During the early 1980s, the adoption of drip expanded, and local dealers and personnel developed the skills to design and improve the systems. Currently, much of the design is done at the dealer level, and dealerships often have sales engineers who can design sophisticated drip systems. Some large farms are able to design their own systems with the help of professional designers. Advantages associated with the introduction of drip in high-value crops in California are reduction of chemical use and replacement of unskilled laborers with a smaller number of more highly skilled employees.Continuous processes of adaptation and improvement of the technology reduced the fixed cost of drip systems, and the effectiveness of use increased because of “learning-by-using” by farmers. Some farmers combine drip with computer technology to allow irrigation activities to respond to environmental conditions. This version of precision agriculture has been found in some areas to increase yield and reduce water use significantly . In the future,maceta 25l the combination of drip and sprinkler irrigation with automated computerized systems that use weather and other data to adjust timing and flow will almost certainly become more popular.Public investment in provision of weather information in the form of the California Irrigation Management Information System has given impetus to the development of computerized and automated irrigation systems.
About 100 weather stations have been established throughout the state to provide detailed weather information via telephone, e-mail, and other modes of communication. Water districts, irrigation consultants, and growers have gradually joined the CIMIS system , and the annual benefits are estimated at about 20 times its cost. The introduction of this public weather system has reduced the cost of information to farmers and resulted in a proliferation of consultants who use the data, develop software, and provide farmers with irrigation advice. These consultants have gradually changed the way California agriculture operates. CIMIS has also provided a means to increase productivity and incomes; in the future the use of consultants, computers, weather stations, and more precise irrigation is likely to expand beyond the regions and the crops in which they are currently used.The California experience suggests that immense benefits are associated with the provision of knowledge that enables the introduction and improvement of technologies. Public policies that support provision of infrastructure and favorable economic conditions are crucial for technological development. However, policies involving the transfer of water in the past were not particularly conducive to increased irrigation efficiency. Water markets may offer an opportunity to transfer water away from agriculture; on the other hand, they may also provide a significant impetus for improving water use efficiency. As water markets develop in response to water scarcity, we may expect to see an increase in adoption of modern irrigation practices and more rapid development of new, improved practices.
In many cases in the past, the expansion of crop acreage was slowed by labor availability and costs associated with harvesting. The complexity of fruit and vegetable crop harvesting, partly related to the fragility of the produce, has combined with relatively small markets for equipment to make the introduction of harvesting equipment slower for these crops than for some major field crops. For many fruit and vegetable crops, mechanical harvesters were not introduced or significantly adopted until the 1960s or 1970s, and a range of significant commodities continue to be harvested by hand because mechanical harvesting technology remains unavailable or costly. Available data on the introduction and adoption of mechanical harvesters is sketchy and incomplete. 9 Relatively good information is available on the cotton harvester and the tomato harvester, which received particular attention from economists because it was controversial. University research has played a major role in developing harvesting technology for tomatoes, wine grapes, and lettuce. Economic considerations often delayed the introduction of such technologies once they were available, but also helped promote their adoption later.The processing tomato industry, in particular, was dependent on the Bracero Program, which was terminated in 1965. Introduced in the post-World War II period, the program contributed to the expansion of labor-intensive crops in California and to the transfer of production of major vegetable crops, especially tomatoes, from other states to California. That same year a mechanical tomato picker was introduced which coincided with the introduction of a new variety suited for mechanical harvesting. The design for the tomato harvester was devised by a private company , based on a design developed at the University of California at Davis. The machines worked better with new varieties of processing tomatoes bred especially for mechanical handling, which were also developed by the University. Following the cancellation of the Bracero Program, adoption of the tomato harvester was remarkably swift; by 1968, 95 percent of California’s processing tomatoes were mechanically harvested . Not only was the technology beneficial to growers—reducing labor uncertainty and decreasing costs—it also improved the lot of consumers by reducing the cost of tomato products. Critics charged, however, that the introduction of the tomato harvester negatively affected farm workers .
The case is not altogether clear. California’s processing tomato industry today employs many more workers than it did when the tomato harvester was first introduced. If the harvester were banned, the California processing tomato industry would be so adversely affected that the effects on workers would be clearly negative. Such longer-term consequences of the introduction of so-called labor-saving technology have not always been fully appreciated. The total impact on farm workers of harvest mechanization depends on both the effect on labor intensity , and the effect on the scale of production .10The introduction of the mechanical lettuce harvester seemed also to be a response to labor-supply problems. With the advent of the lettuce harvester, however, labor demand in both harvesting and post harvest activities declined. On the other hand, productivity increased significantly. Because owners needed more commitment and responsibility from workers, they began contracting with unions, and contracts brought workers higher pay and longer employment, although in many fewer jobs. In the year following the Bracero Program, illegal immigration of farm workers to California increased. The transaction costs associated with recruitment of seasonal labor during the Bracero Program and especially afterwards stimulated the use of farm labor contractors , who take responsibility for the recruitment of laborers. The adoption of FLCs was further stimulated by the introduction of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 , which was intended to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants and has changed the risk to farmers of employing potential illegals directly.11 Although the literature raises doubts about the effectiveness of the changing regulations in controlling the flow of immigrants, the rules have affected the nature and reliability of the agricultural labor force as well as the costs of labor. Such factors are likely to continue to be an incentive for farmers to seek labor-saving alternatives.Harvesting technology has played a major role in the California cotton industry, as documented by Musoke and Olmstead . California’s cotton industry expanded rapidly in the immediate post-World War II years, with the adoption of mechanical harvesting being a major reason. California cotton growers adopted mechanical harvesters more rapidly and more completely than farmers in other states. Musoke and Olmstead attribute this rapid adoption to factors such as the relatively large size of California farms and dry weather during the harvest season, factors that may also have contributed to California’s relatively rapid adoption of other mechanical technologies. By 1960, over 90 percent of California’s cotton was mechanically harvested; by 1965, virtually 100 percent.Mechanical harvesting and bulk handling equipment have been important innovations in California’s horticultural industries. In many fruit and vegetable industries, especially those where products were destined for processing,cultivo de frambuesas harvesting innovations came in the 1960s or earlier and became standard technology by the 1970s. For instance, Zahara and Johnson reported 100 percent mechanical harvesting in 1978 for a variety of processing vegetables, including snap beans, carrots, sweet corn, onions, green peas, and potatoes.
However, none of the fresh or processing fruits used significant mechanical harvesting except prunes and dates and tart cherries . In fresh vegetables, mechanical harvesting was important only for carrots and potatoes. Mechanical harvesters for wine grapes were introduced in California in the late 1960s, and by 1974 between 5 and 10 percent of the crush was mechanically harvested ; by 1978, 20 percent . Currently, perhaps half of the crush is mechanically harvested.12 On the other hand, by 1975 virtually all almonds, pecans, filberts, and walnuts were mechanically harvested; mostly produced in California.Other examples of genetic improvement have been entirely the result of local efforts. California’s almond yields per acre roughly tripled between 1950 and 1990, as a result of a combination of improved varieties that allow higher planting densities, and other improvements in technology.Other cost-saving improvements, such as improved irrigation methods and mechanical harvesting, and overall quality enhancement have helped spur the growth of the almond industry in California to the point where it now dominates the world market. Similar developments in technology and management have been an important impetus in many of California’s other “Cinderella” industries, including other nuts, fruits, and vegetables.In several industries, varietal improvement has brought improvements in quality, though sometimes at the expense of yield, or an increase in the number of varieties available, which offers more choice for consumers or an extension of the season for short-season fruits. Table grapes are a good example. In 1953 there were only three important table grape varieties . By 1993, eight specific table-grape varieties were planted on over 2,000 acres each; several of these are superior quality seedless varieties. The extension of the season and the range of varieties are thought to have provided an important stimulus to demand for fresh grapes.14 California’s grape industry has been devastated in the past by pests, such as Phylloxera, and is currently threatened by Pierce’s Disease, transmitted by the GlassyWinged Sharpshooter.The use of resistant rootstocks, a form of genetic improvement, was the solution for Phylloxera, and genetic resistance is seen by many as the long-term solution for Pierce’s disease as well.Technological regulation is likely to become more important over time, as elements of society become more concerned about the consequences of today’s production methods for issues such as food safety, environmental contamination, and animal welfare. Technological regulation attempts to exercise control over production methods so as to safeguard product quality, worker safety, animal welfare, and the environment. Technological regulation may also allow one group of producers to profit at the expense of others—and perhaps at the expense of society as a whole. An important example of this has been the regulation of variety choices in the California cotton industry under a law introduced in 1925, which restricted production to a single variety of Acala cotton, supposedly to promote demand. Constantine, Alston, and Smith showed that the evidence of an important stimulus to demand is lacking, yet the one-variety law had a depressing effect on yield in some parts of the San Joaquin Valley while growers in other parts of the Valley benefited both from having suitable planting material for their conditions and a higher price for their cotton. Overall, the beneficiaries outnumbered the losers, and the law remained in force for over 50 years, until a 1978 amendment opened the industry to private breeders.Barriers to the development and adoption of new technologies include market, social, and other economic factors as well as regulatory constraints. Taken together, these aspects are presenting substantial barriers to the development and adoption of genetically engineered crop varieties, generally, and for California’s specialty crops these barriers may preclude access to new varieties developed by genetic engineering. The same types of factors may leave many California crops as orphans with respect to conventional pest control technologies as well—for many such crops the market is too small and the research, regulatory, and other costs are too large to allow profitable development of new, specific pest-control technologies.To a large extent, the ability of California farmers to grow more than 200 different crops stems from their ability to develop and apply technologies enabling plants to resist a multitude of diseases and pests that prevent them from being grown elsewhere.