Volume 8, Number 1, Winter-Spring 1999

Perspective: Summary of a Conversation with
Agricultural Technology Specialists

What Kind of Transition Is Necessary to Secure the Future of U.S. Fruit, Vegetable, and Horticultural Agriculture?

Richard Mines

As we enter a period in which the influx of new workers from Mexico and Guatemala into U.S. agriculture is likely to slow, public attention has been focused mostly on the possibility of instituting an expanded guestworker program. However, addressing the future security of U.S. labor-intensive agriculture may require a broader approach. New mechanical technologies, plant cultivars and growing techniques adapted to these mechanical changes, and changed labor management practices may be just as important as the supply of foreign-born workers in securing the future of U.S. agriculture. Some observers believe that without technological change, U.S. agriculture may be vulnerable to other technically more advanced countries.(1) In other words, excessive dependence on a constantly replenished supply of foreign labor could prove to be a strategic mistake. Below, I discuss the point of view of agricultural engineers who, unfortunately, have been viewing debate about these points from the sidelines.(2)

Research Stagnant

The agricultural engineers agree that research in the mechanical handling of fruit and vegetables in the field has been at a lull for a couple of decades. In 1971 the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) had 23 engineers investigating mechanical methods for deciduous tree fruit agriculture; in 1981 there were four; today only one is left. The ARS has also sharply cut back its citrus and vegetable projects (Peterson 1992).

At the end of the Bracero Program, many policy makers believed that a relative labor shortage would occur in agriculture, and public support of mechanical techniques increased. In just a few years, these efforts resulted in viable harvesters for processing tomatoes, cling peaches, prunes, and tart cherries (Brown, Peterson, and Levin 1983).

Starting in the 1970s, an increasing influx of undocumented Mexicans into U.S. agriculture coincided with stagnation or decline in real wages. Ample labor supply continued after the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 legalized over a million farm workers without markedly diminishing the continued flow of new unauthorized workers. The quite adequate supply of relatively inexpensive labor clearly slowed and, as shown below, in some cases may have reversed the use of mechanical aids for agricultural production in the United States.(3)

Two Types of Mechanization

Tasks can be mechanized in ways to save the employer money (productivity-enhancing mechanization) or to save the strain and drudgery of the work (labor aids or task facilitators). The first is buck-saving, the second back-saving.

Labor aids effectively increase the supply of labor and stabilize the work force by increasing the tenure in agriculture of all workers, especially women and older men, by lightening the tasks. Such aids generally do not reduce demand (or costs) for labor, but they increase the supply of those able to do the work.(4)

In contrast, productivity-enhancing technologies use mechanical methods to replace hand methods, and thus displace some workers. These same techniques, however, may increase the hours worked and the skill level of the remaining workers, resulting in a more stable, though numerically smaller year-round work force. Moreover, since harvest labor demands often peak for short periods, the mechanization of harvest tasks can smooth out the peaks and provide for more year-round work for the remaining workers. As machines displace labor in productivity-enhancing mechanization, production costs may drop. This latter effect occurs only when the cost of labor is high enough to justify its substitution. Table 1 gives examples of currently available technologies in both of these areas.

Processing and Harvest Technologies Tied

When the prospects for mechanization are considered, the packing shed as well as nonharvest field tasks should be included in the analysis. Changes, particularly in packing-house equipment, have been remarkable in recent years and will have major impacts on labor demand. Electronic optical sorting and sizing technologies can already choose fruit and fill boxes in fresh market citrus, apples, pears, stone fruit, and some fresh vegetable packing houses. These same technologies will allow in the coming years for most juice oranges to be picked by machine, taken to the packing shed, and sorted for defects before juicing. This capacity to cull fruit for size, blemishes and color - though controversy remains about its realization and limits - may even lead to the mechanization of the pick in fresh market oranges.

Some Factors For and Against Mechanization

For. Groups promoting improvement of food safety will be supportive of mechanization, since most pathogens are transferred by the handling of food by humans. Also, new trade rules that allow imports from agricultural economies with lower wages and inferior environmental conditions make it difficult for U.S. producers to compete without a technological advantage. (Competing on low labor costs is infeasible given U.S. labor laws and cost of living.) Market trends show increasing popularity of fresh cut (value-added) presentations such as bagged lettuce. Harvest mechanization fits well with this type of product, because damaged produce can be separated out by advanced sorting techniques after harvest.

Against. The market in tomatoes is moving away from mature green (bush) varieties to vine-ripened or staked varieties. The latter are much harder to mechanize. Boxed lettuce, which apparently will retain part of the market, is difficult to mechanize. As opportunities for export to Asia, Europe, and Latin America expand, our products will need longer shelf lives, but machine harvesting for fresh market diminishes shelf life. Fruits that are stored, such as apples (CA Storage), cannot be integrated easily into a mechanical system, because damage from machine harvesting reduces storage potential. Acreages are increasing in some fruits, such as strawberries, that present difficult mechanization challenges. Small-scale and older growers may not be willing or able to invest in the changed cultural practices and new cultivars needed to use the new technologies. Another negative is consumer demand for cosmetic perfection in products.

Overview of Possible Technological Changes

I have organized crop/tasks in table 2 into three groups: already mechanized, nearly or already available, and difficult to mechanize. In general, the already mechanized are either soil vegetables (beets, potatoes) or fruits or vegetables for processing (dried, canned, or frozen). The nearly available include technologies for the remaining soil (root) vegetables and processed products that have yet not been mechanized (such as fresh market onions, raisins, specialty-wine grapes, olives, pickling cucumbers), and some fresh market products that are less susceptible to the adverse effects of machine harvest. These latter include fresh cut (value added) vegetables (e.g., non-boxed lettuce), plus broccoli and cauliflower.(5)

The technology specialists predict that if labor costs for field tasks were to increase by 25 to 50 percent, the nearly available technologies could soon be economically feasible. And these nearly available changes imply considerable alterations in demand for labor. Juice oranges alone would probably need some 45,000 fewer workers at peak harvest and significant reductions in year-round staff. Considering also such other products as fresh onions, raisins, specialty wines, pickling cucumbers, and the fresh vegetables, tens of thousands of other jobs and workers would be affected.

Some of this nearly available technology actually exists but is not currently in use. Tobacco and bush tomato harvesters are in the barn. Harvesters for cling peaches and pickling cucumbers have been retired in recent years after widespread use. A rise in labor costs would immediately bring them back out.

Moreover, there are good prospects for other technologies that also imply big changes in labor demand down the road. The possibility of a fresh-market citrus harvester coupled with advanced packing techniques might be just 7 to 10 years from realization.(6) Also only 10 years away may be trellising of apples for mechanical harvest and possibly stone fruit harvesting by a bulk robotic system.

It must be stressed, however, that many fresh fruits and vegetables subject to uneven ripening, easy bruising, and fast decay will not be mechanized soon. Strawberries, fresh market cucumbers, boxed whole lettuce, fresh stone fruit and apples, table grapes and fresh caneberries will all require hand harvesting for a considerable time into the future. Production of all will continue to require tens of thousands of workers.

Some of the changes identified in table 2, especially if they are coupled with labor aids, may lead to longer seasons of employment each year for workers. Under such circumstances, they would probably remain in farm work for more years than they typically do now. Dried-on-the-vine raisin production and trellising of deciduous fruit trees are examples of changes that will not diminish hours worked as much as total number of workers needed. They would help to stabilize the labor force at lower total employment levels but with longer opportunities for earning, so that workers could better support themselves. Thus, the mechanization of peak harvest tasks would also provide growers and communities the corollary benefit of smoothing out the demand for labor in our fields and orchards.

Multifaceted Changes Needed

I believe that several elements should accompany the transition to more mechanized agricultural production technologies:

1. The public (and private companies) should substantially increase investments in mechanization, development of new cultivars and growing practices adapted to mechanical methods, and packing house technologies for fruit, vegetable and horticultural production. Mechanization programs should cover both the productivity-enhancing and labor-aid areas, and they should aim to enhance technologies for small as well as large-scale operations.

2. Employers and their associations should coordinate employment across employers and areas, so that individual workers may maximize their portfolio of farm jobs through the year. These practices should aim to increase the earnings and improve the conditions of farm workers. Government subsidies or other forms of encouragement could be designed to facilitate these practices.

3. Enforcement of labor, health, and environmental standards should be beefed up with more inspectors for federally sponsored programs of the Wage and Hour Division, OSHA, and EPA.

4. Transition to a smaller but more year-round labor force would require some years to accomplish. It would be advisable to provide for legalization of some agricultural workers during such a period. Any new legalization program should be limited and strictly transitional, a once-only opportunity for current agricultural workers, numerically capped, and final. No legalization program for the farm community should be permitted thereafter.

5. The INS should continue to apply strong pressure to limit the numbers of ineligible employees working in U.S. fields, orchards, and vineyards.

6. Growers whose conversion to more mechanized technologies would involve great expense (e.g., raisin-grape growers) should be considered for government incentives. Those who lose out to foreign competition should be given public help to make a soft landing.

References

Brown, G.K., D.L. Peterson, and J.H. Levin. 1983. "Tree Fruit Harvesting Systems." In Principles and Practices for Harvesting and Handling Fruits and Nuts, O'Brien, Cargill, and Fridley (eds.). AVI, Westport, Conn. pp. 575-87.

Peterson, D.L. 1992. "Harvest Mechanization in Deciduous Tree Fruits and Brambles," Hort-Technology, Jan.-March.

Return to text reference.

2. Donald Peterson, Agricultural Research Service/USDA; G.K. Brown, Florida Citrus Association; George Ing, Washington State Tree Fruit Commission; James Thompson; and Donald Linker, private consultant, Salinas, CA. The author is also grateful for useful comments by Bert Mason, Agricultural Economics Department, California State University at Fresno.

Return to text reference.

3. Peterson and Thompson, particularly, expressed this view.

Return to text reference.

4. Labor aids or task facilitators can at times increase productivity. One example is a machine used to move plants in the nursery industry. These machines lighten tasks and enhance productivity. However, labor aids such as conveyor belts in row crops or booms in tree crops, tend to slow down workers in a crew to the pace of the slowest worker and cut into the employer's ability to use incentive pay schemes.

Return to text reference.

5. All five informants used these categories. The information about broccoli and cauliflower was from Donald Linker.

Return to text reference.

6. Estimate by Donald Peterson.

Return to text reference.