Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CG 7314.1
October 1973
INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
A SURVEY PAPER
Robert Fvensnn Yale University
Prepared fo r the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
This paper is addressed to three topics. In Part I, a survey of
existing data regarding investment in agricultural research and extension
is undertaken. In Part II, a survey of studies of the contribution of
research activity is presented. Part III discusses the prospects and
problems of improving the information resources regarding the international
agricultural research system.
I. Investment in Research and Extension -
In this section a summary of available data is provided in an attempt
to answer the following questions:
(1) How much investment in agricultural research has been undertaken
in National Research Systems in the post WW II period?
(2) How does investment in research compare with investment in exten-
sion? What are the relative "prices" of research and extension resources
throughout the world?
(3) How can "quality" standardization be achieved?
(4) How have international aid donor flows influenced investment
-2-
decisions by less developed countries? What is the net effect of the
shift of donor flows from support of national systems to support of
international centers on national investment?
I.1 National Research Investment Data .
A number of regional surveys and directcries of research institutions
have been conducted in recent years. Chief among these are the OECII
sponsored surveys of research activity in the OECD member countries [19691
and more recently ix Africa [1973f, the FAG surveys of Asian [1964]and
African systems and the Pan American V~ioz surveys in Latin America. Until
recently, however, no attempt to combine these regional survey data to
develop a comparable set of data for aX. regions of the world had been
Kislev paper which includes a zetailec l<st of S0tlrCe.S. The data for that
year are quite complete and refleict cxsid~rable effcrt to achieve compar-
developed regions. 1
1 That is, data were not available for all countries in the region for years other than 1965. In computing the estimates, it was assumed that research investment in countries for which data could not be obtained was the same proportion to ofher countries in the region, that obtained in the closest year for which data could be oStain:ad,
-3-
TABLE1
ANNUAL INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH BY REGION:
Region Expenditures in Millions of 1970 US Dollars
1. North America
2. Northern Europe
3. Southern Europe
4. Oceania, S. Africa and Rhodesia
5. Eastern Europe and USSR
6. Latin knerica
7. Middle East and North Africa
8. South and Southeast Asia
9. East Asia
10. Sub-Sahara Africa
All Developed Countries
Less Developed Countries*
World Total
* Defined as regions 6 through
SELECTED YEARS
1951 1958 1965 1970
225 333 448 478
60 104 217 258
8 15 27 32
25 45 100 176
65 150 265 300
8 11 24 42
19
10
24
PO
405 3 j &i 49 ;i
454
10 excluding Japan.
26
16
36
2Q
679
77
756
38 47
42 54
91 113
39 69
1126 1324 :
163 236
1289 1560
-4-
The U.S. dollar figures in the table have been "deflated" and are
expressed in 1970 constant.dollars. Conversion from national currencies
to U.S. dollars was based on official exchange rates. This, of course,
may lead to some errors. The data show.investment in public sector re-
search which is basically directly toward improving the efficiency of
producing crop and livestock products. Forestry and fishing research
is not included. Home economics research and research directed to mar-
keting a;ld utilization of farm products is also excluded.
Table 1, while subject to some degree of.error, provides a pretty
reasonable picture of the international pattern of investment. Since
all figures are expressed in constant 1970 U.S. dollars, comparisons
over time are justified. For the world* these data show more than a
4 fold increase in real investment from i950 to 1970. The developed
countries expanded their systems most rapidly during the 195O*s, z‘nen
slowed down in the late 1960's. Developing countries, by these data
have expanded rapidly in the 1960's. The share of LDC investment has
risen from approximately 10 percent in the 1950's to nearly 13 percent by
1965 and to over 15 percent by'1970. _
1.2 The 1965 Data: A More Detailed Examination
The data available for the year 1965 are the most accurate available
and enable some further comparisons. For that year, it was possible to
assemble a reasonable estimate of the number of agdcultural scientist
man-years, and of investment in agricultural extension activities. The
data provide a basis for the comparative statistics presented in Table 2.
Table 2 provides in cohums 1 and 2, a basis for comparison of in-
. r-i
0: .
0 z-1
-6-
vestment levels bet&eerL itig:ions. The share of agricultural product
expended on public sector production oriented agricultural research
is markedly lower in the LDC"s. As a general rule, the share of agri-
cultural product spent on research by the developed countries was prob-
ably around one half of one percent in the 1920's and 1930's, rising to
three fourth uf one ;> 2 'r ctE?T; t %n the 1950's and to one percent in the
1960's. The less developed regions, in 1965 had generally not yet devel-
oped investment patterns that were close to the standards set by the
developed regions, although, as noted, a more rapid expansion is taking
place.
The table does reveal the emp'hasis placed on extension by the LDC's
in the 1950's and 1960's.. Developed countries spend only a little over
one half as mu& on extension as on research. LDC's spend 1.2 times as
much on extension as on research. One of the reasons for this pattern
is the flow of technical aid w?t-; A,~5 has often been based on the premise
that extension could serve to facilitate technology transfer. In addition,
however, the relative "prices' of the services of trained scientists and
of extension workers have differed markedly.
Columns 8 and 9 of Table 2 tell an important story. The relative
costs of an extension worker vis-a-vis a scientist are much lower in
the LDC's. For all LDC"s it ccsts 6.7 times as much to support one
research scientist as it does to support one extension worker. In the
developed countries, it costs only 2.4 times as much. Part of this dif-
ference is a quality difference. That is, in many LDC's the training of
extension workers is quite limited and the skill standards are lower than
for counterpart extension workers in developed countries. Much of it,
however, is due to the conditions of su:3pZy of.real scientific skills.
In regions where these skills are extremely short in supply and where
"international" scientists dominate (as in Africa and the Middle East),
the costs of scientist manpower are abcut as great in the LDC's as in
the developed countries.
Since these estimates are obtained by dividing research expenditures
by numbers of scientists, they reflect more than the salaries of the
scientist. The salaries of technicians, equipment costs and presumably
some costs associated with depreciation and maintenance of capital equip-
ment is also included. Recent data for the United States Agricultural
Experiment stations, indicates that expenditures per scientist man year
were $45,000 in 1970. Indications are that expenditures per scientist
in the International Centers in 1970 were close to $100,000. This may
have reflected more accurate accounting methods by the International
Centers. It also may reflect significantly more technical staff and
scientific equipment per scientist. It also reflects the high salaries
and administrative costs of the international scientist. These data
suggest that the prices of scientific resources per scientist to a
country may vary from as low as $10,000 to $15,000 in Asian National
Systems to approximately $50,000 in the United States. International
scientists, whether in National or Intern ational Centers, tend to cost
more, perhaps as much as $100,000 per scientist man year (in 1970 dollars).
Since prices differ, the share of agricultural product spent on
research and extension does not provide a real basis for comparison. In
columns 5 and 6 of Table 2, the ratio of scientist man years and extension
man years, per 10 million dollars in agricultural product,is computed.
-8-
By this measure, the EDC investment pattern looks better. They have
almost half as many researchers per dollars worth of product as the
developed countries. Sr;sewhat surprisingly, they have twice as many
extension workers per dollar of product as the developed countries.
1.3 Publii:ations Data and Scientist Quality
The comparisons made in the previous section are quite sensitive to
difference!; in the "qua?fty'* sf scientists and extension workers. That
is, quality,as measured by the level of scientific training and compet-
ence. It is extremely difficult to impose quality standards in collect-
ing intern ntio-rAal .ds P- - -ciicLs 35 the United States and a number
of other countries, one could insist on scientific training at least
equivalent to the PH.D. degree level as a minimum standard for qualifica-
tion as E. scies,“_,~< “.k,,.& i _ str&ndard cannot be applied everywhere. Gradu-
ate traF&lir,g ~y--gvgaya-; ,~ifzy significantly from the U.S. system in Latin
America and Africa, for example. In addition, throughout much of the
less developed world, it simply is the case that lower standards of
scientific trzining are forced by the scar&e supply of highly trained
scientific skills.
One p*ssi'=e ??Sts.l;&rd:( of quality that might be applicable to re-
searchers is data o:-+ g3:&~Lfca'~fons. Let me be quick to point out that most
publications data as reported by research institutions are useless for
this purpose. The United States Department of Agriculture,
for example, used to report scientific and technical publications each
-9-
yea* by Stae- zg-&;"<;~~z;;; fs;:~~;f-snsm Even a casual inspection of these data
show them to be meaningless as quality indicators. Unless a quality standard
is applied TV yu>~<-&p~ogs mn,gs*~c+es, they are pretty much nonsense.
Even if 02.1 has some procedure for "screening" publications for
quality, it is also true that scientific publications do not measure
economically valua-' 3ie researcher output. Researcher output of direct
economic value takes the form of new crop varieties, agronomic techniques,
insecticides, pesticides and fertilizers. Researchers produce findings
of indirect economic value in the form of scientific discoveries that
enable and induce the discovery of economically valuable technology. In
most research erganizations, a mix of directly valuable and indirectly
valuable research r'fndings are produced.
Because of this institutional arrangement, publications measures
tend to be highly correiarei dith directly valuable as well as indirectly
valuable research firtdings provided that they are screened for quality
and for economic relevance, In Table 3, a summary of screened publica-
tions by regions for three time periods is presented. The screening was
done by the editorial staffs of three international Abstracting Journals:
Plant Breeding Abstracts, and Dairy Science Abstracts (published by the
Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau) and Biological Abstracts.
In Table 3, the measures of crop oriented research findings are
from Plant Breedirs Abstracts and include only those publications classi-
fied as oriented to the production of wheat, barley, maize, sorghum, rice,
sugarcane, sugar beets, potatoes, cotton, and vegetables. The screening
then is by economic orientation as well as for international significance.
. -ho.-
Table 3
Agricultural Research Publications Abstracted in Selected International Abstracting Journals: 1948-1968
Publications bv Orientation
Phyto- Plant pathology All Total Physi- & Soil Al.1 Live- Agri-
Zcicnzc ology Crops stodk culture
Cl> North America
1948-51 2,130 1355-61 1.352-68 8,831
'Xorthcrn ~::I~:c?~c 1948-54 1,748 1955-6 3. 1962-68 7,721
Southern Europe 7,?48-54 245 11955-61 1962-68 830
’ Oc’eanj a, South Afr,ica A R.I~ode~ia 1348-54 172 1955-61 1962-68 1,350
Eaitcm EurOpC? & U.S.S.R. 1948-54 70s I.9556L X962-68 6,160
Latin ATerica X948- 54 70 1955-61 lQc,7-68 / - 420
Middle East & North Africa 1948-54 33
L 1955-61 3.962-,68 630
South h So~tI:T:ast Asia l.NS-54 243 1955-6 1 lS'62-G8 3. . G 03
09 (3) (41 (5)
3,758 6,854 8,333
6,549 :O,OOO 16,549 9,446 LO,608 20,053
12,743 11,265 24,609
1,194 I>454 2,691
3,458 9,888 13,346 7.2 ?“l. 3 13.5 4,084 9,933 '14,042 7.4 8.9 11.7 5,491 10,807 16,298 8.6 7.8 ll.3
480 365 513
1,026 981 2,007 4.2 6.9 6,l. 987 1,016 2,003 3‘7 5.2 5-3
1,169 1,387 2,556 4.3 5.1 5,s
393 1,254 1,316 2,570 822 1,350 ~,306 3,256 915 1,545 ?,291 5,836
213 1,739 1,217 2,956 I, 003 4,283 2,532 6,81.5 3,144 9,683 5,llG 14,799
209 *.* -I‘- 858 291 983 610 1,288
47 284 202 486 l,f; 3,7 133 360 303 633 1.2 2,s 359 646 405 1,051 L-7 204
4% 1,889 792 2,521
1,594 4.1',30 , , ,
2-c l
228 1,036 1.8 i. 1 I., 6 202 1,185 1.6 .9 1.5 479 1,767 1.8 :' a 7 1.8
592 2,481 745 3,266
1,335 5,664
hnual Piblfcatiofis per $130 million
Agricultural Production -. -
Crops LiaJestock Total - (6) (7) (8)
7.0 9.8 8;3 8.2 8.9 8.3 9.3 8.2 8.9
14.1 12,l 10.5
1,2 2‘.3 4.7
7.8 5. 8 9.5
io. 3. 3-0. i 73, f
i . 6 1 ,G 2. 2 3 -? -0 : :I, 6 5" 2.
2' 2:; 4.3
-Pl-
Table ‘3
(continued)
East Asia 1948-54 110 1955-61 1962-68 2,233
Sub-Sahera 2ric.a 1948-54 1?55-G 1 1962-68
2
56
Dcvelowd Coazries 1943-54 5,044 195.5-61 1962-68 27,074
Less Developed Csuntlrits 1948-54 1955-GS 1.962-68
Notes:
ain 1965 US$. ,+data on lives
4E4
2,828 : _ ".
146 926 322 1,248 2.5 14.7 3.3 419 1,596 589 2,,186 3.4 10,7 4.3 519 1, $01 724 2,526 3.4 6,8 4. 3
18 274 62 334 1.0 I*2 1.0 I.05 419 1.55 574 1.5 2.8 1.8 249 651. 248 899 1.9 3.9 2.2
6,176 10,902 16,083
748 1,336 2 894 ,
Clock output is very imited for the region.
21;569 14 777 26;607 23 724 48:176 38 501 4.2 5.0 32 115 ..r 31,529 63,694 655
3,48@ ?,034 4,564 1.9 2.7 2.1 4,46G I.,407 5,867 2.1 3.1 2.3 7,232 5,478 9,710 2.8 4.5 3.2
v
7.9 6.7 6.8 8-6 6*6 7-6
-12-
A check of the ratio of screened to total publication for the U.S.
indicates that roughly one third of the published work in the U.S.
meets the standards for inclusion in Table 3.
The Table provides an alternative measure of the changes over
time in research investment. It shows that the ratio of publications
in 1965 to publications in 1950 for the develpped countries was 1.6, and
for LDC's it was 2.2. The comparable ratios of investment in constant
dollars was 2.8 for developed countries, and 3.3 fcr LDC's. This dis-
crepancy is due to the rising price of scientists services relative to
other prices in both regions.
The extraordinary increase in research activity in Eastern Europe
and the USSR stands out in both sets of data. The relatively poor per-
formance of the Latin American regions is likewise highlighted in the
Table. The Appendix to this paper provides individual country data.
In Table 4 a measure of scientist man years per publication is
presented. It shows that by this quality measure, LDC scientists do not
come up to the developed country standards. In fact, when the scientists
per publication differences are taken into account, most of the LDC ad-
vantage from lower priced scientists is lost. Costs per publication are
'almost as high in the LDC's (and much higher in Africa) as in the devel-
oped countries.
1.4 The Role of Intemaitonal Aid to LDC's
It is difficult to accurately assess the share of LDC national system
investment that was directly financed by donor flows from developed coun-
tries. It is even more difficult to come up with an assessment of the
-13-
Table 4
Researcll Expcnditurcs and Scientists l'er Research Publication - 1.965 _
Region
North Imerica
Northern Europe
Southern Europe
Oceania; S. Africa, Rhodesia
Eastern Europe 6; U.S.S.R.
Latin Amrica
Middle East & N. Africa
South & Southeast Asia
East. Asia
Sub-Sahara Africa
Developed Countries
Less Developed Countries
Expenditure PCl:
Publication (thnusand
of u, s. $> A-.-- (1)
113.8
8i.6
63.3
158.2
11.0. 3
81.6
221.7
44.5
182.X
260.8
108.3
91.3
Scientists per
Publication (man-years) e-1
(2)
4.46
3.54
6.12
6.69
7.25
9.63
10.71
5.21
1.4.39
10.46
5.41
7.42
-14-
inducement effect on national investment provided by donor flows.
The aid flows took three forms:
1) Support for scientific training in developed countries
2) Support of Internati&l Scientists
3) Direct financial support for research project funding and
institution building
Clearly the first component,support for graduate study in developed
countriqhas been significant. Of the 10,000 agricultural scientists in
less developed countries in 1965, a large number have received subsidies
for scientific study in developed country universities. The AID-Univer-
sity Cooperative Program, for example, provided training for some 1100
scientists. The Foundations have supported large numbers of graduate
students 2s well. In addition, in many developing countries, institutional
arrangements for graduate study in European Universities, especially
British and French, have existed for long periods of time.
The second component, the location of international scientists in
LDC's has been very significant in some countries. In a number of
countries, especially in Africa, the expatriate scientist has in fact
dominated the national system. In the late 1950's and early 19608s, large
numbers of scientists from developed countries were on "temporary" assign-
ments to LDC's. Perhaps the major program of this type was the AID-
University program in which some 300 agricultural scientists were located
in universities in developing countries each year during the 1950's and
early 1960's. Much of their activity was directed to developing graduate
teaching programs and to building research capabilities in university
-15-
systems. FAO has a large technical ,field 3;aff. a,,,&mztrly I ._ .a .,- ?
2200 agriculturalists, many involved in research stations, "qW,./- '*=e.~ .L.z'Ui- a-
located in developing countries. In addition, the Foundations, anti a
number of bilateral aid programs have placed researchers in LDC's.
A good summary of the numbers of scientists from developed countries
working in LDC national systems is not available to my knowledge. The
sketchy data available to me suggests that during the 1950's, the pro-
portion of international scientists in LDC national systems might have
been in the 20 to 30 percent range. By 1970,this proportion had fallen
sharply. Today, of the approximately 13,000 agricultural scientists
located in LDC national systems, the proportion of international
scientists is very small.
The emergence of the International Centers system does not explain
much of the change in personel Some 203 or so scientists zre now work-
ing in the International System. While many have had experience in national
systems, it would net appear that the buillrfng of h.ternatlonal Centers
has altered the pattern of scientist eqloyment. sationai systems
have for a number of reasons opted to change the mix of international
staff to national staff.
The financial support of National Systems is likewise difficult to
assess. In a number of LDC's, aid donor sirp-,ort has been a dominant
factor in the building of research capabiliries.
In others,
it has been of minor importance. In terms of proportlsns of support,
I have little good data. The AID-University program budget was ro-ghly
$20 million in the early 1960's and some of this supsorted research.
-16-
Other AID programs which had some research content were budgeted at
$50 million and the FAO technical assistance budget was roughly $100
million in the late 1960's. It is likely that less than $20 million of
the AID funding and $20 million of the FAO funding could conceiveably
be supporting real research. Most aid projects supported by European
governments had little research support. The Columbg Plan activities
did support a significant amount of research and' institution building.
The World Bankgroup support for research is relatively recent in origin.
A rough judgement would be that in the early 1960's international
donor flows might have approximated $30-40 million for research support,
and represented one fourth of the total national system support. In
the early 1950's this share of support might well have been one-third
to one half. By the early 1970's, many of the programs providing
national system support in the early 1960% have been terminated. Over-
all support to national systems is probably less than $20 million dollars
and now may represent something like 5 percent or so of LDC national
system support.
Support for the International Centers has risen over the period and
now dominates the aid flow to agricultural research. This flow is now
above $20 million and is scheduled to rise to some $64 million (in 1970
dollars) over the decade. It is clear that the direct financial support
for national systems from the international aid agencies is not
going to be very large in most countries in the next 10 or so years. It
may be that World Bank Group lending will take up the slack, however.
The overall data suggest that in spite of the reduced flow of intema-
-;7-
tional aid during the past 15 years OY so, support for r,at.ional systems
has continued tob&sintai&'~'faster rate of growth than in the developed
countries. The ay?~~y~cyPe 3-7 -j -' b‘l dr..-idaii rate 3f gscw';h 2.n LCC systems of X.5 per-
. cent 33 the late 1950"s 20 early 1960's .q. Lecreased to -20 percant per year
for the late 1960's, however. W e da not real8y'have data of sufficient
accuracy to say what has happened in the past 3-4 years,
II. The PayhBff to Investment in Research
A considerable number of studies in which an estimate of the
economic contribution of research systems is n&e have now been under-
taken. A review ob: a number of them is provided in this part of the
paper. Before tzrrr%g to them, a dFscr;ssio~ 32 LIGC~~Q of return is in
order. Much confusion exists regarding -L!Z.Z zeaning of these rates
For example, a widely reported result of a study of hybr5.d
corn research is that a 7'50 pereent rate of ri;it-aT-n :q'ss realized 0 Eve-c
a moderately s~r_~Fj~~ .- - --"+- -' ic -_____ Z iZ? Z&2 ~5:. ho-;---. ;aie&bA a ca~c*~~ator and show
that $1 invested eb, 2 705 p~ce~t i;~q~-:'~~ rzye 05 in.;e:est wijJ. gr:,-g~
to a sum larger than the entire Gross National Product of all less deveL-
oped countries in a matter of 15 years or so. 5bviousBy, ,Gze =ra22t?ot dYa?
the conclusion that one can really earn 7CQ percent per year by investfng
in research.
Research contributions are not realized in a "once for allfs fashion.
They come in streams of benefits as measured by production increases due
to " improved" research-created techniques of production over time. Invest-
ment in research will produce an "expected" stream of benefits into the
-18-
future. A considerable time lag may occur between the investment and the
realization of significant benefits. In one of the studies reviewed
here (Evenson [1968]) the average time lag between investment and bene-
fit realization was 6$ years. Figure 1 shows the relationship between
investment and benefits.
Benefit Stream $ /g,ar
.1971 1978 1984 time
Figure 1
Suppose that one dollar is invested in 1971. The graph shows the
"expected" benefits stream. No benefits are realized until 1973. After
1973 they steadily increase until they reach $7 per year in 1984, 13 years aA;t\r
the initial investment of one dollar. After 1984, they may decline due to
depreciation and obsolescense of the technology. Now we can see that the
.$7 benefit stream does not represent a 700 percent rate of return. The
appropriate measure here is an "internal" rate of return, which is that
rate of return realized over the entire period from 1971 to the year 2000.
It will be seen that the one dollar invested in 1973 actually realized a
40 percent rate of return over the entire period. That is, the present
value of the benefits streamin Figure 1, discounted at a 40 percent rate
of interest is one dollar in 1971.
-19-
It is this rate of return that is meaningful, because it tells us
how much long term real economic growth can be purchased with research
investment. We can view the one dollar in 1971 as the purchase cost
of the benefits stream and the "price" of the benefits stream as the
inverse of the rate of return. In the studies reviewed here the internal
rate of return concept is used as the comparative statistic.
2.1 Commodity Studies
Table 5 provides summary information for 8 studies of specific com-
modity research programs. In each case a stream of benefits was directly
calculated from production data. In the case of the classic hybrid corn
study by Griliches, for example, data on the superior yielding ability
of hybrid corns was obtained. Changes in yields due to increased fertil-
izer use and other inputs are not included in the benefits stream.
Internal rates of return are reported. It should be noted that the
relatively high returns from the Ardito-Barletta and Ayer studies is
partially due to a short time,lag between research expenditure and the
realization of benefits. This.time lag will tend to lengthen as these
programs "mature."
The research costs associated with these benefit streams were iden-
tified including all "reasonable" research activities associated with the
commodity. Most of the studies claim a "conservative" pesture by including
all reasonable research costs. These studies all show high rates of return.
An internal rate of return on projects with a long life of 35 percent is
far above the normal rate of return to investment projects. _ Most
estimated rates of return above 20 percent are spurious in the sense that
-2o-
Table 5. Sur,;mnr y of Direct Inference Cor.iqodity Studies --
Country
1. Griliches u.s.A-3 119681
2. Griliches . u. s. G 119681
3, Peterson, V. u. s. n, 119631
4 l
Ardito-Barletta Mexico [1970]
-. Ardito-Barletta 5 Nexico [1970]
3. Evenson, R, S, Africa [19691
j. Aver, H. Ii9701 Brazil
Dines, 3, [1972] Peru
Con30 d i tf'
hybrid corn
hybrid sorghum
poultry
wheat
corn
sugarcane
,cotton
corn
Ratio of Benefit Time Flow to Internal
Period Adjusted Costsa .:ate of Return
1940-1955 7 35-40
1940-1957 3.6 (20)
1915-1960 21-25
?.943-1963 7.5 90
l943-1963 3.0 35
1945-1962 2.47 St0
1924-1967 77-h
1354-1967 35-40; 50-55
'This is not a bcncfit cost ratio. 7t is the ratio of the benefit flow as o;l the ending period pIus tbc accumulated benefits to that date converted to a flow at the s:~mo interest rate (usually 6 pcrccnt) divided by the cumulated costs a:i.so converted to a flora at the same interest rate,
Returns to corn research only.
Returns to corn research plus cultivation "package." \
-21-
they are realized for a short period only.. It is unusual for investment
in public and private sector activities such as roads and communications
systems to realize more than 15 'percent in real terms.
II.2 Aggregate Productivity Based Studies
The 12 studies summarized in Table 6 are based on aggregate produc-
tion function analysis. Statistical relationships between research in-
vestment and agricultural productivity form the basis for the estimated
"marginal" benefit streams from which internal rates of return are com-
puted. The basic principle is the same. Increases in production which
do not occur because of changes in conventional input use are partially attributed
to the technology produced by research.
In one sense, these studies provide stronger evidence regarding
the contribution of research than the first set. They rely on statistical
methods to identify the benefits associated with costs, not on judgement.
They are studies of large research programs and capture the net effect
of the unsuccessful as well as the successful research projects. They
also allow more sophisticated models&xi enable something to be said about
the transfer of technology and about the contribution of the more funda-
mental scientific research.
Before turning to these latter issues, we should note that the es-
timated rates of return from these studies of national research systems
are part of the same pattern of high returns emerging from the first set
of studies.
.
-23-
11.3 International Transfer of Technology
For purposes of research policy, it is not enough to show that a
research program will generally discover technology of economic value.
A less developed country with limited resources, lacking in institutional
experience with research systems and facing very real difficulties in
training scientists is under special pressure to benefit from research
done elsewhere. After all,if technology is easily transferable, the
LDC's can concentrate on facilitating its transfer, utilizing the more
abundant skills of the extension agent.
Only one study, to my knowledge, has actually addressed itself to
this issue. Evenson and Kislev [1972] specified an international model
in which productivity (in wheat and maize production) was related not
only to the research program of the country in question, but to the re-
search program in other countries located in similar geo-climate zones.
The idea was to determine how much of the research discoveries of other
countries could be borrowed by or transferred to the country in question.
The basic relationship found is shown in Figure 2.
Ratio of 1.
potentially borrowable researchtbTe- sults actually borrowed.
Research conducted by the borrowing country
Figure 2
-25-
the more fundamental agricultural scien.-es (plant physiology, genet:.cs,
phytopathology etc.). Granting that th.3 distinction is sometimes al-
bitra;ry, it is important to research poiicy to know what the relatil-e rates
of return are. The Kislev-Evenson stud:;7 (812 in Table 6) developed such
estimates, with the interesting result 1:hat investment in the more science-
based research actually had the highest marginal pay-off. A more recent
study by Evenson 119731 dealing with cereal production internationally also
estimated a slightly higher rate of return to science-based research.
These studies all tend to reinforce one another. The pay-off to
research in\,estment in the LDC regions of the world is extraordinarily
high. At least twice , perhaps 3 times. as much growth is purchased wrth
the research dollar,thsnwith extension and other program dollars. htd
there areno good SubstituteSfor high quality research systems. Technol-
ogy transfer is a function of national research capability. Finally,.
while a tentstive conclusion, the highest rates of return might well be
realized in the more basic research progl'ams.
III. Information Resources For Policy
Even though international aid donor flows to national research
systems have been diminished in recent years, research activity is more
truly "international" than at any time in the past. Much of this is (lue
to the programs of the International Centers, especially CIMMYT. Pre:;umably,
the emerging International Centers will attempt to be international iri the
sense that they will have close working relationships with national systems.
World Bank Group lending could become more significant in the near ful.ure
and new programs of support for national research systems by U.N. and other
-26-
international agencies are likely to evolve.
There is then a justification for the improved formulation of
inrernations2 policies toward the national research systems. The reader
of this paper will have recognized by now, that very little really solid
data exisa on which to develop sound policy.
III.1 Alternative Policy Purposes
International agencies are not going to be making national research
system p&icy in the future.
Presumably, the objectives of international policy will be
to accoz~lish:
1) Complementarity of International Center research programs
with national programs.
2) A basis for research project grants to national systems by
International Donor agencies.
3) A basis for World Bank Group lending policy.
4) Improved communication between DC, LDC, and Interrational
Center scientists.
The first three objectives require less detailed information than
the fourth. In addition, agencies now exist to provide the fourth type of
information. Tt may not be efficient to attempt to meet all 4 objectives
with a single information system.
The men"' ,,ing of the first objective is now being accomplished on
a '"piece-meal"'basis, IRRI, for example, has no doubt collected a consider-
able amount of information about rice research programs in national systems,
Likewise, other centers may know what the gaps are in national programs
with some reliability. This is not done on a really consistent basis,
however.
If international agencies spt for a kind of International Scil:nce
Foundation approach to project and program funding to encourage and
induce more national system funding, thi?y will require data in a greater
degree of dztail. Likewise, if World Bank Group I&ding is to be effic-
iently organized, quite detailed data may be required. This objective
incidentall: is a very complex one. The extent of the "externalities"
associated with research projects is far greater than for most Bank
loans. The productivity of research, may be very sensitive to compl~men-
tary research programs in other countries in the region, for example. This
means that "regionals' proposals may be r:>quired--making it difficult to
rely on a comtry-by-country approact,
The pro,rision of scientific information is partially taken care of
by the public:ation abstracting system a~(: by Science Information Systems
such as Citation Abstracts. Thase systems do not provide current project
information, as for example, the USDA's CRIS system does. It may be .s
workable objective to eventually develop an International Information
system comparable to CRIS.
III.2 Alternstives
a. Regional Intermittent Surveys of the OECD and FAO Type.
The regional surveys do provide valuable information, but they do
not achieve the kind of comparability of data that is really needed. They
are valuable in that they have laid the groundwork for coming up with
-28-
acceptable definitions of scientists, and technicians. The recent African
study, for example, (S. Kassapu) appears to have added a good deal of
information to the earlier surveys by Webster and Cooper,
b. Annual Surveys with Minimal Information.
As an alternative to intermittent surveys, annual surveys seeking
approximately the same information --basically funding and staffing in-
formation by country --with some commodity information.
C. Annual or Biennial Research Program Area Data: A Simplified CRIS System.
The USDA CRIS system collects annual data from state stations on a re-
search project basis. Each project is classified by three different criteria:
1) Activity or Research Problem, 2) Commodity, and.3) Field of Science.
A quite elaborate system of aggregating data into Research Problem Area by
Commodities is used in the summary reports. A number of countries have
similar systems. If the chief area of concern were the Developed Countries,
it might be relatively easy to modify these systems and to develop a workable
international system. This is not the case, however, and we are dealing
with countries where several government agencies may be involved, where
state and federal relations are complex and where a number of countries have
little interest in the international system.
Presumably a simple system of research program by commodity could be
worked out to enable the collection of data on an annual basis. I am not
at all sure how international agencies can pressure countries into cooper-
ating in information provision. Ideally, the provision of significant donor
-2%
flo.&Ys cocld be zade to make it worth their while (PA0 should have exper-
fence).
My personal judgement on the issue is that if a simplified information
CT‘ =.,? -'.‘ -J--+- zxdd be Zeveloped, a large number of countries would, with some
funding inducement, agree to develop national information systems con-
sis.- cl? t c1__- vizh the International system. Most developed countries could do
this quite readily and a number of LDC's such as India, would be receptive
to being induced to develop their national systems.
yT-.-L -y LDCqs will take some time to develop a systems In some, it
isn't even possible to determine how many agencies may be involved. In-
termittent s:u,psreys can be continued but they are probably pretty expen-
sive fcr &e information obtained. If World Bank lending becomes signif-
icant ) it zEg%Z have provision for national information systems.
Elaborate information systems on the CRIS model are not justified
in a great many countries. If a country is spending less than $5 million
on research very little may be justified. In many cases, however, the
systems can be justified on more global grounds. The publication of
International Data itself will probably serve to create pressures in many
countries to invest more. In this day of heightened nationalism, it is
difficult to foster regional research efforts (East Africa), but Interna-
tional agencies can achieve what nations cannot; given resources and in-
foermation.
Bibliography
Ardito-Barletta, N., "Costs and Social Returns of Agricultural Research
in Mexico," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1970.
Ayer, H., "The Costs, Returns and Effects of Agricultural Research in a
Developing Country: The Case of Cotton Seed Research in Sao Paulo,
Brazil." Ph.D. Dissertation, Purdue University 1970.
Chang, C.W., Present Status of Agricultural Research Development in Asia
and the Far East, 1964, FAO.
Current Research Information Systems, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Annual--Inventory of Agricultural Research.
Evenson, R. "Technology Generation in Agriculture," in Agriculture in
Development Theory,
coming.
ed. Lloyd Reynolds, Yale University Press, forth-
Griliches, Z., "Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related
Innovations," Journal of Political Economics, 66 (419-431), 1958.
, "Research Expenditures, Education and the Aggregate Agri-
cultural Production Function," American Economic Review, Dec. 1964.
Hayami, Y. and Ruttan, V., Agricultural Development: An International
Perspective, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1972.
Hines, J., "The Utilization of Research for Development: Two Case Studies
in Rural Modemizati.:n:.acd Agriculture in Peru." Ph.D. Dissertation,
Princeton University, 1972.
Kislev, Y. and Evenson, R., "Agricultural Research and Productivity--An
Internatronal Analysis," mimeo, Yale University, 1973.
-31-
Kislev, Y. :.nd Evenson, R., "Investment in Agricultural Research and
Extension, ' An International Survey,.' Growth Center Discussion Pitper
No. 141, Yale University, 1971.
, "Research an1 Productivity in Wheat and lake,"
JPE, forthcomizg, 1973.
Khaldi, N., l?h.D. Dissertation, Southern Methodist University.
OECD, Statistical Tables and Notes, Paris,, 1968 (Science Survey Table).
Peterson, W. L., "Returns to Poultry Research-in the U.S.," Ph.D. Dis-
sertation, University of Chicago, 19.56.
imria
BelSfum Denmark Finland France Nest Germany GreeAe Ireland Italy Betherlands Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Swi:zerland U.K. u. s. s. R. Yugoslavia Canada u. S.A. Argentina Bolivia Brazil Ch‘Lle C010lllhia Costa Rica Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Haiti Ml?XiCO
Nicaragua Psnama Paraguay
PeTSI Uruguay Venezuela Libya Sudan U.A.R Af&mistnn Cyprus Israel Syria 'liwkey BUlXllZ2 Cay1 on
Appendix Table 1 Agricultural Research and I'.~rcnsiow - Country DnQ.
(19u5)
. Research Extension Expeaditures Scientists Emcnditures h'orkcrs
(thousand U.S.S)
(thousand u. s. $1
1,800 9,260 5,600 2,320
29,000 55,851
3,300 -6,706 13,000 27,700
6,480 2,500 4,336
11,000 5,800
28,500 42,200
5,233 40,217
350,000 --
270 4,500 1,300
--
579 1,370
584 300 160
1,837 503 305 --
1,400 367 681
1,960 4,798 9,200 1,500
357 7,000
440 3,500
93 1,395
(nun-year)
170 650 4.58 129 755
1,788 295 328 853 820 495 394 694 408 392
1,839 9,624 1,340 1,483
13,800 300
29 520 223
338 76 a7 56 15 50
231 43
7 10
131 93
125 _-
82 400
36 20
403 15
397 39 87
--
-.- 6,784 :
--
34,200 23,180.
1,444 .2j400 14,112
4,500 6,062 3,965 5,630 5,800 1,730
13,460 -- --
26,450 178,000
1,800 350 --
300 -- -_
1,645 885 a-0
687 250 -- 378 --
1,400 450
6,400 em -- -- -- -- -- -_
7,580 -- me.
800 292 840
--
4,400 4,402
552 : 502 3,082 1,898
652 807 894 610 406
1,648 -_
3,076
2,904
6,233 392
73 603 122
235 166 320
70 94 28
300 41 85 46
670 --
422 78 18
-- 109 -- _- --
2,746 1,262
200
Ratio of Rcseorch
Expenditures to value of
Agricultural Product
(percent)
0.28 1.19 0.46' 0.47 0.48 1.18
. 0.47 1.43' 0.40 2.33 2.70 0.70 0.23 1.40
. 1.62 0.80 0.16 0.26
1.28 0.81
--
0.22 0.09 0.43
__ --
0.53 0.32 0.13 0.41 1.73 0. 23 0.48
--
0.32 0.19 0.14 3.56 0.94 0.60
--
0.79 3.17 0.16 0.17 0.04 0.58
Research Expenditures
per fans (U. s. $)
4.53 34.42 28.43
5.98 a-
31.72 2.85
18.61 3.03
92.03 14.93
--
1.44 41.51
-*
71.97 --
1.99 83.61 94.34
-- --
1.34 --
-w
8.91 --
2.61 0.72
*-
1.35 4.93 3.21
--
1.61 4.22 2.13
13.52 -w
5.60 em --
Extension workers
per farm
2.02 1.09 4.26
-- --
2.50 0.48 1.39 0.72 6.31 1.50
_-
0.30 2.30
--
4.16 --
1.17 6. L%
1.68 0.83
*-
0.18 --
0.19 2.55
--
0.31 0.23
..-
0.22 0.40 0.89 0.29 0.77
--
1.32 0.54
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
0.17
Publications In Agricultural
SIX-Vi CPS
(number of Publications
Abstracted in 19G2-66.1
361 529 563 484
1,732 3,587
103 158
1,856 1,643
377 153 446 858 571
5,433 9,461
711 2,917
21,092 323
20 440 188
119 --
14 17 59 --
259 17 11
1 80 27 90 3
-124 357 --
14 491
d 24
1 72
India Indone& Japan South Korea &lays fa Nepal Pakistan Philippines Taiwan Thailand s. Vietnam cnmeroon Con@, Braz. Dah0I%2y EthiOpia GhilllZl K2aey?jr8 Liberia Phlagasy Rep. Ellaui MClli Mauritius
~~~bx.o wmmbique Nigeria Rmnda Senegal Sierra Leone Sonalia South Africa Rhodesia Swaziland Tl3IWZXlia USanda upper Volta Australia New Zealand
. Kc-Tcarch ---.-_ Expmiditurcs Scientists
(tllousanb , (Illan-year)
12,O~~O I.21
62,5(10 1 3'15 I .
a: 0 41 9
5,024 7,O;h 1,922 8,428
547 803 233
1,29? --
2,38i --
160 2,531
96( 625
1,osc 1,976 1,000 3,354
270 1,651
165 280
18,850 --
175 1,2&h 2,100
225 56,364
6,000
1,462 -- 54 --
4,500 36,310
294 --
32 --
142 --
654 6,037 1,256 --
401 --
442 --
40 --
32 -0
29 --
18 --
30 308 128 --
123 4,608 34 --
GO 3,384 48 1,288 21 --
71 --
55 --
42 --
335 --
10 --
51 --.
23 --
12 59 897 --
lb5 L-
11 --
51 --
50 3,646 9 --
2,085 --
479 --
&I<_ ‘Ii 1
* (Conthued)
FX tens! “11 Expenditures h'orkere
(thousand U,S.S)
56,000
6,000 14,126 3,217
317 200
9,000 617
1,100 502
95 310
-- -a
1,204 --
5,277 --
2,669 778
-v --
2,100 --
18,050 -- -- --
29 -- -., --
2,455 1,024
-a --
472
Ratio of Research
Expenditures t* value of
Agriculturnl Product
(pcrccnt)
Research Expendituws
per farm (U. s. 5)
0.15' 0.25 0.01 0.01 6.9s 10.32 0.11 0.57 0.15 l. 81
-- 0.31 0.23 0.41 0.69 3.27 0.28 2.38
1.13 2.62 ‘0.25 0.29 0.38 --
.- 2.08 2.53 --
-- --
0.46 -- -- --
0.25 . --
1.09 2.87 -- --
0.95 2.23 b_ --
0.48 1.79 -- --
0.17 _^ -- --
1.16 6.27 0.16 --
-- --
1.51 171.36 -- me -- --
0.41 --
0.56 1.79 0.30 -_
2.11 223.67 0.55 82.19
Extension workers
per farm
1.15 0.49 2.33 1.38 0.70 0.13 0.74 0.28 1.36 0. I.6 0.05
-_ -- -- -- -- ..- --
3.03 -- -- -_
1.90 -- e_ -- *- w- ^V -_ -- -- --
0.88 -- --
6.47
Publications in AgriculturaL
Scrvfces (nunbcr of
Publications Abstractrd
in 1962-G!3)
4,551 76
2,197 50 62 --
410 435 325
36 19 11
--
20 12 76
184 21
7 --
0 --
40 --
205 --
20 16 --
529 139
--
88 185
a 2,347
a22
Note: -- not available.
JfppQwu T43LF 2- A:?IClJLfJRAi RESEARCH AND EXI I;,VSI~V -- INTERVATI3NAL tOY=ARISONS ----c-------------------------------~--------------------”---------------
I f DES S.lrc*Y. I EXT
@lISTRIA 1PCO. 170. -0,
- R?LGIllY q2600 65% -0.
F IN1 &‘I9 7320. 129. -00
FR AriCE 2qooc. 755. 2’4200.
WSST GERM4NY 5’?Slo 17RRc 231 ROe
- GREECE 33301 295. 1444s
IRFLAvD’ .- 67CC. 32Re 24000
-_. IlIiLY ‘i3000. 8539 14112. _....
- NETHE?LAh:OS 2?700* 8?00’-- 4500:
‘. - ‘- ND?‘dAY 6490o‘ 495, 6!?62o
_ U.S.S.~. b2230. ot 24. -00
.-. YtlGqSL1.VIA 5233. 134co -I)*
c4uh,os 402?7n 1483. 2d45oe .
_ - u* 5.
A.” _- _.. . 35OOOG.‘” I38CCa 17ao00.
_ ._ ApGE”:T IrrA -0. 3ooa 19co*
_ - -__---. - ‘- RJLIVIA 270n-. 290 35oc
--BRAZIL .-_--__
450Oe”- : 5200 - 00 _ - _ .
CYILk 13OC.2 2230 3000
., Cr)LO!A,?IA .--‘.-‘.-O.’ ‘- 33R. -0.
‘- CgSTA RICA 579. 7ho -0.
E:rlKRS ‘6R/SMY
RO30 10.59
292. 14925
R43a 12o23
-o* 17*ve
4400.’ 3Be41
4402. 31024
55?.. ilo
502e’ - 23.43
3381. 15.24
1393.---'- 33078
652. 1 13~0s
807. 6035
894.9 6~25
hIO0 26095
406. 14083
1 h490 15.53
-3. 4039
3076o 3.9:
29340 27012
52330 .25o36 .-
3920 -00 -._-
739 9.0 31
6030 ‘8065
122. 5083
'235. -0.
166. .fobil
3200 15075
70, !.3043
_
_.
.
.,.
BE/FW $R/bE SR/PAG SE/SAG SMY /F
-00 -00 0.28. -0. 0.43
-0. .. -0. 1.19' .-0. 2.42
8.08 OoE?- '.Co46-.-- '0.56 2.32
0. -O* 0.47 -0. 0.33 .- - - ^
7.77 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
0085 0.48 0.57 --d.
5.27 2.41.- -. i.l8-. 6.49 i.02 -
2.62 ._ _. .
2.29 _
0.47 0021 0.26 ..-__.... _______ ._ .-. _.
4078 2.7) 1.43 D.5i . d.91'
Go58 --3a92 -0.40 6.44 0.20 . --.
ic.37 _- __._._ .,..__-._.
6.15 2033 0.38 '- 2.72
3.30 Yi.07 2.70 2.53 1.14
a,91 3063 '0.70, 1.10 -0.
6030 -- 0,77-'--6.23 .. 0.29 .'_' 0.23
Qc5! 1093 lc40 0.74 ."" P.5&
4.26 -- ..3*35 ._... --.1.b2 __. 0.48 -O.
a*17 .'2.12 ".-6.812 .-. 0.38 4.64'
3. -01 -.-'-B.rb -..id, -0.
.-.-. -00 -ok- '- -6, 26.~ .-.. &
0.52
9.11.. 1052 -I--.
I-* 28'"- "6685 3.08
25, s5- '. -.-.. -. Ic 97 ..---...
O.tll ~.__ .
Ob41 3.72
4059 .-i-lo ..---...- -----'.- -00 q.09 -I-_ 0.64
4979 -.- Oof7A ..- -.o*22'--. .,o.28'. -D. - -
SR/F EW/F
4.53 2.02
34.42 1.09
28.43 ‘h.26
5.98 -0.
-0. -0.
31.72 2.50
2.85 t.48
18.61 i.39
3'e 03 0.72
92.03 6.31
14.93 1.50
-0. -0.
1044 0.30
41.51 2.30
-0. -0.
71.97 4.16
-O* O*
1.99 --1.17
83.61 6.04
94.34 'I.68
'-0. -- --0.83
LO, -C.
5014 . -. 0 e.8 7' -‘-gs53 0.64 '---O, - -0.
i2.64 O,fS. Oa32 .- 0.49 .- 0.925 2.61
0.18
-'Of
0.19
2.55
-0.
0.31
SE/F IR/PUB SMY/PuB
-0. 34b93
-0e 122.47
34.44 69a 57
-0. 33.54
-0. "'li7.20
13.16 109.00
1.25 225.15
6.67 296.27
3.29 49.04
14.95 '117.98
13.97 120.26
-a* 114.70
1.87 b8.11
21.8b 89.73
-00 '- '71.07
33.99 .' 56.72
0. "-31.22
'0. - -x.53
' 54.99 96.51
4'7.98 11'6.16 -3. 8 1 .-.._ ;. . . -_
-0. . ~ 94.97
3.30
8.60
5.69
1.86
3.05
3.49
20.13 "
14.50
3.22
.3.49
9.19
18.08 '
10.90 its I
3.33
'4.80
2.37
-7.12
13.19
3.56
-4.58
*b;49
10.20 .
-0. -71.67
-0. . “48.29
-0. i.0. . -
-0. ._ -0.
-0. 686.47
3.95 235,89
.'8.2a
8.28 '
19.87
-0.
43.59
22.62
/
In 3 ;
cl: I
0’ .I
0. 9
E 0”
* rl
cn c 0 2
$ o co
R
0 r:
m
N 0
I-#
r- .t
9 9
0 r-
x .
c -I
,” * . ,”
* 0’
:: I-- a
8 ,”
0” ,
0 .
z 2
0 9 s’ d
P .4 l-4 c-c8
r-” s-4 r-l
n :: N
6 2 r- *
d I c’ I
0’ I 0’ I
d 0”
I 5 s-8
CT I
0’ 4 0” 1
0” I
x 4 F
R
L1” c‘
N
n-8 c’ I
h” m
;
. u-l
ts ‘$
. k cl
0 . .
$3 is
.fr N
W-4
c: .l .-I
0
d ri 3
N
:*
e d
’ 5
Q
9-: 0. 9
442R.
547.
ROOD
23?,
1792.
-0.
2385.
-C.
l.hC.
2534.”
%6.
6?f.
ICFG.
lQ76.
1OOC.
3354.
27 CD
1951.8
165.
zso;
l’eP50.
-0; -
-. .-. S;s’A,? ILAND 175.
TANZAUIA 12Pd.
UGANDA ” 21ori.
t lPPfQ VFLTA 225.
auS:c‘v IA 5636)+.
N E W IFALA?lr) 6D’)O.
.
E RES S.Y.Y. ‘.
4L7.
413.
?2.
29.
18.
3P.
128.
123.
34.
6C.
48.
,218
71.
55.
42.
335.
10s
51.
23.
l?.
897.
TAliLf 2- AGRICULfJR4C HESPARCH AND EXTcmsuSION -- INTERNATIONAL tOMPARISONS ----c-------------------------------”------------------------”-----------
S EXT
-0.
-0.
-n.
-00
-0.
?OH.
-0.
4bCO.
-0.
3384.
liR8.~
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
* -0.
59.-
-0.
E’UKRS I?/SMY SE/Fki SR/SE W B ’AG SE/SAG
502. 19.07 -0. -0. 1.13 -0.
. . 95. 13.67 -3. -0. 0.25 -0.
3101 25.00 -0. -0. ‘0.38 -0.
“. -Go a.03 0. -0, 10’ 0.
71.78 0. -‘. -3. -0, 2.53 -0.
1204. ‘-.. -00 0.25 -0. .-0. 0.05
-. -00 18.63 0. -0. 0.46 -0.
_ 5277. _ _ . . -0. 0.87 -0. -0. 2.24 .
.._ '-- --0.25 .. -0. 4.71 0. -0, -0,
2669. '-'42.23 _.. .- 1.27 --‘0.75- ._ 1.09 1.45
779. :20.13, -.‘. lo&. --‘--,Cj.7j-’ _-_
‘-0: -0.
-0. 29.76 0. -0. .- 0.95 -0.
-0. 14.79 0. -4. - -
-0. .
0.
-. 21000 . . . -__ -
35.93 -0. -0. O-.48’-- -0.
-00 23.81 0. .*.--
.-0. . -
-0. 0. *
18050. lO.OL --0. _ _ - _
-0; 0.17 -0.
-- -00 27’09 0’ -a;‘-.-- -0, “. - ‘0’
SMY/F SK/i=
0.14 2.62
Ob02 0.29
-0. -0.
0.26. 2.08
-0: -0.
-0. O*
-0. -0.
-0. 0.
-0. -0:
0.07 2.87
-0. -0.
0.07 2.23
to. -0.
0.05 - .1.79
-0. -0.
-0. -0.'
-0. ,. -0.
-0. 36.29 - 0. -.-- ‘--o,.:“. 8 l’~6---“0’- -“-” 0’ 17 6.27
-3. 7.17 0. . _ .-^---
-0. 0'16.., -o' . . . .
-0' -0.
29.- -,'- L 23.33 2.03 -. 4'75-.-LO. - - .._... - -0. ,._--- -0. --0. .
-0. 21.01 0. _._ -- .-
,-o'.. 1' 5l-'. .wo; 8.15 171.36
1()5” --‘- -oo---- -3, .’ -0, _ ._ _ 0: ‘-- ----o- * - -’ -- -ok _.-. “.. -0~ ..-..--. o 8 38 . . -o 0 _.. 11’ .-. -c’ -0’ ----.- 15’91~“.T”O;-..---;‘Ob -o; _.----.. oo..--:-..-o’... .-O’
51. 0 -00 2455. '. .-...- 25.25 -0. -'.-O;-' o'4I ..__.__._ o' ___-.. -0' - -O'.
50. 3646. 1024. 42.03 3.56. -0.59 0.56 0.97 0.04 1.79
9. -OCd -3. : 25000 0. --0. 0.30 -0. -00 -0.
. 70x5. -0. -0. 27.03 0. .-0. 2.11 -0. 8.27 223.67
47Y. -0. 472. 12.53 -6. -0.' ‘0.55 -0. 6.56 82.19
EW/F
CD16
0*05
-0.
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
3.03
-0.
-C.
0.
1.90
0.
-0.
0.
-0.
0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
0. .
-0.
0.88
0.
10.
6.47
sE(F SR/PUB SHY/PUB
-0. 1632.88
-0. ~199.?i
0. 521.90
-0. -0.
0. 45.5'77
-0. A08
0. 219.76
-00 ‘A08
0. 53.33
3.84 2374.56
-0. '. -0.
-0. 0.
0* -0.
-0. 346.06
O* " '0'
0. 11'4.64
06 '- -0.
-0. .- '658.72
0. 70'7i
-0, "'LQ'
-0. 249.54
-0. . -0.
0. ., .
-0.
0. . 102.54
85.64
14.61
20.98
-0.
6.36
17.90.
11.79.
4.69
11.33
56.22
-0.
0. I
-0. f; 1
9.63
-0.
11.45
-0.
18.15
9.86
-0.
11.88
8.32 .
-0. .
4.06 ‘.
3.12 79.53' 1.69
0. 192.78 - 7.71
-0. 168.14 ‘6.22
-0. 51.06 4.08
I I
NO
-W
NN.,’ i
i I
I
I I
a,0 .
. I
, .o 0 ,o
’ 121 I
L i
i I
~NrAJ~‘Om
Q
i ‘2,
1 rG
ln3 :.n
N’O
I-
I 0
0 0
0 O
.ON
N
: ir!
I IY)
1 :
~G00cf000
’ -‘NO
Cr’OO
O
Fi 2’::. = 4'-'4 CCecl
t?-tr
WllT ! r. 1% :I 2 7 :'!I<(; RICF SIJ;Y PCITA COT AN1 ,‘I# POUL DAlR PYTD SOIL. PHYS
l’lI*\L 1C F,T! (IF’S -- - L 1 4 3 0 1 9 1. I 24 70 0 -104. "-14' 567 169 96 429
-. ‘* ;cl 44 4 1. 5 ?2 ?3 36 2 59 13 721 84 ‘28 35 5 1. 5 3 + 19 28 3 175 43 931 272 142 127: .4’;L!Llrbl. PIJHLICPTin~Js PEP 5120 YILLION OF COHM0DITY VALUE Z-306 -0ec " t)e? -.. . 25oc 4.7 1.9 201 -000 o.4 605
" oG 200 405 -!I0 0 2306 305 I.0 0 -000 063 6.h .. loti
- _ ." ..- -~ cl, 4. p,c -0.0 21.2 306. .405
_ . 1.1 Oa9 -000
_.
PU!IL ICATI(‘NS n 0 0 0 0 . ‘0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‘0 511 . . ----- -. .._ -. ..-. . ? 0 0.'
___ .._ n 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 *
IF: C, 0 r\ 0 0 0 0 PQ 1. 3 0 0 9 399 _ AhltJUAL PUKLICATI/~~lS PEF’ $100 MILLION OF CIl,4:43DIT-?- -~AiUE
_ _ ._ _ _ - .^
4 , . , -
0 2
25 _.
4p-q~ c,n n,o -PO 0 -03 0 -300 000 0.0 -000 0.0 0.0 0.0 55-61 00 2 !j, 0 -no 0 -co c -c,* Goo ooo -oco-----” -.-. . _- ___... - . o.. O.O . .._.__ _ .____,. _. _ O.O
6%-bQ 104 (!* c -LO. -0ec -Go0 0.30 000 -000 0.9 0.0 .-_-.-.. _- _._.,.. .__ - - . . _ _.._ I _ -
0.3
CROP-
552 335 583
402 2.0 2.6
iIVE
b85 803
1149
3.1 2.9 3.3
0
10:
c FED F‘FD f,!-vdbb’y PIJ:CL !CATIOt:S _, -'
?7 _ L: c 2 I. 1 ,- _..-- 2 20 201 ,.20 ..2 .2235 __.. .-.. 0 29"- -119 o
_ ._ -
f. ‘I f 4 ;‘ 79 0 1 l!l 330 63 6 2352 26 53 67 1. Q R Cl F!
PItSLICATIC;“,S
L ' !.53 ...-. 320 321 .--4*G ,-.. 2fz5' ls6 75
~~‘I”III/?L PE!? il.03 MIliLIUN OF COMWDITV VALUE ! e ‘) 5, F. 17ii. !. -!‘oc -200 206 -3.0 -90 0 0.1 2705 ?a 5 1.00 cl On70 7 -0; 0 -Do0 1O.Q 409 -000 0.2 24.6
-'.' 2.2 II.2 l.r1203 -0, c -0.c 1308 60 3 -00 0 1.0 18.3 _.--- --.- _
f’ll~LICATIT~f,‘S
4 ? 13 1 0 1, cl 3 4 0 1 7 ::: 7 1 c 0 1 4 7 1 0 15' 4 1 2 c ? 1 3 8 5 2 21 48
h!:‘,IUhl. Pot~LICATIflYS YTK 61.00 MILLION OF CWMODITV’ VILUE ?a-? ‘lo p r?. 7 -0oc 705 -0.0 204 702 ‘0.5 5.8
- ')o? '04 007 -0nG @OF -C-Jo@ 2e't 509 .. _-_ oo'n 8*2 '- ".
90'4 I?* 5 1*;1 -ccc l-3 104 1.3 506 0.3 a.4 . _..
P!J!?L IC \TTnr’S 11 -3 ‘1 c. 2 5 7 13 7 .9 2 . 12
4 0 ?t, 1 ?. i 2 24 53 21 1 6 2. 1:: 18 j.C 5
Ari”~tlAL PUBLICATIONS B3.00 MICLI;N OF CflM~YDiITY VALUE 17 145 13 P;; Sl .'3? 0 11‘ 5 231 108
_ POP Ooh -0cC L5,9 2,5 203 -000 002 70.7 00 ‘)
lt, 1 ‘i, 3 c. 0 3 -C.O 4600 2702 2.9 -0co 00.2 1600 . .- -- ho= 70 0 7 0 1 -000 2130 6 25.1 7.7 -000 0.3 2406 (-.
PURL ICATI(IKS ?. '7 C 0 0 c '5 0 1 32 '24 0 r! o 3 4 0 _....; o 26 l; .-.. -. --~ . .-.. 4
'- 8 85 (? @ 0 2 10 0 1.8 0 89 17 AN:!ll~.L PiJfiLICATI(?~JS PER $100 HILLIW4 OF COMMODITY VALUE .‘.
1.4 !I, 3 -con -0oc -000 0.0 066 -000 0.2 2.6 lo5 ----__. -_ I.?#95 -0,o -0,G ‘-300 3,4-.-. -0,d -ooo. o**.‘-. .'1,9 .
509 200 -000 -f',G -301: 205 202 -000 000 5.3 ..---. ..- __
0 '2
: 144
37 9 17 * 65 333
_.
0 7
2 9 3;
. ._ . I. __ _ - .
0.0 0.0 1.0
480 2357 808 2421
1096 2491
.3.4 12.0 5.2 9.3 7.8 7.5
32
5; 1; 28
'1.5 2.0 2.0
.1.2 1.3 1.4
101 70 333 170 623 246
1.5 2.4 4.9 4.1 8.6 5.0
23 32 50 33 52 106
1.7 3e6 4.6
1.3 1.1 2.9
TOTAL ’ - .-. _(
1237 -- 1138 1732 -
0.0 o.. - ..-_ - .._.
0.9 -a- .
.2.837 -I - .- 3229 3rs7- - '-- " -
11.2 '1 '- ' 10.5 10.8 -'--.. -z
" .-. I . ._ .-. .
40 76 ;
103 .-..
1.6 "* z.l'*;~;
._ _ :. _.
2.1 . . -- __
171 . . 503 874 -. .. -.
2.1 --- -- 5.7 9.0 ---- " --
._ . _ _
,
POL h”: [I 4?- 54 5E-hi CI-C.P
4Y- 54 55-61 A?- h?
------------------------------ .^--~m,,. ._.... L.,,,, idlIT trnc! b'hl. SI)<G KIC: $USY Pf)T 4 CDT &&IM PUUL DAIR PYTD SDIL PHYS C1306~’ “iWE TOTAL ..-_.. ._- > -
‘PlJ’II. “.?T’IIr’S . ~ 1. a? 6 9 367 3 ISR !3 14 -'I'. 60'- 5 803 291 48 182 740 867 1607 I. ?? 2r 14Y I.3 5" 55 25, ; 40._,-6 616 164 24 4 675 863 1538
-' 1.p E.?‘v;k P::kAT:&~S P:: 810;7MILL:& 107 6 982 256 26 641 1093 1856 -. 758 RF CIWM%~ITY VALUE 203 6. 3 1n,c -cot 15.3 291 2.7 807 0.2 22.2 6.8 9.7 10.0 .---- - _._..___ .._-
?.2 13c.l 7,2 -0.0 ll*fi ze z 3.304 Q),’ -0,Q 25bO pi.. 0 .~-;~;-.;~.; 0 0 ;c;.. 0 7.1 7.7 _, _____--_- ;;*; . 5.3 ..__._. - _.__. -__ --- .- _.__. -- 5.7 -_. 6.g 6.2 _.-- ---- _._.^_ -__
PlJ9L ICATIr)NSs - 7? 1.. f 26 0 1 . I5 I. 47 0 39 2 529 106 49 136 570 415 985 .- ---_
-.- .' 31 102 ?6 3 17 177 0 73 4 InQ ! 2 0 : 23 175 0 65 4
677 210 63 * - 632 754 1386 -.. ..-- _ _ ._
41 901 A:;WAL PUHLICPTIt2NS PEP. $100 MILLION OF CII?ItiODiTY VALUE
832 255 119 403 743 1643 --: .
! 3”? 42,h l%~oc! -or 0 -000 692 3304 -Ca 0 0.2 17.5 19.1 9.3 17.1 --.. ..-..--.. '1,4Ilb~o7 -I?*@ ‘-0.0. '500 17. 2 .;qa o b.i"
- . . ..- -_ _ !!Ol
._. . .._.._. _ .._.. 20, 5 27.2 9.3 19.8
.-- .- _. _- . - _ ._ _.
100~ 5507'14ToS -Co0 -0.0 601 19*3 -0.0 001 2199 32.4 8.7 19.7 -. - .- - _ . .
PUf!L IC hTInNS o :* o--. l-.--11' -._. - .._. .______. .--.- .-... I ‘)
'_ 24 7
__.. 0 19 .I,79 0 0 5
--- _.-.. -.- _._
4 22 1 0 0 1 22 0 16 F 219 4 4 4 y" .?' .' -. . . - ..'.- . - . _- .- __ _ _ _ _ _ --- .._ __ .- -.-- . _ () c c _ o ] * 0 59 14 --i9S 14 37--.I02
,if
h:l:l!l~11. P~ll~lIC~TIONS PEP $100 MILLION OF C9MHODITY VALUE ??,I) ??.a! -0.0 -0L.C’ -000 -00 0 1Go 9 -0e.o .--' 0.0 2x.3 17.7 13.1 20.8 -- ‘. .I 27oq 1 lo 1 -00 l-7 -000. -qt.0 -0.0 7.2 -000 0.5 25.5 10.4 14.1 19.2 ?9,7 130 0 -c, c -o*o -So0 -000. 5a 7'-'-(To 0 --.---..- --'f.3 . 22.0 __ _ _ _ _ 16.5 15.1 22.5 -.--.. - _._ zf-.-
I _._ . . ..__,._________I- --._-._ _--_ . _,_-- _ .- ______. . . ._ ..-... -._.. --.._- -.._-.. -._- PtIfIL IC AT I’_lNS
1; Q ?- c 0 12 15 2 .lO 4 ' 81 2 54 95 '39 '- - .! c 25 0 0 49 55 1 12. 2 213 2: 1: 4 235 227
LbK Ah!r!t:,. PI,:;IC4Tl& 0 0 1 Oh loa 0 I6R 13 317 '129 61 676, 547. CF C:lWObIT?.-\lAL’JE
.498 - PER 6.103 YILLInN
\*q . 107 20.6 -0eO -300 2103 0.2 OeO 0.3 I.7 0.3 0.8 - PC.5 ks.3 14fl,F( -000 -"O,d-
.---- .--._ :OoO o.i---3.4
..- _.----- __._ .____.__.__ -- _ -000 6o2 1.1 1.5
2.0 5.4 571.4 -0,c -3.0 eo2 .-0*9 -000 0.6 4.5 ..--km. 20.0 2.7 -..-- __ I _ _ .._ - _ .'-_ .-... ..__. _ _.._ . .._~
149 462.I". -
PCJUL lCATIf?NS -0 -9 _.^. ..-. "-8' '. .- .-
. -- 13
__ - 1 10 0 3 - . I. 1 14 3 6 16 50 23
1: 2 7 1 9 3 5 2 1 0 22 7 3 4 48 23 4. 3 ‘2 II- 3
..--_._ .-.---. ----. .~-_ .---.. .- .---.---- ---_ .^_.. 7 1 a 0 51 22 26 25
_._. ..- 17 93 59
ANNlJAL PUDLICATIONS PER $100 MILLION OF CO*MODITY VALUE 70 9 -000
_._._..' 809 -000
._. _ _._- --- 4.Y 005 -000 o. 4 los c
--.. leh
--.. _ _ ..-. 207 2.2
205 402 206 -0.0 7oc -0.0 I.. 7 -0.0 Cl;0 13.1 2.7 2.0 IO,6 102 -000 1;l.O -ooo .--_. -_t..- .--II.....-.. __.~ ._I. 40 3 2.8 . .._ ooo ;., ~ o,p. .25.6 f 6.0 .- 3.6
QllP,L IC AT!Or‘:S 1 4 4 0 1 1. 2 0 2 0 0 0' 0 0 13 2
?4 33 111 2 2 12 31 -. 7 4 0 .59 4 14 41 1 a 4 117 22 58 133
242 63 l?’ Cv,‘,l?q. 215 15 7 27 532 128
PUr~iIC4TIflNS PLP $133 MILLION nF CCIWODIT~‘~‘VALUE c.7 to4 00 2 -C*@ 301 co7 * Od? n*c) 0.0. 000 0.2 0.1 lo! ‘60 ? 308 -000 6.5 407
.._. -.. ..-.. 3oi!. 6100 "o.o 4,7‘
- .-. --.. 2*5 1.4
2 0 s ?f..G 6 D I; -000 2123 709 607 -13.0, 0.3 802 ~;;,‘ 4.4 2.2
1046 .._- ..-._ _ _
0.6 .: '1.6 _---._-- -..-----
- 2.9 _ '--* .-L. I. . . -_---
73 .__--._L._ _.__
71 - x53 ----
-+.--2 _.--- -
. 2. 9."- --__-__-___
2.9 6.i
- - - . . __ _ . -
_ _ _ - _ __ _ _ - 15
305 -. 660
0.1 2.5
_- _-. .--
4.4
-----------_--------I__________ ------------------------ II I 4, ‘,lIT I-VI P :.’ r, z 7 (1 i: r; RICC slJ”J’, POTA CUT A ?! ,L i PI-IUL PAIR PYTD SZIL PHYS CROP LIVE
sbic9~rl PIJ,!l. IC AT!llriS 42-s ‘, Q !. PO 3 c 0 0 IS 93- 3--'---66 - --~ '--'. 4 718 -. 19' 34 . 196 ~^. 466 . KS-4 1 32 1. 1 L' lb 1 0 7 2H 1’) 1 665 1
b 36 * 252
62-L-P 75 :: 0 6 1 2 ,? 25 57 8 ,512 WJSl.IC.1TI~NS MILLION OF COMMODITY 'VALUE
56 :6' 403 282 A:!'JUAL PER 5100
r*s- c.4 Zne? !.‘Q,2 -Co0 -C,O -OoO iO,4 "-
2004 -000 007 -28.9 ..-- . _ -. - _ _ _
24.8 55-b' cc.9 74.3 0 -Co 0 -no c -r-o 0 306 700 -000 002 31.5 11.5 t;-bP 30 7 1702
-.- -000 -0. c
-.. -o.o cI.o 605 26~3 .‘-ooo .-.---.-...--,- ld.2- .._....._.._” . . _ . . 9.5
l SW!TZ':Cr,?:O PtJpL ICATIOr,!S 4r3- +4 13 I. E 25 C 0 39 .1 36 3 401 74 . 271 187 55-61 29 21 13 0 @ : 1.;
'- -- 37.-- 0 -- 15. .--I _.. _.. 0 395 , 5. w2(:. _--.. * -.... 179
62-60 . l:, 7 I2 c 0 1.3 27 0 16 2 418 29 12 343 115 A""IJCL PlJt~LIC1TIONS PEH $100 >tILLIJN'OF Cl3MMODIT~"\,ALUE ,_ - __
788 685 577
17.1 15.3
.12.1
._- 4w 410 456
L,Y-Fr, Ro5 ~~7,111!:.1 -coo -@CO 1655 1409 -coo 109 28.6 3308 17.7 cc- f.J 907 5R.a 211?1.0 -c.c -3.0 3603 IO.? -0eO
. .._ -.._ .._..._ ._-._.-. .-*.._ -._.. __ o*. 25.5
_._ __.. 25.3 14.5
t;-bP PO7 be 0 ? 1.4. I’ -0oc -roe 4105 .lOeb.. -3Po. 14.1 ~ _-.--_--P=?--_25*2~..~____._~_~ 18.3 ___, _ __
UNTTFD KI?IhP'1 PIJk?L ICATIUNS 3? -103 -26- : c -'- .?"-'9~".-'232.'-----.- 1 --I 309 ---‘bl. - -356g -- -299 ---, 7a --'5f9'-.." *6g -' 393a
6s I. 2 5 3P‘ 0 9 3 03 236 JO 367 93 3266 567 147 c?; IF5 46 7 --'. 5. ?O5 302 14 717 X42- 2744 .. '818 -. 261 -2455’..
1297 3725 1829 '. 3604
A'"!'JhL PUriL.ICATIf!h!S PER B'ICO YILLION OF COf~:~0OITY VALUE ?,I : I', 0 -cs n -0.c
_- -C,@ 1.90 6 9a a -000 109. 80.1 : 12.2 .' te.1
‘.a& 6-q -c.c -fJ,rj -000 1708 1307 -0.0 2.7 6104 18.2 la.4 3 3 .,O 40 3 -0.0 -000 -000 14.8 ‘1402 ---OiO---------1;8--45.2 .II.--..-__-__-- .-... - _..^. . 17.4 '. 14.5
.-.-._......... “.. --- ..__.. ..,. -.. _. _ ., _ _. PUPIL : - - ‘-’
7 4 ;c.my c 0 0 11 6 2 126 2 0 3 0 '5 I2
4s . . ..-- .- .--' 52 (I 0 4"' 16 .18 0 109 16‘ --.- 6 '* 160
h5 2; 76 7 L 24 29 24 4: 2; 210 169 7 '0F-CO,~MbDIT~-.vALUE'.---
115 434 ~'---- .' - A?!'l'IAL 'PlWL ICATIQNS PFG .$lCO YILLION -..'-.- ^ ._ ,_. -- _ .._.
co 5 ?o I 0, 5 -0.0 0.0 oc.3 204 7709 O.0 14-l 005 107
. __. -._.-.-. -.--- _ -..- 65 1.7 --0.F-'-OoOm--'lo9 2.0 i1704 o;.. ao4. - ---.-__- _ -_.__.__.__- _-.-_... 1.5 '.-
20' no 'I 207 -000 2204 8.07 404 20901 2*4 ‘6rO 4.0 ” .-. _ _ -.. _ .-. _- ., -_.
128 112 276
4.3 2.5 4.8
.__ .SPAILI +s-F4 ---
.._ PUPL 715; ICA.TI~NS..e . .._. - . P 32 _____ I 2 .._ 3 .--- .ll .--__ -2 """-‘I 4 -.---.- 2 --.-..~7 --.- ls.~~ .-.- '94 . -... 44 --.... 204 .-. a2 -_ -
55-b) 71 11 0 7 7 33 1 34 4 75 36 69 * --. - -1:
204 113 .- b2-hR ?z lo- '..2
_. ,_ . _. -. . 3 24 ..-.3c.-- ~..4-' 53 __-_ 3. - 119
_ -- - 59 _ _ . 70 - - '151 ..-I' 244 '.- 202
. ArJE!lJbL PUsLICATIpixS PEP $100 MILLION OF CflsYMDDITY VALUE 4Q- 54 co7 co7 9.4 -0.0 co9 .- 305 009. J.3*0 .--.0*3 ---5,3
. - .- _ ._ . _ ._ ._ _ 2-l -' 2.3
55-61 lot? r)oq 2.7 2e4 201 2-7 1.1 ,
-.. --- .-
e-yO.O 2.3 2.4 ^... &Z-CP ..-. lo0 1,C 1.6 -ooo 1.2 ----- ..^__ 0*5.-.-.5.'2 502.‘- 2.,i--~2,6 l.‘L 6~6 _...L_ A._-.-- .-..__.. ----.-.- _ 2.8 __. 2.6
. . . _
.i!Io,L 1CnTIOplS
~- . . - _ _ . _ . .~._ __ - - . - I - - - . - . - . - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - . - . - . . ._” . - - _ . _ . . - . . _
USSF
- - - - - . . - . . . . . . - . . . . _ . . _ __.
' <P- 5.5 191. 1 2.8 I.16 7 31 a'4 341 138 7 0 805 22 21 168 1279 812 r-5-61 - 449 I. 62 546 15 ---'27 .-751'."--'350'-e- 273.'. '336 '--' 39. . I048 .- 168 -. -672 - * .~ '2913 '. 1393
” 1.1 14 , _
TOTAL . . -_ :
1254 '.- -- - ..,- - - -,
937 858 " "
27, 6 -.-.--.. - _._.__ '-.
19.6 ., 15.6 . ..-I---. _ - . . _ -
627 - 589 .- ----- .--- -._.-
571 - . . .- --- _.._- _ _.
31.5. : .25.1 .-..- r' .---._--_- I_
.22.7 ._.- __ . .- -._-
-‘4a07 ._ -.--: ------ --
5022 5433 -- ---. - __.___ ____ .
31.6 .._-__. -.. ..-. . ._ __
26.6 1 21.a -...---..-.__ ~..:
. ---- -..-- #-‘- 173 - 2f2. -..-. - .---. :.-...
711 -, -. - -_- _-._ _.I_. ----.
la7 ~*~ .--Lee-. -. _.__,..
. . . .__
..- 286 -. --.---___ ___ 317 446 _ -- ._--., __ _..-__,
,3:3 2: - I-' -1 ._ - - .- - . _ _ __ _
2091 4306 '.- -_ _,
&?-IA 704 700 1267 3731 6636 2824 9461 ' . . -- 'ANWILL !272 I.18 43 539 624 646 721 88 2016 I.033 Pu~LIcATI~~NS e~~~.‘s'lOo ~~ILLIoNDF .CUMMODITY‘~VALUE .- -.I' - -.-... a.._
A?-54 20 1. 30. r. 40 ? -000 22.3 304. 2.3 1.9 000 402 1.6 1.8 2.0 55- 61 143 205
-----.. .-. -._. I60 9 -Do0 19,3‘- 5,2-'- 1.6'. 3.2 0.4 306 .-. 206 - 1.9 2.6',-.* ^- .' .
67-t.S 2a 5 700 5505 .-coo 11.7 701 298 509 0.7 5.8 502 3.2 5.2 ^_ ..-... ._._ -._,____- .-- . -. - .-. ._._~ --. .--. _-....._. _. ._- _-___ - -__ _._- ._ __ ____.__ ..-. . -. .-.- -. .-. . . .-.----- --.- .-.------.--.--- --- -----. -----.-----._----.--- ----..._ ---------__- -__.c___.____I_ --. ..__.._.. -.--..-- c-.--e------ -- . . . -
- - - . - . - . _ . ‘_ . ., -_.
, ( , I , ._ - ,m--- - - - - - - - - -m ,_---_------------- I------ T O T A L G R A . '4 * i 1 :1..* r, " A 2 S f'QcI R IG? SU. ,G 1 '43T4 C:nT '. H ,, I !I P O :JL DAIR P Y T O S3IL P l i Y S C R O P L I V E T O T A L _ .
P IIRI TI: t.T I!)? S '.'. - - -- k7 1 L n 3 6 c 2 .3. 7 3 3" -92 .117' 4 2 2 1 7 6 7 4
. E E - h l ’ A l 3 5 7 4 ? 0 3 9 1 ?.6 0 1 3 4 i 2a 4 4 5 4 6 2 1 6 9 c ? - 6 a 1 ?I. 7 '37 6 2 c I I7 8 9 0 3 3 h ,231. 4 2 5 9 8 7 4 0 1
r.:!I;urL PlJ '31 !cr.T!nvs P ,'R S l O C Y J L L I O N O F C ~ Y M O D I T Y . V A L U E .- .' 49- 5 4 Jo5 I.! o(; 2P ,Z -00 0 -00 G 3 0 9 12.8 - G e 0 a 0 5 1 2 0 8
- ,G-Cl 2 " h 3 ' ;C.O lS,r! - 00 0 -0.0 0 0 0 33.1 -@ .O 7.8 1 1 0 4 .- .. - - ;-‘ q 1 J 0 !-?,I- '?05 -000 -300 LB.3 L3.3 -0,C-l '22.7 10.9
. -. . _ _ _ _ _. -. _ - _ - ,. ._ _ _ _ 'J'dI T>:* 5Tf Tk S
43 -54 ---) P l J?L !CA?I f l r<S 'I 2 '17 7,o 12(! 5 5 2 5 3 4 ‘3 30.7 1 4 0 9 1 0 8 1 6 8 8 0 2 0 6 4 '1 4 4 2
q ';-t1 2 2 9 1 9 7 6 -1240 6 6 8 5 ~ '1 3 ? 5 H 6 0 5 1 4 6 5 1 , 1 4 7 2 7 3 4 2 5 8 2 0 2 5 F?- -cR > C ? F!::-rL , 1z-1 '69 '1 0 1 .
~ W ~ L ICh;I I?M P F R 2 3 6 3 4 0
5 1 C O MILLIO'J 5 9 4 3 4 5 4 .1602 5 2 0 8
O i C O M M O D ITY V A L U E 4 8 1 5 2 1 7 9
1 4 7 6 C 4 6 3 0 f 1 2 4 1 7 0 7
1 0 0 8 1 9 2 5 9 9 2
8.4 6 4 0 1 6 e O k.3 13.9 ._' 7.7
. . _. ._ _ _ _ _
1 9 8 3 5 9 4 5 9 3 7 0 - *-. 8 2 0 5 -- 9 9 0 0 7 8 2 3 1 0 8 1 8 1 0 2 7 4 _
- -- 1 2 3 4 1 9 4 8 . . . -. . _ 2 9 1 7
13.1 13.3 .. - --"
1 5 3 1 5 1 8 1 0 5
_ .__ .._ ._.
2 1 0 9 2 - .._.-_ -..- .._-. __. --. I) " - 5 ‘ 7 0 0 l l *Si a.4 ? a % '.5r 0 ,130R .- .200 6 0 2 1 9 0 2 5.7 8.3 6.7 ?5 -61 1 0 3 1.s. 3 ----- -__- -......_.____.. . ..-_ -. 4Jr, 3.0 7.4 7 0 8 1.5.-- ' --- ' ----~6e3-. l '9.8 - - --- 6.2 7*j 6.6 .--- ----------- .
6 2 - $ E ( 2 0 4 2Je1 4 o b 9 0 1 4.1 7 # a a 0 2 3*7 7.5 14.4 7.1 6.7 7.0 -..- -__ ~ -_ -_ ._.. -- .____. _ _ _ . . - --- __ .___ _ ._ _ _ _._
. A R C F X T J K A PUaLICATI I lNS - .---- 4$-- :4 1 7 2 9 9 2 a 3 -:. 9 .... -__---- . --.,,--.-- .-.---.: --._-. _ _ ... -z5.--.--‘ 8 3 1 .33 4 1 5 14- . _ - , 2 4 7 - ' - - - -37 2 6 4 .'.'--.--- -...--_ _ _ _ _
55-61. .7 3 4 1 3t 6 0 !l 2 1 8 .' A?- t j8 1 7 2 4 3 7 2 % .l '- .-- --- - _._... ---. .--- .__. 3 9 3 1 to 1 1 0 9 4 9 6 -el4; .._.- 3 9 7 l9 4 ' -- ' --30 6 3 2 8 - .--. - - 2 7 1 ;; ..:.-. :;; x-- l - _ _ _ _ _ _
A ';'!IJA L P I~~L. ICATI ' - INS P E R $ 1 0 0 ~r,'IL.LI (JN O F C O tiW D ITY V A L U E '.- .. - - - _ .- ..- . . & P - G .+ r),n -005 9 0 8 4 5 0 7 4 3 2 2 3 2 ._-_ ._ lO c 3 l .6 - o G 3, j- .----,-- ~ ~ .---‘.+ - 3. 9 _ - - ._ . Q
0.7 2;6 _ _.- _ _ _ _ _ _
Gj- (1 to3 2!,9 3 0 5 503. 001 ' 2.6 10.9 2.7 -0.0 O e 9 3.3 0.4 2.1 I : 6 2 - & P l.,? 3 5 0 3 3oc, l.l .- .- ._..__ ----- ----. .-..------ ) .7oJ 7o l 7 0 7 1 6 4 ;o,o 3.0 - - . -. _.- _.___.. 3*5 .-... o.g ---. 2.4.- ' ----~.--~---
-- .. " _ “. -- ._..___ --._----. .__ _ ._____ . _---- .- --.-..-_._ -. T ..-......._ _. . . _ -. _ _ ___.__ --. _ _ _ R O L J V ~ A ---,-..-
4 ? - E 4 !.
P U L ~ L ; C A T I C N S
3 C 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 8 0 5 1 5 2 1 7 - -- -
--.--.. . 55 -61 ? @ I7 c I) 0 4 '0 II---- 0 0 2 7 o- .7
.--. - - -_ .-.. 0 *
__ .__ _ _
62- 6 5 r, 0 c n 0 0 1 C 1 8 0 0 1 0 4 6 1 8 2 0
:b iUl lAL P IJ! ILJCATIt lNS P F R
-.. - ---
61 .017 Y !LLICN O F C & E ,MilDITf V A L U E
2 -. _._,_ _,. .._... l_-- -.._ .._.. . . .____.
. 4 F - 5 4 5 0 1 co c 3, l -1 -0 .30 c.0 o .ao L o 9 -0eC -0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 2.9 55 -61 4 0 1 n*o 0.c' ' -000 0 0 0 ..--. _ -_ _ . . --. .-__ ,000 200- '--c.@ -o.o o.o' .-~ -- .______..... ._ --_.. 1.5 o,. . . - ----- __._-. o.9 -_.
h?- G P 0 0 n 3 a o 0,D -000 3 ,O 0 0 9 D*5 -000 -0.0 0 0 0 0.5 4.8 2.3 - .---_. . _
A D A 7 1 1 . P l lnL JCATJU:dS _ _ .---
. - - ‘"- f i+ Q - r!
-.. .--... 3 3 0 4 1 2 .9 5 3 % -6- - ~ 7 4 4 6 21' 1 1 1 2 5 4 ----- '
4 5 - 6 1 . 1 4 3
9 1 ? 3 0 4 Il. 1 5 5 2 6 1 2 5 2 1 2 8 9 o 2 1 9 - - .~ _ _ - _... ..__, --.-. -.. - _ _ _ _ .---.. - -_ h2 -6R .___ ..-_ 9 2 2 2 0 1 I. 2 0 I.3 2 0 loo i -~ ~ 2 1;: - - - 2 % -eg; .._ _-. 2 7 6 .-_,. 163. - -1 4 4 0 .--_-- -_----- .
Ab 'b ' I lAL P U ~ ~ L I C A T I n N S P E R $J .O@ M ILLION Df C O M M O D ITY V A L U E ..
._ ----.-.. .__ . . -. 4 3 - 5 4 1 0 4 .__ - ' ID0 lc.3 -00I-J G e % . 009. .ZcO --0.4 -O. o 3. 5 - --- ._- - ..---._. 0.8 -
2. 3 . -.- l * 2-~-- ' . - -. .-__
55 -61 2 0 7 -nco O *L -C.C O o ? 'A 6 2 0 6 0 0 3 -0.0 0.5 1.5 0 .7 . 6?-cc 3 0 3 - 0 0 c 4,$ i G O O ’ 0 0 2 -.- _....--. . _. .__._. -. -_.- 3 0 3 109. - - - -0 ,s - 0 0 0 .;I; -1 - . -__- . -_ .._ -.. . . . o .9 _ 2.3. . 1 .2 ^_---- . . . -_-- . -
Pl.!r!L ICAT J9s!S- : - .'. .- -. . ..-... -. _ --.. _ - _ _ - . _ _ .--..._
C H I C = . 4a -q4 7 ‘0 3 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 -; 7 1;. 1 3 .". - - - -_~ . . j f .-61 9 0 ; C n 0 3 1 o 2 _ .___- . ..-_. -. _..--.. - - --.- --- t -.-:.-. ;p .._ l; 3 3 .._^ 4 3 .._.- - ..-. - ,_.. - -_
bZ-&f-J 1 6 ?. ? 6 2 2 0 1 4 i 5 1 1 3 2 4 8 2 3 4 6 1 2 2 6 6 1 8 8 h ! jLUAL PUhL I tAT IPNS P E R $ 1 3 0 M ILL IW-OF . C O M Y O D I T Y ' V A L J E - - -'- - '.---
- _. -. _. - _ _ _ _. .__ ._.. _._ *._c .-.. -_._
f.Q -54 L a 8 c, 0 h o i -3*c 0 0 0 000, 7 e 6 -0c .O -0.0 2.1 3.0 '.. q -& l 1. 9 .-----.-.- ----
?,O. 5 0 3 - - o ~ o ~ ‘-‘-c.c .“O .o - . - -108-‘-~o~. r3 ~-cdo.- - oo5 .~ ;---- -._.._ ---.. -
.-.. 3.0 -. ;:; ... l=g .._ 2 .2 :--‘ - - -
6 2 - C R 3 0 9 ! 0 9 1 b e 7 .-G o 0 5cL l 0 0 0 7 .1 -n ,o - 0 0 0 0 .5 lfl.2 6 .1 9 .0 ._.-.. _. _. - .__ ---.. - - ~ . _-_-.- . . . . - .-- .-.- .- ._._ ._.. - _ _ __- - . - _ _ . - ._-. _ _ _ - - - _ _ .-_. .._ . . . , _
- - -. ..-... -- -- ---.-.-. -- ._-.--__ -._------ ---. -----_.- -.__, -._.-_ _.._._. -‘- .-_. --” _._.,.. ..---... _ .--._- -__-“.--__.. - .._ -. - -
.,-,,,,...I..--------“.-----------
ilIlT i : h F h’r I SrloC# QIC.’ SUS? .PUT A CIIT 4 \ ? 14 POUL @AlA PYTO S3IL
cu‘rn I’uf’l. IC AT Illb’S GO- 5; > c c! 9 0 4 .o 9 0 0 0 0 '0 EL .-Cl 3 9 0 0 @ 0 0 0 1. 0 2 9 0
. c,'-A? ? 0 0. I) 0 0 0 0. 4 0 0 1 0 . Af.bI2t.L P’II:1LIC4TIUYS PER al00 YILLIOU OF CDNYDDITY~ VALUE
4-‘- =4 -9)o.l -r,o cot -0,o 000 CLDO coo -000 -000 0.0 f! 5 - h ! ” no 4 -90 0 on L: -9c.D coo @%I0 309 -0.0’ -5.0 004 67-69 -Our, -90 c coo .-cot 010 000 009 -000 -0.0 ._. 0.0 _
WJU rrr 1 cr.‘,: t:” P Lb-54 '
PtJ!!L ICATIllf,lS 9 c (! 0 0
" c o - o - o . . - 0 0 -. '0
0 0
--. _..._.., ..--. . ..___.^_ - ._... --- _I_r.__,_ .___.,_..,_ _. I’tlbL !C AT I(lF!S
I ,'. 17 0 2 1 '1 0 3 5 7 0 ‘c
. -~ . _ . -. ___ _ 2 0 0 2 0 5 6 1 0 12 2 4 0 3 1 14 6
4tl1111AL f’tli(L ICATIlIh!S PEP 6190 MILLIflN DF -CW?iODIT~ VALUE -.
30 7 --'JO 9 ?n 3 22, cfl 4028 I?, 0 37co 003 -000 601
PHYS
9 * 4
0
;
0
;
-2 + 0
0 0 0
0 v 0
CROP LIVE
63 158 102
f 17
105 3.2 109
0.6 1.3 - 0.1 2.5 0.9 1.7 ,'"
0 3 4
0 0 0
0 0 1
1 0 2
2: 24
4.2 6.5 109 13.5 2c.2 15.2
71 159 119 .'
1;
5 _. . .
-0.1 . 0.3 0.1 .- - _.-
0 0 -. - 0
0.0 - 0.0 t 0.0 .
32 .__. t
4
lt-.:
0.3 0.4
.-....
0.8 ..*
13 ' ..' l; . . _
1.4 - 0.6 1.4 . . . . _
_ _ . - 37 43 '.- * 59 -- .-.
4.7 . .
::;
r-mtn
* *
. oocl
000 000
j O
IQO
<
. .
l 000
j -4.2
, c-
-; I ‘i
o*o j
NiiO.
i .
I !
i j
! /
mu-m
b-l i
1 !
: :
! ;
i
o(vo: .i
i *
:
/ ;
\ i
/ .f
‘N
0 m
m0
000 I
j
; :
i 1.
:. 0 e
.
/ ‘0
0 0
I a
I ,
I L”
/
ooo~qq~
: .,
zoo0 I ;
I I’.I
>: ;
l.2 000%
;
, t
F’ :
$ ,
ooc?uooo ooouc
00 i
0 0
0 ‘u.O
”O
, O
il I.1
I .~00’0~0G
0 - P
0 D
1
-1oco i
-1, !
ID-. I
: ‘r
rice m
0 0
‘0 0’0
000 bG
o,odcs” ;
0 0
t) n
\.I--; h.j
j’;: 0ov:o
1 /
2;:
I i
I :
I
;-56. ]
.j :* I
’ !
I /
, ;
: i
, /
1 !
1 I
! ,
i ,
I :
I ,
!., /
: :
I :
!- /
1 I
i I
a i
009-d O
ON
or-I’m
0 m
r
d ‘0.
0’ _j
1 .
. .
000 :
i ,
1 I
i i
000 000
I ’
8 *
.
1 :
voo ;
‘; ]
000 000
. .
. 000
3
004 0O
F-l I
0 .
. 000
I <
: /
0%
0
‘000 000
i : ; ioocc
1 i
, ,
I j
j j
I - ,
;o 0’0
‘0 0
0
I io..
I :
000
I I :
%
1 ~000-1000
/ /
4 *
0 0
I ‘77’:
I ‘>
i I’
oomi
.‘C ‘ C
0033GO
O
a 0
D 0
C ’ ‘
I- j
‘OO
OW
I !
n I
0 1
I
/ 5
1 F
ocouocc?
I- ooo-
c I
C g c ooouo
I I c < D
* 0
. u-000
; cl
u-000 O
III I
:z ’
: ooo~zovo
0’0 0
JO00
24 :
; :
’ oov
000 0
0’0 0
0 0
,o 0
dl,, b
44
ooocc~ov i;
D 0
0 llC3.50
III CA CT
/ O
OO
CVGO
APPENUIX T!, nL: 3-0 F FScZYCY P’Jni.. IC’.4T Ii!!QS a'\~ YIIF AGRICULTUiJAb PLlENCES ----------------------,~~------------~-------------~-"~-~-.-----
>JI!T :;ta /, v ? L S;rqG [i 1 c,: sii:;;, P?Th r.3T AY1X PO!JC 3AIR PYT3 s;,rc
0 95 * 108 0 108
1 3
16
708 6.8 4,7
001 0. % 1.3
130 219 i48 267 140 357
6.7 6.4 5.4
7 7
11.
-0,o -Q* cl - -. - .- -. -0,o
-0aO -09 0 -0a 0
. _. .
0 0 3
0.0 0.0 0.1
6 7 6
0.5 0.5 0.4
12 182
9*? 16.1 15.6
.2 78 ._
.l. -- .___ . ..__._. -.
2 0 0 o--. 2 3 0 90 2 0 7 11 2
- - 1 2 70 -1. 1" 4 12 22 5 $100 YILLIW OF CfJM%)UITY VALUE
- -0.c 2e5a7 I.309 OoG 0.0 -0.0 cc.0 1400
142.9- 603 ..- _._.. O*?.- 0.8 -2. .-. -- -..._. __ _
-0.0 406 1.2
.- .--_. _-... _..-. 96
118 124
_ ._-..:.__ _ _
----.--_ ..- __. __^. _ . - -- --__ __ plJ’3L!CAJ!‘-lNS
* 1 1 h 1s 6
,2? 13 .~h:JIIAL
1.4 !5*0 2.r 13.0 T.r( 75.R
Ih 7 9 3 1 17 5. 28. 0 0 74 I ?3 2 4
f’lJ3L!CATIT)~S PER $100 tIl.LIC’q 2.7 !eb 7.6 1.7 1.5 2.. 6 .?c5 6.4 0.0 OS0 3.0 0.6 I.8 0,8 3”2
-31 23 10 45 1; 33 39 36
OF CnlwQ0ITY VALUE' 1.3 4.8 0.4 14.8 Q.a4 19.4
103 87 65
7 23 71
1: 28
2.8 . . 3.1 3.4
8.4 6-L 4. I
31 . 17 rC-p
13c4 -_~ ._ .._-
QQ7 a --... _--_. _ ..____ 4.4
5 ..-... - . ..- - _ .--_
” lr- 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 6 0 0 c”.‘ -- - -- -__...._ . . . .._._ ..-.. . . . 0 7
r 0 c
^ o L 4 0 7 B 0
C*‘?!i!CL Pt.lrCIChTIC”$S PFR $100 MILI.%WI cti CKlMMOnIT’/ VALUE = -__. .- ._ _- 502 2t* 0 -00 a -0°C .-360 -0*9 1700 14209 -0e.o -0i3 0,4 ?C.h -c, 0 -e,c -3,e -eo3 OG,I) @,Q -0.0 -0oQ Oe9 l.07 -0oc -0, a -600 -0,C'
o~e.i4204 ~.--- -.---- ~c60"~ooo -...^.___._-.. --._-.
PURL ICATIr?t,lS _.
B 3 6. - .--
26 -_ . _
0 0 ci 0 0 I 7. 0 0 0 1 0 3 6 0 0 ! 0 a a ‘0 -c 1 0 I -
W;ijL I c 0 r-l 0 6 '1 0 2'1 0 PttHLICI?TIO:;S PER a130 MILLI0N OF COMM9DITY VALUE.
900 0L.c -Ca c -CeO GaO .3.2 -coo 000 o*o __ ._- _ - _ _ O.? lo3 -r-l"ci -c,o 0,2 000. -000 000 .-y. '0.0
_
co 1 402 -co 0 -c,o c. 0 O*.fl -5.0 00 P, Ok . . ..0*2 -: I .._
0 3 6 0. 2;
0.1 . ._.- 001 0.3
0.0 0.1
.- -. - _ _
0.3 - .1.. ._ .._.. _
PUHL !CAT!I!KS $2 ’ c @ .c 0 0
o ..o’ ..2..o. 4 .. 0 0” 0
1. c: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 * 2 1 0 c .c '0 3 0 0 1 2 1 .-;.-.. -.... 2 5
A?fNUhL PIJ:~LICATI(INS PER $100 ‘-lILtION OF CrlMMOOITY VALUE (!. 3 9” c 000 1300 c-0 -c, 0 -0,o oue -0.0 0..5 0.0 003 r\,r C.0 G.0 0.c -0,o -000 000 -0so 003 . ' 0.2
-0.c .- . -. ^
o-3 Do0 000 .- _
cc.0 -000 -0,o oat _.,, . .
4.0 0.2 004
.- ._ _ ._ 6 9 .- ll ___ ..--_ -..-_ .__^_
0.3 '- 0.4 0.4
_ ‘. .-- - ^. . . . ;. _ . PUBL.ICATI(‘F:S
r. d 6 6 7 0 7 0 32 24 14 56 ~. 3 5 4 6 C
: R 5
2: 1 7 73 32
4: * 112
!. 7 7L 6 1. q 2 7 5 ?2 38 53 91 127 70 473 309 A~~lilAL PIJL\LICATIOYS PEP 8103 MILLIrlY OF COW9DITY VALUE
23.7 L50 0 40, n 1403 -0s 0 -000.’ as,2 coo I.0 19,9 1003 -‘-a.0 - 17.4 2806 16.8.‘-1583 _._ --.-..-
- . *.,_ 60' 77ocj -0~0’ 3.5‘. 40*0 15.3 ?9.7 77sq ?3,(‘ 10404 -0,o -C,r) !!I*1 3 3, 'I .-..19.1. 29*7 26.0
2: 491 y .
13.9 23e3
. _ _ .
31.8 ._ . _ . .
_ - . _._-. - ____.__.__. -.__-.-.__ _. ___ .__.. - ..__._.. ..,__ ___. .
_ . . _ _ . - - . _ . . - - . - ^ . _ _ _ _ _ I . . . ~ - - . . . - _ _ . . . . . - - . . . . _ . . _ _ _ . . . . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . , _ _ . _ _ . - _ - . . _ . . . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ . . _
- _ ~ ----- - - _ II .-- .---.-.-.- - -.-_ .... - ._ . _ ....... .._ ._ _ . - _ --._ ,_ _ _ ._ .._ _ _ _ “ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ ._ _ ._ _
0 0 0 * 0 _ -_ _ .._ - _ -.. 0 0 0 0 ..o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ._ . . . . ..- 0 1 1 -G ; .._ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 b 7 , -d ' ;,
i fIG tZ G Z V 3 _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ - -.._ - . -... _ - .-- .--..-- -.-.-_ ..-- ..-L ..---. _ _ ._ --_ . -.- --.. " -.--.._ _ . _ -. ._ .-. _ .
---.-- -- _ K ’O m -. .0 -O -.e e .O ’O _ _ .._ _ .w .-1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ ..O T O :.--.~ .-O ~ ~ -- _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 ’3 .-.‘? -0 _ .._ _ 0 ’0 -_ ,0 “3 . ._ O ”G 0 0 (s ) 3 ”0 - 0 ’3 ._ . 3 S -Z v 1 ’0 o -o - K .0 o ”o - U * O - O -0 0 ’0 0 ’0 a = !, u ”o o ”o !) “ U - C * c l t-l - i ;
-. ..- ~ _ ..-. O -O _ _ _ _ O -O - _ _ . O -O _ _ _ _ _ ._ ._ .._ .._ ._ ._ ._ -_ .._ I_ . 0 :0 -r. O O C - _ ... _ ..._ 0 ’0 O -O - C ” O - 0 ”‘s U * G O ’i r- O ”O - u ”u t *I;-C + ? 3 fl l V h A i i tm :k 0 3 J U IJ U Il l IW 0 0 1 ' 5 8 4 d S N U Il V 3 l ' l i l T l d ~ IV IIIJ IU V
-. --_ 0 .- _ _ ._ -_ _ - .-_ _ .. l :-- _ ._ .. 1 . ._ _ ._ _ . - 0 0 _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ ._ .._ _ 0 _ --_ _ _ _ _ _ .._ . o ~ ~ ~ ---~ ~ _ --.s ~ ~ L ...- _ _ _ . P .:-.-. -0 : 0 s 0 Q 0 0 G & 3 -Z ? ._ ._ .._ _ 1 0 K * K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i ) u 0 i f-5 4 0 0 0 ..-- ..- 0 .._ ._ . 0 0 . 0 . ..- _ _ _ . .._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ... ._ _ _ _ . O .----O .._ _ _ _ . :o 0 * Q 0 L - -? ‘I ;-.-- ..-._ .._ . o ._ .--.o -.-g 9 ;
St \ IJ I IV 3 i l i ~ l td G b % 4 fl b
. . .---.-- . - - _ _ .- - _ _ _ - -.:T . -x - - -
5 : . E ’O o * o 0 ‘0 z -o G o a o * o 0 -u 3 = 0 t’U ,0 -u b 9 - l C Y
2 - d K - 0 -.-- - - -_ - - - _ ,_ - - - _ - ~ f f . o _ _ _ z * ~ . i - _ - _ . - _ _ _ z p . o - - _ o . o . O . . _ - . s f o .._ _ 0 ” Q _ _ _ . 0 ’3 ...~ * ? - . ~ * ~ . C o o -, 1 3 - 2 s
2 ’0 . 1 ’0 0 .0 z - o 0 .0 s * z 0 ’0 L O tr i -0 ‘7 o r L , i -0 % -0 9 - _ -.. _ _ _ _ _ . .--- -_ ._ - .A--._ - 3 n .~ V .A _ - A l ::G .~ .~ M D 3 ,.i O .h i D Il ~ I.~ .. _ -_ _ --. -_ .- . . . ----. ..-I- _ _ --- --- ---_ .. -.- C C T O ti ' l d S K O Il S 3 Il b fId W IIti l u V
- fZ 9 1 L s z 0 I 9 1 0 i 1 0 0 0 c 1 8 ' i -2 9 _ _ -_ . 0 1 + I: 0 T 0 0 _ - . ..- ..-- -9 -.-e _ -.* 0 . _ _ ' IT --Z . .._ _ ~ .1 . ---.; G -- --- --. 0 0 ' / Ii -5 ; -- -.. --. . .
6 1 4 S K 6 ' 0 z t 0 ' I -I 0 0 i S I t U I l b f 3 i l b l i d
? t 7 5 ‘b 7
- - - - - - - - - - . - - - -^ . - -L-- A 3 n 3 n i -. ..- _ - . _ .-..--~ .._ - _ --..- . . - - - - . -.... . .._ .- _- . ._ . . . . - _ - --..- - - ^ I _ _ -. ----.- ._ . . .._ _ ._
0 0 _ -. 0 + ? 0 0 0 ‘0 0 0 0 J 0 d c ) - - _ - 8 3 -2 7 -... ._ _ -.: .-.. .._ --._ . _ ... -_ ---. ._ _ --- .-----. _ -_ -_ -_ -. ._ ._ . -._ ‘O -‘..O .._ ._ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .O 3 0 I, L 7 - S S
.~ . _ _ - 0 0 .- .-_ _ . 0 .r? --- Q .-:-,.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 u u _ - ._ * i - d -I ._ . _ _ _ _ ._ _ . _ _ _ -_ _ _ _ - - ..----Q . -_ -_ ... ._ .. S i d d I1 V 3 1 l h c l d W I.J A S
L .. -. _ - _ -_ - .-.-._ _ _ - _ ._ _ - - _ -....- d _ - L 8 9 o .*- .--’ o ”*“,a - - ---- ( -J”O.“. (j ”()*- o ”o ----o .c ’ .. ()9 :, -- ‘o ”(j -. ().G .’ 3 0 ;) O ‘b ‘L O (: ;.‘i -i ’r
. o -“i _ 3 O U u “5 1 3 - k J G K ” Z o * o - o * o - o -3 - o * o - ‘J ‘J d O S ‘1 5 - a 2
s z - .-._ . -
.-9 f - ' 6 ~ .-g T 0 _ _ .-....- ---- . ._ .._ 3 f? - i V A A IIa O ~ W U ~ -Z IG j ' K l ~ fl l ~ ,~ C C IB H 3 d S N fl Ii V 3 !1 < 1 fl d l V fl r ,* IV
C It .o 0 0 0 0 0 -3 s ; z J ,"-2 9 . . 0 -- f -..... f - --0 ._ . 0 0 -0 0 u i r -4 3 - .
L L 0 0 0 0 ._ --
c 0 0 v 5 - ‘, 7 tJ I' l .w L 3 1 . .--. - -_ _ -- .----. - -- -_ -----.-- _ - -._ _ -_ ..*-.. ._ - _ ... -_ .----_ -_ ---_ _ --._ -..----. .--._ _ . .._ _ _ .._ _
-. .-._ ._ -_ -_ .- .._ ---.. .
/ APPENDIX TAi’LF 3- ~F$F?F:H PUSLIt4TIOYS IN’THE AGRICULTURAL SCIEYCES .
_-_-_-_-__--- a ---_ - --I-_ D-.-----s-------l-...--_______________ TOTAL GRiND
48-54 CC-61 CT- cp
r!l!T ‘3; I’ :, A 2 Sfl2C IiiCC SIIG;r POTA C@T AN141 POUL DAIR PYTU S-IIL PHYS CROP LIVE TOrAL
PtJ'rL Ir: i\TfOtlS - .__ -I. 0 c n 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 4.5 '7 9 Cl n c 0 0 0 r) 0 1 2 a 1.8 14 4 32 - '. - 3 A'!'!!i:'L PdICATIkS PF:: tdG3°biILLI& 0 14 9 -.I4 24 ."- 12 4 35
OF COMMODITY VAL'UE ._ - ,? ? * -000 cc.0 3ec 00" -Do 0 -300 -0.0 -000 -0.0 009 -r,," - I, 0 I.? 900 coo 0. c -00 0 -300 -000 -000 -0.0 2.3 - __' -0.0.-'-- -oco -.., O.O . . . -0.3 -?.P 0.0 I\,0 oc.0 -3.0 -300 2.1
.^ .- . _ _-_.. ,.._... - --_..._._ - . ..^.__._.. . ..-_... .-..-..- . .~ . PIJf’l IC AT IONS
* n 1 7 0 75 136 1 '2 0 0 0 a' 0 65 . 175 .. z 2 ‘
!cn
1 .' 93 58 1 Q ‘-0 "2 I _' '- 0 5 1 0 4 176 '1 3 ! 7 145 47 0 3 3 b 0 69 12 46 315
A!I~.:UAL PU[%LICATIr.irlS PFK BI.00 MILLION-OF CR!<MUoIYd-‘VALUE, p. q -n-o 5109 DeO 201 30.3 -cJoo -@a@ "=aec -0aO
- --- 60 ' -no 0 t4s4 19,c 502 1731 -co 0 --(-Jeo iQ*Q ;ooo !??,P. -r, P PC),4 7806 707 Il.08 -0,o -0,O -000 -0.0
uca7 _. . . _ . . -. Ia3 a”6 .
Plli\L ICATIrl1.S 4 ) 2n 53 84 ?50 255 7'9 3 5 7 157 12 i43 7' 79 7 c 1. 3 9 27& 245 6 I 394 145 13 448
' l?' J.44 :01 2 64 5 1. 7 -253 155 435 441 37 616 A!!XlIAL PU%iICATInhS PER $103 MILLIOrd 3F CO’S”II3DITY VALJE
I”? 707 409 106 2.0 606 150 9 IS, 0 -000 -0.0 2.Q 4,1 405 2.0 106 5.1 H-29 l.9,4 -0.0 -0.0 ?.a5 ?1;.7 ?a5 404 3.0 309 -15.x --.
_ ._ lb03 -0.0 -0.0
PUI\L IC hTIl)rdS n n f< 2 . 3‘ 6 6 1 0 0 0
=6 0 c 0 5 3 7 1' 7 0 c 2 0 JO
1: 0 0 0 11 0 33
l\*lr:llhl Plful ICATIONS PFR 6100 YILLIbN OF COilWOOITY VALUE -0.2 -00 0 I. 0 L -P,O 1.c -3.0 -000 -0aO -coo -3.0 - .._ -0-n -on(! -c,o -0oc co2 -010 -0.2 0 -0-O -0.0 -000 -0.7 -I)0 c -c, c -COP 0.3 -00.0 -30C -000 -300 -0.0
Pl~:itICATID1JS 134' ' . ?!) 2P ,o 246 45 24 4 21 7 294 3 r 4 155 75 462 29 58 2 02 3L 472 .?cs 'f-l9 48
1: 527 54 31 3 84 97
AN’4uAl. P~Jl\LICATI(l:dS i'EF $100 MILL& OF CO:dMODITY VALUE 532
1?,3 8, h ue, 9 co 0 105 133e9 3,3 -0eO 1eo 11309 ?,Oa I Q, c. 45-R @CO 2.0 21.3 604 -010 2.0 46e3 2203 ‘?,6 !21,h 3n,5 237 19,6 207 -coo 2.3 27.8
.-._ _-_--.-. .---. OrP PI= KPPEh pU'+tICfiTI'JYS
4R-64 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55-61 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 hZ-hP 1 6 0 0 36 0 2 1 0 0 '2
A']NljbL PIJ~LICPTI:I"JS PER $100 “?ILLIO”l OF COMW70ITY VALUE 4Q-54 0.0 0 . 4 0.0 0.0 c-l”@ -0eo 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 55-61 0.0 '].I ,o.o 0.0 0630 -0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 -0.0 62-h% 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 ,o*u -0.0 0.3 3,7 -0.0 -0.0
_. -.. . . . . .__. .
110 223 346
. I
0 0 1
, ,
128: 44
4 91 2174
0 0 6. 4 0 14
12 11 36
'20 ---. - .,__ _. . . .
42 72
.__ _-__ . ..-.._.. __-- - .
54.8 39e3
129.2
2.1 3.1 . __ -_._ .-. . . .._ 4.2
0 2 9
OeO Qe2 009
175 180 - .~.~ --. ..-_ --.
325 _- - _____. ---- -__. - .- _
7.2 .- -- 4-9
Q.R _ - - _ ._ -.-
512 607
1094
-0ao -0.0 -0.0
1; 43
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0
91 113
76 .-. .
1.3 _' __ 1.2 0.8
322 1073 5R7 2006 713 2197 -_
18.7 3.7 '- 12.6 5.0 .--
7.5 4.9 .-'
0 0 2
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0
3 ._ 2 _~..
50
0.0. 0.0 0.6
lnwm
QO
I- Q
.Tt- l-4 s-J.&
m-i.2 s-4 m
/ 0’~
cci!
3 000~000
: :
4900 / :_
’ ?
7.7 ,
L-
t-OO
E ; G
I
35 c:
ooouooo .
0 0
b-LOCO
01
I I
NO
CEO
”C r
0 G
-4 -. 000
tosa O
GO
O
. 4III (I-
* 2000 -
” 0
0 tO
GC
a I
I., u
GC
/ L&j%
- ”
.j ,
! :
! ,
I j
’ j
.I
; :
.a !
~ I
’ I
m4ln
mm
a I
. e
. 000
‘, .
:
f 000
OPM
N
. ..a
ooul
r(ON
ON
N
Pie-l .
. .
000
ooa O
ON
0 .
. 000
0 0
0. 000
. .
. 000
I’
om0
oom
N .
. .
Od,m
V-lot- dm
m
B-4 .
0 .
000
m.4
m
444 e
0 *
QO
O
. \
-, ’
090 0s
0 -
oov-4, ‘2
P-i 090
, !
000 O
ON
’ :
’ /
: ,
i :
/
oom
Ob-9
N 000
:
oorc :
0 o,u\
004 *
QO
. 000
000, ’
oom
000 000 . 0 0
1 ,
000 L
SW
,ooo~ooo c 0 . 0
1 > 0 OiO
;>
: t-
‘ooo-
l” .
000~:000 :
a.** >ooo
6 r,
ooowcoo 0
= 0
LLCOC
0 /
000~000 -
0 0
* -Jo00
t. II 000
coo 2:
0r-l~ 000
0 n
r) 0
0000 i
I I
I tp
000 I I
I ’
r 000
. .
. 0003 ) I ,
000’ 000’
* e
. 000
8 I:1
I
i j
I
’ f
I I
! !
‘9 o’*
/ !
In (c In d’
. .
. :
000 I
I :
I /
,
000 000
000 !
O.fN’
000 .
. .
m
I 000
’ j
; ]
:gc I
/ !
I’
: i
I
. i
f ‘000
: ;
! I
I I
I !
f ’
I I
,o 0
0 0
0‘0
I ,.
0 l
50 080
:I I:1
w
/ /
!O
0 0
3 0
0’0
I a
. *‘*
2000 I
t,jL bi
I 000
z, ’
0. CI
I 2’
: 0.
1 ocovoo’o u- 0
0,o O
:I Iii
‘000&(>00 ’
GO
OQ
GC
C’
w
0 n
D
w
0 0
0 /
a 0
cd,0 !
APPENDIX p.:171 r 3- IcESrAsC1I P.uf\L?C,ITIDkS i .A c A,GF~ICULTURkL SCIENCES _--___------“_-I-_______^____uI_u_____I_~~------------------ TQTAL
PlJnL IC AT I OFIS 3 fl 7 ,fl $ 0 0 5 0 .O 0 c, I t3 fl 1. 2 0 7 0 0 1
----- 7 : 4 1 0 ?. 0 12 0 1 7 A~‘?!llAL Pllt’LIC,ATI(~YS PFR 8133 MILLION IIF C’Y’“IYDDITY VALUE
Sn 5 90 p $,h 0.0 15.5 -00 0 0.0 178.6 0.0 0.0 lo ' "0 L 00 4 oar 3.6 -090 000 125.0 0.0 0.2 _,_ 007 0.7 5.3 705 COO -000 o*o 42.9 0.8 1.8
PIJl4L ICATIIlF1S. :I r 11 I? 5 . 0’ 7 14 2 0 11 ._ ,r ;
1
AW;,:, 2f-l 17. 2? f: '3 b
PER 1-O 2 1 17 29 -4. 9 1. 5. 29 12
Cl00 MILLION OF CC’4YODIT?.VALUE PlJItL ;CATIfiNS -flea -000 I.,e 0.9 1.5 0.0 -000 1.5.4 0-0 8.2
-'. -. -nor) - 0 0 (' 3c.H 004 103 4.5 -000 1te7 O-8 22.0 -0,O -o), !: 4.0 h .1.4 4.5 7,l -0.9 22.8 ,3.0 8sl
PtI 1L lCATIl)F!C . n c c c
o o.. () . .*. . .___ --... 0 a 0
EC-f., 0 n c 3 7 0 0 0 . . LZ-(S r) nvw,;L w,!&CCTI~NS 7 2 0 0
PEF ('CO YILL'ION OF COYMOOITY VALUi 41-?4 -Q!,P -@, c I'. c; 0.0 ?&f-l :o*o -0.0 -coo -0.0 0.0 55-&I -?,P -fi, 0 n,c !oC 5.7 -00 0 -000 -000 -000 0.0
- . 6?- Cl3 -39n -0eq 7806 202 13.0 -390 -0co -0.0 -000 000
SIEk?,! Lz;(‘?E LO.- 54-
PIIAL JC/tTIllf~!S n 0 0 0 f3 0 3 1. 0 0 0
fi:;- Cl 0 0 @ 0 ::
0 0 0 1 0 1 6?- 68 0 n:!d, P,,I\:)ICI\TI:,:S 0 0 0 c C 0
PER 1j.00 YILLIO!\I OF COWWPITY VALIJE Lq- 54 - 3r.c -I’* c! co 0 00 9 2 0 CJ -0,o -000 -080 0'0 0 -060
--- s=,-cj -r),O -I?. c c*o cue 4, b -0.0 -000 “-ooo --, 000 -0,o hj7-cs -0,r; -Oo(’ coo Ro 4 3.4 -0.0 -00 0 --COO 0.0 -000
PYTO SJIL
0 1 0 0 3 7
1 i 19 5 45 16
^. ._ .
0 0 0 . 0. ii
0 2 0‘ 2 0 2 . . . .
.22 18 29 19 57 54
f*hl'JUhl P\'dl ICAT 10’4s PEP $100 MILLION [IF COlrlMJDIT,Y VALUE _ ._. ..- C,li 77.7 504 1308 -“oO 27.7 8.3 78.6 7.1 8..0.
- . . _. . 7.1
107 '5.7 ?O-f 2.? -30 0 00 1 4.5 11.9 1104 9.2 3.7 7.3cl.8.8
..- .___._.. ._. 1s.2- 12.1
_._-_.- ..__ _ _- _._......-- 2oQ 9T9 ? 3oE b.! -0.0 Ro R 5.4
4R-54
16 . .
CROP LIVE
. ! GRAAlD TOTAL
21 0 21 24 1 25 32 8 40 -.-*
1.2 0.0 1.6 0.1 106 0.9
0.8 _
1.0 1.4
:
51 82
179
13
;z
1.8 4.4 287
ll”; 205 .__. -
0.6 I.*0 -. I.5 ._
3 0 2
_. _.. 0 5
20. .--
0.0 0.0 1.2
-- B),o 0.6
- 1.8
0 2 0
14 18 1 6 - " .
2.5 0.0 2.6 9.5 2e3 0.0
28. 252 rl; 149
255
---- .-.. -.-.- - __. .- _ _ ._ sn c~~r’~l=sIL? PllHC ICATIr):IS
_.,_ - - _ _ . _
44- :4 1 0 42 9 ? 7 it 18 1 0 18 4 2 2 55-h] 57 2 -. -. .- 1 0 0 5 24 1 0 15 7 ". 8 9: h?- 68 4 7 21
bPll!lJbL PIII!LICATI~:~S 0 f 3 17 37 1 23 14 7 l4 77
PER $100 MILLION C)F CWMDDITY VALUE _..
LO- ‘4 47.6 -Le. (! To5 504 7!..4 333.3 71.4 257.1 000 17.6 6.4 - - t5--61 142aQ -300 5.34 lo2 ooo -------- -.... ooo, -7904 3Hl,0 cf.o.- ,lo3 _ ~. .,._ -. -_- _...- 6.2
h2- 6s 7p5.7 -Co? 2.5 4.2 0.0 1.9 2604 rb2c.6 1.5 13.4 3.0 -.-. -
131 168 269
4.0 5.0 6.6
-
19 16 62 :
3.6 - 2.7
8.5
. .
8
w” L
2.4 2.9 .--
_... ._
2.2
383 * 318 529
-. -_. .
5 , t - . . - _ .
4c4 6.1
----.-- ,___
108
::: - --. .
5eS 5.5 -. -. -- -'I' 4.3
006) 009
. .
* 00-4
oow oow
a .
. oom
000 0’30
. 0
I) 000
090 000
I :
000
f
( !
: 000
I !
; -
!
t .
:
000 000
; 0’
0’ 0’
I
ON*
r(
wm
u Ino0
dhlln e..
OQ
cn N
‘xl
In
oootiooo
WO
N
.-4OCO
VICPN
. .
. ln
w.03 O
UO
.-4+-ld I /
/
