 acres per year. The USDA study showed that an average of 0.13 acres of land was urbanized per capita in coun- ties falling outside the more heavily urbanized counties. Even if this higher rate is applied to all of California, it would give an annual land urbanization rate in California of only about 70,000 acres per year. Further, the USDA study [1970, p. 7] states, however: "As an area becomes more populous and takes on metropolitan characteristics, land is used 5 More specifically, if a particular acreage category was projected to decline over time, the acreage (A) in any year (t) is related to the previous year by the formula, A t A t . 1 + r ' where r is the rate of change. To find the annual rate of change, the following equation was solved for r, based on SCS acreage (A) in 1958 and 1975. 1975 (1 + r) 17 ' This rate was then applied to each of the relevant categories to obtain estimates for 1980 and 2000. This formulation projects a declining annual change over time. However, an alternative set of estimates based on constant annual changes over time showed only moderately greater changes to the year 2000. [42] more intensively and less additional sur- face area is taken for work, living, and service functions for each new person added to the population." This statement would appear to apply well to future urban development in California. Although there is no clear choice among the alternative urban estimates available, it appears that the California DWR pro- jections shown in table 16 are reasonable. Compared with Shumway [1970] and the ERS USDA study [1970] they appear slightly high. It should be pointed out, however, that the SCS Needs study [1958] and subsequent studies using the same methods come up with higher acreages already urbanized (e.g., 2,392,000 acres in 1958) and considerably higher annual rates of urbanization (as high as 135,000 to 150,000 acres per year). While the SCS studies are very useful in tracing shifts in land use, particularly by land quality, it appears to the authors that the definitions and methods used considerably overesti- mate urbanization rates. (The updated SCS Needs study soon to be published will perhaps help to clarify the differences between their estimates of conversion for nonagricultural use and the urban esti- mates of other studies and to provide a better idea of the land classes and uses from which urban acreage will come.) The preliminary results of an updated SCS Needs study, however, provide some interesting information on projected shifts according to land quality between 1967 and 1980. Of the land projected to shift to urban uses in California over the 1967-80 period, about 27 per cent is prime agricultural land (defined here as SCS land capability classes I and II), 37 per cent is land with lower agricultural capa- bilities (SCS classes III and IV), and the remaining 36 per cent is land not suited for cultivation (SCS classes V through VIII). The major projected shifts to urban use are near existing urban areas; leading counties are Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and Fresno. The Bay Area urban expansion is large, but spread over several surrounding counties. Other counties with large projected shifts are Shasta, Orange, Kern, Tuolumne, and San Bernardino. In Los Angeles, Fresno, Kern, and Shasta counties roughly half of the land con- verted to urban uses is prime agricultural land (SCS classes I and II). In Sacramento, Orange, San Diego, Tuolumne, and San Bernardino, the percentage of prime land converted to urban use is quite small. At least a partial offset against these losses are newly reclaimed irrigated lands which, after leaching and development, should move up within the land capability classes. Features of the California Water Plan The information in this section is based on a study by the California Department of Water Resources [1966]. Studies lead- ing to the California Water Plan demon- strated that the state has sufficient water resources within its boundaries to meet projected urban and agricultural water requirements of 38 million acre-feet in the year 2020. The major objective of the California Water Plan is to develop water resources in areas of excess supply — mainly the northern part of the state — and export water to the deficit areas in the southern part of the state. The projected net water requirements in the state by hydrologic regions are shown in figure 3 on page 45 [California Department of Water Resources, 1966]. Table 17 summarizes water requirements on both an applied and net basis and also shows the breakdown between agricul- tural and urban water use. Urban use is projected to expand from about 10 per cent of applied water requirements in 1960 to around 20 per cent by 1980 and 28 per cent by 2020. The projected in- crease in urban water use is greater than that for agriculture, even measured in absolute terms — but table 17 shows clearly that agriculture will remain by far the state's major user of water. Figure 4 shows the general sources from which total water requirements are planned to be met. The key role of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project is evident. In 1960, the Central Valley Project provided for about 23 per cent of California's total net water requirements; by 1990 the Central Valley and State Water projects are projected to account for about 50 per cent of the total. Figure 5 illustrates the projected timing [43] CM O »0 t- O) * co CO H5 OO *< CO ^H CO CO T}< CO t^ CM (M CO hJ GO O ^S i— i 43 42 OOO 3 9 8 OOO OOO OOO o "S s i-h CM CO ^ •* co r~ r- ° s -*•«»< »o CM CM CO o fc-a J HH- o tf Q §•2 000 000 OOO O co OOO O co OS -H »0 t~-T cm" OOO CO N ■* ID * O n a 0" W N to Ol IO X tei 06" oT 1— 1 a GO o'2 000 OOO CO N O OOO IO CO N OOO H N O N CO 0 £ 03 ■* Hi CO * 10" to" co" co" ■*" W a 1 § H DQ "£ "rt 1 £ Ph g g OOO OOO oj os OOO OOO CO OO 00 CO N N H £> Q >«r OS O Ol rt (N K5 CO 00 00 H CO 3 W N CO M co" co" CO r-( CM cm" H tf Ph l.a OOO OOO OOO OOO O r* IO IO T(l Ol »o »o ~*r co 00 li) CD N CM t~- •* 1-1 CO •>*< CO N Ol tO OO N CO •<*< >0 £ OQ Q W 43 "cS OOO OO CO CO OOO OOO OOO H tJh to CO CM 1— 1 H tf i 43*eS OOO OOO OOO •* M IO OOO CM IO CO •>* CO 02 N N (N IO CO O «S i-H CO Tfc O0 CM CO CO O *s "-' '-' p CO i 03 00 03 3 OT i! h ■ ■ ■ 0) a s "c3 as::: © ft S s 0" 0" d C JS, 0" a^ * c c e u to o> C3 CO OS CM j] tO Ol IN a3 •• CO OS c I ^ \\\ c c 1 «l\l« «J 1 O 111.*- — «/l 1 1 - —1 c at a c U - 1 ° 1 c I l" * t •— l "tf> i — 1 < o L 3 > C I ♦ — I o I «H GO \ © I f I ^ \\\ * ^ \\\ lorn 1 o \\\ \ "S» ■ *- HI I ° «\ 8 \ % 1 CD 1 O l\s\ \ s\°\ o I "c 1 o \ E P 1 o o ° I < S» I f i ° 1 \ 1 > V \ u TO 1 «/> 1 1 I I ^ \ \\ 1 1 c * V 1 I o I \ I 1 E I 1 1 1 o \ l I 1- » i I "5 1 1 I O" % o 1 I- » i_ m - o I I o \ * I *- % - . o 1 c \ ~o o 1 \ fl t 1 \ A \ 1 CD o CM O E w o a oo Os O hs, Os g 'c 1_ o "5 U n' CD CD CM CD sO Os 133d-3dDV Nonniw and additional water yield capability of future projects within the Central Valley Project-State Water Project system. The downward sloping lines starting in 1970 show the combined dependable water sup- ply capability of existing and authorized features of the system. The upward slop- ing line starting in 1970 depicts the com- bined projected net water requirements to be met by these projects as projected by DWR. (This line is the same as the bottom line in preceding figure 4.) The graph indicates a need for additional water con- servation facilities in the late 1980's. The most likely projects are planned for the North Coast — the upper Eel River, the lower Trinity River, and the Mad and Van Duzen rivers. However, these projects are currently under considerable debate, which could result in significant altera- tions in plans. More detailed indications of sources of water supply and export in [45] to z < a z _l < O UJ U I "J < u UI > t« ss Z UJ u >- OjUJ >- CO u z UJ UJ uj a: _i Q- 1- o > O -I -" a z < 0£ a: < ■< uj UJ Q_ _J < O Q a. > _i _i > H o u o _l < < < < *= _l OS en oc ce u LU O ui \- H |- > Q -J Q Z .?; < UJ z O UJ UI !". •- < u. u 1 ^1 \ 1 \ VI \ - «/">! *""! "^1 lUl -£\ itfl 0£l ^1 ol _ vui otl o£ \- VU 1 U. v-1 < < O v\ I <* L UJ % < m 3: Uj' ^ o oil °"1 1 l\ z \\\ o \\\ q: 1 1 ll 1 1 1 1 ll 1 1 1 1 j_U 1 1 ll \i h 1 1 1 . 1 l\ ll Y o Mi l\\,\i 1. 1 1 1 1 a ^ rsi UJ >- a> E ■•- »_ o a t- Z_ « -a * o"s«S I- °- E £ "5 S °° ft -° "O if o £ a 4) a. 3 -o O >. >. k. ^ *> z O 111 H > o> i« «/> c V O) >- 2 i f 3 ■; c %/) n U 17* VI ^ J) o < o „.- c; t> 00 o » c E u. ■« o o v o £L o "** >■ o V jS; a _l .8 o >-* o 3 3 LU -o t O -Q >- 7, £ c t<1 C D c 15 ft, V u 3 5 © o o c c a E £ '5 cr L. -D B u 0) 'o k- a ai E o J A 1 _i_ 0> a to [47] relation to water requirements are avail- able from a publication of the California Department of Water Resources [1966]. Consistent with this picture of planned water development are the DWR estimates of irrigated crop land shown in table 16. According to the California Water Plan, irrigated crop land acreage is projected to increase by about 1.0 million acres be- tween 1960 and 1980 and by nearly another 1.0 million acres by 2000. Prac- tically all of this increase is in the Central Valley (the Tulare Basin, San Joaquin Basin, and the Sacramento Basin) as a result of expected irrigation development projects. Irrigated Acreage Required and Planned Rates of Irrigation Development The preceding data allow a comparsion between the irrigated acreage required to meet demand at constant prices and the rate of irrigation development planned by federal and state water agencies in California. Two such comparisons are shown in table 18. The top row shows the projected irrigated acreage "required" from earlier table 16. 6 The second row provides an estimate of acreage to be de- veloped by the California Water Plan. While the 1960 data in the two rows are not identical because of slight differences in definitions, data sources, etc., the acre- ages are of a similar order of magnitude — about 8.1 million acres. In 1980, the esti- mates of acreage supplied exceed acreage required by about 0.3 million acres; in 2000 the difference increases to about 0.4 million acres. The third line of table 18 shows the projected aggregate net irrigated acreage from a more recent DWR study of market outlook for California crops [1969]. Again the 1965 acreages are similar to those in the present study. However, DWR esti- mates in 1980 and 2000 exceed those of this study by about 0.8 million acres and 0.6 million acres, respectively. 6 The term "irrigated acreage planted" in table 16 appears comparable with the term "net irrigated land" used by the California Department of Water Resources. Neither estimate includes the "associated noncropped area" (farmsteads, fallow, roads, ditches, rights-of-way, fences, turn areas, etc.) which, when added to net irrigated acreage, determines gross land area (irrigable land required). [48] The major differences in acreage projec- tions between the present study and the latter DWR study [1969] can be sum- marized briefly as follows: The DWR study projects considerably higher acreages of rice and alfalfa hay and somewhat higher acreages of cotton and sugar beets. It also projects larger increases in miscel- laneous hay, grain, and pasture. The ag- gregate acreage of specialty crops — tree fruits, nuts, grapes, and vegetables — is quite similar. Field crop acreage is the most difficult to project because of the un- certain impact of government programs and, in the case of all grains except rice, the extremely small percentage of U.S. production grown in California. However, there are reasons to suggest that even our projections of field crop acreage may be high. A particularly critical commodity is cotton, as it is the dominant stable high-income crop in most parts of the San Joaquin Valley. The state cotton acreage projection earlier in this report was based on the demand for U.S. cotton reported by Daly and Egbert [1966]. Since that time, the competitive position of cot- ton has continued to decline in relation to competitive fibers in all end-use markets. Based on more recent trends in the cotton industry, Dean and King [1970] provide an alternative estimate showing cotton in California declining from 765,000 acres in 1961-65 to 748,000 acres in 1980 rather than increasing to 838,000 acres as pro- jected earlier (table 3). The lower acreage figure for cotton is also more in line with experience since 1961-65. Should the government program for cotton be altered, it seems probable that it will be in a direc- tion of lower support prices, payment limitations, and relaxation of acreage al- lotments. Additionally, some cotton-pro- ducing areas of the state are having diffi- culty in maintaining yields as a result of insect and disease problems. Because of these uncertainties and difficulties it seems quite possible that many California cotton growers will be looking for high-value crops to replace cotton in their cropping Table 18 COMPARISONS OF IRRIGATED ACREAGE PROJECTIONS Definition Year Source 1960 1965 1980 2000 Irrigated acreage planted Net irrigated land Net irrigated land 1,000 acres Table 15 8,131 8,085 8,034 8,148 8,759 9,060t 9,584 9,554 DWR [1966, Table 4] DWR [1969, Tables 15, 18]* 9,970f 10,154 * Data adjusted by authors to refer to the state of California rather than to the California Region, which includes portions of Oregon. t Interpolated from data for 1960, 1990, and 2020. systems soon. The result of these forces could be extensive additional plantings of tree nuts, oranges, grapes, and other per- manent crops, as well as expansion in vegetable acreages. Another key field crop in California affected by federal farm programs is rice. The future for rice is highly dependent on the international situation, which could change markedly. However, the develop- ment and probable spread of new high- yielding rice and wheat varieties in other parts of the world, and the possible end of the war in the Far East suggest the possi- bility of a decline in U.S. exports of rice from earlier 1961-65 levels. The future position of feed grains (in- cluding Mexican wheat) in California's ag- ricultural economy is important in the over-all state crop acreage projections. As discussed earlier, California is now and will almost certainly continue to be strongly deficit in feed grain production. Feed grain prices in California are, there- fore, determined primarily by Midwest and Great Plains prices plus transporta- tion costs to California. Thus, feed grain prices will be affected little by changes in the California livestock industry or by change in feed grain acreage in the state. Thus, the question is primarily whether feed grains will give sufficiently high re- turns to find an expanding role in Cali- fornia cropping systems. Given high land and water costs it is doubtful that there is much economic incentive for expansion in feed grain acreage. Other large acreages in the field crop category are alfalfa hay and other hay. Alfalfa hay acreage will be determined primarily by the size of the state's livestock industries, particularly the dairy industry. However, beef cattle also require substantial quantities of alfalfa and other hay, as well as irrigated pasture. The earlier discussion of the uncertainties of the beef cattle feeding industry suggests that the alfalfa and other hay acreages are a large and somewhat sensitive component of the total projected field crop acreage. In summary, an investigation of individual field crops suggests that actual acreages planted are unlikely to be higher and pos- sibly lower than the "requirements" pro- jected in this report. Substantial acreages of newly irrigated lands are being developed on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley as indicated earlier. (Development of the west side acreage and its possible impact on specialty crop prices is discussed in more detail in Dean and King [1970].) The portions of this land served by state water face ex- tremely high water costs. Extensive pro- duction of feed grains and most other field crops under these conditions is of question- able economic feasibility except as interim "get-acquainted" crops. At current price- cost levels, the land is more likely to be developed for trees, grapes, and vegetables which offer a higher payment capacity for water. In addition, if government pro- grams and/or competition from synthetics result in smaller acreages of cotton, many cotton growers in existing areas will also be searching for high-value crops to re- place cotton in their cropping systems. The result of these forces could be exten- sive additional plantings of tree nuts, oranges, grapes, and other permanent crops, as well as expansion in vegetable acreages. Subsequent price declines could lead to lower land prices, difficulties in re- [49] payment for water in newly developed areas, demands for additional or stronger marketing orders or controls, and lower incomes for growers in existing areas. It should be pointed out that a number of factors could alter the planned schedule of water development set forth in the Cali- fornia Water Plan. Resistance to water ex- port by northern California counties, con- tinued work on sea water desalinization, public reaction to pollution of the San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin-Sacra- mento Delta area, rising problems of drainage water disposal and salinity in the San Joaquin Valley and Imperial Valley, and other factors could alter these plans substantially in the years ahead. Still, the general conclusion seems ines- capable: There is a danger of overdevelop- ment of irrigated acreage in California in the next decade or more, in the sense that specialty crop prices are likely to be de- pressed. The rate of loss of agricultural land to urbanization appears to be no higher than estimated by DWR and may be less. It would appear prudent, there- fore, for water planners to reexamine care- fully the prospective agricultural demand for water in California and pace water de- velopments accordingly. Comments on Land and Water Use Projections Some final comments regarding the over- all projections are in order. The above dis- cussion points to the prospects of overde- velopment and lower prices for specialty crops in the next decade. This is a major concern of California farmers. However, other segments of the population are con- cerned about longer-term relationships be- tween food and population. From this point of view, a relevant question to ask is: Suppose that urbanization expands at a faster rate than projected, new irrigation development increases at a slower rate than projected, current irrigated land area is reduced because of salinity and inade- quate drainage, or yield increases are over- estimated. The first three factors would reduce the land available for agricultural use, while the last factor would increase the acreage required to satisfy the pro- jected demands for agricultural products. In other words, suppose the projections of this report are in error in the direction of underestimating demand or overestimat- ing supply? What would be the implica- tions of such a development? Would it mean food shortages? The key to these questions is to return to the basic assumptions of this study and stress that the projections for California are made within a framework of national projections of total demand and inter- regional competition. If the land available for agriculture in California is restricted below the levels "required" by the projec- tions, the likely outcome is that some acreage of lower valued field crops will move to other regions — probably the grain crops would be the dominant crops in this category. However, higher valued crops such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grapes — for which California has a general inter- regional comparative advantage — would likely remain at or near the projected levels. Livestock projections would also be j little affected. Since California is already a strongly deficit area in feed grains, its feed grain prices are approximately equal to Midwest prices plus transportation costs; a larger feed grain deficit would not further raise feed grain prices to the dis- advantage of livestock production. The major point made above is that California is not and will not be a self- sufficient agricultural economy; nor is this a reasonable or necessary goal. California can improve its economic position by ex- porting those commodities in which it has a comparative advantage and importing those in which it has a comparative dis- advantage. The kinds of commodities which fall in these two classes are clear from the nature of our current exports and imports in agriculture. In general, we ex- port high value specialty crops (fruits, nuts, vegetables, etc.) and we import feed grains and meat. In case of a land "short- age," field crop production would shift elsewhere in the United States and Cali- fornia inshipments would increase; there are many other areas of the country with ample resources to produce such com- modities. To illustrate the potential for such shifts, consider that California cur- rently devotes about 1.5 million of her 8.3 million irrigated acres to feed grains. [50] Yet California produces less than 2 per cent of the feed grains in the United States. Thus, a shift of large acreages of irrigated feed grains out of California could be offset by an insignificant percent- age increase in the other feed grain grow- ing regions of the United States, which currently have land held out of produc- tion by government programs. One final point should be stressed. The projections do not imply that there are no problems of land use in California, even though a food shortage for California or the United States is not in prospect in the foreseeable future. A good case can be made for land use and resource planning from at least two points of view: (1) to provide an attractive and livable physical environment (e.g., provision for green- belts and control of air and water pollu- tion), and (2) to provide a contingency of agricultural land against longer-range changes in the demand for food nationally and internationally (e.g., by redirection of urban growth onto land with low agricul- tural potential, establishment of new towns in nonagricultural areas, and higher density urban development). Projected Adjustments in Farm Organization and Management in California Changes in aggregate output and its com- position as projected in this report will be accompanied by important changes in the organization, management, and ownership of individual farms in California. Some of the more important of these changes are outlined broadly in the following sections. Many of these changes are observable in well-established trends; others are sug- gested by recent and current develop- ments. Changes in levels and combinations of resources on California farms Proportions in which resources are com- bined on California farms have changed significantly in the past decade. These changes can be summarized briefly as the substitution of capital inputs (in the form of machinery, fertilizer, chemicals, etc.) for labor inputs. The extent of these changes and the reasons behind them require further examination. Farm size, however measured, has in- creased steadily in California in the past two decades. Table 19 indicates a substan- tial increase in average land acreage per farm in California between 1930 and 1964. For the state as a whole, the acreage per farm about doubled — from 230 acres to 458 acres — from 1940 to 1964. (Unfortun- ately 1969 census data are not yet avail- able.) This change in size is due primarily to a consolidation of existing farms into larger units with a corresponding decline in number of farms, particularly since 1950 (table 19). Table 20 shows in more detail the shift in farm size since 1940. There are steady increases in the percent- ages of farms in the larger size categories, with corresponding declines in the cate- gories of smaller farms. These declines pri- marily reflect economic pressure on small farms and consequent size adjustments. Substantial economies of scale in Califor- nia agriculture have been documented for many types of farming and areas of the state. Thus, a continued trend toward larger farms appears likely. Developments which could have an opposite effect are enforcement of the 160-acre limitation in federal water projects and expanded pur- chases of small acreages of orchards and other properties by urban investors. Another force encouraging size expan- sion on California farms is development of new technology and related capital- labor substitutions. Table 21 itemizes pro- ductive expenses of California farm opera- tors for 1950-1969. While expense data preclude direct comparisons of physical quantities of labor and capital items in various forms used, they do emphasize changing proportions of capital and labor employed over the long run. Between 1950 and 1968, for example, hired labor ex- penses increased by 87 per cent. Over the same period, however, current operating expenses other than labor increased by 106 per cent. Depreciation, which provides a rough index of capital investment in farm machinery and equipment, increased by 100 per cent over this period — a rate also exceeding the increased expenditure on hired labor. The substitution of capital inputs for labor would be much more [51] Table 19 NUMBER AND SIZE OF FARMS IN CALIFORNIA Year* Number of farms Land in farms Acres per farm 135,676 150,360 132,658 138,917 137,168 123,075 99,274 80,852 acres 1930 30,442,581 30,437,995 30,524,324 35,054,379 36,613,291 37,794,780 36,887,948 37,010,925 224 4 1935 1940 202.4 230.1 1945 252.3 1950 266.9 1954 1959 1964 307.1 371.6 457.8 * 1969 data not available. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Agriculture: California, 1930-1964. dramatic if it could be expressed in physi- cal terms, as the expense data incorporate a much faster rate of price increases for labor than for other inputs, particularly since the mid-1960's. Table 22 emphasizes that physical labor input in California agriculture has actu- ally declined in absolute terms in the last decade. Termination of the Mexican National Program caused a sharp drop in numbers in the contract foreign workers category after 1964. Even with this loss of labor supply, the number of domestic workers did not increase proportionately and has since declined as farmers have increasingly turned to capital substitutes for labor. Mechanization of key crops such as processing tomatoes and tree nuts is an important factor in this picture. Successful mechanization of grapes and certain fruits could sharply decrease labor use still further. It is safe to conclude that Cali- fornia farmers will continue the intensive search for labor substitutes, particularly mechanical harvesting. Use of capital as a partial substitute for labor suggests an examination of future agricultural capital requirements in Cali- fornia. With increased intensification in agriculture, greater capital inputs per acre will be required. Production credit in California has doubled in the past decade (table 23, column 1) and is expected to continue increasing rapidly. Loans per farmer will be larger; table 23, for ex- ample, indicates that the number of PCA loans per year has been about constant for the past decade, yet total amount loaned has approximately doubled. Production credit undoubtedly will be available, though expected shifts toward crops with high variability in net income (vegetables and fruits, for example) will cause lenders to require added security for loans. Also, growers in areas with high water costs and no proven history of production such as the San Joaquin Valley Westside, may have difficulty in obtaining credit from conventional sources. Sales contracts, grower-processor integration, crop diversi- fication, and other means of reducing in- come variation will be encouraged by lending agencies. Table 20 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARMS BY YEAR AND SIZE IN CALIFORNIA Size of farm 1940 1945 1950 1954 1959 1964 percentage Under 10 acres 10 to 49 23.8 41.0 11.5 8.0 3.4 4.9 3.4 4.0 26.9 38.5 11.2 7.9 3.3 4.6 3.3 4.3 27.3 37.8 11.1 7.7 3.3 4.8 3.5 4.5 27.7 36.1 11.1 7.7 3.6 5.0 3.7 5.1 24.3 34.8 11.7 8.6 4.1 5.9 4.5 6.1 19.7 36.5 50 to 99 12.1 100 to 179 8.8 180 to 259 4.3 260 to 499 6.4 500 to 999 5.1 1,000 and over 7.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Agriculture: California, 1940-1964. [52] Table 21 PRODUCTIVE EXPENSES OF CALIFORNIA FARM OPERATORS Item Year 1950 1955 1960 1965 1966 1967 1968 millions of dollars Feed 289.5 203.9 26.4 52.5 154.7 179.6 408.0 1,314.5 120.1 76.8 22.4 62.9 1,596.8 334.8 127.8 33.3 68.5 177.7 231.8 447.4 1,421.5 151.7 100.2 36.9 69.0 1,779.3 495.2 249.4 40.4 93.2 198.0 311.4 549.5 1,937.0 168.1 152.1 71.5 49.8 2,378.5 604.1 316.7 56.9 108.2 204.0 425.3 636.2 2,351.4 206.2 244.1 129.1 47.1 2,977.9 632.3 344.9 51.9 104.0 209.4 447.3 687.9 2,477.8 214.8 279.9 147.2 47.4 3,167.0 667.8 328.3 57.1 112.2 216.2 449.0 657.0 2,487.6 223.6 327.0 162.8 38.0 3,239.0 665.3 332.9 Seed* 57.4 Fertilizer and lime 109.3 222.0 Miscellaneous! 481.9 763.2 Total current operating expenses. . 2,632.0 241.2 349.9 Interest on farm mortgage debt . . . Net rent to nonfarm landlord 178.8 34.3 3,436.2 * Includes bulbs, plants, and trees. t Repairs and maintenance of buildings, repairs and operation of motor vehicles and other machinery, and petroleum fuel and oil. t Includes short-term interest, pesticides, ginning, electricity, telephones, livestock marketing charges (excluding feed and transportation), containers, milk hauling (1949-1958), irrigation, grazing, binding materials, tolls for syrup, horses and mules, harness and saddlery, blacksmithing and hardware, veterinary services and medicines, net insurance premiums (crop, fire, wind, and hail), and miscellaneous dairy, nursery, greenhouse, apiary, and other supplies. § Includes wages, perquisites, and Social Security taxes (1951-1958) paid by employers. || Includes depreciation and accidental damage to farm buildings and depreciation of motor vehicles and other farm machinery and equipment. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture [1968]. Table 22 MONTHLY AVERAGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WORKING ON CALIFORNIA FARMS, BY TYPE OF WORKER Year Total workers* Farmers and unpaid family workers Hired year-round Hired temporary, domestic Contract foreign workersf 1945 1950 1955 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 381,492 403,883 473,542 434,100 420,700 323,900 315,800 318,400 305,100 302,900 294,400 134,583 159,592 169,850 147,500 142,000 93,800 94,000 92,600 90,900 90,000 88,400 90,250 104,800 121,158 118,900 117,500 94,300 93,700 92,800 92,300 90,800 91,400 120,458 132,017 142,425 125,000 126,200 102,500 100,100 105,000 119,100 120,900 114,100 25,817 7,475 40,108 42,700 35,000 33,300 28,000 28,000 2,800 1,200 1967 500 * Total for 1945 includes prisoners of war and volunteers. t Almost entirely Mexican Nationals. Source: State of California, Department of Employment, California Annual Farm Labor Reports, annual reports. Farm business control and management Several developments in California agri- culture suggest continued modification in future farm business control and manage- ment. These developments include changes in tenancy, contracting for ser- vices and production, integration of vari- ous types, and business organization. Table 24 shows relative changes in farm tenure in California since 1940. Most prominent is the increase in the percent- age of part-owners arising in part from the general expansion in size of operation to take advantage of the economies of large- 53] Table 23 FARM CREDIT IN CALIFORNIA, 1950-1969 Table 24 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF TYPES OF TENURE IN CALIFORNIA Nonreal estate farm credit January 1* PCA Year Loans made during year Loans made during year 1950 $1,000 191,381 246,739 525,614 557,732 588,295 649,144 746,608 760,152 865,909 918,237 956,506 987,059 number 6,544 6,318 7,281 7,012 6,932 6,963 7,299 7,489 7,642 7,564 7,456 $1,000 62,333 1955 1960 1961 1962 1963 82,594 161,958 174,424 186,906 201,891 1964 1965 225,504 249,401 1966 1967 1968 276,335 287,921 319,924 1969 * 1950 includes farm production loans from commercial banks, loans from Federal Land Banks and loans from Farmers Home Administration for production and subsistence; later years include nonreal estate loans by banks, PCA's, and Farmers Home Administration. Source: American Bankers Association, [1969], Agricul- tural Commission, Farm Credit in California, New York. scale production. ("Part-owners" refer to operations in which part of the land is owned and part is rented.) Because land prices have in some cases risen to levels unjustified by agricultural earnings, many owner-operators have found it advantage- ous to expand by renting rather than pur- chasing additional land (thus becoming "part-owners" rather than "full owners"). Expansion of farm size through part- ownership is nationwide, and will prob- ably continue in California. The percentage of tenant operators in California has been relatively constant since about 1950. Some tenants specialize in the production of one or two com- modities, leasing land from season to season on a share or cash basis. Most of their investment capital is in machinery and equipment. This permits accumula- tion and concentration of skills in produc- ing intensively farmed crops and reduces the capital required by the producer. Technical specialists provide assistance either on a fee basis or as a service made available by supply companies or proces- sors. Further specialization in agriculture, both as to types of products and produc- tion methods, may lead to increased num- Percentage distribution by tenure status Year Full owners Part owners Managers Tenants per cent 1940 67.7 74.1 73.5 72.3 69.0 65.8 10.6 10.2 12.7 14.9 17.9 19.6 2.6 3.4 1.9 1.6 2.2 2.7 19.1 1945 12.3 1950 11.9 1954 1959 1964 11.2 10.9 12 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Agriculture: California, 1940-1964. bers of tenant farmers and technical con- sultants of the type described. Table 24 also shows that the percentage of manager operations is up in recent years. This could be a reflection of non- farm investors investing in farm real estate (such as in orange groves) and hiring a professional farm manager to oversee the operation. Integration of production with process- ing, marketing and/or factor supply repre- sents another development finding wide- spread application in California. Two types of integration are prevalent. The first is the conventional contractual ar- rangement between the producer and the processor. The second is where producers of a given product organize to operate the required processing facilities and either conduct their own marketing operations or contract with a marketing firm to as- sume responsibility for sales, advertising, branding, transportation, and other mar- keting functions. Profit sharing with the marketing agency is common under this type of development. Both types of integration are found in California and will probably continue to expand. Almost all citrus fruit in the state is now handled by cooperative organiza- tions through contracts with growers. Complete processing and marketing ser- vices are available to citrus growers. Tree nuts also are highly integrated through cooperatives marketing the bulk of wal- nuts and almonds. Integrated operations are common in the production, processing, [54] and marketing of vegetables and decidu- ous fruits, particularly in vegetables and fruits for canning and freezing. Grower- owned cooperative canneries for fruit and vegetable processing are also important in California. Cooperative growers are usu- ally paid on a pooled basis influenced by all crops handled through the cooperative. While the grower's risk is reduced through an assured outlet, this is somewhat offset by assuming marketing obligations for- merly carried by private canneries. Another development in the processing fruit and vegetable area is the use of grower cooperative bargaining associations which bargain with canneries with respect to price and other terms of trade. Processor-grower contracts also have de- veloped for certain field crops. Sugar beets are produced under complex agreements providing incentives for high sugar-con- tent beets and relating grower beet price to the price received by the processors for sugar. Processors often furnish seed and influence production management through trained fieldmen. Considerable integration also is evident in cotton processing and marketing in California. Private gins and oil mills often supply production credit to growers; cooperative gins, cottonseed oil mills and marketing associations handle a sizable proportion of the cotton business. Nationally, integration is probably more widespread in livestock production than in crop production. Practically the entire U.S. commercial broiler industry is on some type of integrated basis. Cali- fornia's broiler and turkey industry is fol- lowing this national trend toward integra- tion. The dairy industry in California is highly commercialized, with a major pro- portion of milk, including nearly all of the fresh milk, produced under contract. Vertical integration in beef cattle in Cali- fornia has occurred chiefly in cattle feed- ing taking the form of contract or custom feeding. Custom feeding takes primarily two forms — custom feeding for ranchers who do not want to market feeders at a seasonal low, and custom feeding for meat packers and chain stores who wish to main- tain reliable supplies of beef fed to specifi- cations. Some integrated hog and lamb feeding also is done in the state. Pressure for more extensive integration in California agriculture will continue, both from the retail-processor-supplier sector with which farmers do business, and from farmers themselves. Retailers and processors will press for contracts and other forms of integrated activity in order to maintain volume, continuous supplies, and standardized quality. Suppliers will push integration to assure high-volume farm sales and continuous plant operation. Farmers themselves will continue interest in integration in order to reduce price risk, assure market outlets, and to obtain more capital. The future may also see a continued change in form of farm business control in California. In particular, there is likely to be a marked increase in the corporate form of business. Both large and small farming corporations now exist in Cali- fornia, and others may develop due to cor- porate advantages in obtaining capital, limited liability, continuity of business, and tax flexibility. Family corporations will also likely become more common- place, where stock ownership and manage- ment is entirely or largely within the control of the individual farmer and his family. Here the advantages of the corpo- rate business are likely to be mainly ease of division and transfer of property among family members and limited liability of the owners. Finally, the increasing size and complex- ity of California farming will place a greater premium on high-quality farm management. As business becomes more complex the farm manager will have to limit his activity more to major decisions of production organization, capital invest- ment, and marketing. The manager will have to rely to a larger extent on special- ists in particular areas of the business. Large farms already often hire one or more specialists — such as soil technicians, irrigation engineers, entomologists, plant pathologists, agronomists, and nutrition- ists — as permanent members of the labor and management force. Increasingly, farm- ers are relying on accountants for record- keeping and tax work, on lawyers for legal advice, and on other consultants for special assistance. In line with these trends, California agriculture might also see the development of farm management [55] and marketing consultants whose services are purchased much as is any other im- portant input in agriculture. Already such consultants are available in areas of com- puter formulation of livestock rations and farm accounting. Expansion toward more complete management services seems likely in the years ahead. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS California's population and industrial economy have grown tremendously since World War II. The pressures of rapid urban growth on land and water resources are of particular concern for California agriculture. Urbanization and industriali- zation in the Los Angeles and San Fran- cisco Bay metropolitan centers, as well as in parts of the Central Valley and south- ern Coastal Valley, have removed large blocks of farmland from agricultural use. A rapidly growing, affluent populace in California has also expanded the demand for recreational facilities and second-home sites in the foothill and mountain regions. Technological change in agriculture, new irrigation developments, and shifts in location of agricultural production within the state have thus far permitted Califor- nia to retain its traditional share of the national markets for agricultural products despite growing competition for land and water resources in the state. This study examines possible future developments in the agricultural sector of the California economy as it attempts to adjust to re- source use pressures within the state and to changes in demands for its products. Numerical estimates presented herein should not be regarded as unconditional forecasts of the future. Rather they are projections of output and acreage which would be required to meet future food and fiber requirements under a specific set of assumptions which are made explicit in the study. The reasonableness of the pro- jections will depend on the extent to which the basic assumptions are well- chosen approximations of the future. The long-range projections for Califor- nia are consistent with a specific frame- work of assumptions regarding the U.S. economy. Important assumptions for the U.S. economy are: • A U.S. population increasing to 235 million by 1980 and 308 million by 2000. • An increase in real per capita income of nearly 40 per cent by 1980, and over 100 per cent by 2000 (compared to 1965). Projection methods used combine arith- \ metic, statistical, and judgment compo- nents. California crop projections are based on (1) a previously estimated de- mand structure for U.S. farm products; (2) projections of California's expected share of U.S. production, by crop; (3) judg- ment of future yield levels by crop special- ists; and (4) derivation of California's future acreages of particular crops. Projec- tions for milk and eggs are based primarily on a projected California population of 26.5 million in 1980 and 38.8 million in 2000. Other livestock projections are based primarily on recent trends, more detailed previous studies, and on judgment. Total harvested crop acreage in Cali- fornia is projected to increase to about 9.5 million acres by 1980 — an increase of about 0.3 million acres over the 1961-65 base period. There are projected increases of 332,000 acres for fruits, nuts, and grapes, with major increases in almonds, walnuts, and oranges; another 140,000 acres of the increase is in vegetables. Field crops are projected to increase by only about 50,000 acres by 1980. Decreases in irrigated pas- ture acreage, and increased double-crop- ping, partly offset acreage increases in the above crop categories. The total harvested crop acreage by 2000 is projected to be approximately 10.2 million acres. Addi- tional acreage increases between 1980 and 2000 include substantial increases in all categories, although percentage increases in j the fruits, nuts, and grapes category and in vegetables are greater than for field crops. It appears likely that the projections based on U.S. markets and state market shares may overestimate the acreage of field crops in California by 2000. Cotton acreage may be overestimated because of the continued decline in U.S. and world cotton demand [56] due to competition from synthetics; sugar acreage may be based on an overestimate of the U.S. share of the world sugar sup- ply; and lower-valued field crops such as feed grains may tend to shift to other states because of high land and water costs in California. Dairy cattle numbers are projected to increase by 10 per cent by 1980 and 38 per cent by 2000 based on an expanding Cali- fornia market. Beef cattle feeding is pro- jected to increase to 2.5 million head an- nually by 1980 and 3.2 million head by 2000, compared with about 2.1 million head annually in 1967-69. However, these projections depend on the tenuous as- sumption that California feedlots can re- main competitive with large efficient lots now being developed in the southwestern states and the Great Plains where feed grain and feeder cattle prices are lower. In the poultry industry, layers for egg pro- duction are projected to increase from about 30 million annually in 1961-65 to 36 million in 1980 and 49 million by 2000. Broiler numbers are projected to increase from 60 million annually in 1961-65 to 67.5 million in 1980 and 87.5 million in 2000. Turkey numbers are projected to increase sharply from 16 million birds annually in 1961-65 to 26.3 million in 1980 and 34.2 million in 2000. Given these feed grain and livestock projections, it appears that California will remain a major deficit area in feed grains, with inshipments of feed grains in 1980 continuing at about the 1961-65 level of 2 million tons; inshipments are projected to increase to about 2.3 million tons by 2000. Hay requirements can be met with little change in alfalfa acreage through 1980, although additional hay acreage ap- pears needed by 2000. A major purpose of the study was to address the question: Is the planned rate of irrigation development in California sufficiently rapid, given the projected losses of agricultural land to urbanization, to provide the levels of irrigated acreage required to meet California's projected share of the future demand for food and fiber? Total irrigated acreage planted to crops increased from about 6.44 million acres in 1950 to 8.13 million acres in 1960 and 8.35 million acres in 1968. To meet projected demand, the irrigated acreage required is projected to increase to 8.76 million acres in 1980 and 9.55 million acres in 2000. The rates of urbanization projected by the California Department of Water Resources — about 75,000 acres per year — appear quite reasonable com- pared with most more recent studies. It appears that about two-thirds of this figure is in cropland categories (SCS land classes I to IV). Given this rate of urbanization, the rates of irrigation development pro- jected by the California Department of Water Resources appear more than ade- quate to meet the above irrigated acreage requirements. In fact, there appears to be a danger of overdevelopment of irrigated acreage in California in the next decade or more with the result that prices of high value speciality crops (fruits, nuts, grapes, and vegetables) may be depressed below recent levels. It would appear prudent, therefore, for water planners to reexamine carefully the prospective agricultural de- mand for water in California and pace water developments accordingly. Changes in aggregate output and its composition as projected will be accom- panied by important changes in the or- ganization, management, and ownership of individual farms in California. In- creases in farm size — in land, capital, and output per farm — are expected to con- tinue. Shifts to larger farms are expected because of substantial economies of scale and other factors. Capital-labor substitu- tion is expected to continue at an accel- erated pace as new and improved machines supplant hand labor in those crops which are at present labor intensive. Labor will continue to decline relative to capital in- puts, and probably in absolute numbers of workers as well. Production credit will in- crease, with the average loan increasing in size. Expansion of owner-operator units through leasing of additional land, and tenant specialization in particular crops, have increased in recent years and will probably continue. Integration of produc- tion with processing, marketing and/or factor supply represents another develop- ment finding widespread application in California. Use by management of special- ists such as soils technicians, irrigation engineers, etc., as permanent members of [57] the labor force is increasing all over the lawyers, and professional farm manage- United States. Greater dependence on ment and marketing consultants can be other specialists such as accountants, expected in the future. LITERATURE CITED American Bankers Association, Agricultural Commission. 1969. Farm credit in California, New York, annual issues 1959 to 1969. Bawden, D. Lee, H. O. Carter, and G. W. Dean. 1966. Interregional competition in the United States turkey industry. Hilgardia 37(13). California Conservation Needs Committee of the Soil Conservation Service. 1961. California soil and water conservation needs inventory. November. Califorina Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. 1967. California dairy industry statistics, annual issues through 1967. 1968a. California livestock report, annual issues through 1968. 1968b. California poultry and hatchery report, annual issues through 1968. California Department of Finance. 1968. Estimated and projected population of California, 1960-2000. June. California Department of Labor. 1968. California farm labor reports, annual issues through 1968. California Department of Water Resources. 1966. Implementation of the California Water Plan. Bulletin No. 160-66. March. California State-Federal Interagency Group. 1968. California region framework study: land and water areas. California region frame- work study staff, processed (rev. ed.). 17 pp. 1969. California region, comprehensive framework study, Appendix IV: Economic base and projections, California Framework Study Committee (preliminary). Ching, Chauncey T. K. 1967. Range cattle supply response in California, an econometric study. 129 pp. Daly, R. F. and A. C. Egbert. 1966a. A look ahead for food and agriculture. Agricultural Economics Research. Vol. 18. February. 1966b. Statistical supplement to "A look ahead for food and agriculture." (mimeo.) . Dean, G. W., A. J. Finch, and J. A. Petit, Jr. 1966. Economic strategies for foothill beef cattle ranches. California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 824. Berkeley. Dean, G. W. and G. A. King. 1970. Projections of California agriculture to 1980 and 2000: Potential impact of San Joaquin Valley Westside development. Giannini Foundation Research Report (in preparation). Demir, Nazmi and Harold O. Carter. 1969. Input-output projections (1975, 1980, 1985) of California resource requirements with emphasis on technological change. Giannini Foundation Monograph (forthcoming). Farrell, Kenneth R. 1969. Agriculture in California with special reference to the San Joaquin Valley, (mimeo.). Forker, Olan D. 1965. Economic adjustments for California's manufactured-dairy-products industry. Cali- fornia Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 816. Berkeley. 62 pp. George, P. S. and G. A. King. 1969. Consumer demand for food commodities in the United States with projections for 1980. Giannini Foundation Monograph (forthcoming). Hopkin, John A. and Robert C. Kramer. 1965. Cattle feeding in California. Bank of America, San Francisco. 58 pp. Johnston, Warren E. and Gerald W. Dean. 1969. Trends for major California crops: yields, acreages, and production areas. California Agricultural Experiment Station Circular 551. November. [58] King, G. A. and L. F. Schrader. 1963. Regional location of cattle feeding — a spatial equilibrium analysis. Hilgardia, 34(10), pp. 331-416. Kip, Ergun and Gordon A. King. 1969. The demand for selected California deciduous tree fruits. Giannini Research Report (forthcoming). Landsberg, Hans H., Leonard L. Fischman, and Joseph L. Fisher. 1963. Resources in America's future. Resources for the Future, Inc. The John Hopkins Press. Loyns, Richard M. A. 1969. An economic analysis of the marketing order for California almonds. Ph.D. disserta- tion, University of California, Berkeley. Ruth, H. D. and Abraam Krushkhov. 1966. Urban land requirements in Califorina, 1965-1975. Berkeley: University of California, California State Development Plan, Phase II, Urban expansion requirements study, item 201.2. Siebert, Jerome B. 1967. California class I usage projections and imitation milk. Berkeley (ditto), 7 pp. Shultis, Arthur and G. E. Gordon. 1959. California dairy farm management. California Agricultural Experiment Station Cir- cular 417 (rev.). Shumway, C. Richard 1970. Urban expansion on agricultural land in Califorina. Giannini Foundation Research Report (forthcoming). ihumway, C. Richard, Gordon A. King, Harold O. Carter, and Gerald W. Dean. 1969. Regional resource use for agricultural production in California, 1961-65 and 1980. Giannini Foundation Monograph (forthcoming). Shumway, C. R. and H. M. Stults. 1969. Production costs and yields of California field crops and vegetables, by area, average 1961-65 and projected 1980. (Preliminary manuscript), University of California, Davis. Snider, Gary and Gordon A. King. 1970. The California feed- livestock balance in 1961-65. Giannini Foundation Research Report (forthcoming). Spurlock, G. M. 1968. California pasture lamb feeding (mimeo.). U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1964. U. S. census of agriculture, issues 1940 through 1964. U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1968. Agricultural statistics, annual issues 1961-68. 1968. Production expenses of farm operators, by states. 1970. Cattle on feed: Cattle sold for slaughter — selected markets. January 1, 1970. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service and Forest Service. 1967. Preliminary projections of economic activity in the agricultural, forestry, and related sectors of the United States and its water resource regions, 1980, 2000, 2020. August (mimeo.). ABSTRACT This study provides projections of California crop acreage, yield, and production as well as livestock numbers and production to 1980 and 2000. The irrigated acreage required to meet California's share of projected food and fiber demand is compared with projected irrigation clevelopment under the California Water Plan. Changes projected for individual farms are also summarized briefly. Total irrigated acreage "required" to meet demand is projected to increase from 8.35 million acres in 1968 to 8.76 million acres in 1980 and 9.55 million acres in 2000. The individual crop projections show a trend toward higher proportions of speciality cr0 p S _ tr ees, vines, and vegetables— in California's total irrigated crop acreage. When compared with projected irrigated acreages under the California Water Plan, there appears to be a danger of overdevelopment of irrigated acreage in the next decade or more, with the result that speciality crop prices may be depressed below recent average levels. Milk and egg production are expected to increase along with California population. Sheep and hogs will likely decline further in numbers. Broiler and turkey production are expected to increase but will meet increasing competition from other areas. Beef cattle production is a major uncertainty because of increasing competition in the Great Plains and South. Numbers in feedlots are, therefore, projected to increase only moderately from recent levels. Farms will be larger, more mechanized, and more dependent on production credit and other sources of long-term capital. Further integration of production with process- ing and marketing will tend to concentrate California agriculture into fewer decision units. 15m-9,'70(N7715L,)VL