A study of the workforce training needs for the agribusiness industry in Georgia : final report

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for the Office of Economic Development, University System of Georgia (USG) 270 Washington Street, S. W. Atlanta, GA 30334
Conducted by the Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development (CAED), University of Georgia
Prepared by
Rusty Brooks, Ph.D., Professor Archie Flanders, Ph.D., Economist Marcia Jones, Ph.D., Public Service Associate Sharon P. Kane, Public Service Associate John McKissick, Ph.D., CAED Director Tommie Shepherd, Ph.D., Agribusiness Economist
201 Conner Hall Athens, GA 30602 (706) 542-2434 www.caed.uga.edu
August 2008
Copyright 2008 All Rights Reserved University of Georgia Research Foundation Athens, GA 30602

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... ix
Sponsorship and Purpose of Study................................................................................................ ix
Outline of Report ............................................................................................................................. ix
Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................................... x
Overview of Recommendations Made ........................................................................................... xi
Future Implications ........................................................................................................................ xiv
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ xv
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study...................................................................................... 1 - 8
Project Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1
Project Objective ............................................................................................................................. 2
Research Methodology .................................................................................................................... 2
Background ................................................................................................................................ 2 Survey Participants .................................................................................................................... 3 Secondary Data.......................................................................................................................... 4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 4 Data Issues and Words of Caution ............................................................................................ 5 Definition of Terms ..................................................................................................................... 6
Defining college-educated ................................................................................................. 6 Defining the Agribusiness Sector ......................................................................................... 6 Defining the Aggregated Regions ........................................................................................ 7
Relevant NAICS codes.................................................................................................................... 7
Relevant CIP Codes ........................................................................................................................ 8
Chapter 2: The Economic Significance of the Agribusiness Industry ............................. 9- 22
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 9
The U.S. National Picture .............................................................................................................. 10
The Economic Impact of Georgia Agribusiness ............................................................................ 14 Production and Employment Trends ........................................................................................ 14 Employment Concentration and Competitive Advantage ........................................................ 18
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 22

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page ii

Chapter 3: The Demand for a CollegeEducated Workforce in Georgia's Agribusiness Industry ......................................................................................................... 23 - 38 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 23
Trends in Georgia`s Workforce, by Sectors and Agribusiness Subsectors .................................. 23
Georgia Employment - all Sectors and Educational Levels ................................................... 24
Long term Projected Trends in the Agribusiness Labor Market .................................................... 27
What Agribusinesses Want from Georgia`s Higher Education System Survey Findings........... 29
Overview................................................................................................................................. 29 Current Size of College-educated Workforce......................................................................... 31 Projected Trends in Employment ........................................................................................... 35 Workplace Needs derived from Survey Responses .............................................................. 35
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 4: The Supply of College Educated Workers for Georgia's Agribusiness Industry ......................................................................................................... 39 - 48 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 39
Current Capacity within the USG .................................................................................................. 40
Assessing Agribusiness Labor Availability .................................................................................... 42
Degrees Conferred USG: Agribusiness-Related Degree Programs ...................................... 43 Agricultural-related Programs in Context ............................................................................... 45
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 48
Chapter 5: Projected Employment Opportunities and Potential Gaps ........................... 49 - 62 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 49 Workforce Gap Analysis................................................................................................................ 50 An Alternative View of the State Labor Market Picture ................................................................. 51 Assessing the Georgia Agribusiness Labor Market for College-educated Workers ..................... 52 Future Job Growth......................................................................................................................... 54 Survey Data the Search for Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities ..................................................... 57
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 62
Chapter 6: Implications and Recommendations............................................................... 63 - 85 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 63
Agribusiness Employers` Workforce Perspectives........................................................................ 63

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page iii

Some Specific Strategies/Recommendations ............................................................................... 67
Build Stronger Public/Private Partnerships ........................................................................... 67 Promote the Business Side of Agribusiness ......................................................................... 69 Expand Opportunities for Hands-On Learning ...................................................................... 73 Introduce More Flexibility in Curricula and Program Design ................................................ 75 Establish a USG Workforce Development Strategy...............................................................78
A Note about Funding ................................................................................................................... 84
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 84
References .................................................................................................................................... 86
Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 88
List of Tables
Table 2.1 U.S. Agribusiness Employment and Output, by Category, 2006 ............................. 10
Table 2.2 Georgia Agribusiness Employment and Output, by Categories, Georgia, 2006........................................................................................................... 14
Table 2.3 Economic Impacts of Georgia Agribusiness by Major Economic Sectors, 2006 ........................................................................................................... 14
Table 2.4 Total Economic Impacts of Georgia Agribusiness, 2006 ......................................... 15
Table 2.5 Annual Comparison of Farm Gate Value, 1999 - 2007............................................ 15
Table 2.6 Farm Gate Value of Top Ten Commodities, by Commodity, Georgia, 2007........................................................................................................... 16
Table 2.7 Georgia`s Rank Among Agricultural Producers in U.S., 1990 2006 ..................... 17
Table 2.8 Share of Total Employment for Select Agricultural Commodities, Georgia and U.S....................................................................................................... 18
Table 2.9 Location Quotients for Major Agricultural Commodities, Georgia, 2006.................. 19
Table 2.10 Location Quotients for Major Agribusiness Subsectors, Computed Using IMPLAN ........................................................................................ 20
Table 3.1 Comparison of Hiring Growth and Hires Made, Georgia, 2006 - 2007 ..................... 26
Table 3.2 Long term Growth Projections by Occupation and Education ................................. 27
Table 3.3 Summary of Occupational Growth Rates, Georgia .................................................. 27
Table 3.4 Distribution of Respondents by Primary Agribusiness Subsector............................ 30
Table 3.5 Full Time Positions Requiring a College Degree ..................................................... 31
Table 3.6 Need for Specific Subject Matter for Entry-level Positions....................................... 32

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page iv

Table 3.7 Distribution of Responses on Degree Requirements for Those Employers for Whom a Specific Requirement Exists................................................................. 33
Table 3.8 Subject Matter Content for Degree Requirements................................................... 34 Table 3.9 Expectations of Future College Degree Requirements ........................................... 35 Table 3.10 Significance of Skill/Attributes .................................................................................. 36 Table: 4.1 Growth in College Enrollment, U.S. and Georgia .................................................... 39
A: Growth in College Enrollment by Degree, Georgia, 2000 - 2006 B: Growth in College Enrollment by Degree, U.S., 2000 - 2006 Table 4.2 Degree Program Offerings by Discipline, USG ........................................................ 40 Table 4.3 Degree Program Offerings by Award Level, USG ................................................... 41 Table 4.4 Degree Program Offerings by Award level and Institution, USG ............................. 41 Table 4.5 Core and Allied Agribusiness Programs by 2-Digit CIP Codes ............................... 42 Table 4.6 Competitive Business and Leisure Studies Program CIP Codes ............................ 42 Table 4.7 Degrees Conferred by 2-Digit CIP, 2002 - 2006 ....................................................... 43 Table 4.8 Degrees Conferred in Agribusiness as Share of USG, 2002 2006....................... 43 Table 4.9 Degrees Conferred in Agribusiness Programs, 2002 2006 .................................. 44 A: Undergraduate Degrees Conferred, by Type B: Graduate Degrees Conferred, by Type Table 4.10 Programs with No Awards Conferred for 2002 2006 ............................................ 45 Table 4.11 Programs with Either Graduate or Undergraduate Awards Conferred .................... 46 A: Graduate but No Undergraduate Awards, 2002 - 2006 B: Undergraduate but No Graduate Awards, 2002 - 2006 Table 4.12 Evaluation of Program Offerings to Future Growth .................................................. 47 Table 4.13 Likely Source of College-Educated Applicants ........................................................ 48 Table 5.1 Long Term Occupational Projections to 2014 by Industry ....................................... 51 Table 5.2 Long Term Occupational Projections to 2014 by Educational Levels...................... 52 Table 5.3 Long Term Occupational Projections to 2014, Agribusiness Industry by Educational Levels ................................................................................................... 53 Table 5.4 Projected Growth Rates Based On Survey Responses .......................................... 53 Table 5.5 Average Production of Awards by Occupation and Award Levels, USG, 2002 2006...................................................................................................... 54

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page v

Table 5.6 Average Production of Degrees by Occupation and Award Levels, USG, 2002 2006...................................................................................................... 55
Table 5.7 Comparison of Supply and Demand for College-Educated Workers, by Occupational Cluster .......................................................................................... 56
Table 5.8 Projections of Anticipated Changes in Technology and Innovations by Agribusiness Employers ..................................................................................... 58
Table 5.9 Examples of Types of Anticipated Changes in Technology and Innovations by Agribusiness Employers ..................................................................................... 58
Table 5.10 Recruitment Strategies Employed by Survey Respondents ................................... 59
Table 5.11 Programs Appropriate to Responding to Future Recruitment Needs ..................... 59
Table 5.12 Effect of the Quantity and Quality of Graduates on Business Expansion ............... 60
Table 5.13 Summary of Issues Raised by Respondents that Limit Business Expansion......... 60
Table 5.14 Impact of Employee Characteristics on Recruitment and Retention ...................... 60
Table 5.15 Difficulties Experienced in Filling Vacant Positions................................................. 61
Table 5.16 Interest in Educational/Training Programs for Current Employees......................... 61
Table 6.1 Recommendations from Agribusiness Employers to Improve System Responsiveness Through Changes in Degree Programs and Curricula ............... 64
Table 6.2 Additional Workforce Issues to be Considered by the University System in Ensuring Responsiveness to Agribusiness Workforce Needs ............................ 66
Table 6.3 Top 5 Programs Helpful to Future Agribusiness Growth ........................................ 76

List of Charts
Chart 2.1 Value of Production in U.S. Agricultural Sector (final output), 1990 2006 ............................................................................................................. 11
Chart 2.2 Distribution of Total Employment by Major Category, U.S., 2006........................... 11
Chart 2.3 Comparison of Output and Employment Distribution, by Major Category, U.S., 2006 ............................................................................................................... 12
Chart 2.4 Comparison of Levels of Productivity in U.S. and Georgia Agribusiness ................ 13
Chart 2.5 Distribution of Output and Employment by Category, Georgia, 2006 ..................... 15
Chart 2.6 Distribution of Farm Gate Production by Commodity Group, Georgia, 2007 .......... 16
Chart 2.7 Georgia`s Share of U.S. Value of Production in Agriculture, 1990 2006 .............. 17
Chart 2.8 Location Quotients for Manufacturing Products, Based on Agricultural Commodities, Georgia, 2006 ............................................................... 20

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page vi

Chart 2.9 Location Quotients by Selected NAICS Codes for Agribusiness Employment Concentrations, Georgia.......................................................................................... 21

A: Georgia LQ Values Greater than 1 B: Georgia LQ Values Less than 1

Chart 3.1 Distribution of Quarterly Employment by Industry, Georgia July 2006 to June 2007............................................................................................................ 24

Chart 3.2 Georgia Agribusiness Industry Employment Growth (in %), 2006 2007.............. 25

Chart 3.3 Georgia Agribusiness-Related Manufacturing Employment, July 2006 to June 2007................................................................................................................ 25

Chart 3.4 New Hires in Georgia as Percent of Employment by Industry, July 2006 to June 2007 ........................................................................................... 26

Chart 3.5 Top Ten Agribusiness-Related Occupations: Fastest Growing Occupations in Georgia ................................................................................................................ 28

Chart 3.6

A: Growth Rates (in %), 2004 - 2014 B: Growth (in Numbers), 2004 - 2014
Geographic Location of Survey Respondents ........................................................ 29

Chart 3.7 Distribution of Respondents by Broad NAICS Categories ...................................... 30

Chart 3.8 Percentage of Full Time Positions Requiring a College Degree ............................. 31
Chart 3.9 Distribution of Responses by Need for Specific Subject Matter.............................. 32
Chart 3.10 Distribution of Responses to Degree Field Requirement ........................................ 33
Chart 3.11 Top Five Skills/Attributes Identified as Requirements by Survey Respondents ................................................................................................ 35

Chart 3.12 Bottom Five Skills/Attributes Required by Survey Respondents ............................ 36

Chart 3.13 Comparison of Projected Demand for Labor by Educational Levels: Agribusiness and Overall Economy............................................................ 37
Chart 5.1 Projected Gap in Georgia`s Agribusiness Labor Market for College-Educated Workers, by Occupational Cluster, to 2014 .............................. 57

List of Appendices
Appendix A: Comparison of NAICS Codes to Define the Agribusiness Industry for this Study and Those Included in the Commission for a new Georgia`s (CNGA) Report....... 89
Appendix B: Summary of NAICS Codes Included in the Study .................................................. 92
Appendix C: Crosswalk: Workforce Investment Area (WIA) to Aggregated Regions/ Service Delivery Regions (SDR) ............................................................................ 93
Appendix D: List of Relevant CIP Codes Core and Allied Programs ....................................... 96

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page vii

Appendix E: Long-Term Occupational Projections to 2014, Georgia, by SOC Code .................. 99
Appendix F: Occupational Characteristics by SOC Codes ........................................................ 102
Appendix G: Degree Programs Offered, University System of Georgia ................................... 107
Appendix H: Degrees and Certificates Conferred, University System of Georgia, 2002 2006 .......................................................................................................... 114
Appendix I: Summary of Responses to Survey Questions, Georgia Agribusiness Needs Assessment Survey ................................................................................... 118
Appendix J: Responses to Degree and Curricula Changes Needed to Improve USG Responsiveness ............................................................................ 128
Appendix K: List of Additional Workforce Issues to be Considered by the USG in Responding to Agribusiness Workforce Needs .................................................... 132

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page viii

Executive Summary
Sponsorship and Purpose of Study
In an effort to better link the University System`s intellectual capital to the needs of Georgia`s agribusiness enterprises, the University System of Georgia`s Office of Economic Development (OED) commissioned the Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development (CAED) at the University of Georgia to conduct an Agribusiness Workforce Needs Assessment. As part of the project, a survey was conducted to gather information about the industry`s current and future workforce needs and the types of skills required to support economic growth in the State. Specifically, the research was designed to ascertain the college-educated workforce needs of the agribusiness industry and the System`s ability to meet those needs.
The Broad Focus: What are the agribusiness workforce needs?
Rationale: To ensure that degree programs within the University System are relevant to the current and future needs of the agribusiness industry.
As part of those efforts, this report summarizes the findings of the study completed by the CAED regarding the workforce needs of the agribusiness industry and includes the results from the survey administered to agribusiness stakeholders. The survey allowed participants the opportunity to identify their current and future workforce needs and served as the basis for the evaluation of current programs and future needs.
Outline of Report
This report provides the findings of the research study and an analysis of the data reflecting the current and future demand for and supply of college-educated workers in Georgia`s agribusiness sector. The study includes the following
A discussion of Georgia`s economy and the significance of agribusiness to the economic health of the State.
An inventory of degree programs and a gap analysis of the supply of college-educated workers relative to industry demand. This includes an assessment of how well current degree programs match current and future workforce needs.
An analysis of the graduation data by CIP and degree award level within the University System of Georgia.
The results of a survey of agribusiness employers` needs for college-educated workers and the desired knowledge, skills and attributes necessary to meet those workforce needs.
The development of recommendations for future programs and the identification of some best practices` from other institutions of higher education.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page ix

The report is organized into six chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 Introduction to the Study
Chapter 2 The Economic Significance of the Agribusiness Sector
Chapter 3 The Demand for a CollegeEducated Workforce in Georgia`s Agribusiness Industry
Chapter 4 The Supply of College Educated Workers for Georgia`s Agribusiness Sector
Chapter 5 Projected Employment Opportunities and Potential Gaps
Chapter 6 Implications and Recommendations
Summary of Findings
Labor Market Analysis and Recommendations
The demand side of the market for college-educated workers in the agribusiness sector will be influenced by two factors:
1. The estimated numbers of workers needed to produce the projected demand for agribusiness products and services (quantity of labor demanded); and
2. The ability of the higher education system to graduate a college-educated workforce that reflects the kinds of skills sought by agribusiness employers (quality of labor demanded).
The quantity of labor demanded is calculated by the Georgia Department of Labor (DOL) as the total annual openings from two sources:
1. Employment growth from the creation of new jobs/positions due to business expansion.
2. Replacements- due to such factors as retirement, relocation, or labor shifts to other occupations and industries.
Both sources of jobs play an important role in the growth of the workforce in Georgia`s agribusiness sector. Analyses conducted by the DOL provide projections as to the number of jobs required each year over a ten-year period to meet the state`s economic demand. These projections are made on the basis of the typical or average education and training requirements necessary to fill those job openings. For Georgia`s economy, growth in total job openings in the agribusiness industry is projected to increase about 1.4% per year into 2014. Workforce growth projections for demand for college-educated workers in the agribusiness industry are slightly higher, at an annual growth rate of 1.5%. The conclusion to be drawn from the DOL projections is that occupations that require postsecondary education (awards of certificates and degrees) will grow faster than the state average for all occupations. This growth will be led by job openings (from growth and replacements) of more than 1,400 for persons with bachelor`s degrees or higher.
On the supply side of the market, the USG currently offers 151 degree programs and majors in agribusiness and allied disciplines ranging from certificates of less than one year to doctoral degrees. The majority of these (79) are offered at the University of Georgia. Although agribusiness degree programs are also offered at Fort Valley State University and Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, agribusiness employers had greater success in hiring University of Georgia graduates than those from the other two institutions. It should be noted that this difference in success rates reflects

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page x

only the number of graduates hired and is not indicative of the quality of the graduates or of their performance in the workplace. The source of the difference appears to be based on the total number and types of programs offered, the numbers of students matriculating through the programs, and the relatively shorter period over which some programs have been available at Fort Valley State University and Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College. Considering all award levels, the System graduated an average of 754 students in core and allied agribusiness programs over the 2002 - 2006 academic years, a small portion of the System's average annual graduates of more than 42,000 over the same period.
Recognizing that studies of labor market trends are imprecise and largely influenced by the validity of the economic assumptions made and the quality of the available data, the study elected to analyze the data in terms of the implications emanating from the trends rather than estimating precise quantitative labor market gaps. Using three different economic assumptions about the labor market, the analysis consistently predicted an agribusiness labor market mismatch in the form of a shortage of job seekers who hold at least a college degree. Some of this labor imbalance (where the number of potential job applicants is projected to fall short of the projected number of job openings) may be corrected by in migration of college educated workers from other parts of the U.S. Indeed, agribusiness employers surveyed indicated that, following the University of Georgia and Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, Auburn University was a major source of recruits for available agribusiness positions that required a college education. Addressing such labor shortages will require the establishment and expansion of effective public/private partnerships with agribusiness industry employers to respond to and anticipate forthcoming changes in the labor market. While the agribusiness sector is expected to grow at a rate of only 0.2% annually until 2014, the size of that industry means that an additional 9,000 jobs will be created annually due to growth and replacement to the year 2014. Of that amount, 15% will require an associate`s degree or higher, creating positions that could be filled within the State by ensuring an adequate supply of college graduates with the requisite technical knowledge and professional skills.
Results from the survey of agribusiness employers provided much insight into the qualitative analysis by identifying those soft` skills that are critical to the composition and size of the agribusiness workforce and that influence the quality of labor demanded. From the results, it is evident that one of the challenges that must be faced in the agribusiness labor market is the gap between the skills needed by agribusiness employers and the curriculum content of major agribusiness-related degree problems. Although satisfied with the level of technical knowledge provided in the college education received by employees, employers were less pleased with the professional skills demonstrated by their college-educated workers, noting particular shortcomings in the levels of team building, initiative, leadership, and communication skills demonstrated by their college-educated workforce. Employers appeared to be more concerned about the quality of college-educated applicants in terms of the match between their skill sets and the job requirements than of the quantity of graduates in the labor pool. Although no severe labor shortages were projected in the System`s ability to meet the demand for college-educated labor in the agribusiness sector, what may be the bigger challenge is meeting the industry`s needs for critical thinking skills, leadership/initiative, and communication skills in new hires. Most respondents indicated that the growth of their companies was not limited by either the quality or quantity of graduates produced in Georgia. However that level of satisfaction does not transfer to their perceptions about graduates` skills or with the depth of preparation provided by an otherwise knowledge-based curriculum.
Overview of Recommendations Made
Without question, Georgia`s agribusiness industry has played, and will likely continue to play, a critical and strategic role in sustained economic growth in the State. However, changes in the structure of the State`s economy, due largely to national and global economic shifts, will result in substantial changes in the structure of production. This has already been observed in textile and apparel manufacturing where job losses had led to changes in the relative share of those

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page xi

enterprises in the State`s economy. Considerations of workforce demand and supply conditions cannot ignore these shifts over time and their impacts on projections made over a ten year span. As Georgia`s competitive advantages change with national and global competition, the link between higher education and industry needs will be all the more important in ensuring that graduates possess the skills and knowledge needed to support changing industries. To support these changes, the following recommendations are offered:
A. Build Stronger Public/Private Partnerships
This would necessitate an enhancement of the connection between the agribusiness industry and the higher education community through more transparent communication channels that allow for clear and frequent discussion of the issues so as to identify and implement effective solutions.
Best Practices Recommended for Adoption
Establish faculty and student relationships with professional organizations such as the University Food Industry Coalition to provide additional opportunities for faculty and student research.
Create an interdisciplinary research program that connects faculty to industry leaders to identify and explore agribusiness-related issues and concerns.
Establish and/or enhance relationships (through a designated liaison) with the USDA`s Student Career Experience Program to provide internship and job opportunities for students and graduates.
Establish and/or expand opportunities for academia and industry representatives to interact on relevant industry developments and needs. These discussions can be facilitated through seminars and workshops.
Develop a catalog of industry leaders, by enterprise/commodity, who might be available, across the State, to serve as guest lecturers, hosts for interns, volunteers on advisory boards, etc.
B. Promote the Business of Agribusiness
Employers` requests for more generalized knowledge of the business side of agribusiness could be accommodated by incorporating management and entrepreneurship training across the curriculum, in a manner similar to the internationalization initiative implemented several years ago. The message from employers of the need to refocus attention away from a heavy reliance on learning the text book material toward the development of such skills such as initiative, problem-solving, and collaboration should not go unheeded.
Best Practices Recommended for Adoption
Develop an introductory class on the economics of agribusiness at the freshman level that lays the foundations of agribusiness principles. Can be team taught as an elective in Area B and taught in agribusiness or business colleges.
Require a capstone course designed with the objective of integrating the agribusiness curriculum through hands-on applications, research, oral and written presentations, and case analyses.
Incorporate business and management concepts into existing production/technical courses so that students understand the application of the technical knowledge to the management of the enterprise.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page xii

Develop interdisciplinary courses that can be cross listed across campus that integrate agriculture and agribusiness concepts through case studies, applied research, and group/team approaches.
Introduce an interdisciplinary, introductory seminar course on Georgia's Strategic Industries at the freshman level that discusses Georgia`s economy, the challenges and opportunities available in those industries, and the degree programs within those industries.
C. Expand Opportunities for Hands-on Learning
The development of professional skills could be enhanced in program curricula through more hands-on learning opportunities such as internships, job shadowing, and cooperative employment experiences that allow students the opportunity to interact with industry professionals.
Best Practices Recommended for Adoption
Introduce a required introductory agribusiness orientation course for students admitted into the major/minor. It could also serve as an elective and recruitment tool for undeclared students.
Given the significance attached to this experience by employers, explore the addition of handson student learning experiences through a practicum course or a required internship in the major.
Introduce a Professional Practices Course` that allows students to identify the soft skills with the technical knowledge needed to succeed within their career fields.
Incorporate more interactive instructional methods into major classes that allow for discussion and team projects, analysis of case studies, computer simulations, etc. in applying business concepts to agricultural-related problems.
Revamp programs offered through career services offices that prepare students for careers by expanding program offerings to include enhancement of soft skills in addition to resume writing and interviewing techniques.
D. Introduce More Flexibility in Curricula and Program Design
This recommendation sprung from the perception among some survey respondents that current degree programs are too subject-matter specific and that employees needed a broader range of expertise to succeed in the current agribusiness climate.
Best Practices Recommended for Adoption
Explore the development of additional course work/electives in programs not currently available across the University System. The development of new business or agribusiness courses should focus on those fields where interest is highest among employers and for which institutions nationwide have experienced steady or increasing enrollments in the most recent years.
As an alternative to the previous recommendation, efforts should be made to redesign existing courses to incorporate emerging topics in agribusiness such as the legal, ethic, and political environment of agribusiness, sustainable agriculture, and technology and production systems management.
Introduce into degree programs the option for self-designed, interdisciplinary studies majors/minors that allow students the ability to incorporate experimental learning options in

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page xiii

courses taught by faculty across the university and external to the university (through distance learning technology options).
E. Establish a USG Workforce Development Strategy
The recommendations from agribusiness employers pointed to the need for the University System to develop a comprehensive workforce policy. The goals of such a program should be linked to the goals of the Commission for a New Georgia on workforce development focusing on developing the student from matriculation through job placement and career growth. Given that increases in the supply of graduates is a long-term process of at least three years, on average, beyond the completion of core requirements, the expansion or addition of programs must be forward thinking, looking toward changes at the national level in consumer demand for alternative energy and bioenergy, green` technology, sustainable production methods, and agrotourism.
Best Practices Recommended for Adoption
Modify the University of Georgia`s Bachelor of Science in Agriculture with an honors interdisciplinary studies major and extend its availability as an external degree.
Develop a system to track USG graduates as they enter the workforce.
Develop a state-wide internship program.
Create career services centers with enhanced employer-focused missions.
Negotiate cross institutional agreements for collaboration that allow faculty members to enhance their levels of agricultural literacy and develop cross discipline solutions to agricultural problems. Arrangements can also involve faculty exchanges/externships with the business community.
Future Implications
History has clearly demonstrated that labor shortages can and have been mitigated by increases in labor productivity though investments in capital and technology. However, there is no such cure for addressing skills shortages beyond taking the issue head on with proactive solutions that create opportunities to acquire those skills. Participants in the Agribusiness Needs Assessment Survey were very clear in expressing their opinions that these skill shortages are urgent and must be addressed through the expansion of hands-on industry experience provided through internships and similar hands-on learning opportunities. Further, many participants stressed the need for the creation of curricula that are flexible and responsive to changes in the structure of Georgia`s agribusiness industry. Responding effectively to these perceptions and expressed needs will be a critical determinant of the degree to which the University System can effectively meet the needs of agribusiness employers. The results of the study suggest that significant returns on investment can be earned from building agribusiness curricula that marry adaptability to industry changes. However, such flexibility should not ignore the need to maintain the current level of technical and scientific knowledge imparted in the curricula that will be critical to the growth of Georgia`s agribusiness industry. That so few of the respondents depended on resources within the System to meet their recruitment needs or have had any formal contact with the institutions about program design or course content speak to the need for enhanced public/private partnerships between the University System and the agribusiness industry employers. Survey participants frequently echoed the lack of opportunity to provide input into curricula and their interest in reaching qualified applicants in a cost-effective manner. Respondents expressed their gratitude at being afforded the opportunity to express their needs and for the establishment of this initial link between the higher education and business communities. More than half of the 200 survey participants requested a

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page xiv

copy of the report (77% of the 121 who provided a response to the question) and of the 200 survey participants (83% of the 152 who provided a response to the question) welcomed the opportunity to be contacted further about the study.
Considerations of workforce demand and supply conditions cannot ignore the comparative shifts in production and efficiency over time and the impact of those shifts on labor market projections for the next decade. As Georgia`s competitive advantages change with national and global competition, the link between higher education and industry needs will be all the more important in ensuring that graduates possess the skills and knowledge needed to support changing industries. As labor demand shifts, higher education must stand ready to expand and contract programs and redesign curricula. This point is made clear by Chaffee who stressed the importance of viewing employers as customers of institutions of higher education. As he stated like it or not, and whatever else may be in the mission statement, preparing future employees is absolutely fundamental to the purpose of all postsecondary education.1 That the University System recognizes that role it must play in building the State`s strategic industries has not gone unnoticed. Attempts to enhance those links will be to the benefit of the System`s graduates and the State`s economy. The success of the System`s workforce development efforts will depend, in large part, on its ability to respond to employers` needs.
Acknowledgements
The authors warmly acknowledge the contributions from Stephen Kuzniak and Jonathan Jon Wong, graduate assistants, who assisted in the data collection. In addition, Jon created and maintained information on the project`s web site. Assistance and support from the Georgia Agribusiness Council, especially Mr. Gary Black, proved invaluable in the success of the project in providing reviews, publicizing the project, and endorsing the overall project objectives. Reviews and comments from within the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, including those from Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, Dr. Jean A. Bertrand, helped to improve the overall quality of the research. We would be remiss without acknowledging the input from numerous companies, especially Agco Corporation, who contributed so generously of their time and expertise in fine tuning the survey instrument and in participating in focus groups to shape the focus of the research. Appreciation is also expressed to the companies that completed the initial survey from which the final survey instrument was developed and to those who participated in the one-on-one interviews. Recognition is also given to Mr. Joe Hunnings and the help desk at the Food and Agricultural Education Information System (FAEIS) without whose assistance the enrollment data would be far less comprehensive.

1 Chaffee, E. E. (1990). Strategies for the 1990s. In L. W. Jones & F. A. Nowotony (Eds.) New directions for higher education: An agenda for the new decade. San Francisco. Josey-Bass, Nov. 1990, pp. 59-66, cited in Carmelita A. Acciola.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page xv

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page xvi

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Project Overview
The Office of Economic Development (OED) of the University System of Georgia (USG) commissioned the Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development (CAED) at the University of Georgia to conduct an Agribusiness Workforce Needs Assessment to determine the college-educated workforce needs of the agribusiness industry and the System`s ability to meet those needs.
The project grew out of the recommendations from the Commission for a New Georgia, a non-profit corporation appointed by Governor Sonny Perdue and led by CEOs and senior executives from all parts of the State. With a mission to enhance the State`s ability to manage and use its resources, the Workforce Development (WFD) Taskforce, a part of the Commission, found that there was a need for the State to strengthen the connection between the business and education communities by graduating and training potential workers with the skills employers need. It was anticipated that this strengthened connection would improve the responsiveness of the State`s education system to the present and future skill requirements of Georgia`s business and industries. A key finding of the WFD Taskforce was the prediction that the current workforce training system will fail to produce the skilled talent pool that will be critical to Georgia`s future economic growth, a prediction that, if not remedied, could spell trouble for the State`s economic stability and its ability to meet the rising costs of social services. The Commission established a goal of having the agribusiness sector ranked as one of the Nation`s top competitors by 2020. To accomplish this goal, the Commission recognized the need to effectively leverage the State`s human capital and other resources to support the sector`s growth.2
So as to remedy that prediction, efforts ensued to make the educational system more responsive to and supportive of the needs of the strategic` industries, including agribusiness, on which the State`s economic growth depends. A key component of this enhancement process involved obtaining input from agribusiness leaders and tapping into their experience and expertise in creating a relevant framework on which to build the preparedness of the University System`s college graduates for future employment. The intent is to make Georgia`s higher education system a national model of productive connections between higher education and business and industry.3
As part of those efforts, the CAED has now completed the initial study of the workforce needs of the agribusiness industry that provided stakeholders with an opportunity to express their workforce needs and to guide the System in evaluating current programs and future needs.
This report, based in part on that study, explores whether the USG`s degree programs are relevant and can respond to the anticipated changes in workforce demand based on projected changes in the State`s economic structure, particularly in the agribusiness industry. Specifically, this report attempts to answer four key questions and provide recommendations based on the responses to those questions as follows:
What is the likely source and size of future employment demand from the agribusiness industry for college-educated workers?
How does the demand for college-educated workers compare to the supply of graduates produced by the System in key agribusiness degree programs?
2 Commission for a New Georgia Work Force Development Task Force Final Report, October, 2004. Ann Cramer, Chair. p. 8 3 Ibid.

Does the USG have the capacity to support Georgia`s long-term college-educated workforce needs by producing graduates who possess the knowledge and skills desired by agribusiness employers?
What current programs and innovative strategies will be necessary within the USG institutions to respond to the needs of the agribusiness sector so that the knowledge and skills acquired in college by those seeking employment match future employment opportunities?
Project Objective
The main objective of the project is to improve the USG`s responsiveness to the workforce needs of the agribusiness industry by identifying:
1. The types of skills required to support agribusiness economic growth in the State 2. The degree programs offered through USG institutions that reflect the workforce needs of the
agribusiness industry 3. The degree programs and skill set development necessary to reflect the current and future workforce
needs of the agribusiness industry 4. The bottlenecks in the pipeline of post-secondary participants in Georgia with college-degrees and/or
field experience (through internships, cooperatives, apprenticeship programs) 5. Potential degree programs and training solutions to address the potential skills gap likely to result
from the impending retirement of large segments of the agribusiness workforce
Specific goals, as outlined in the service agreement between CAED and ICAPP, include the completion of an inventory of the State`s supply and demand of the agribusiness workforce to determine the collegeeducated workforce development needs of the agribusiness industry and the USG`s current and future ability to meet those needs.
A full inventory of USG institutions` offerings in agribusiness-related disciplines and programs was completed to provide a framework for conducting an assessment of the academic programs currently offered. To support those assessment efforts, the following research activities were undertaken:
1. An estimate of the current and future agribusiness industry college-educated workforce 2. A projection of the future needs (hiring, training, and retraining) for college-educated workers
by Georgia and US agribusiness industries 3. The creation of a listing of current higher education program offerings within the USG to
develop (train and retrain) the relevant workforce 4, The identification of specific, measureable, and attainable recommendations for workforce
education and training in Georgia`s higher education system
The bottom line was to provide decision-makers with the information needed to make decisions about the future development of academic programs that would support Georgia`s agribusiness industry by developing a proficient, well-educated workforce.

Research Methodology
Background:
In preparing this report, the authors undertook research and analysis of secondary labor market and economic data, conducted focus group and individual interviews with Georgia agribusiness leaders, and administered a comprehensive survey to Georgia agribusiness producers among all relevant North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes to address the following questions:

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 2

1. What is the supply of and the demand for agribusiness-trained college graduates?
2. What are the training needs where do gaps exist in terms of demand from agribusiness employers and the current and projected availability of graduates?
3. How would new developments/future trends in the agribusiness industry impact the future labor demand?
4. What are some national best practices that could be adopted and/or modified to suit the needs of Georgia`s agribusiness sector?
In addition to the quantitative analyses of the secondary data, the study included consultation with employers through one-on-one interviews. The interviews were used to supplement and validate the secondary data.
The report examines the agribusiness labor market demand and supply. The labor market demand is computed from industry and occupation growth projections in those sectors within the relevant NAICS codes and for those occupations for which post-secondary education is typically required. The labor market supply is calculated from data on graduation by degree programs within the relevant NAICS codes. Following the analyses of potential gaps in supply and demand within the University System of Georgia, key findings are used to develop appropriate recommendations to address the identified gaps.
The intended goal was to examine long-term projected trends in the demand for college-educated workers for sectors and occupations relevant to the agribusiness industry using data for the period 2000 to 2016. Industry sectors were identified using the 2000 NAICS at the five-digit level for the State`s 12 service delivery regions (as defined below).
Survey Participants:
The researchers sought to identify the major agribusiness companies in Georgia in terms of employment. Since it was not possible to identify the major employers of college-educated workers, major agribusiness employers were selected based on the size of their workforces and/or their memberships in selected agribusiness organizations. The survey sample was drawn from among the top employers from the agribusiness-related NAICS codes using a database purchased from Selectory (a Dun & Bradstreet electronic business database at www.Selectory.com). Surveys were distributed to agribusiness employers with ten or more employees in all relevant NAICS codes (see below for list of relevant codes). In addition, all members of the Georgia Agribusiness Council who were not included in the Selectory database were included among the survey recipients. As a result, surveys were distributed to a total of 1,994 employers, including multiple locations of the same company providing that there was no duplication of product or service among the locations. Following the initial distribution of surveys, reminder postcards were mailed to all recipients who had not yet responded by the follow-up date. All participants were provided the option of completing the survey electronically or using the hard copy questionnaire received by mail. The estimated time to complete the survey was approximately 30 minutes. Unfortunately, the purchased database information was not wholly accurate, resulting in mail returned by the postal services for various non-deliverable reasons, including incorrect addresses. As a result, the total undelivered` surveys were 142. By the end of the survey response date, 200 completed surveys were returned. The response rate is, in part, a reflection of the typically lower rates for blanket mail surveys and the time of year administered. As Pennings et al. reported, June is one of the worst months for [persons involved in agriculture] receiving a mail survey, with January and February being the preferred months for receiving questionnaires. This timing preference is overwhelming, with 63% of the farmers indicating that January or February are the best months to complete a survey.4 Unfortunately, given the project timeframe, the timing was unavoidable. That matter could be addressed in future follow-up research. We are hopeful that

4 See Pennings et al.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 3

a continuation of this research will afford us the opportunity to solicit information from agribusiness subsectors that we were unable to contact in this phase of the study.
In addition to the surveys, one-on-one interviews were conducted with approximately 10 companies. These interviews sought to obtain more focused information from key employers who might have been hesitant to provide such information in their survey responses. The original intent was to conduct more one-on-one interviews but an unfortunate set of circumstances forestalled those activities. Again, it is our hope that a continuation of this research will afford us the opportunity to contact those companies with whom interviews have not yet been completed.
Secondary Data:
Projections of future demand are based on secondary data provided by various state and federal agencies and the University System of Georgia. Specifically, projections of industry growth combine data from the Georgia Department of Labor, for the period 2004 2014, and the US Department of Labor, for the period 2006 2016 (the latest available data). As such, some assumptions and adjustments were necessary in comparing the two sets of data.
The U.S. Department of Education`s National Center for Education Statistics, the U.S. Department of Agriculture`s Food and Agricultural Education Information System (FAEIS), and the Occupational Supply and Demand System5 were used as the primary sources of enrollment and graduation data as they provided downloadable files from which data analyses could be conducted. Since theses sources rely on institutions to self report the information, the data are accurate only to the extent that such reporting is accurate and timely. In some instances, such as missing data for Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College (ABAC), University System of Georgia data were used. However, use of the USG files was limited to supplementing missing data since they were not downloadable.
Additional sources of data included the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the US Census Bureau`s County Business Patterns, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Data Analysis:
The methodology used to project demand for labor combined the traditional industry and occupational approaches to labor demand forecasting6 to better suit the particular nature of the research. In essence, the projections are based on occupational trends within the agribusiness industry only, identifying growth and declines by occupations and education requirements where college-level agricultural-related training is most typical. Since the study`s focus is tied to college-educated labor in only one industry, this approach allowed the researchers to focus only on those occupations most relevant to the agribusiness industry. Thus, occupations for which agribusiness training may be applicable but not necessary (such as market and survey researchers, real estate agents, insurance agents, or public relations specialists) are not included in the demand estimates. In addition, training acquired in degree programs outside the relevant agribusiness-related CIP codes but adaptable to agribusiness (such as the traditional business degrees in marketing, management, or accounting) are excluded from the estimates. Much of the analysis will focus on occupations with largest growth rates due to the creation of new positions and net replacements due to labor market attrition.

5 Data on the OSDS site are collected, analyzed, and maintained by the Georgia Career Information Center, Georgia State University for the U. S. Department of Labor. The site is located at http://www.occsupplydemand.org/.
6 The industry approach is based on predicting the labor needed to fill potential positions in those industries for which growth rates are predicted to be highest. The occupational approach calculates labor demand estimates for those occupations projected to reflect the highest rates of growth across industries. Further discussion of these approaches can be found in Lowry et al,

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 4

Data Issues and Words of Caution:7
This study of the State`s agribusiness labor market for college-educated workers is based on projections of future industry and occupational changes. Forecasts of future demand and supply are, at best, only educated estimates based on time series data and informed assumptions about factors that affect labor markets. Such factors may include changes in technology and levels of productivity, consumer demand, and global competition. While the forecasts can be useful tools for policy formulation, the fact should not be ignored that they are based on static assumptions about dynamic future labor market events subject to differing opinions and interpretations among economists. That the labor market is, of itself, dynamic, responding to the volatile consumer goods market is certainly attested to by the current economic conditions. Thus, although it is feasible, and acceptable, to use time series trends to project future labor market variables, it must be noted that the gap analysis is not entirely gospel`. Hence, to determine exact values for shortages (or surpluses) would be more risky than necessary.
It should also be noted that estimates of the available supply do not include the numbers of graduates from institutions within Georgia that are not members of the University System or from institutions outside the State whose graduates may migrate to fill positions in Georgia. In addition, out-migration of USG graduates to other states is not accounted for in the gap analysis. Nor does the analysis reflect the fact that positions requiring a college education as a minimum qualification may be filed, for any number of reasons, by persons lacking such qualifications. Further, while the report includes data on degree completion, no estimate is made of relevant skills acquired in college as reflected in the needs expressed by the survey respondents. In addition, given the wide applicability of business training to agribusiness, the notion of predicting quantities of shortages (or surpluses) with absolute certainty is made more difficult Therefore, the gap may be over or underestimated and should be viewed only as an estimate of the likely trends.
The limitations of economic forecasting are further compounded by data suppression issues existing in the data obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Georgia Department of Labor. State and federal agencies are legally precluded from releasing data at a detailed level if such disclosure would violate the agencies` commitment to preserving the confidentiality of specific companies or individuals. As such, publicly available information for certain sectors of the agribusiness industry and the labor market was suppressed, thereby limiting the researchers` ability to make wholly accurate projections. This is particularly true for estimates of employment openings for master`s trained graduates reported in the Georgia Department of Labor (DOL) data.
Thus, it is advisable that the findings of the gap analysis between future supply and demand in the agribusiness labor market be interpreted in light of the data shortcomings and the limitations of economic forecasting. Assuming no major changes in the conditions under which the forecasts were developed, the analysis serves the purpose for which it was intended; simply as a guide in discussing potential scenarios. Any differences in the supply of and demand for college-educated workers must bear in mind that the labor market is subject to volatility due to the impact of factors outside the purview of this research. Nonetheless, with these constraints in mind, the researchers sought to provide the best estimates of future gaps using the most accurate available data, sound economic modeling theories, and reasonable assumptions about future economic trends. The approach taken in this report was to predict the existence of labor market gaps only in terms of likely scenarios so as to provide a range within which the estimates would fall. In addition, the results of the agribusiness employer survey served as a useful tool to validate the findings based on the economic modeling. The survey data can be interpreted to be a projection of employers` perceptions of future needs based on current economic conditions in 2008. As such, the perceptions, trends, and needs expressed by the survey respondents were used as the primary basis on which the recommendations for change were developed.

7 The discussion about data limitations draws heavily from a similar study conducted in January 2007 by the North Carolina Commission on Workforce Development.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 5

Definition of Terms
Defining "college-educated":
The report used the 11-category definitions of educational attainment defined by The Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).8 These categories9 are as follows:
1. First professional degree 2. Doctoral degree 3. Master`s degree 4. Bachelor`s or higher degree, plus work experience 5. Bachelor`s degree 6. Associate`s degree 7. Postsecondary vocational award 8. Work experience in a related occupation 9. Long-term on-the-job training 10. Moderate-term on-the-job training 11. Short-term on-the-job training
For the purpose of this report, per instructions from Georgia`s Intellectual Capital Partnership Program (ICAPP) Office, college-educated was defined to include only categories 1 7. However, data on certificate awards and programs (level 7) will be reported separately from degree awards and programs (levels 1-6) in the gap analysis.
Defining the Agribusiness Sector:
Defining the agribusiness sector was no easy task given the myriad of existing definitions. However, for consistency in data analysis, the definition of the agribusiness sector used in this report was partly based on the definition developed by the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). That definition divides NAICS industry groups and components into two categories: i) farm (to include all farming activities in NAICS codes 111-112) and ii) farm-related. The second category is further subdivided into a) closely-related industries; b)peripherally-related"; and c) indirect agribusiness industries. While the ERS definition is fairly consistent with that used in the report, there were some major differences based on Georgia`s economic circumstances and the Commission for a new Georgia`s definition of the agribusiness industry.10 Specific mention should be made of the fact that NAICS codes 3221 (Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills), 3222 (Converted Paper Product Manufacturing), and 3253 (Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing), considered peripheral or indirect` industries by ERS, are included among the closely-related Georgia agribusiness industries for the purposes of this study. These changes are consistent with the Commission for a new Georgia`s definition of agribusiness. In addition, several other closely-related agribusiness industry codes, including agricultural wholesale and retail trade, farm product warehousing, and agricultural finance, were added to the Commission`s definition, consistent with that used by ERS. As with previous studies done by CAED, farm and farm-related employment is defined as industries having 50% or more of their work force employed in providing goods and services necessary to satisfy the final demand for agricultural products.11

8 Downloaded from http://www.bls.gov/emp/optd/optd001.pdf, July 9, 2008 9 According to BLS, a category is defined as the most significant source of education or training needed to become qualified in
an occupation. 10 The exclusions and changes made to the ERS and Commission for a New Georgia`s definitions are contained in Appendix A of
this report. 11 Economic Sectors of the Georgia Food and Fiber System in Flanders et al, May 2008, p. 1

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 6

Defining the Aggregated Regions:
Acknowledging regional differences in levels of economic activity in various agribusiness sectors across the State, the researchers felt it was best to subsume regional differences within aggregated regions. County level data, although more detailed, ignore the migration of labor across counties that may, in part, affect labor market conditions. On the other hand, limiting the analysis only to state level data would assume that labor movements occur freely across regional boundaries. Census data do not support such free flow of labor within the State.12 Thus, the researchers opted to review the data on the basis of the officially-defined 12 service delivery regions, permitting broader application to other studies, including the eight regions used by the Commission for a New Georgia. While some economic data were available only for Workforce Investment Areas (WIAs), a crosswalk was developed to match those WIAs to the service delivery regions.13

Relevant NAICS Codes

There is no single NAICS code that can be used for the agribusiness sector. Based on the definition of the agribusiness sector as above, the relevant NAICS codes were used to identify industries and occupations into groupings for ease of data analysis and presentation.14
1. Crop Production 2. Animal Production 3. Forestry and Logging Operations 4. Other Farming and Farm Support Activities 5. Food, Beverage, Tobacco, Textile, and Leather Manufacturing 6. Wood and Paper Product Manufacturing 7. Agricultural Chemical and Machinery Manufacturing 8. Food Warehousing, Wholesaling, and Retailing Operations 9. Agricultural Support Services and Related Activities (including agricultural finance, risk
minimization, government and education related to agricultural production15, and agricultural consulting16 and trade organizations/associations)
In large part, the groupings included NAICS codes that were consistent with those identified by the Commission for a New Georgia`s Strategic Industries Task Force,17 with a few exceptions as noted in Appendix A. Of particular note is the decision by the researchers to include agricultural wholesale and retail trade and farm product warehousing as part of the agribusiness sector. That decision is based on economic data that reflect employment in those subsectors of nearly 15% of Georgia`s agribusiness workforce.18 This revised definition of the agribusiness industry is consistent with that used by other researchers and agencies, including USDA.19
12 The data are available from the Census Bureau report, County-to-County Worker Flow Files, at http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting/index.html#GA
13 See Appendix C for a copy of the crosswalk table. 14 A full list of the NAICS codes associated with each category is reported in Appendix B of this report. 15 Respondents included in this category ranged from employees of state and federal agencies associated with agricultural
production, marketing, regulation, and compliance to agricultural extension agents. 16 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, agricultural consultants, offer technical expertise, information, contacts, and tools
that clients cannot provide themselves including marketing finance, human resources, and regulatory compliance. http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs037.htm. 17 Strategic Industries Task Force Final Report. Downloaded from http://newgeorgia.org/newsletters/Strategic%20Industries%20Final%20Report.pdf, July 9, 2008. The full list of NAICS codes are contained in Appendix B of this report. 18 Data based on estimates developed by economists in the Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development, University of Georgia. 19 Further discussion is available from Flanders et al, May 2008.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 7

Relevant CIP Codes
The report used the 2000 Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes to identify those degree programs most directly related to the agribusiness sector as defined by the included NAICS. Following the development of the initial list of codes, data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) were used to identify only those programs with graduates since 2000 for the State of Georgia and competitor schools in Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee. As a result of that process, 36 CIP codes were used in the report to reflect supply of graduates since 2002.20

20 A complete list of the relevant CIP codes is available in Appendix D. A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 8

Chapter 2: The Economic Significance of the Agribusiness Industry
Introduction
In its report to the Governor, the Strategic Industries Taskforce of the Commission for a New Georgia recommended that the State focus on the agribusiness sector as one of its strategic industries as part of the State`s strategic approach to economic development.21 That recognition is based on the sector`s contribution to the State`s economy, both in terms of the value of production and the level of employment within the sector. Agriculture and the businesses that process the raw materials used or produced by farmers have long been a key part of both the national and State economies. While the number of persons employed in direct farm production has declined, the total employment of persons in agribusiness continues to support the economies of both the U.S. and Georgia. It is no wonder then that the Taskforce recognized the economic significance of the agribusiness sector to the future economic growth of the State. Agricultural production and related agribusiness have and will continue to rank as one of the State`s top industries.
As previously discussed, the agribusiness sector 22is defined to include the primary agricultural sector of crop and livestock production and greenhouse, nursery, and forestry operations. In addition, the definition also includes those sectors of the economy that depend on agricultural output to support their economic activities or provide inputs used in agricultural production or distribution. Input sectors include those sectors and industries such as agricultural chemical and farm machinery manufacturers, agricultural support service providers including extension, veterinary services and farm financing. Forward links exist between farm production and those processing industries that use agricultural raw materials as inputs. Such industries include meat slaughtering, food, beverage, leather, textile, and tobacco manufacturing, food warehousing, wholesaling, and retailing, and pulp and paper manufacturing.
In addition to the direct economic impact generated by the agribusiness sector through production and employment that reflect the direct impact of agribusiness activities on the level of activity in the overall economy, one cannot ignore the indirect impact of agribusiness, through the ripple or multiplier effects that increases in agribusiness activity have on other sectors of the economy; as agribusiness activity increases so does the level of activity in other industries with whom these businesses do business. In addition, as income increases in the agribusiness sector, expenditures on goods and services produced by other sectors also increase, stimulating the overall level of economic activity. Thus, the agribusiness sector cannot be viewed in a vacuum in considering the economic significance of that sector to the national and state economies. The inclusion of the multiplier effects gives a more complete picture of the overall contribution of the agribusiness sector to the national and state economies.23

21 Strategic Industries Taskforce Report, pp.7 - 8 22 As the agribusiness sector is sometimes referred to as as the Food and Fiber industry, some data will be reported in that
manner. 23 The following summary on multipliers is extracted from Economic Multipliers: How Communities: Can Use Them for Planning.
Wayne P. Miller, Extension Economist, University of Arkansas: Multipliers are simple ratios of total to initial change, numerous economic multipliers are easy to calculate (see Appendix A). Four multipliers are commonly used to assess impacts of an initial increase in production resulting from an increase in sales, usually called final demand in multiplier analysis. The four are: (1) Output, (2) Employment, (3) Income and (4) Value Added Multipliers. Multipliers usually range between 1.0 and 3.0 and vary by the amount of economic activity within an area and by the interaction of industries within the area. The more inputs purchased locally and the more consumer expenditures at local shops, the higher the multiplier. The larger the area, the more economic activity will likely occur within the area. See http://www.uaex.edu/Other_Areas/publications/PDF/FSCDD-6.pdf

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 9

The U.S. National Picture

The agribusiness sector is estimated to generate almost $1,975 billion in output for the U.S. economy and employ more than 12 million people. As seen in Table 2.1, those numbers represented approximately 8% and 7% respectively of the total value of output for 2006.24 These numbers represent the direct economic impacts of the agribusiness sector, excluding the multiplier effects on other sectors of the economy.

Table 2.1 - U.S. Agribusiness Employment and Output, by Category, 2006

Sector
Crop Production Animal Production Forestry and Logging Operations Other Farming and Farm Support Activities1 Food, Beverage, Tobacco, Textile, and Leather Manufacturing Wood and Paper Product Manufacturing Agricultural Chemical and Machinery Manufacturing Food Warehousing, Wholesaling, and Retailing Operations2 Total Agribusiness25 Agribusiness Percent of Economy

Employment
1,516,904 1,329,165
140,814 1,926,333 1,832,758
932,965 136,455 4,229,095 12,044,490
7

Output -In $ M-
130,759 124,889
39,507 87,546 827,843 271,617 86,643 406,145 1,974,950
8

1 Includes landscape services.

2 Food, drink, tobacco, and alcohol only.

Source: IMPLAN model estimates, CAED26
_________________

The performance of the farm producing subsector is of tremendous significance to the overall performance of the agribusiness sector because farm production is intricately intertwined with the rest of the economy. In addition, consumption of agricultural products, either in direct or processed forms, further adds to the economic impact of agribusiness activity.

24 Estimates were derived by economists with the CAED using input-output (I/O) modeling developed from the Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. (MIG 2004) 2006 software and its associated data bases.
25 These numbers do not include values for the economic output and employment generated in services such as banking, government, or education, for which data on the percentage directly or indirectly related to the agricultural sector are not available.
26 IMPLAN Professional 2.0 is an economic impact assessment software system which is generally used with IMPLAN Data Files to create local area Social Accounting Matrices and develop Multiplier Models that can be used to estimate such variables as detailed economic impacts of economic activity. Further information is available at www.implan.com Note that, because IMPLAN only looks at backward linkages, the impact of forward linkages is not included.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 10

Chart 2.1 - Value of Production in U.S. Agricultural Sector (final output), 1990-2006

The data for the value

of production for the

US agricultural sector

indicate that there have

been

frequent

fluctuations in the level

of output over the

period 1990 2006.

However, over that

period, the value of

production

has

increased some 46.3%,

suggesting that the

agricultural sector, and

the businesses that it

supports, will continue

to have a significant

impact on the overall

economy in the future.

Source: Economic Research Service/USDA, July 2007

Chart 2.2 - Distribution of Total Employment by Major Category, U.S., 2006

Within the agricultural

sector, food warehousing,

wholesale, and retail

trade represent the

largest share of total

value

of

output,

employing more than 1/3

of the total agribusiness

workforce. Conversely,

the smallest employers of

ag-related labor are

within the agricultural

chemical and machinery

manufacturing

and

forestry and logging

operations production

subsectors.

Source: IMPLAN Model Estimates, CAED A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 11

In considering the contributions of each category to employment and output in the agribusiness sector, it is clear that the relative strengths of categories differ by type of output produced. Food warehousing and trade, crop and animal production, and other farming and farm support activities tend to be more labor intensive and make a bigger contribution to employment than to the value of output. On the other hand, the manufacturing subsectors employ relatively fewer workers but contribute a larger share of total value of production. This will have significant implications to the demand for labor in the agribusiness sector.
Chart 2.3 - Comparison of Output and Employment Distribution, by Major Category, U.S., 2006

Source: IMPLAN Model Estimates, CAED

One means of measuring the efficiency of a production sector is to compute labor productivity using the following formula:

Labor Productivity (output per hour) =

Output _____________
Labor Inputs

While this can be measured in terms of physical output per unit of labor, for this report output is measured in monetary terms for the U.S. and Georgia. Thus the labor productivity calculation gives an estimate of the value of output produced per worker. As the level of productivity rises, it means that each worker is producing more output. In other words, it takes fewer workers to produce a given level of output, as, for instance, in agricultural production throughout the United States, often reported as it now takes fewer farmers to feed the country.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 12

On the basis of the data generated by the IMPLAN model, the level of labor productivity in Georgia`s agribusiness sector exceeds that for the U.S. as a whole. Georgia outperforms the Nation in terms of animal productivity, in part due to efficiencies in the poultry subsector. Efficiency levels are higher in Georgia for wood and paper product manufacturing, and forestry and logging operations. On the other hand, labor productivity levels are lower in Georgia than in the U.S. in crop production and agricultural chemical and machinery manufacturing.
Chart 2.4 - Comparison of Levels of Productivity in U.S. and Georgia Agribusiness

Food Warehousing, Wholesaling, and Retailing Operations
Agricultural Chemical and Machinery Manufacturing
Wood and Paper Product Manufacturing
Food, Beverage, Tobacco, Textile, and Leather Manufacturing
Other Farming and Farm Support Activities
Forestry and Logging Operations
Animal Production
Crop Production
0

96,036 93,846

634,953 538,818
291,134 324,095
451,693 369,193

45,447 48,226

93,960 140,267

280,564 305,230

86,201 71,477
100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000

Georgia

US

A comparison of the relative levels of productivity for Georgia and the U.S. shows that Georgia`s labor productivity is higher in forestry and logging operations, animal production (including poultry), wood and paper product manufacturing, and other farming and farm support activities (including peanut and tobacco production). On the other hand, for the U.S. economy as a whole, labor productivity in crop production, food, beverage, tobacco, textiles and leather manufacturing, and other manufacturing is higher than for similar processes in Georgia. While these differences must be understood in light of other economic factors, including technology and factor costs of other inputs, they are an important first step in analysis the potential growth of the Georgia agribusiness industry.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 13

The Economic Impact of Georgia Agribusiness

Production and Employment Trends

Georgia's agribusiness industry contributed more than $76 billion in economic activity to the State in 2006, employing almost 400,000 workers and contributing $15 billion in labor income to the economy. Based on these figures, the agribusiness industry accounted for 11% of the total value of output and 8% of the total workforce. (Table 2.2) Taking into account the linkages among the sectors - including the indirect or multiplier effects - the contributions of the agribusiness sector to the level of economic activity in the State are even more impressive. This combined economic activity, reported in Tables 2.2 2.4, shows that a total contribution of nearly $20 billion in output, over 700,000 jobs, and $30 billion in labor income to the Georgia economy. These additional effects incorporate not only the effects of input purchases by the agribusiness sector, but also the increased household income of the workers employed in both the agribusiness sector and the businesses that supply inputs to that sector. The level of those economic impacts are provided in Table 2.3 (by sectors) and in Table 2.4 (by economic activity).27

Table 2.2 - Georgia Agribusiness Employment and Output, by Categories, Georgia, 2006

Sector
Crop Production Animal Production Forestry and Logging Operations Other Farming and Farm Support Activities1 Food, Beverage, Tobacco, Textile, and Leather Manufacturing Wood and Paper Product Manufacturing Agricultural Chemical and Machinery Manufacturing Food Warehousing, Wholesaling, and Retailing Operations2 Total Agribusiness

Employment
33,065 28,498
9,106 56,300 98,313 42,022
5,923 120,818 394,043

Output - in $M-
2,363 3,997 2,779
2,715 36,296 13,619
3,191
11,338 76,300

Agribusiness Percent of Economy

8

11

1 Includes landscape services.

2 Food, drink, tobacco, and alcohol only.

Table 2.3 - Economic Impacts of Georgia Agribusiness by Major Economic Sectors, 2006

Sector
Agriculture Mining and Construction Utilities Manufacturing Transportation, Warehousing Trade Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate Services Government & Non NAICS Total

Employment 89,685 3,139 2,638
157,121 33,615
185,452 33,520
207,391 3,154
715,716

Labor Income ($) 2,543,709,895 137,942,391 373,722,791 8,515,789,512 1,564,594,203 7,452,530,611 1,715,058,602 7,817,899,072 122,776,923
30,244,023,999

Value of Output ($) 9,825,991,554 358,309,502 1,768,698,783
56,969,086,751 3,738,151,534
18,949,754,597 6,709,743,527
18,336,220,866 3,121,182,386
119,777,139,500

27 Data for tables 2.2 - 2.4 were developed by CAED staff using IMPLAN modeling and data.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 14

Table 2.4 Total Economic Impacts of Georgia Agribusiness, 2006

Employment Labor Income ($) Output ($)

Direct Impact Indirect Impact Total Impact

394,043

321,672

715,716

15,753,762,966 14,490,261,033 30,244,023,999

76,300,137,176 43,477,002,324 119,777,139,500

In considering the contributions of each category to output and employment in the agribusiness sector, it is clear that the relative strengths of categories differ by type of output produced. Crop and animal production, food warehousing and trade, and other farming and farm support activities like that for the U.S., tend to be labor-intensive and contribute more to employment than to the value of output. On the other hand, relatively fewer workers are employed in the manufacturing subsectors but those subsectors contribute a larger share to the total value of production. The impact of this fact on the demand for labor in the agribusiness sector will be discussed in a subsequent chapter.

Chart 2.5 Distribution of Output and Employment by Category, Georgia, 2006

Table 2.5 - Annual Comparison of Farm Gate Value, 1999 - 2007

Production Year 1999 2000 2201 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2007

Total Value of Production
$7,926,020,249 $8,295,451,715 $8,714,970,992 $8,825,753,908 $9,859,173,985 $10,283,536,190 $10,579,891,717 $10,366,342,023 $11,566,159,994

Given these production and employment numbers for the agribusiness sector, the value of total output at the farm gate enhances the picture of the value of farm production to the economy in terms of measuring the value of the commodities produced. As shown in Table 2.5, farm gate values have increased by nearly 46% (45.9%) from 1999 to 2007, a rate of increase of almost 5% annually.

Source: 2007 Georgia Farm Gate Value Report, CAED, AR-08-01

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 15

Much of that increase is due to increases in poultry and egg production which increased some 66% from 1999 to 2007. For 2007, the top ten commodities represented almost 75% of the total farm gate value of production.
Table 2.6 - Farm Gate Value of Top Ten Commodities, by Commodity, Georgia, 2007

Rank

Commodity

1

Broilers

2

Cotton

3

Eggs

4

Timber

5

Horses

6

Beef

7

Peanuts

8

Dairy

9

Greenhouse

10

Container Nursery

Contribution Made by Top 10 Commodities

Total farm gate value

Farm Gate Value By Commodity
$4,715,194,764 $628,800,267 $549,714,874 $500,864,049 $429,569,500 $423,272,771 $381,951,526 $310,023,659 $268,766,728 $215,132,375
$8,423,290,513
$11,566,159,994

% of Total Farm Gate Value
40.77% 5.44% 4.75% 4.33% 3.71% 3.66% 3.30% 2.68% 2.32% 1.86%
72.83%

Chart 2.6 Distribution of Farm Gate Production by Commodity Group, Georgia, 2007
The statistics reported by the CAED estimated that much of the farm gate value of total agricultural production of over $11m for 2007 was contributed by poultry and egg production (47%), livestock and aquaculture (12%), row and forage crops (14.53%), and vegetables (8%). Broilers alone accounted for almost 41% of the total farm gate value of commodities produced in 2007.

Source: 2007 Georgia Farm Gate Value Report, CAED, AR-08-01 A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 16

Based on these increases in farm output, despite fluctuations in the value of production, Georgia`s share of total US farm production has increased from 2.3% in 1990 to 2.7% in 2006.
Chart 2.7 Georgia's Share of U.S. Value of Production in Agriculture, 1990 2006

Source: Economic Research Service/USDA, July 2007
_________
As a state, Georgia ranked 12th among the states in terms of its value of farm production in 2006. While that rank has fluctuated over the years, to a high of 11th in 1999, 2001, and 2005, overall, the trend has been upward from 17th in 1990.

Table 2.7 Georgia's Rank Among Agricultural Producers in U.S., 1990 - 2006

Year
1990 1995 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Value of US Production In $`000 188,496,680 203,553,284 213,421,168 220,466,802 229,429,600 220,358,440 243,482,016 283,009,336 275,201,649 275,700,012

GA`s Production as Share of US
2.28% 2.78% 2.83% 2.63% 2.76% 2.41% 2.55% 2.52% 2.64% 2.65%

Source; Economic Research Service/USDA, July 25, 2007

Georgia`s Rank Among All States
17th 12th 11th 12th 11th 13th 12th 14th 11th 12th

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 17

Employment Concentration and Competitive Advantage
Despite the significant contribution made by agricultural commodities to the State`s economy, the impact on employment is smaller relative to other subsectors within the agribusiness sector. In fact, few of the commodity groups have employment concentrations that rank them among major producers in the U.S. when viewed from the perspective of location quotients. The State`s level of economic activity related to the agribusiness industry is not uniformly distributed across the state or by commodity groups. Location quotients were calculated to determine the degree of industry specialization within the State using data and techniques provided by the U.S. Department of Labor`s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).28

A location quotient greater than 1 in a specific industry can be interpreted as an indicator of the area`s competitive advantage in that industry due to the existing supply of labor and other resources, including input suppliers and infrastructure. Conversely, a location quotient significantly below 1 is often a signal that the area lacks a concentration of labor in that sector or industry relative to other areas.

Since location quotients are often used to compare concentrations of industries in a particular area, using the BLS Location Quotient Calculator tool, statistics were computed for the top 10 commodity groups, using the U.S. as the comparator group. The results of that analysis confirmed that:

1. Agricultural commodity groups are not major employers of labor in Georgia, with that subsector employing just under one percent (0.97%) of the State`s workforce. That number was not much lower than the similar statistics for the U. S. for which the value was 1.13%.

Table 2.8 Share of Total Employment for Select Agricultural Commodities, Georgia and U.S.

Industry

U.S. TOTAL

Georgia Statewide 1

Base Industry: Total, all industries

100.00%

100.00%

NAICS 111 Crop production

0.48%

0.31%

NAICS 11121 Vegetable and melon farming

0.08%

0.09%

NAICS 1113 Fruit and tree nut farming

0.15%

0.05%

NAICS 1114 Greenhouse and nursery production

0.15%

0.10%

NAICS 11191 Tobacco farming

0.00%

0.01%

NAICS 11192 Cotton farming

0.02%

0.02%

NAICS 111992 Peanut farming

0.00%

0.01%

NAICS 11211 Beef cattle ranching, farming, and feedlots

0.04%

0.01%

NAICS 11212 Dairy cattle and milk production

0.07%

0.03%

NAICS 1123 Poultry and egg production

0.04%

0.07%

NAICS 11231 Chicken egg production

0.01%

0.01%

NAICS 11232 Broilers and meat type chicken production

0.01%

0.02%

NAICS 11234 Poultry hatcheries

0.01%

0.04%

NAICS 11292 Horses and other equine production

0.01%

0.00%

NAICS 113 Forestry and logging

0.06%

0.18%

NAICS 1131 Timber tract operations

0.00%

0.02%

% of total employment employed in these selected NAICS

1.13%

1 Values in blue indicate commodities for which the employment LQ in Georgia exceeds that for the U.S.

0.97%

28 A Location Quotient (LQ) compares an area's distribution of employment by industry to a reference or base area's distribution
and base industry. An LQ greater than 1 indicates an industry with a greater share of the local area employment than is the case in the reference area. Conversely for values less than 1. For more about the Location Quotient Calculator, see http://www.bls.gov/qcew/cewlq.htm.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 18

2. On the basis of the value of production, Georgia is not ranked among the top ten producers of agricultural commodities. Nevertheless, the State maintains a competitive advantage in selected commodities such as poultry and eggs, cotton, peanuts, broiler, timber and tobacco, for which the LQ was greater than 1. In all, 11 of the 19 categories reflected LS values greater than 1, with values well above 1 for peanuts, timber, broilers, and poultry hatcheries. All LQ values were calculated using data obtained from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Data, 2006, BLS.

Table 2.9 Location Quotients for Major Agricultural Commodities, Georgia, 2006

Industry
Base Industry: Total, all industries NAICS 111 Crop production NAICS 11121 Vegetable and melon farming NAICS 1113 Fruit and tree nut farming NAICS 1114 Greenhouse and nursery production NAICS 11191 Tobacco farming NAICS 11192 Cotton farming NAICS 11199 All other crop farming NAICS 111992 Peanut farming NAICS 112 Animal production NAICS 11212 Dairy cattle and milk production NAICS 1123 Poultry and egg production NAICS 11231 Chicken egg production NAICS 11232 Broilers and meat type chicken production NAICS 11234 Poultry hatcheries NAICS 11239 Other poultry production NAICS 11292 Horses and other equine production NAICS 113 Forestry and logging NAICS 1131 Timber tract operations NAICS 1132 Forest nursery and gathering forest products

Georgia -Statewide
1.00 0.64 1.06 0.33 0.67 3.55 1.50 0.72 13.91 0.63 0.38 2.05 0.53 3.17 4.48 2.63 0.47 2.94 6.02 1.64

1 Values in blue indicate commodities for which employment in Georgia exceeds that for the U.S.

Source: BLS Location Quotient Calculator (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Data)

The economic significance of those commodities cannot be overstated. Despite the expected decline in job growth in those production activities, largely due to increases in labor productivity, the backward and forward linkages that exist with other sectors mean that crop and animal production will continue to be significant contributors to Georgia`s economic growth. Job growth created in other sectors will depend, to some significant extent, on the performance of the agricultural production sectors. Agribusinesses, including manufacturing firms, use Georgia`s farm commodities as inputs in their processing operations. As such, declines in the agricultural sector would lead to higher input costs for industries that depend on agricultural output, contributing to higher production costs and lower domestic and global competitiveness based on the linkages with the agricultural sector. Thus, although the farm production sector is not a major employer of college-educated workers, understanding the role of farm commodities is critical to understanding the projected trends in the demand for college-educated workers. Location quotients for the agribusiness industry as a whole depend on the competitiveness of Georgia`s farm production activities.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 19

Utilizing the IMPLAN model, additional location quotients were calculated for both employment and output for the entire agribusiness sector in Georgia by industry. These LQs highlight the industries that make up the agribusiness sector, demonstrating LQs greater than one or close to one for most in both employment and output. For the entire agribusiness sector, the location quotient is greater than one, demonstrating Georgia's concentration in this strategic area of our economy.
Table 2.10 Location Quotients for Major Agribusiness Subsectors, Computed Using IMPLAN

Enterprises
Crop Production
Animal Production
Forestry and Logging Operations Other Farming and Farm Support Activities1 Food, Beverage, Tobacco, Textile, and Leather Manufacturing
Wood and Paper Product Manufacturing
Agricultural Chemical and Machinery Manufacturing Food Warehousing, Wholesaling, and Retailing Operations2
Total Agribusiness

Location Quotients

Employment
0.73 0.71 2.15 0.97

Output
0.63 1.11 2.45 1.08

1.79

1.52

1.50

1.74

1.45

1.28

0.95

0.97

1.09

1.34

1Includes landscape services. 2Food, drink, tobacco, and alcohol only.

Further, when the location quotients were calculated for industries that use agricultural commodities as primary raw materials, the significance of the commodity groups is even more apparent. Food manufacturing, wood, and paper manufacturing, all had LQ values greater than 1, indicating Georgia`s relative employment concentration in these areas.

Chart 2.8 - Location Quotients for Manufacturing Products, Based on Agricultural Commodities, Georgia, 2006

In chart 2.8, Location

Quotients were calculated

specifically for industries that

use agricultural commodities

as primary raw materials,

making even more apparent

the significance of these

agribusiness groups. The

highest LQ values were found

for textile mills, paper and

wood manufacturing, food

manufacturing, and farm

product warehousing and

storage.

Within

the

agribusiness

industry,

commodities with location

quotients greater than 1

(Chart 2.9 A) and less than 1

(Chart 2.9 B) are shown

below for selected NAICS

codes.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 20

Selected NAICS Categories

Chart 2.9 - Location Quotients by Selected NAICS Codes for Agribusiness Employment Concentrations, Georgia

A. Georgia - LQ Values Greater than 1

Fiber, yarn, and thread mills Broadwoven fabric mills Forestry and logging
Coated and laminated packaging paper mfg. Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills
Plywood and engineered wood product mfg. Sawmills and wood preservation
Agricultural implement manufacturing Uncoated paper and multiwall bag mfg.
Food manufacturing Paperboard container manufacturing Farm product warehousing and storage Nursery and florist merchant wholesalers Food product machinery manufacturing Wood container and pallet manufacturing Tobacco and tobacco product merch. whls. Farm and garden equip. merchant wholesalers
Landscaping services Grocery and related product wholesalers
Millwork Fishing, hunting and trapping

2.94 2.2 2.15 1.86 1.79 1.67 1.62 1.55 1.46 1.36 1.33 1.29 1.28 1.26 1.12 1.07 1.04 1.04 1.04

6.89

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

B. Georgia - LQ Values Less than 1

Location Quotient Values

Miscellaneous wood product manufacturing
Nursery, garden, and farm supply stores
Agricultural chemical manufacturing
Coated and laminated paper manufacturing
Narrow fabric mills and schiffli embroidery
Farm product raw material merch. whls.

0.72

Specialty food stores

0.67

Farm supplies merchant wholesalers
Beverage and tobacco product manufacturing

0.66 0.66

Crop production

0.64

10.41

9

10

11

12

0.99 0.95 0.91 0.88 0.86

Animal production

0.63

Agriculture and forestry support activities
Other leather product manufacturing

0.13

0.54

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

Location Quotients

Source: U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2006

Selected NAICS Codes

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 21

Summary
Georgia`s agribusiness industry, composed of sectors involved in agricultural and forestry production (including support services); food and fiber processing and manufacturing; production inputs; food retail and wholesale trade; and food services, has significant economic impact on the State`s economy. Performance of the farm producing subsector is of tremendous significance to the overall performance of the agribusiness sector because farm production is intricately intertwined with both forward (producers of agricultural raw materials and distribution and sale of value-added products) and backward (input supply) linkages with the rest of the economy. In addition, consumption of agricultural products, either in direct or processed forms, further adds to the economic impact of the farm subsector. When the direct and indirect impacts of the agribusiness sector to employment, output, and value added are considered, the contributions of the agribusiness sector to the level of economic activity in the State are even more impressive. The economic multipliers generated by activity in the agribusiness sector give credence to the fact that the agribusiness sector has significant direct and indirect impacts on Georgia`s economy. As a result of economic activity, agribusinesses contributed almost $120b in additional output within Georgia with major impacts felt in the manufacturing sector, services, and trade. In terms of employment, the agribusiness industry generated almost twice as many jobs in other sectors of the economy as persons directly employed in agribusiness.
Agricultural commodity and agribusiness production compare favorably to national statistics, giving the State a competitive advantage in the production of major agricultural and agribusiness commodities. The computed location quotients suggest that Georgia has a competitive advantage, based on such factors as its human resources and knowledge and physical capital and infrastructure, in the production of those commodities. Recognizing and exploiting these competitive advantages should be key concerns of policies aimed at increasing Georgia`s competitive rank among the Nation`s agribusiness producers and in generating future employment growth within the sector. Based on its competitive position, Georgia should be in a relatively strong position to respond to increased demand for food and fiber products from both U.S. and global markets.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 22

Chapter 3: The Demand for a CollegeEducated Workforce in Georgia`s Agribusiness
Industry

Introduction
In its report emphasizing relationships such as those between industry and education, the Spellings Commission29 noted that higher education in the United States has become one of our greatest success stories. In explaining the increased demand for post-secondary education, the Commission pointed out that higher education is seen as the means to accomplish both quality of life and economic development goals for the nation and its citizens... That notion, combined with the projected annual increase in the numbers of high school graduates will continue to generate new and expanding demand for higher education. As noted by the Commission, hte United States increasingly needs what the best of higher education has to offer: graduates who contribute positively to economic development through increased private and public revenues, greater productivity, increased consumption, more workforce flexibility, and decreased reliance on government financial support; services that fill economic and social demands in agriculture, commerce, health care, energy, defense, human development, natural resources, and other subject areas vital to our society; and research that contributes to the growing fund of knowledge, fires the engines of innovation, and advances the future of the nation.30
To accomplish those goals, the higher education system will be challenged to respond to the needs of its varied constituents, especially students and employers. As the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education so eloquently phrased it, one of the most fundamental roles that higher education must play in the economic growth of the U.S. is to to provide graduates and the nation at large with the skills needed to be effective in a global, increasingly competitive economy.... The report continues, the most important educational goal confronting higher education in the 21st century is to optimize learning by students and by society in general: to educate a growing, increasingly diverse set of learners to be effective and fulfilled as workers and citizens...31 The challenges are no less complex for Georgia.
Trends in Georgia`s Workforce, by Sectors and Agribusiness Groups

For the state of Georgia, the labor market has shown consistent growth since 1990. According to reports from the Georgia Department of Labor, Georgia has ranked fourth among all states in net labor force growth and became the sixth fastest growing labor force in the nation since 1990.32 Georgia`s labor market is projected to increase by more than 750,000 jobs by 2014, an annual increase of 1.7%. This

29 A Commission appointed by Margaret Spellings, U.S. Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Education's Commission on the
Future of Higher Education (the Spellings Commission) was charged with developing a comprehensive national strategy for postsecondary education and also address the future economic and workforce needs. (See www.ed.gov for more information).
30 "Setting the Context, Charles Miller & Cheryl Oldham. A National Dialogue: The Secretary of Education`s Commission on the
Future of Higher Education. Issue Paper. First in a series of Issue Papers released at the request of Chairman Charles Miller to inform the work of the Commission, p.1. 31 Engaging Higher Education in Societal Challenges of the 21st Century, NCPP&HE, April, 2008, pp.2-3 32 Georgia Annual Report Analysis, Georgia Department of Labor, Workforce Information & Analysis Division, p.4

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 23

compares favorably with the projected numbers for the U.S. to 2016 of 1.0% annually.33 However, growth will not occur in all sectors as many sectors will not add new positions. Indeed, as seen below, many sectors will experience negative growth rates. Yet, for others, despite negative growth rates, employment levels will grow due to replacement positions due to persons leaving the workforce for reasons such as retirement. Thus, the changes in employment must be analyzed from the perspective of new positions (due to growth) and replacements (due to attrition). This is particularly significant for subsectors such as crop production where technology changes and increases in productivity tend to limit the creation of new jobs but where replacements due to retirement or turnover are high, create job openings.34
For purposes of this study, the demand for college-educated agribusiness labor is defined in terms of the projected employment in 2014 for those occupations (by SOC codes) identified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as typically requiring at least an associate`s degree, and by CIP codes identified by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).35 However, where relevant to the discussion, reference will be made and statistics reported for certificates awarded within the University System
Georgia Employment - All Sectors and Educational Levels
For all educational levels, the data on average quarterly employment data for the 2006-07 period show that the largest employer of labor in Georgia is the food services and drinking services industry, while fishing, hunting, and trapping employs the fewest number of workers (Chart 3.1).
Chart 3.1 - Distribution of Quarterly Employment by Industry, Georgia July 2006 - June 2007

Source: Quarterly Workforce Indications, US. Census Bureau, 2007
33 According to the BLS, national occupational projections are developed on a 2-year schedule for national and state level data. While the current national projections cycle cover the 2006-2016 period, state level data for the same period will not be available until late 2008. The most current state level data for Georgia covers the period 2004 -2014 (see www.bls.gov for more information).
34 Job openings = sum of new + replacement positions 35 SOC codes refer to the 2000 Standard Occupational Classification system used by federal statisticians to classify workers into
occupational categories to facilitate the collection and dissemination of labor market. CIP codes refer to the Classification of Instructional Programs used to identify instructional degree specialties (majors and minors) for collection and reporting of education data. For more information about SOC, see www.bls.gov/SOC/. For information about the NCES, see www.nces.ed.gov/ipeds. More information about the definitions is contained in Appendix F.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 24

On average, nearly one in every five employees in Georgia worked in food services and drinking places in

2006- 2007 (18.4%). On the other hand, fewer than 1% of Georgia`s workforce was employed in crop

production during that same period. The picture remained relatively unchanged when the sectors were

ranked relative to the average number of new hires employed quarterly over the period 2006 2007

(including replacements). Food services and drinking places ranked second to administrative support

services while fishing, hunting and trapping hired the least number of new employees. These numbers

are more below, 15

reflective of the 27

soufbstheectoturrsneoxvpeerInriindenutcshetordysGeneEeomingrpgdaliutoaivsy2etmr0iae0evs6ne-t2rraGa0tg0rhoe7ewrqtuhtha(ar%tne)rglyrogwrothwtihn

new rates

positions. As shown for 2006/2007.

Chart 3.2 - Georgia Agribusiness Industry Employment Growth (as a %), 2006-2007

Food & Beverage Stores Food Services & Drinking Places
Educational Services Building Material &...
Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services Waste Management & Remediation Services
Repair & Maintenance Warehousing & Storage Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods Insurance Carriers & Related Activities
Animal Production Crop Production
Administrative & Support Services Food Manufacturing
Wood Product Manufacturing Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods
Printing & Related Support Activities Rental & Leasing Services
Management of Companies & Enterprises Forestry & Logging
Furniture & Related Product Man. Support Activities for Agriculture & Forestry
Fishing, Hunting & Trapping Textile Product Mills Paper Manufacturing
Beverage & Tobacco Product Man. Textile Mills

-22.3

-6.0 -6.0 -6.1 -6.6 -7.8

-0.5 -0.8 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 -2.4 -2.9 -3.6

4.7 4.6 3.3 3.3 2.7 2.4 2.3 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.4

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

Source: Quarterly Workforce Indications, US. Census Bureau, 2007

7.3 10.0

Chart 3.3 - Georgia Agribusiness-Related Manufacturing Employment, July 2006 to June 2007

With an average quarterly

employment of nearly 70,000

workers (69,792), food

manufacturing is the largest

employer within those

manufacturing industries that

hire

agribusiness-related

workers. On the other hand,

the smallest workforce (3,402)

is employed in those

companies that are involved in

beverage and tobacco product

manufacturing. Despite losing

an average of more than 2000

jobs per quarter, the textile

industry and affiliated product

manufacturing companies are

the second largest employers

in agribusiness manufacturing.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 25

When new hires were compared to the industry's total workforce, administrative support services ranked at the top, hiring one new person for nearly every six workers currently employed (17.4%). Similarly, the food services and drinking places industry had a large proportion of new hires (15.3%), while beverage and tobacco product manufacturers had a much smaller amount (6.1%).

Chart 3.4 - New Hires in Georgia as PercentnoefwEmhpirloeysmpecntt by Industry, July 2006 June 2007

Administrative & Support Services Food Services & Drinking Places Food & Beverage Stores Wood Product Manuf acturing Rental & Leasing Services
Building Material & Garden Equipment & Supplies Crop Production
Repair & Maintenance Support Activities f or Agriculture Prof essional, Scientif ic, & Technical Services
Warehousing & Storage Fishing, Hunting & Trapping
Food Manuf acturing Animal Production
Waste Management & Remediation Services Furniture & Related Product Man. Educational Services Mgt of Companies & Enterprises
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods Printing & Related Support Activities
Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods Forestry & Logging
Insurance & Related Activities Paper Manuf acturing Textile Mills Textile Product Mills
Beverage & Tobacco Product Man.
0.0%

11.7% 11.2% 10.7% 10.5% 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 9.7% 9.2% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.0% 8.2% 8.2% 8.1% 8.0% 7.8% 7.2% 7.1% 7.0% 6.5% 6.4% 6.4% 6.1%

15.3%

3.0%

6.0%

9.0%

12.0%

15.0%

Source: Quarterly Workforce Indications, US. Census Bureau, 2007

17.4% 18.0%

Overall, in looking at employment trends, we see recurring patterns of particular industries that comprise much of the workforce in Georgia, such as food services and drinking places, administrative and support services, and professional, scientific & technical services. These occupational groups also account for much of the new hire activity around the State and represent large portions of Georgia's employment distribution. However, of the 29 subsectors for which data were reported, 22 had negative job growth, including administrative and support services where more than 10,000 jobs were lost even as that subsector hire almost 50,000 new hires. Such trends are indicative of a high level of turnover where hires are being made to replace lost workers rather that to fill newly created positions. A summary, by subsector, is provided below.

Table 3.1 Comparison of Hiring Growth and Hires Made, Georgia, 2006 - 2007

Sub-Sector Group
Textile and Affiliated Industries Food Manufacturing Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing Paper Manufacturing Wood Product Manufacturing
Source: Quarterly Workforce Indications, US. Census Bureau, 2007

Hiring Growth
-2235 -2019
-400 24
1044 1471

Number of New Hires
4294 6343 1190
206 1516 2660

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 26

Long term Projected Trends in the Agribusiness Labor Market

Projections from the Georgia Department of Labor predict that occupations linked to the agribusiness sector will experience a growth rate of 15.6% to 2014, a predicted annual growth rate of 1.42%. Although representing only 17% of the projected workforce, occupations for which a college education is typically required will grow at a rate just above the rate for those occupations for which no college education is necessary (15.1%). Over the 10 year period ending 2014, the college-educated workforce is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.5% compared to the corresponding rates of 1.4% for both the non-degree occupations and the total agribusiness workforce. As a result of the slightly larger growth rate, the share of the college educated workforce is projected to rise from 16.9% in 2004 to 17.0% of the total agribusiness workforce by 2014. Much of that growth will be led by the growth in the demand for graduates with bachelor`s degrees or higher which is expected to add 1,410 jobs annually from growth and replacements while the jobs for workers with associate`s degrees is expected to increase by 170.
Table 3.2 Long term Growth Projections by Occupation and Education

Long-Term Occupational Projections for Occupations in the Agribusiness-related NAICS Codes 2004-2014 Georgia Statewide

Type of Ag-related Occupation

Annual Openings
from Growth

Annual Openings
from Replacements

Total Annual Openings

Total - college-degree occupations for degree programs (education levels 1-6)

701

Total - college-degree occupations for certificate programs (education level 7)

5

Total college occupations (education levels 1 - 7)

706

888

1,580

14

20

902

1,600

Total non-college occupations

3,223

4,517

7,740

Total Georgia Agribusiness
Total - college-degree occupations for associate`s degree programs only (education levels 6 only)
___________________

3,924
89

5,405
97

9,320
170

Source: Georgia Department of Labor Note: Totals may not equal the sum of individual cells due to rounding and data suppression.

Annual Growth
Rate
1.5%
0.6%
1.5% 1.4%
1.4%

Table 3.3 Summary of Occupational Growth Rates, Georgia

Among the 31 degree-required occupations for which data were available, almost one half (48.4%) are predicted to grow faster or much faster than the average for the State of 1.7%. Overall, almost 90% of agribusiness related occupations are projected to increase in terms of employment while another 13%, including conservation scientists and foresters will experience negative growth rates. Employment of environmental engineering technicians is expected to increase much faster than the state average at 3.2%. Details on occupational growth rates (by SOC) are provided in Appendix E.

(Growth Projections
>1.7%
1.0% - 1.6%
0.0% - 0.9% <0 (negative)

Distributions

Absolute Relative Cumulative

15 48.4% 6 19.4% 6 19.4%

48.4% 67.7% 87.1%

4 12.9%

100.0%

Source: Georgia Department of Labor

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 27

The occupational characteristics of the list of occupations included in the college-educated agribusiness workforce are included in Appendix F (in SOC order). This list includes occupations that are peripherally related to agribusiness, including reporters and technical writers, who may obtain degrees in agricultural communication, and loan officers, economists, and survey researchers with degrees in agribusiness related disciplines.

Chart 3.5 - Top Ten Agribusiness-Related Occupations: Fastest Growing Occupations in Georgia

Attention must be drawn to the distinction between growth rates and job openings. Labor market growth can be reported in one of two ways: i) as rates of growth (%) and ii) as absolute numbers of jobs created. Typically, emerging industries generally have higher growth rates because the employment base is small. Thus the creation of 1,000 jobs in an industry that currently employs 10,000 would be reported as a 10% increase. On the other hand, the same number of jobs created in a sector that employs 100,000 would be only a 1% increase.

A: Growth Rates (in %), 2004 - 2014

B: Growth (in Numbers), 2004-2014
Source: Georgia Department of Labor

Adding 2,000 jobs to the larger

industry a growth twice as large as

that for the smaller industry, would

equal a 2% growth rate, still lower

than the 1,000 jobs added to the

smaller industry. Thus, although

positions

for

environmental

engineering technicians is projected

to report the highest growth rates

among

agribusiness-related

occupations (3.2%), the number of

job openings is among the smallest

among the top ten occupations,

creating only 40 jobs throughout the

State. The comparison is reversed for

vocational education teachers where

job growth is 2.4% but the number of

jobs created ranks it at the top of the

list, with an additional 250 jobs

created annually.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 28

What Agribusinesses Want from Georgia`s Higher Education System Survey Findings
Overview
Having now provided a context for trends in the State`s demand for college-educated workers, this section of the report is focused on analyzing the workforce needs expressed by respondents to the survey of agribusiness employers in terms of their projected demand for college-educated workers.36 Additional sections of the report will analyze questions relating to their perceptions of the supply of college-educated workers and the implications of views expressed about the quality and quantity of higher education in Georgia. Note that for most of the tables, absolute values are reported as whole number and relative values as percentages in parentheses (%) below the absolute values. If necessary, exceptions will be noted. Note that the sum of responses may not equal the total reported due to rounding.
Survey respondents represented a diverse geographic region across the State covering a large share of the State (Chart 3.6). This gives a reasonable level of confidence in the information gathered and the opinions expressed by the respondents in the future trends in the agribusiness industry of being reflective of the diversity of respondents` needs by regions.
Chart 3.6 Geographic Location of Survey Respondents

36 A discussion of the survey methodology is contained in Chapter 1. A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 29

Diversity was also reflected in the NAICS categories represented among the survey respondents. Relatively speaking, the largest group of respondents was the crop and greenhouse production group who represented 17% of the total number of completed responses. Least represented were agricultural consultants, less than 2% of total respondents. However, there were no subsectors that were not represented in the distribution of respondents.

Chart 3.7 - Distribution of Respondents by Broad NAICS Categories

The

distribution

of

respondents by broad

NAICS categories also

reflected the diversity of the

industry. The only categories

not represented were the

mining and construction and

utilities subsectors whose

individual impacts on the

Georgian economy are less

than 1/2 of 1% (0.4).

Again, this provides support to the assumption that the responses received from the survey participants would be reflective of Georgia`s agribusiness industry as a whole.

Table 3.4 Distribution of Respondents by Primary Agribusiness Subsector

Which of the following is the primary agribusiness area for your company? (Choose only one.)

Answer Options
Crop and Greenhouse Production Other Other Farm Production & Farm Support Activities Wood and Paper Product Manufacturing Food, Beverage, & Tobacco Manufacturing Food Warehousing, Wholesaling, & Retailing Operations Agricultural Chemical & Machinery Manufacturing Animal and Animal Aquaculture Production Trade Organization/Association Forestry and Logging Operations Government/Education Related to Agricultural Production Agricultural Finance and Risk Minimization Agricultural Consulting Completed Responses

Response Percent
17.4% 12.1% 10.5% 10.0%
8.4% 7.9% 6.3% 5.8% 5.8% 5.3%
5.3%
3.7% 1.6%

Response Count
33 23 20 19 16 15 12 11 11 10
10
7 3 190

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 30

Other agribusiness areas mentioned by respondents included landscape design, maintenance and installation, container manufacturing, human resource consulting, and agricultural packaging and container manufacturing.
Given the diversity in both geographic coverage and agribusiness production areas, it is reasonable to assume that conclusions based on the survey responses would be a valid representation of the perceptions of the State`s agribusiness employers. As such, the responses to questions contained on the survey are reported below and elsewhere in the report to serve as a base against which to compare the State and national data on employment trends and the future needs of agribusiness employers.

Current Size of College-educated Workforce

Responses to the

question about the

current size of their

Georgia-based workforce

revealed that, on

average,

survey

participants employed

approximately

116

workers in their Georgia

locations.

College

degrees were required

for almost 26% of the full-

time positions for these

employers. For those

with

multi-state

operations, the average

number of employees

was 1,822 of which 23%

had college degree

requirements.

Chart 3.8 - Percentage of Full Time Positions Requiring a College Degree

Table 3.5 - Full Time Positions Requiring a College Degree

What is the current approximate size of your workforce and what percentage of full-time positions in your company require a college degree in Georgia and all
U.S. locations?

Answer Options

Response Average

Response Count

Approximate number of employees in Georgia?

115.95

182

Percent (%) of full time positions requiring a college degree: Georgia?
Approximate number of employees in the U.S.? Percent (%) of full time positions requiring a college degree: U.S.? Completed Responses

25.9% 1,822.03
23.1%

180 138 136 184

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 31

However, when asked about specific subject matter needs, the majority of respondents (58%) indicated that a degree in a specific subject matter was not required for entry-level positions in their companies. Only 2% responded that a specific subject matter is required for all entry-level positions.

Table 3.6 - Need for Specific Subject Matter for Entry-level Positions

Is a college degree in a specific subject matter currently required for entry-level positions in your company?

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Yes - All

2.2%

4

Yes - Most

10.8%

20

Yes - Some

29.2%

54

No

57.8%

107

Completed Responses

185

For those respondents for whom a college degree in a specific subject matter was required (yes for all, most or some positions, equal to 42.2% of respondents), responses varied greatly by agribusiness enterprise. For agricultural consultants, all respondents (three) indicated that a specific degree was required. On the other hand, only 16% of those in crop production (five of 32) held that requirement.
Chart 3.9 Distribution of Responses by Need for Specific Subject Matter

Agricultural Consulting Agricultural Finance and Risk Minimization Agricultural Chemical & Machinery Manuf acturing Government/Education Related to Agricultural production
Trade Organizations/Association Food, Beverage, & Tobacco Manuf acturing
Forestry and Logging Operations Animal and Animal Aquaculture Production
Wood and Paper Product Manuf acturing Other Farm Production & Farm Support Activities
Other Agribusiness Food Warehousing, Wholesaling, & Retailing Operations
Crop and Greenhouse Production 0.0%

100.0%

85.7%

81.8%

70.0%

70.0%

50.0%

40.0%

40.0%

38.9%

35.0%

34.8%

20.0%

15.6% 20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 32

Table 3.7 Distribution of Responses on Degree Requirements for Those Employers for Whom a Specific Requirement Exists

Agribusiness Enterprise
Crop and Greenhouse Production Food Warehousing, Wholesaling, & Retailing Operations Other Agribusiness Other Farm Production & Farm Support Activities Wood and Paper Product Manufacturing Animal and Animal Aquaculture Production Forestry and Logging Operations Food, Beverage, & Tobacco Manufacturing Trade Organizations/Association Government/Education Related to Agricultural Production Agricultural Chemical & Machinery Manufacturing Agricultural Finance and Risk Minimization Agricultural Consulting Total respondents

Percent for No Yes Total which Specific
degree required

27

5

32

15.6%

12

3

15

20.0%

15

8

23

34.8%

13

7

20

35.0%

11

7

18

38.9%

6

4

10

40.0%

6

4

10

40.0%

8

8

16

50.0%

3

7

10

70.0%

3

7

10

70.0%

2

9

11

81.8%

1

6

7

85.7%

3

3

100.0%

107 78 185

42.2%

Represented graphically, it is clear to see that the more specialized the agribusiness enterprise, the more likely the respondent is to require a specific field for the degree which the employee holds.

Chart 3.10 Distribution of Responses to Degree Field Requirement

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 33

For those employers who require a college degree in a specific subject matter, the most popular degree programs were those in business (agribusiness, general business, or agricultural economics). More than 75% of the 106 employers who required that degree for one or more position openings in their companies indicated that at least 25% of their positions required a degree in those fields. On the other hand, of the 61 employers who had one or more openings that required a food science degree, fewer than 10% reported that all or almost all of their position openings would require a degree in that field. Other fields reported included economic development, engineering, government relations, management, and sales.

Table 3.8 - Subject Matter Content for Degree Requirements

For positions requiring a college degree, for what portion of your openings would you REQUIRE specific subject matter in the following fields? Check only those that apply. If none, leave blank. For "other", please specify.

Answer Options

All or Almost Most

Some

All (>90%) (51-90%) (25-50%)

A Few Response

(<25%)

Count

Agribusiness/Agricultural Economics/General Business

28 (26.4%)

29 (27.4%)

23 (21.7%)

26 (24.5%)

106

Animal Sciences (Including Dairy & Poultry)

9 (15.0%)

5 (8.3%)

9 (15.0%)

37 (61.7%)

60

Plant/Crop Sciences Public Relations & Communications Environmental Sciences
Agricultural Engineering
Food Science
Forestry
Geology/Earth Sciences
Horticulture & Landscaping
IT/Computer Science
Turfgrass Management
Agricultural Mechanization
Soil Science Plant Protection and Pest Management Agricultural Education
Food Technology

11 (15.3%)

13 (18.1%)

19 (26.4%)

29 (40.3)

72

18 (19.1%)

25 (26.6%)

21 (22.3%)

30 (31.9%)

94

13 (17.8%)

13 (17.8%)

17 (23.3%)

30 (41.1%)

73

9 (11.8%)

11 (14.5%)

15 (19.7%)

41 (53.9%)

76

5 (8.2%)

4 (6.6%)

11 (18.0%)

41 (67.2%)

61

8 (10.7%)

10 (13.3%)

19 (25.3%)

38 (50.7%)

75

3 (5.4%)

1 (1.8%)

17 (30.4%)

35 (62.5%)

56

16 (23.5%)

6 (8.8%)

17 (25.0%)

29 (42.6%)

68

12 (13.8%)

18 20.7%)

29 (33.3%)

28 (32.2%)

87

3 (4.9%)

10 (16.4%)

11 (18.0%)

37 (60.7%)

61

5 (7.2%)

13 (18.8%)

19 (27.5%)

32 (46.4%)

69

4 (7.7%)

11 (21.2%)

14 (26.9%)

23 (44.2%)

52

12 (15.8%)

16 (21.1%)

20 (26.3%)

28 (36.8%)

76

9 (12.3%)

12 (16.4%)

19 (26.0%)

33 (45.2%)

73

7 (10.6%)

3 (4.5%)

10 (15.2%)

46 (69.7%)

66

Other (please specify below)

24

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 34

Projected Trends in Employment

In looking forward to the short and longer runs, employers perceived that it will be important for employees to hold college degrees. Nearly 1/3 of respondents speculated that a college degree will be very important in the next 2-5 years. In the longer run, nearly 45% of respondents felt that new employees will need to possess college degrees. The number who felt that it would not be important for new hires to hold college degrees fell from 17% in the short run to only 8% in the next 6-10 years.

Table 3.9 Expectations of Future College Degree Requirements

As you look forward to the future, how important will it be for new employees to have a college degree?

Answer Options

Very Important

Somewhat Important

Not Important

Don't Know/ Response

Not Sure

Count

In the next 2 - 5 years

58

74

31

15

178

(32.6%)

(41.6%)

(17.4%)

(8.4%)

In the next 6 - 10 years

76

63

14

17

170

(44.7%)

(37.1%)

(8.2%)

(10.0%)

For those employers who currently have college-educated workers on staff, the numbers were only slightly different from the responses from all survey participants. The number of respondents who supposed that it would not be important for new hires to hold college degrees was only 8% in the short run and less than 2% in the next 6-10 years.

Workplace Needs Derived from Survey Responses
When asked about specific skills and attributes likely to be in demand, responses mentioned ranged from customer service skills to critical thinking/problem solving. On the whole, initiative appeared to be the most required attribute demanded by respondents, followed by communication skills, critical thinking/problem solving, and ethics. Foreign language capabilities and study abroad experience were not perceived to be critical skill needs among the respondents.
Chart 3.11 Top Five Skills/Attributes Identified as Requirements by Survey Respondents

Respondents

identified

initiative as the top

skill/attribute that they require

in employees. Included

among the other top five

skills

were

oral

communication skills and

business ethics. Employers

also

valued

critical

thinking/problem solving skills

among those required

skills/attributes that college-

educated employees should

bring to the work place.

These top five attributes/skills

were listed as requirements

by more than 60% of

respondents who answered

that question.

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 35

Chart 3.12 Bottom Five Skills/Attributes Required by Survey Respondents

Study abroad experience

and foreign language

capabilities were not

regarded by survey

respondents as required

skills for jobs in the

agribusiness

industry.

Although prior work

experience

and

interpersonal/cultural

diversity skills were ranked

in the bottom five among

required skills, almost 20%

of respondents considered

them to be valuable skills

that employees should

possess.

Additional details about the responses to required and preferred skills/attributes are provided in Table 3.10. It should be noted that, although not in the top five requirements, office software/computer competency was required and preferred by a large group of respondents. On the other hand more than 80% of respondents did not regard study abroad experience as an important skill to be acquired by college graduates who would seek employment in the agribusiness industry.
Table 3.10 Significance of Skill/Attributes

In the future, how important will each of the following attributes/skills be in college-educated applicants considered for hire in your company?

Answer Options
Initiative Oral communication skills Critical thinking/problem solving Business ethics Customer relations skills Office software/computer competency Written communication skills Leadership/team building skills Project management skills Statistics and mathematics Interpersonal/cultural diversity skills Prior work experience Internship experience Foreign language capabilities Study abroad experience

Required
119 69.2% 111 64.2%
107 61.5%
106 61.3% 102 59.0%
91 52.6%
81 47.9%
76 43.9%
40 23.7% 36 21.1%
32 18.7%
30 17.5% 10 5.9%
7 4.1% 2 1.2%

Preferred
45 26.2% 57 32.9%
59 33.9%
61 35.3% 62 35.8%
68 39.3%
72 42.6%
87 50.3%
101 59.8% 97 56.7%
102 59.6%
119 69.6% 92 54.1% 91 53.8% 25 14.5%

Not Important
8 4.7% 5 2.9%
8 4.6%
6 3.5% 9 5.2%
14 8.1%
16 9.5%
10 5.8%
28 16.6% 38 22.2%
37 21.6%
22 12.9% 68 40.0% 71 42.0% 146 84.4%

Response Count 172 173
174
173 173
173
169
173
169 171
171
171 170 169 173

A Study of the Workforce Training Needs for the Agribusiness Industry in Georgia

Page 36

Summary
The demand side of the market for college-educated workers in the agribusiness sector will be influenced by two factors:
1. The estimated numbers of workers needed to produce the projected demand for agribusiness products and services (quantity of labor demanded); and
2. The ability of the higher education system to graduate a college-educated workforce that reflects the kinds of skills sought by agribusiness employers (quality of labor demanded).
The quantity of labor demanded is calculated by the Georgia Department of Labor (DOL) as the total annual openings from two sources:
1. Employment growth from the creation of new jobs/positions due to business expansion.
2. Replacements- due to such factors as retirement, relocation, or labor shifts to other occupations and industries.
Both sources of jobs play an important role in the demand for labor in Georgia`s agribusiness sector. The conclusion to be drawn from the DOL projections is that occupations that require postsecondary education (education levels 1 7) will grow faster than the state average for all occupations. This growth will be led by increases in the demand for workers with an associate`s degree.
DOL projections forecast that by the year 2014, workers with at least a bachelor`s degree will account for 15% of the total agribusiness workforce. Although this is lower than the comparable figure for the State as a whole, this is significant given the large farm labor population who hold a high school diploma or l