The impact of irrigation on farm output in California

Ruttan, V

The impact of irrigation on farm output in California

Author

Vernon W. Ruttan

Author Affiliations

Vernon W. Ruttan was Associate Agricultural Economist, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Berkeley (on leave from the Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University).

Publication Information

Hilgardia 31(4):69-111. DOI:10.3733/hilg.v31n04p069. July 1961.

PDF of full article, Cite this article

Abstract

The problem of allocating water among production units, industries, or geographic units, and of planning water resource development, requires information of the relationship between water input, other inputs, and product outputs. The study reported herein was undertaken to determine the extent to which differences in the level of farm output in California counties can be accounted for by differences in irrigation or irrigation-associated inputs as compared with total complex of inputs used in agricultural production. A model is developed to identify the historical impact of irrigation on California’s farm output, and this is analyzed in order to project impact of future irrigation development on farm output.

Literature Cited

Beringer Christoph. An economic model for determining the production function for water in agriculture, University of California, Berkeley, Giannini Foundation Research Report 240. 1961.

Bhattacharjee Jyoti P. Resource use and productivity in world agriculture. Jour. Farm Econ. 1955. 1:57-71. DOI: 10.2307/1234074 [CrossRef]

Blaney Harry F., Criddle Wayne D. A method of estimating water requirements in irrigated areas from climatological data. 1947. USDA Soil Conservation Service. December. 1-3.

Bronfenbrenner C. M. Production functions: Cobb-Douglas Interfirm, Intrafirm. Econometrica. 1944. 12:35-44. DOI: 10.2307/1905566 [CrossRef]

California Water Resources Board. Water utilization and requirements of California. California Water Res. Bd. Bul. 1955. 2:

Durand David. Some thoughts on marginal productivity with special reference to Professor Douglas’ analysis. Jour. Political Economy. 1937. 45:740-58.

Fortier Samuel, Young Arthur A. Irrigation requirements of the arid and semiarid lands of the Pacific Slope Basin. USDA Tech. Bul. 1933. 379:1

Fox Karl A., Cooney James F. Effects of intercorrelation upon multiple correlation and regression measures. 1954. U. S. Agricultural Marketing Service.

Griliches Zvi. Specification bias in estimates of production functions. Jour. Farm Econ. 1957. 27:8-20. DOI: 10.2307/1233881 [CrossRef]

Griliches Zvi, Grenfeld Yehuda. Is aggregation necessarily bad?. Rev. Econ. and Stat. 1960. 42(1):1-13.

Haver Cecil B., Heady Earl O., Johnson Glenn L., Hardin Lowell S. Economic interpretation of production function estimates. Resource Productivity, Returns to Scale, and Farm Size. 1956. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press. p. 146-50. by (eds.).

Hedges Trimble R., Bailey Warren R. Appraisal of California agricultural productivity capacity attainable in 1952. 1952. Davis: University of California. Giannini Foundation Mimeographed Report 130.

Hoch Irving. Estimates of agricultural resource productivities combining time series and cross section data 1957. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.)

Ibach D. B., Lindberg R. C. The economic position of fertilizer use in the United States. USDA Agricultural Information Bul. 1958. 202:7-8.

Klein L. R. Macro-economics and the theory of rational behavior. Econometrica. 1956. 14:93-108.

Marschak Jacob, Andrews William H. Jr. Random simultaneous equations and the theory of production. Econometrica. 1944. 12:143-205. DOI: 10.2307/1905432 [CrossRef]

Parks W. L. Methodological problems in agronomic research involving fertilizer and moisture variables. Methodological Procedures in the Economic Analysis of Fertilizer Use Data. 1956. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press. p. 113-33.

Ruttan Vernon W. The contribution of technological change to farm output, 1950-75. Rev. Econ. and Stat. 1956. 37(1):61-69.

Stockton J. R., Doneen L. D. Factors in cotton irrigation. California Agriculture. 1957. 11(4):16-17. 25.

Stout Thomas T., Ruttan Vernon W. Regional patterns of technological change in American agriculture. Jour. Farm Econ. 1958. 40(2):196-207. DOI: 10.2307/1234905 [CrossRef]

Swanson Earl R., Heady Earl O., Johnson Glenn L., Hardin Lowell S. Determining optimum size of business from production functions. Resource Productivity, Returns to Scale, and Farm Size. 1956. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press. by (eds.).

Tintner Gerhard. A note on the derivation of production functions from farm data. Econometrica. 1944. 12:26-34.

Wantrup Ciriacy. Conceptual problems in projecting the demand for land and water. 1959. Berkeley: University of California. Giannini Foundation Paper 176.

Weeks David. A preliminary projection of California crop patterns for estimating ultimate water requirements Water Utilization and Requirements of California. California Water Res. Bd. Bul. 1955. 2:231-56.

Also in this issue:

Research ready for the problem

Insecticides evaluated for lettuce root aphid control

Conservation irrigation of field crops: A drought-year strategy

Nematicides improve sugar beet yields

Midges plague lakeside dwellers

Glandless acala cotton: More susceptible to insects

Preventing enzymatic softening of canned apricots

Thinning desertgold peaches increases fruit size

Straw: Low-cost feed but not least cost

Chemical defoliation of fruit trees