Allshouse, Jane E.

AgEcon Search: Research in Agricultural and Applied Economics

Give to AgEcon SearchThe World’s Largest Open Access Agricultural & Applied Economics Digital LibraryThis document is discoverable and free to researchers across the globe due to the work of AgEcon Search.Help ensure our sustainability.AgEcon Searchhttp://ageconsearch.umn.eduaesearch@umn.eduPapers downloaded from AgEcon Search may be used for non-commercial purposes and personal study only. No other use, including posting to another Internet site, is permitted without permission from the copyright owner (not AgEcon Search), or as allowed under the provisions of Fair Use, U.S. Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C.No endorsement of AgEcon Search or its fundraising activities by the author(s) of the following work or their employer(s) is intended or implied.46AMBER WAVESECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE/USDA VOLUME 2 ISSUE 1I N D I C A T O R S  U.S. gross domestic product ($ billion current)2 5,803 7,401 9,825 10,082 10,446 10,863 f 5.4 3.6 4.0Food and fiber share (%) 15.1 14.2 12.6 12.3 na na -1.8 na naFarm sector share (%) 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 na -5.4 0.0 naTotal agricultural imports ($ billion)1 22.7 29.8 38.9 39.0 41.0 45.7 5.5 5.1 11.5Total agricultural exports ($ billion)1 40.3 54.6 50.7 52.7 53.3 56.2 2.3 1.1 5.4Export share of the volume of U.S.agricultural production (%) 22.5 25.8 22.4 22.5 21.9 p na -0.0 -2.7 naCPI for food (1982-84=100) 132.4 148.4 167.9 173.1 176.2 180.0 2.4 1.8 2.2Share of U.S. disposable income spent on food (%) 11.2 10.6 10.2 10.2 10.1 na -0.9 -1.0 naShare of total food expenditures for at-home consumption (%) 55.4 53.9 53.3 53.8 53.9 p na -0.4 0.2 naFarm-to-retail price spread (1982-84=100) 144.5 174.5 210.3 215.4 221.2 na 3.8 2.7 naTotal USDA food and nutrition assistance spending ($ billion)1 24.9 37.9 32.6 34.2 38.0 41.6 2.7 11.1 9.5f = Forecast. p = Preliminary. q = 2002 Administration request. na = Not available.1 Based on October-September fiscal years ending with year indicated.2 Forecast for 2003 based on the Office of Management and Budget’s Midsession Budget Review, July 2003.Annual percent change1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 1990-2000 2001-02 2002-03Cash receipts ($ billion) 169.5 188.0 192.0 199.8 192.9 209.9 f 1.3 -3.5 8.8Crops 80.3 100.8 92.4 93.4 99.5 105.6 f 1.4 6.5 6.1Livestock 89.2 87.2 99.5 106.4 93.5 104.3 f 1.1 -12.1 11.6Direct government payments ($ billion) 9.3 7.3 22.9 20.7 11.0 19.7 f 9.4 -46.9 79.1Gross cash income ($ billion) 186.9 205.9 228.6 235.3 219.4 246.0 f 2.0 -6.8 12.1Net cash income ($ billion) 52.7 52.5 56.5 59.2 49.1 65.1 f 0.7 -17.1 32.6Net value added ($ billion) 80.8 74.8 92.0 94.2 76.9 100.1 f 1.3 -18.4 30.2Farm equity ($ billion) 702.6 815.0 1,025.6 1,070.1 1,110.7 f 1,147.2 f 3.9 3.8 3.3Farm debt-asset ratio 16.4 15.6 14.8 14.8 14.8 f 14.8 f -1.0 0.0 0.0Farm household income ($/farm household) 38,237 44,392 61,947 64,117 p 65,757 p 68,884 f 4.9 2.6 4.8Farm household income relative to averageU.S. household income (%) 103.1 98.8 108.6 110.2 na na 0.5 na naNonmetro-metro difference in poverty rate (%) 3.6 2.2 2.6 3.1 2.6 na -3.2 -16.1 naCropland harvested (million acres) 310 302 314 311 307 p na 0.1 -1.3 naUSDA Conservation Program expenditures ($ bil.)1 3.0 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.5 q na 1.3 -5.4 naUpdates of Agricultural Outlook’s statistical tables are just a click awayat www.ers.usda.gov/publications/AgOutlookFood and Fiber Sector IndicatorsFor more information, see www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/Indices of annual prices received  by farmers: Livestock and milkBroilersMilk1994-95=100Hogs1994/95 96/97 98/99 2000/01406080100120140160Beef cattleConsumer price indices for  high-protein foods consumed at home PorkPoultry1982-84=100Fish & seafoodBeef1992 94 96 98 2000 02100120140160180200EggsValue of U.S. processed HVP* agexports by top destinations, 2003CanadaJapanMexicoEU-15ChinaSouth KoreaTaiwanRest of world23%2%7%3%9%16%18%22%*High-value products.Farm, Rural, and Natural Resources IndicatorsAn area’s geographic context has a sig-nificant effect on its development. Eco-nomic opportunities accrue to a placeby virtue of both its size and its accessto larger economies. Population size,urbanization, and access to larger com-munities are often crucial elements incounty-level research. To advance suchresearch, ERS developed a set of county-level urban influence categories thatcaptures some differences in economicopportunities.The 2003 Urban Influence Codes dividethe 3,141 counties, county equivalents,and independent cities in the UnitedStates into 12 groups. Counties are firstdivided into metropolitan (metro) andnonmetropolitan (nonmetro) categoriesaccording to the official classificationannounced by the Office of Managementand Budget (OMB) in June 2003, based onpopulation and commutingdata from the 2000 Census ofPopulation. Metro counties arethen divided into two groupsby the size of the metro areathey are in—large and small(see box, “County Defini-tions”). Nonmetro countiesare divided into 10 groups,first by micropolitan (micro)versus noncore status, then byproximity to metro- or micro-areas.Nonmetro micro counties aredivided into three groups bytheir adjacency to metroareas—adjacent to a largemetro area, adjacent to asmall metro area, and notadjacent to a metro area. Non-metro noncore counties aredivided into seven groups by their adja-cency to metro or micro areas andwhether or not they have their “owntown” of at least 2,500 residents.Nonmetro counties are defined as adja-cent if they abut a metro area (noncorecounties may also abut a micro area)and have at least 2 percent of employedpersons commuting to work in the coreof the metro area (or in the micro area).When a nonmetro county was adjacentto more than one metro (or micro) area,it was designated as adjacent to the areato which the largest percentage of itsworkers commuted.In concept, the 2003 Urban InfluenceCodes are comparable with those of ear-lier decades. However, as a result ofchanges in metro area delineation pro-cedures and in rural and urban areameasurement, our new codes are notfully comparable with those of earlieryears. Those changes are explained onthe ERS website at: www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/rurality/newdefinitions/Linda Ghelfi lghelfi@ers.usda.govTimothy Parker tparker@ers.usda.gov47AMBER WAVESWWW.ERS.USDA.GOV/AMBERWAVESAPRIL 2004I N D I C A T O R S  Behind the DataDeveloping a County-level Measure of Urban InfluenceLarge metro: In areas with at least 1million residentsSmall metro: In areas with less than1 million residentsMicropolitan: Areas containing anurban core of at least 10,000 resi-dentsNoncore: Counties without an urbancore of at least 10,000 residentsMetropolitan counties:In large area of at least 1 million residents 413 149,224,067 558In small area of less than 1 million residents 676 83,355,873 132Nonmetropolitan counties:Micropolitan counties—Adjacent to large metro 92 5,147,233 55Adjacent to small metro 301 14,668,144 51Not adjacent1 282 9,139,821 27Noncore counties—Adjacent to large metro 123 2,364,159 27Adjacent to small metro with own town 358 7,855,590 24Adjacent to small metro with no own town 185 1,879,264 6Adjacent to micro with own town2 201 3,227,833 17Adjacent to micro with no own town2 198 1,313,175 7Not adjacent to metro or micro with own town1 138 2,247,189 5Not adjacent to metro or micro with no own town 174 999,558 4Total 3,141 281,421,906 802003 Urban Influence Codes1Micro counties that are not adjacent are often local trade centers. Nonadjacent-noncore counties withtowns may be service centers for surrounding smaller counties, especially in less-populated areas of theGreat Plains.2The micro area that a noncore county is adjacent to may itself be adjacent to a small or large metro area.This hierarchical commuting relationship is not reflected in the coding system.County DefinitionsNumber of 2000 PopulationCounty type counties population per sq. mile48AMBER WAVESECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE/USDA VOLUME 2 ISSUE 2I N D I C A T O R S  $ billionIntra-NAFTA trade has accelerated since signing of free trade agreementsCUSTA3 effective Jan. 1989Intra-NAFTA trade value11Total value of U.S., Canadian, and Mexican agricultural exports to (imports from) each other. 2Exports by NAFTA partners to each other as a share of exports to countries worldwide. 3Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.1980 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 200005101520253035051015202530354045Export share (percent)Intra-NAFTA export share2NAFTA effectiveJan. 1994Source: ERS International Bilateral Agricultural Trade data derived from UN Comtrade deflated by FAOSTAT trade indices. Source: USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service.Food stamps accounted for over half of the $41.6 billion USDA spent for food and nutrition assistance in fiscal year 2003All others, $2.7 bil.Child and Adult Care Food Program, $1.9 bil.School Breakfast Program, $1.6 bil.National School Lunch Program, $7.2 bil.WIC, $4.5 bil.Food Stamp Program, $23.7 bil.Source: USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, Program Information Report (Keydata) for September 2003, November 2003.  57%17%11%4%5%6%No-till use on cropland has increased steadily since 1990 Mil. acres** No-till, ridge-till, and mulch-till are conservation tillage practices where, after planting, more than 30 percent of the soil surface remains covered by residue from the previous crop,  protecting the soil from erosion and improving soil quality.  In reduced-till, 15-30 percent of the soil surface remains covered, while in conventional-till, less than 15 percent remains covered.1990 92 94 96 98 2000 02050100150200250300Corn Soybeans Small grains* Cotton01020304050607080In 2002, conventional tillage dominated  cotton productionMil. acresConventional-tillReduced-tillMulch-tillNo-tillRidge-tillTillage practices*** Wheat, barley, oats, rye, and rice.Source:  ERS analysis of Conservation Technology Information Center data.Natural Resources and EnvironmentManufacturing employment has declined dramatically in both metro and nonmetro areasMetro employment (millions)Source: Prepared by ERS from Current Employment Statistics data, Bureau of Labor Statistics.Nonmetro employment (millions)MetroNonmetro1991 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 0310.010.511.011.512.012.513.013.514.03.03.54.04.55.05.56.00 0Rural AmericaMarkets and Trade Diet and Health49AMBER WAVESWWW.ERS.USDA.GOV/AMBERWAVESAPRIL 2004I N D I C A T O R S  Gallons per capitaCarbonated soft drinksBeverage milk01020304050605749 59555351 69 7371676563611947 858381797775 93918987 2001999795On the MapIn the Long RunNonmetro population change, 1990-2000 Note: Metro/nonmetro status based on 2003 definition. The U.S. population growth rate          for this period was 13.1 percent.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, map prepared by Economic Research Service.Moderate growth (up to 13.1 percent) High growth (13.1 percent or more LossMetroBetween 1947 and 2001, per capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks more than tripled while beverage milk consumptiondeclined by almost one-half. In 1947, Americans consumed on average 11 gallons of carbonated soft drinks and 40 gallons of beverage milk. In 2001, per capita milk consumption had dropped to 22 gallons, while soft drink consumption soared to 49 gallons.Jane Allshouseallshous@ers.usda.gov Nonmetro population change.The nonmetro population grew by9.1 percent during the 1990s,below the 14.0-percent growth rateof metro areas. The West andSouth together accounted for overthree-fourths of nonmetro popula-tion growth during the decade.For more information, see:www.ers.usda.gov/data/populationKathleen Kassel kkassel@ers.usda.gov

Consumption of Carbonated Soft Drinks

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

AgEcon Search: Research in Agricultural and Applied Economics

AgEcon Search - Research in Agricultural & Applied Economics