|
<br />\l\lH..ii
<br />
<br />COlJ;\TY AGRlBlJSI:\ESS I>EPE:\DE;\CY
<br />
<br />.OloradO Ranklngs by Agribusiness Income and Percent of Total County Income In 1997
<br />
<br />A2ribusiness A2ribusioess %
<br />Income (51.000) of Count". Total
<br />Weld )90,528 y,~ 488~
<br />D""" 31~.300 Wl.'lhmglDf1 415%
<br />Jeff~ 300.659 Phllhps 399''10
<br />Ad.o= 145.176 B~. 365%
<br />M""m 129,6% KnCarson 345%
<br />w= 121.004 ~dSWlCk 286"10
<br />-- 114.278 KIOwa 272%
<br />"""",, 107,094 Saguache 2500'-
<br />y,~ 106.200 Morgan 2)9"4
<br />'- 77.346 C'he)"t11nC' 237%
<br />E1'~ 56,323 Cm....ley 210"'0
<br />KJICarJOn 53.752 CostIlla 20,7%
<br />Prowm 51.078 Logm 194""-
<br />WashinglOn 39,105 Prowm 18~
<br />RioGrvlde 35,410 Rio Grande 174%
<br />Philhps 35,198 Jackson 17.1%
<br />Pueblo B,2IS Bm' 168%
<br />Monlrose 31.065 COl'1ejOS 12~..
<br />""'" 30,925 Weld 11 6~.
<br />DougJu 29,741 O~ 100"'0
<br />B~ 28.417 LlTI4:o1n 97.4
<br />Moy 27,024 AlilmD!>ll 7.9%
<br />^I.mo~ 2],523 0",. 630/.
<br />0",. 18.087 .\lofltrose 5.8%
<br />Ilrn' 17,445 Dolores 33%
<br />$0_", 15,713 JefferMln 24%
<br />~'wiOk ]1,877 Ad.o= 2]%
<br />rowlcy 11.185 EIben 210/.
<br />La Plata 9,782 w= 21%
<br />Ch<"",~ 9,~86 '~k l'~%
<br />Eagle 9,157 Dougla!; ),7%
<br />Gvf<" 9.00<> Pueblo IJ%
<br />Lincoln 8,876 Mesa lA%
<br />Cooe;os 8,847 llmsdale 1.2%
<br />KIO" 8,122 Garf,eld 1.2%
<br />Pltkm 7,770 Den'a 11%
<br />Costilla 7JJ2 laPlata ll~.
<br />J~_ 4J97 Boulda 11'0/.
<br />Roo' ,."'" SanMIguel 1,00,.
<br />F~morn ),862 PlIkm 10".'0
<br />MOOIC2'U1TlII 2,9~ Moffal '0%
<br />SUmmll 2,689 MonlezulTlll 09'V.
<br />MOlTIl 2.b40 Mmeral O~%
<br />E'bm 2.402 Eagle 08%
<br />SanMIguel 1,7~S RM OS04
<br />'uk 1.7J7 ....rchuleta 0,7.;.
<br />Las Animas %, ^~pahoe 0.7~'o
<br />Gunmson '" Frem;)Ol 060,.
<br />Chofftt '" Las Animas 05"'0
<br />Archuleta '" E1Paso 05%
<br />"",=, '" Sumrrul 04"..
<br />Cl<<rCrttlo: ... Chaffee 04'!'o
<br />Hmtdale 126 Gvnn,SOl'l OJ~.
<br />uk, "' C'tearCl"l:cK 0,)0,.
<br />MinerJIl 'IS lake 01-.
<br />Dnnd J7 Sanjuan 0,1%
<br />Tclln- " Dnnd 00"4
<br />Gilpm ,. Teller 00"..
<br />Sanjuan 7 Gllpm .,0%
<br />.- .32.1 C~'" .l~io
<br />,~, -%8 RJoBlanco -17%
<br />H_.... .1.455 Dv~, -2 1~.
<br />Rio Blanco _2.379 flumano .22"'0
<br />
<br />The figure below shows the location of Colorado's 63 counties and their degree
<br />of dependency on agribusiness. Productlon agriculture alone does not fully
<br />represem the economic importance of farming and ranching to an economy, As
<br />discussed throughout the full report. other mdustries depend on production
<br />agriculture such as fertilizer sale, food processing, and farm machinery
<br />productlon_
<br />
<br />In order to recognize Ihe degree of contnbution of agribusiness to a county, """0
<br />categones have been developed. Agrlbusmess Dependenr counties receive over
<br />20% of (01301 county Income from agribusmess mdustries. Agribusiness
<br />/mf'Ortunt countIes recel\'e bef\o..een 10% and 20% of 10131 county income from
<br />agribusiness IOdustnes. The Other calegory represents those counties that
<br />receIve less than 10% of their total county income from agribusiness.
<br />AgribuslOess dependem countIes are not the only counties .....ilb large
<br />agribusmess seclors. Some coumies are nOI claSSified as agribusiness importanl
<br />or dependent because the)' have relatu.ely large non-agncultural sectors. Eight
<br />of the 63 counlles are agribusiness ImporlUnl and twelve are agribusiness
<br />dt'pendent. Therefore, o\.er 31% of Colorado counties conlinue 10 be either
<br />agnbuslness d('pemit>nt or agribUSIness Important in 1997. which does not
<br />represent a slgmficam change from 1992. However, there have bttn some
<br />mdlVldual changes v.'lthm the calegones. Ofpanicular note is Lincoln County,
<br />whIch had been ranked m 1992 as agricultural dependent bul is now alless than
<br />10%. Dolores County, which had been ranked as agricultural important is now
<br />less than 5%. Costilla Count)' IS no..... ranked as agricultural dependenl at over
<br />20% and ConeJos County has increased to agncultural importanl with over 12%.
<br />
<br />The count)' ranktngs of agnbusiness Importance and dependency are shown m
<br />the table on the left. In the firsl two columns, the counties are ranked according
<br />10 the lotal sIZe of agnbusmess. The last Iwo columns show the ranking by the
<br />percentage of tolal COUnI)' income thai agribusiness provides in each county,
<br />\.1etro counties rank highest In size while rural sectors rank highesl in
<br />lmponance.
<br />
<br />
<br />..."".,
<br />
<br />"no
<br />
<br />~
<br />..."""".~
<br />0",,"'
<br />~ h"...og....Ty~"'. .
<br />~M nJ<,." I.I..~.'
<br />, ,lOCh
<br />...""....~"'" UF'UII
<br />( .0.",,,- .~.
<br />"eI!!,dK&IlDO"p'<1><Dd<1IIl
<br />.. 'ih...._.. mpolUnl
<br />- '
<br />
<br />LJ.."".....
<br />
|