Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, i~ ,$ Q <br />lu:'.i~, <br /> <br />Figure 10: Agribusiness Employment. Importance by County Group, 1987. <br /> <br />8. <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />I <br />'I <br />I <br />... <br />.Ii <br /> <br /> <br />40 <br /> <br />30 <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />firm O.peadeol <br /> <br />Farm Im.orlanl <br />CuunlY Group <br /> <br />Oilier NonmulDr <br /> <br />Fl"onl RanUB <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />percent of total state employment, <br />and $26,9 billion in sales, these <br />estimates mask the importance of the <br />sector to specific regional economies <br />in the state, Roughly one-half of the <br />counties in the state are agribusiness <br />dependent or agribusiness important. <br />In these counties agriculture is the <br />critical determinant of economic well- <br />being, The data presented in this <br />report indicate that policies designed <br />to promote stability and further <br />development within agriculture are <br />important to the economic health of <br />these counties. <br />The division of the state into farm <br />and agribusiness dependent and <br />important counties suggests that the <br />economy is divided, Indeed, parts of <br />the state are higWy metropolitan or <br />heavily dependent upon recreation <br />and tourism. Other regions are <br />heavily dependent on agriculture, <br />However, the data also supports the <br />conclusion that agribusiness is an <br />important component of the eco- <br />nomic fabric of the Front Range, as <br />well as in the agribusiness dependent <br />and important counties. <br />In fact, the absolute economic <br />impact of agribusiness is greater in <br />the Front Range than it is in the rest <br />of the state, Table 3 shows that total <br />labor and proprietor income in the <br />Front range (including Weld county) <br />was mofe than $1 billion in 1987. <br />Total labor and proprietor income <br />from agribusiness in other counties <br />was only $793 million, Appendix <br />Table A-2 shows that agribusiness <br />employment was over 48,000 in the <br />Front Range, while total employment <br />in agribusiness in the rest of the state <br />was about 3 1,300, Figure 10 shows <br />these employment data, <br />While income and employment in <br />the farm and agribusiness dependent <br />and important counties indicates the <br />reliance of these counties on agribusi- <br />ness activity, the absolute impact in <br />the rest of the state is also significant <br />and represents a substantial intercon- <br />nection between agricultural and <br />urban interests. <br />