• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Title Page
 Center information
 Foreword
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Summary
 Introduction
 Objectives
 Procedure
 Findings
 Conclusions
 Appendix
 Reference






Group Title: Industry report - University of Florida, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center ; no. 81-4
Title: Farmer to consumer direct marketing of citrus in Florida
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026883/00001
 Material Information
Title: Farmer to consumer direct marketing of citrus in Florida producer and consumer benefits, a report
Series Title: Industry report Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Physical Description: viii, 45 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Degner, Robert L
Rodan, Lance W
Mathis, Kary, 1936-
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, a part of the Food and Resource Economics Dept., Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla.
Publication Date: 1981
 Subjects
Subject: Citrus fruits -- Marketing -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Direct selling -- Economic aspects -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 45.
Statement of Responsibility: by Robert L. Degner, Lance W. Rodan, and Kary Mathis.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026883
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000410245
oclc - 10795168
notis - ACF7010

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

Farmer%20to%20Consumer%20Citrus%20IR81-4%20Dec%201981 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Center information
        Page i
    Foreword
        Page ii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iii
    Table of Contents
        Page iv
        Page v
    List of Tables
        Page vi
        Page vii
    Summary
        Page viii
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Objectives
        Page 2
    Procedure
        Page 3
    Findings
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
    Conclusions
        Page 36
    Appendix
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
    Reference
        Page 45
Full Text

Industry Report
81-4




Farmer to Consumer Direct
Marketing of Citrus in Florida:


Producer and Consumer Benefits



December 1981









The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
(FAMRC)


The Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville 32611




















Abstract


Direct marketing is an alternative used by many Florida citrus
growers, even though most citrus fruit is sold in commercial channels.
Case studies of three growers' roadside stand and farmers' market sales
showed net returns per hour of family labor ranging from about $3.50 to
$7.50. Consumers purchased an average of four-fifths bushel of oranges
and two-thirds bushel of grapefruit from direct outlets, at average
prices of $4.80 and $3.90, respectively. Consumers overestimated their
savings compared with retail stores, but saved an average of $6.62 per
purchase.




Key Words: Marketing, direct marketing, oranges, grapefruit






















FARMER TO CONSUMER DIRECT MARKETING OF CITRUS IN FLORIDA:

PRODUCER AND CONSUMER BENEFITS












a report by

Robert L. Degner, Lance W. Rodan, and
Kary Mathis








December 1981



The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
a part of
The Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville 32611

















The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center

A Service of
The Food and Resource Economics Department
of the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences


The purpose of this Center is to provide timely, applied research

on current and emerging marketing problems affecting Florida's agri-

cultural and marine industries. The Center seeks to provide research

and information to production, marketing, and processing firms, groups

and organizations concerned with improving and expanding markets for

Florida agricultural and marine products.

The Center is staffed by a basic group of economists trained in

agriculture and marketing. In addition, cooperating personnel from

other IFAS units provide a wide range of expertise which can be applied

as determined by the requirements of individual projects.

















FOREWORD


Inflationary trends in prices paid by consumers and input prices

paid by farmers have resulted in increased interest in farmer-to-consumer

direct marketing as a means of reducing food cost to consumers and

increasing financial returns to farmers. This increased interest

resulted in the passage of the Farmer to Consumer Direct Marketing Act

of 1976 (PL 94-463). The purpose of this act is to promote the devel-

opment and expansion of direct marketing of agricultural commodities

from farmers to consumers on an economically sustainable basis. The act

required evaluation of direct marketing activities through a series of

research activities.

In 1978, the Florida Agricultural Market Research Center was

selected by USDA-ESCS to conduct case studies of representative direct

marketing methods employed by farmers in Florida and of consumers pa-

tronizing these outlets. Nine agricultural commodities commonly market-

ed directly by producers to consumers were selected for the series of

case studies. The commodities included blueberries, grapes, citrus,

tomatoes, snap beans (including pole beans), strawberries, watermelons,

honey, and eggs. Case study findings for each commodity are reported in

separate publications to allow for greater efficiency in disseminating

the results.

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


This research was initiated by a request from the United States

Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative

Service, National Economic Analysis Division (now Economic Research

Service, National Economics Division). A substantial portion of the

funding was provided by USDA-ESCS. Peter L. Henderson, Agricultural

Economist, was particularly helpful in formulating and guiding the

project, and is due our sincere appreciation.

Our appreciation is also expressed to Mr. Gervasio Cubenas, re-

search assistant, Mr. Scott Woolley and Miss Judith King, statisti-

cians, for their help in conducting and analyzing grower and consumer

interviews. We also express our thanks to Ms. Patricia Beville, Mrs.

Lois Schoen and Ms. Alice Bliss for typing this manuscript.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD....................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..... ..................................... i i

LIST OF TABLES................................................. vi
vii
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES.........................................

SUMMARY...................... ......... ..................... V1

INTRODUCTION ................... .................................

OBJECTIVES..................................................... 2

PROCEDURE...................................................... 3

FINDINGS.......... ................... .................... 4

Producer Benefits of Direct Marketing....................... 4

Case A.................................................. 5

Revenue................................................
Costs ................ .............................. 5
Net Returns............................... ............. 5

Case B...................................................... 9

Revenue........................................... 10
Costs............................................... 10
Net Returns........................................... 10

Case C.................................................. 14

Revenue ...................... ........................ 14
Costs............................................... 16
Net Returns............................................ 16

Other Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct
Marketing................................ ..........*.. 16

Consumer Benefits ...................................*. 19














Table of Contents--Continued

Page

The Patrons.......................................... 19
Transportation ....................................... 20
Patrons' Shopping Patterns........................... 24
Monetary Benefits ................................ ... 27
Freshness and Qual i Ly Comparisons .................. .. 31
Other Advantages and Disadvantages.................... 32
Suggestions for Improvement .......................... 35

CONCLUSIONS................................................. 36

APPENDIX.................................................... 37

REFERENCES.................................................. 45
















LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Annual costs and returns for Grower A's roadside and
farmers' market citrus operation............................ 6

2 Structure and equipment requirements for Grower A's 8
roadside citrus operation.................................

3 Commercial marketing alternative for Grower A's
citrus operation......................................... 9

4 Annual costs and returns for Grower B's roadside
citrus operation..........................................

5 Structure and equipment requirements for Grower B's
roadside citrus operation ................................ 13

6 Commercial marketing alternative for Grower B's
citrus operation.......................................... 14

7 Annual costs and returns for Grower C's pick-your-own
and roadside citrus operation.............................. 15

8 Structure and equipment requirements for Grower C's
citrus operation.......................................... 17

9 Commercial marketing alternative for Grower C's
citrus operation.......................................... 18

10 Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of consumers
purchasing citrus at roadside stands and farmers'
markets .................................. ................ 21

11 Travel distances and times for consumers purchasing
citrus at roadside stands.................................. 23

12 Travel distances and times for consumers purchasing
citrus at farmers' markets ................................ 24

13 Shopping patterns of consumers purchasing citrus at
roadside stands and farmers' markets ...................... 25














LIST OF TABLES--Continued


Table Page

14 Consumer expenditures and savings associated with
oranges purchased at roadside stands and farmers'
markets .. ............................................... 28

15 Consumer expenditures and savings associated with
grapefruit purchased at roadside stands and farmers'
markets................................................

16 Consumers' comparisons of freshness and quality of
oranges and grapefruit bought at direct marketing
outlets and retail food stores............................ 31

17 Respondents' perceived advantages and disadvantages
associated with patronizing citrus roadside stands........ 33

18 Respondents' perceived advantages and disadvantages
associated with patronizing farmers' markets for
citrus................................................... 34

19 Citrus patrons' suggestions for improving the farmers'
market outlet......................................... 35





LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

Table Page

1 Estimated annual per acre costs for a mature grove
producing fresh citrus in central Florida, 1979........... 37















SUMMARY


Florida is the leading citrus-producing state in the U.S., and
citrus is the leading agricultural sector in Florida. Most fresh.
citrus is sold through commercial packing houses, but many growers
sell directly to consumers as a marketing alternative.

This report discusses case studies of three growers' sales of
oranges and grapefruit through roadside stands and farmers' markets.
All three growers lived on the same property with their groves, and
sold most of their fruit directly to consumers. Grove sizes ranged
from 7.3 to 30.5 acres.

Grower sales ranged from $5,000 to $49,000. Net returns to direct
marketing ranged from $3,800 to $9,900 in total, and from $3.52 to $7.52
per hour of family labor. All three growers felt their returns were
higher from marketing their fruit directly to consumers than if they
sold fruit commercially.

A sample of 50 citrus purchasers was interviewed, 21 at roadside
stands and 29 at farmers' markets. A total of 29 purchased oranges from
both types of outlets and 35 bought grapefruit. About two-thirds of all
consumers in the sample were male, 78 percent of the 50 were 50
years of age or older, over half were retired, and 78 percent were
seasonal visitors or temporary residents.

Most roadside stand patrons did not make a special trip to buy
citrus there, but combined the roadside stand stop with other activ-
ities. However, the majority of farmers' market patrons made a special
trip to that outlet.

The average purchase of oranges at direct outlets was about four-
fifths bushel, at an average price of $4.79 per bushel. Customers'
estimates of monetary savings averaged $10.00 per transaction, but
compared with average retail food store prices, they saved $6.62 per
transaction. Grapefruit purchases averaged 0.68 bushel at an average
price of $3.86 per bushel. On the average, shoppers estimated that
they saved $6.39 per transaction, but actual savings amounted to $3.20.

Customers rated freshness and overall quality of oranges and grape-
fruit bought at direct marketing outlets significantly higher than or-
anges and grapefruit usually found at retail food stores.


viii















FARMER TO CONSUMER DIRECT MARKETING OF CITRUS IN FLORIDA:
PRODUCER AND CONSUMER BENEFITS



Robert L. Degner, Lance W. Rodan, and Kary Mathis



INTRODUCTION


Citrus is the most important agricultural crop in Florida. Dur-

ing the 1978-79 season, farm gate receipts approached $1 billion from

over 830,000 acres of citrus grown in the state. About 74 percent

of Florida citrus acreage was in oranges, 16 percent in grapefruit,

and 9 percent in speciality fruits such as tangerines, and tangelos.

Florida accounts for about one-third and three-fourths of the nation's

fresh orange and grapefruit supplies, respectively. There were about

150 commercial fresh fruit packing plants and an additional 200 li-

censed and bonded fruit shippers engaged in fresh fruit packing and

shipping in 1978-79. Industry sources estimated that commercial pack-

ing plants handled over 99 percent of all fresh fruit sold in Florida.

Nevertheless, direct marketing provides many growers with alternative

ways to market their fruit.




Robert L. Degner is associate professor and Kary Mathis is professor
of food and resource economics, University of Florida. Lance W. Rodan
was research associate in food and resource economics at the University
of Florida, and is now with Farmbank Services, Denver, Colorado.













Roadside stands and booths at farmers' markets are the pre-

dominant methods used by small scale citrus producers to market

their fruit directly to consumers. There were very few pick-your

own (PYO) outlets; the major reason appears to be liability consid-

erations. While most growers who engaged in direct marketing of

citrus grew less than 50 acres, there were exceptions. They were

primarily located in the major fresh fruit producing region of the

state, the Indian River area, where growers with sizeable acreages

operate roadside stands in conjunction with their gift fruit ship-

ping businesses. Several growers of this type were interviewed,

but due to the complexity of their businesses it was decided that

they were beyond the scope of traditional direct marketing outlets.

The three firms chosen as being representative of direct marketing

outlets for citrus were relatively small by industry standards.

Their acreages ranged from approximately seven to 30 acres. It

should also be noted that these growers' total acreages were com-

prised of several different types of citrus.


OBJECTIVES


The basic objective of this study was to determine the nature

and extent of benefits to citrus producers and to the consumers who

purchase citrus directly from producers. Specific objectives were

to 1) identify marketing inputs required by the predominant method

of direct marketing; 2) determine marketing costs associated with













the prevailing direct marketing activity; 3) determine farmer net

returns obtained through direct marketing and 4) estimated returns

associated with each input, with particular emphasis on family labor.

Specific consumer-oriented objectives were to 1) determine

prices paid by consumers for citrus at representative direct market-

ing outlets and compare these prices with those paid at supermarkets;

2) determine consumers' perception of citrus quality at direct market-

ing outlets as compared to that obtainable at supermarkets; 3) identify

additional benefits of direct marketing perceived by consumers patroniz-

ing direct marketing outlets and 4) determine demographic characteris-

tics of direct marketing outlet patrons.


PROCEDURE


The case study approach was utilized to determine producer ben-

efits. Citrus producers were identified and located with the as-

sistance of county agricultural extension agents and state horticul-

tural extension specialists. Specific growers were then selected to

reflect a broad spectrum of direct marketing activity, particularly

with respect ot size and type of operation. Producers were personally

interviewed by the Florida Agricultural Market Research Center staff

during March and April of 1979.

Production cost data were obtained from secondary sources (Abbitt

and Muraro, Hooks and Kilmer, Hooks, Spurlock and Kilmer) and modified

to reflect production practices used by most growers. Thus it was













assumed that production costs were similar for all growers (Appendix

Table 1). In some cases, total revenues and costs of marketing inputs

were estimated and used to determine financial returns whenever grow-

ers could not or would not provide primary data. Growers were also

questioned about non-monetary benefits derived from direct marketing

activities.

Consumer benefits were ascertained through personal interviews

at direct marketing outlets. Consumers were selected on a non-prob-

ability, convenience basis, at roadside outlets and farmers' markets.

The customer flow at all outlets was sufficiently slow to allow all

patrons to be interviewed during surveillance periods. Information

relating to consumers' purchases, demographic characteristics, shop-

ping patterns, and transportation were obtained in the interviews.

Consumers' monetary savings were determined by comparing prices paid

for citrus at direct outlets with prices prevailing at local grocery

stores.




Producer Benefits of Direct Marketing


All three citrus growers were well over 65 years of age, but

they continued to grow citrus and market it as an income supplement.

Each lived in a residence located on the same property as their groves,

and sold a portion of their production at a roadside stand located on

the premises. One producer sold about half of his production at a













nearby farmers' market, another sold his fruit exclusively through

his roadside stand, while the third marketed most of his fruit on

a PYO basis.

Case A

Grower A grew 30 varieties of citrus in his 30.5 acre grove.

He sold half of his fruit at his roadside stand and the remainder

at a regional farmers' market. The large number of varieties pro-

vided him with an extended marketing season ideally suited to both

roadside and farmers' market sales.

Revenue


Grower A's total revenue was $49,030 from sales of oranges,

grapefruit, other citrus, and juice (Table 1)

Costs

Production costs totaled over $26,900, and marketing costs

were $17,245. Annual costs for structures and equipment accounted

for $4,828 of marketing costs (Table 2) supplies and services for

$3,145 and hired labor $9,282 (Table 1).


Net Returns

After deducting production and direct marketing costs from

total revenue Grower A was left with net revenue of $4.843 for the

season. Because his grove was located on the fringe of the citrus
















Table l.--Annual costs and returns for Grower A's roadside and farmers'
market citrus operation.


Costs or returns


---- Dollars ----


Revenue


Oranges
Grapefruit
Handfruita
Juice
Total revenue


4,800 bushels
4,160 bushels
3,200 bushels
450 gallons


$4.00
$3.00
$5.00
$3.00


Costs


Production cost


30.5 acres @ $883b


Marketing costs

Structures and equipment (Table 2)

Supplies and services
Containers
Taxes and insurance
Advertising
Utilities
Soap and wax
Market fees
Bond
Total, supplies and services


Hired labor


3,257 hours @ $2.85


Total marketing costs

Net revenue

Net return if citrus sold commercially (Table 3)


Net return due to direct marketing


Item


19,200
12,480
16,000
1,350


49,030



26,932


4,828

979
979
708
520
510
200
128
100
3,145

9,282


17,255

4,843

-4,931

9,774













Table l.--Annual costs and returns for Grower A's roadside and farmers'
market citrus operation--Continued.



Item Costs or returns


---- Dollars ---

Family labor

Marketing 2,704 hours

Net return per hour of family labor due to direct marketing 3.62


aHandfruit" refers to various specialty citrus fruits such as
Honey Tangerines, Satsumas, Mandarins, etc.
See Appendix Table 1.


producing region and contained so many different types of citrus, he

would have had considerable difficulty in marketing his fruit through

regular commercial channels. The small quantities of any one type of

citrus would pose difficulties in selling his fruit to fresh fruit pack-

ers. Assuming that the grower would have been able to sell his fruit at

prevailing processing prices, he would have experienced a net loss ex-

ceeding $4,900 (Table 3). In absolute terms, Grower A's direct market-

ing activity resulted in almost $9,800 more income than if he had sold

his fruit to a processing plant. He spent over 2,700 hours in his direct

marketing activities, and realized a net return per hour of family labor

due to direct marketing of $3.62 (Table 1).

















Table 2.--Structure and equipment requirements for Grower A's roadside citrus operation.


Depreciable Price/ Total Annual
Description Quantity life unit investment cost

Number Years ------------- Dollars -----------

Pole barn, 1,920 sq. ft. 1 20b 9,600 9,600 480
Truck, 2 1/2 ton 1 -- 2,400 2,400 1,266b
Grove vehicles 2 --c 125 250 153c
Fruit washer 1 10 4,200 4,200 520c
Juicer 1 10 1,800 1,800 234C
Refrigerator 1 10 400 400 52c
Field boxes 100 3 3 300 100
Signs 6 3 37 222 74
Table and bins 1 5 55 55 11
Juice dispenser 1 5 50 50 10

Total investment 19,277 2,900

Interest on capital @ 10 percent per annum 1,928


aStraight line depreciation is calculated for all items, assuming no salvage value.
All operating expenses including depreciation are included in the per mile charge:
1,680 miles @ 75t.
CAnnual costs for equipment include annual depreciation and maintenance and operating
costs.













Table 3.--Commercial marketing alternative for Grower A's citrus
operation.


Costs or returns


---- Dollars ----


Revenue

Oranges
Grapefruit
Handfruit
Total


3,092 boxes @ $4.75a
2,600 boxes @ $1.39
2,000 boxes @ $1.85


14,687
3,614
3,700


Cost

Production 30.5 acres @ $883

Net return, commercial alternative


22,001



26,932

-4,931


prices shown are on-tree juice prices for the 1978-79 season.
Owners of small diversified groves usually cannot sell their fruit
to commercial packing houses.


Case B


Grower B had over 36 acres in citrus, mainly in oranges, with a

small amount of grapefruit. He sold production from about 7.3 acres

through his roadside stand, with the remainder going to a processor.

He also bought small quantities of specialty fruit from other growers

to diversify his sales. Costs and returns shown below apply only to

the fruit sold at roadside from Grower B's own production.


Item














Revenue


Total revenue from sales of Grower B's own production amounted

to $24,195. Gift fruit, though only 10 percent of the amount of fruit

sold, represented 26 percent of revenue because of higher prices (Table

4).

Costs


Production costs totaled $6,446, and marketing costs $9,347.

Marketing costs included $1,190 for structures and equipment (Table 5),

$3,527 for supplies and services and $4,630 for hired labor (Table 4).

Net Returns


After deducting production and direct marketing costs, Grower B's

net revenue was $8,402. If he had sold the fruit for processing as he

did the bulk of his production, he would have realized a net return of

only $4,448 (Table 6). Thus, Grower B's net return due to direct mar-

keting was $3,954. He spent an estimated 526 hours in operating and

managing his roadside stand, for a net return per hour of labor of $7.52

(Table 4).














Table 4.--Annual costs and returns for Grower B's roadside citrus
operation.


Item


Costs or returns


---- Dollars ----


Revenue

Oranges 1,400 bushels @ $6.00
Grapefruit 964 bushels @ $5.50
Tangerines 720 bushels @ $6.00
Gift fruit 356 bushels @ $17.34
Total revenue

Costs

Production cost 7.3 acres @ $883a

Marketing costs

Structures and equipment (Table 5)

Supplies and services
Shipping charges
Liability insurance
Tax and insurance on structures
Containers
Soap and wax
Bond
Utilities
Advertising
Total, supplies and services

Hired labor 1,308 hours @ $3.54

Total marketing costs

Net revenue

Net return if citrus sold commercially (Table 6)

Net return due to direct marketing


8,400
5,302
4,320
6,173


24,195


6.446


1,190


2,145
31
179
289
57
18
70
738
3,527

4,630


9,347

8,402

4,448

3,954











Table 4.--Annual costs and returns for Grower B's roadside citrus
operation--Continued.


Item Costs or returns

---- Dollars ---

Family labor

Marketing 526 hours

Net return per hour of family labor due to direct marketing 7.52


aSee Appendix Table 1.












Table 5.--Structure and equipment requirements for


Depreciable Price/ Total Annual
Description Quantity life unit investment cost


Number Years ------------- Dollars ------------

Pole barn, 2,400 sq. ft. 1 20d 4,680 4,680 91
Truck, 2 1/2 tDn 1 -- 2,000 780 156d
Truck, one-half ton 1 -c 3,000 1,170 59
Trailer 1 10 650 254 25
Fruit washer 1 5 500 195 58d
Sales fixtures 2 5 30 60 12
Field boxes 50 3 3 58 19
Signs 4 3 35 55 18
Office equipment Various 5 Various 29 6
Dolly 1 5 50 19 4
Buckets 24 5 1 14 3
Baskets 30 2 1 12 6

Total investment 7,326 457

Interest on capital @ 10 percent per annum 733


aStraight line depreciation is calculated for all items, assuming no salvage value.
Total investment and arnual costs are prorated to reflect the 39 percent of retail
sales made up of Grower B's cwn fruit.
cAll operating expenses including depreciation are included in the per-mile charge,
297 miles @ 20q.
Annual costs for the 2 1/2 ton truck and the fruit washer include annual depreciation
plus maintenance and operating costs.


Grower B's roadside citrus operation.













Table 6.--Commercial marketing alternative for Grower B's citrus
operation.



Item CosLs or returns


---- Dollars ----

Revenue

Grapefruit 700 boxes @ $3.82 2,674
Oranges 1,000 boxes @ $5.25 5,250
Tangerines 450 boxes @ $6.60 2,970
Total revenue 10,894

Costs

Production 7.3 acres @ $883 6,446

Net return, commercial alternative 4,448



Case C


Grower C owned and operated a 10 acre grove near a major metro-

politan area. Virtually all of the grove was planted in grapefruit,

with less than one-half acre of oranges. Nearly nine acres of his

production was sold directly to consumers, and the balance sold to

a processing plant.


Revenue


Two-thirds of Grower C's fruit sold directly to consumers was

marketed on a PYO basis and the remaining one-third at his roadside

stand. Grower C's combined revenues from the PYO and roadside sales

amounted to $15,113 (Table 7).













Table 7.--Annual costs and returns for Grower C's pick-your-own
and roadside citrus operation.



Item Costs or returns


---- Dollars ----

Revenue

Grapefruit (PYO) 2,435 bushels @ $3.00 7,305
Grapefruit (roadside) 1,216 bushels @ $5.50 6,688
Oranges (roadside) 160 bushes @ $7.00 1,120
Total revenue 15,113

Costs

Production cost 8.9 acres @ $883a 7,859

Marketing costs

Structures and equipment ablee t) 571

Supplies and services
Bags 220
Advertising 175
Soap 32
Liability insurance 50
Taxes and insurance 27
Total, supplies and service 504

Total marketing costs 1,075

Net revenue 6,179

Net return if citrus sold commercially (Table 9) -3,708

Net return due to direct marketing 9,887

Family labor

Marketing 2,808 hours

Net return per hour of family labor due to direct marketing 3.52


aSee Appendix Table 1.












Costs


Grower C's production costs, the same as for the other two

growers at $883 per acre, amounted to $7,859. Marketing costs,

including structures and equipment at $571 (Table 8) and supplies

and services at $504, totaled $1,075 (Table 7).


Net Returns


Grower C's net revenue amounted to over $6,179. If he had sold

his entire crop to the processing plant, his only commercial mar-

keting alternative, he would have lost approximately $3.700 (Table 9).

Thus, in absolute terms, returns due to direct marketing amounted to

nearly $10,000. Grower C and his wife spent a total of 2,808 hours

operating their roadside stand and supervising the PYO operation.

The estimated net return per hour of family labor due to direct

marketing amounted to $3.52 (Table 7).


Other Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Marketing


All three growers indicated that the major advantage asso-

ciated with marketing their fruit directly to consumers was in-

creased returns. Grower A felt that he was in a particularly vul-

nerable situation because he had no viable commercial alternative

due to the small quantities of the various types of citrus produced.

Grower C said that he had difficulty in obtaining commercial picking

crews for his small acreage and he was pleased with his PYO operation
















Table 8.--Structure and equipment requirements for


Depreciable Price/ Total Annual
Description Quantity lifea unit investment cost


Number Years ------------- Dollars -------------

Pole barn, 288 sq. ft. 1 5 1,200 1,200 240
Fruit washer 1 10 650 650 65
Tables and bins 3 5 20 60 12
Picking poles 10 3 5 50 17
Signs 4 2 12 50 25
Baskets 10 1 2 10 10

Total investment 2,020 369

Interest on capital @ 10 percent per annum 2C2


aStraight line depreciation is calculated for all items, assuming no salvage value.


Grower C's citrus operation.














because he felt that PYO patrons, despite their inexperience, did

less damage to his trees than commercial pickers. All three also

mentioned labor difficulties in harvesting fruit for their road-

side stands. Despite their advanced ages, they all assisted in

picking fruit for their roadside stands. As with other types of

direct marketing outlets, all three growers stated that their en-

deavor required a great deal of personal commitment and labor.


Table 9.--Commercial marketing alternative for Grower C's citrus
operation.


Item Costs or returns


---- Dollars ----

Revenue

Grapefruit 2,282 boxes @ $1.60 3,651
Oranges 100 boxes @ $5.00 500
Total revenue 4,151

Costs

Production 8.9 acres @ $883 7,859

Net return, commercial alternative -3,708













Consumer Benefits


Time and resource constraints precluded obtaining a large,

random sample of citrus purchasers. In keeping with the cdae study

approach prescribed by USDA-ESCS, a relatively small number of cus-

tomers was interviewed. A non-probability, convenience sample of

50 patrons was interviewed, 21 at roadside stands and 29 at farmers'

markets. All interviews were obtained during weekdays, between the

hours of 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. In most cases, the customer traffic

flow was sufficiently slow and the questionnaire brief enough so that

all customers could be interviewed during the surveillance periods.

Despite the sample's limitations, it is felt that the interviews

provided a reasonable representation of customers typically patronizing

the two types of outlets. The sample is thought to yield a valid

assessment of the qualitative and quantitative benefits accruing to

customers of citrus outlets.

The following sections describe the demographic composition of

the sample, and patrons' transportation and direct outlet shopping

patterns. Customers' monetary benefits and other perceived shopping

advantages and disadvantages are also discussed, along with customers'

suggestions for improving the citrus outlets.


The Patrons


As stated above, 50 purchasers of citrus fruit were interviewed,

21 at roadside stands and 29 at farmers' markets. Of the customers

contacted at roadside stands, 17 had bought oranges and 18 had bought













grapefruit. Of the farmers' market patrons interviewed, 12 had pur-

chased oranges and 17 of the 29 had bought grapefruit.

The patrons of roadside stands and farmers' markets were found

to be quite similar. About two-thirds of both groups were male, and

over three-fourths were over 50 years of age (Table 10). Over two-

thirds lived in two-person households. Over half of the patrons, 56

percent, were retired. The interviewees tended to be well-educated

as well, with 39 percent having attended college, more than for Florida

as a whole (Thompson). Over 60 percent of those interviewed had in-

comes in excess of $15,000 per year, considerably higher than the

average reported for the state as a whole (Sales and Marketing Man-

agement). All respondents were white, non-Hispanic; no blacks or white

Hispanics were observed purchasing citrus at either type of outlet.

It is also important to note that over three-fourths of the shoppers

at both types of outlets were temporary or seasonal residents (Table 10).


Transportation


Personal automobiles were the only means of transportation used

by citrus outlet patrons. Most roadside stand customers, 16 of

20, indicated that the trip to the stand was combined with other ac-

tivities (Table 11). For those customers, marginal expenditures of

mileage and driving time were determined. Average round trip dis-

tance was 3 miles, requiring driving time of 5 additional minutes.

Customers that made a special trip from their residence to the citrus

stand traveled an average round trip distance of 6 miles, with













Table 10.--Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of consumers
purchasing citrus at roadside stands and farmers' markets.



Characteristic Roadside stand Farmers' market Both outlets


Number Percenta Number Percenta Number Percenta

Sex of purchaser

Male 18 62 20 69 33 66
Female 8 38 9 31 17 34
Totals 26 100 29 100. 50 100

Age of purchaser

18-24 0 0 0 0 0 0
25-34 4 19 0 0 4 8
35-49 3 14 4 14 7 14
50-64 5 24 13 45 18 36
65 and over 9 43 12 41 21 42
Totals 21 100 29 100 50 100

Years of education

Less than 12 2 10 6 21 8 16
12 11 55 11 38 22 45
13-15 1 5 4 14 5 10
16 or more 6 30 8 28 14 29
Totals 20 100 29 100 49 100

Number of persons
in household

One 1 5 0 0 1 2
Two 14 67 23 79 37 74
Three 3 14 0 0 3 6
Four 2 10 6 21 8 16
More than four 1 5 0 0 1 2
Totals 21 100 29 100 50 100

Employment

Employed 11 52 9 31 20 40
Retired 9 43 19 66 28 56
Unemployed 1 5 1 3 2 4
Totals 21 100 29 100 50 100














Table 0O.--Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of consumers
purchasing citrus at roadside stands and farmers' markets
--Continued.



Characteristic Roadside stand Farmers' market Both outlets


Number Percenta Number Percenta


Number Percenta


Marital status

Married
Single
Totals

Income

Under $8,000
$8,000-9,999
$10,000-14,999
$15,000-24,999
$25,000 and over
Totals

Race

White (non-
Hispanic)
White (Hispanic)
Black (non-
Hispanic)
Totals

Residency

Permanent
Temporary
Totals


86
14
100


24
76
100


percentages may not sum to


100 due to rounding


79
21
100


- ----














minimum 3 miles, and the maximum 10 miles (Table 11). The average

round trip distance traveled by all roadside stand customers was about

3.4 miles, requiring an average of nearly 7 minutes.


Table ll.--Travel distances and times for consumers purchasing citrus
at roadside stands.



Type of trip/ Number of Distance or time
distance, time required observations Average Minimum Maximum

--- Miles or minutes ----

Special trip from
residence to roadside stand

Miles traveled 4 6 3 10
Driving time 4 12 6 20

Combination trip

Miles traveled 16 3 0 30
Driving time 16 5 0 60

All trips

Miles traveled 20 3.4. 0 30
Driving time 20 6.6 0 60

aCombination trips included activities in addition to the road-
side stand visit. The figures reflect patrons marginal expenditure of
mileage and driving time attributable to the roadside stand activity.


The majority of farmers' market patrons made a special trip to that

outlet. Twenty-two of the 29 customers said they traveled an average of

43 miles, requiring 62 minutes, to farmers' markets (Table 12). Dis-

tances traveled ranged from only two miles to 200. For the 7 farmers'

patrons combining that stop with other activities, average distance











traveled was 22 miles in an average time of 29 minutes. Trips ranged

from no additional distance to 100 miles, and time from none additional

to two hours. All farmers' market customers reported average travel of

38 miles in 54 minutes (Tahle 1?).




Table 12.--Travel distances and times for consumers purchasing citrus
at farmers' markets.


Type of trip/ Number of Distance or time
distance, time required Average Minimum Maximum

--- Miles or minutes ----

Special frip from
residence to outlet

Miles traveled 22 43 2 200
Driving time 22 62 10 250

Combination trip

Miles traveled 7 22 0 100
Driving time 7 29 0 120

All trips

Miles traveled 29 38 0 200
Driving time 29 54 0 250

aCombination trips included activities in addition to the farmers'
market visit. The figures reflect patrons' marginal expenditure of
mileage and driving time attributable to the farmers' market activity.


Patrons' Shopping Patterns


The majority of the roadside stand customers, over 80 percent,

discovered the outlet through roadside signs, while word-of-mouth was













most common for farmers' market patrons (Table 13). A significant

proportion of all patrons, 20 percent, said they had known of the

outlets for many years. Only one of the 50 customers said they dis-

covered the outlet through newspaper advertisements (Table 13).

About one-third of the interviewees had previously patronized

the roadside stand where contacted, but nearly 80 percent had visit-

ed the farmers' market. Most said they patronized the outlets more

than three times each year, but over one-half of roadside stand

customers said they visited it only once per season. About half of

the roadside stand customers and one-third of the farmers' market pa-
trons said they did not visit any other citrus operation during the

season. On the other hand,12 of the 50 patrons visited more than

three citrus outlets.

Only seven of the 50 shoppers came to the citrus outlets alone.

Two-thirds brought another shopper with them, and 18 percent brought

three or more additional customers. Furthermore, the trip was plan-

ned, and not an impulse activity (Table 13).


Table 13.--Shopping patterns of consumers purchasing citrus at road-
side stands and farmers' markets.



Question/responsesa Roadside stand Farmers'market Both outlets


Number Percentb Number Percentb Number Percentb

How did you discover this
outlet?

Roadside signs 17 81 4 14 21 42
word-of-mouth 1 5 17 59 18 36
Known for years 2 10 8 28 10 20
Newspaper ads 1 5 0 0 1 2
Totals 21 100 29 100 50 100















Table 13.--Shopping patterns of consumers purchasing citrus at road-
side stands and farmers' markets--Continued.



Question/responsesa Roadside stand Farmers'market Both outlets


Number Percentb Number Percentb Number Percentb

Have you patronized this
outlet before?

Yes 7 33 23 79 30 60
No 14 67 6 21 20 40
Totals 21 100 29 100 50 100

How often do you patronize
this outlet each year?

One 4 57 2 9 6 20
Two 0 0 3 13 3 10
Three 0 0 3 13 3 10
More than three 3 43 15 65 18 60
Totals 7 100 23 100 30 100

How many similar outlets
have you patronized during
the past year?

None 10 48 9 32 19 39
One 5 24 4 14 9 18
Two 1 5 3 11 4 8
Three 3 14 2 7 5 10
More than three 2 10 10 36 12 24
Totals 21 100 28 100 49 100

How many shoppers in
your party?

One 3 14 4 14 7 14
Two 15 71 18 64 33 67
Three 3 14 3 11 6 12
More than three 0 0 3 11 3 6
Totals 21 100 28 100 49 100













Table 13.--Shopping patterns of consumers purchasing citrus at road-
side stands and farmers' markets--Continued.



Question/responsesa Roadside stand Farmers'market Both outlets


Number Percentb Number Percent Number Percentb

Was your citrus
purchase planned?

Yes 21 100 26 90 47 94
No 0 0 3 10 3 6
Totals 21 100 29 100 50 100

aQuestions about some aspects of shopping behavior have been abbreviat-
ed or paraphrased for inclusion here. See questionnaire in Appendix.
Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.


Monetary Benefits


At total of 37 customers purchased an average of approximately four-

fifths bushel of oranges at both types of outlets. The minimum purchase

was one-fourth bushel and the maximum four bushels. Prices at the out-

lets ranged from $3.00 to $7.00 per bushel, and purchases from $1.25 to

$20.00, with the average expenditure $5.03 (Table 14).

The customers were asked to estimate retail prices for oranges.

However, less than one-half of the respondents had purchased oranges in

retail stores during the current season. The sixteen respondents that

did expected to pay an average of $13.57 per bushel for them. The ex-

pected prices ranged from $9.00 to $22.00 per bushel. Retail prices

observed in stores of two leading super market chains during the in-

terview period averaged $10.99 per bushel, and ranged from $7.49 to














Table 14.--Consumer expenditures and savings associated with oranges
purchased at roadside stands and farmers' markets.



Number of
Item Unit observations Average Minimum Maximum


Quantity purchased Bushels 37 0.81 0.25 4.00

Total expenditure Dollars 37 5.03 1.25 20.00

Price per bushel at
direct outlets 7 4.79 3.00 7.00

Expected retail price 16 13.57 9.00 22.50

Observed retail price 13 10.99 7.49 13.39

Expected savings per
transaction 76 10.01 0.50 42.60

Actual savings per
transaction 16 6.62 0.65 26.36

Hypothetical savings
per transaction 5.02 3.23 6.47

aHypothetical savings per transaction are based on the average
quantity purchased by the 37 customers at average, minimum, and
maximum prices observed at roadside stands and farmers markets com-
pared with average observed retail prices.













$13.39. Thus, direct outlet customers tended to overestimate their

dollar savings.

On the average the patrons estimated that they saved $10.01 per

transaction. But, compared with prevailing prices they saved an av-

erage of $6.62 per transaction. These "actual" savings ranged from

$0.65 to $26.36 per transaction. The average difference between

direct outlet prices and prevailing retail prices for all 16 customers

amounted to hypothetical savings of $5.02 per transaction (Table 14).

The same general patterns were found with grapefruit purchases.

Thirty-five roadside stand and farmers' market customers bought an

average of 0.68 bushel of grapefruit, ranging from one-fourth bushel to
three bushels. Average expenditure was $4.26, ranging from $1.15 to

$13.50 (Table 15). Average prices were $3.86, ranging from $3.00 to

$5.50 per bushel.

Twenty of the 35 grapefruit customers estimated retail prices to

average $12.15 per bushel. Observed retail prices ranged from $4.61

to $10.52, averaging $8.73. Thus, direct outlet customers expected

to save an average of $6.39 per transaction instead of the actual

$3.20. As with oranges, hypothetical savings amounted to $3.31 (Table

15). It is important to note, however, that the "actual" and hypo-

thetical "savings" discussed here do not take into account transpor-

tation expenditures or time spent in driving to the direct outlets

and time spent there.
















Table 15.--Consumer expenditures and savings associated with grape-
fruit purchased at roadside stands and farmers'markets.


Number of
Item Unit observations Average Minimum Maximum


Quantity purchased Bushels 35 0.68 0.25 3.00

Total expenditure Dollars 35 4.26 1.15 13.50

Price per bushel at
direct outlets 7 3.86 3.00 5.50

Expected retail price 20 12.15 5.50 26.50

Observed retail price 24 8.73 4.61 10.52

Expected savings per
transaction 20 6.39 -2.10 44.00

Actual savings per
transaction 20 3.20 0.45 15.84

Hypothetical savings
per transaction -3.31 2.20 3.90

aHypothetical savings per transaction are based upon the average
quantity purchased by the 35 customers at average, minimum, and maximum
prices observed at roadside stands and farmers' markets compared with
average observed retail prices.













Freshness and Quality Comparisons


Direct outlet customers were asked to rate freshness and over-

all quality of the citrus obtained at the outlets and oranges or

grapefruit usually found at retail grocery stores. Ratings were

based on a nine-point rating scale where one represented "excellent"

and nine represented "extremely poor". The average ratings for fresh-

ness and overall quality were 1.2 and 1.4, respectively, for both

oranges and grapefruit purchased at the outlets, but only 4.6 and

4.4 for oranges and 4.7 and 4.2 for grapefruit typically purchased

at retail grocery stores. A paired t-test indicated that the fresh-

ness and overall quality rating differences were statistically sig-

nificant (Table 16).


Table 16.--Consumers' comparisons of freshness and quality of oranges
and grapefruit bought at direct marketing outlets and
retail food stores.




Direct outlets Retail grocery t-statistib
Attribute Oranges Grapefruit Oranges Grapefruit


Freshness 1.2 4.6 4.7 11.53 10.80

Overall quality 1.4 4.4 4.2 9.38 7.50

aRatings were based on a nine point scale where 1 = excellent and
9 = extremely poor.
A paired t test was used to determine whether or not ratings by
source were significantly different. Both were statistically signi-
ficant at the 0.01 probability level.













Other Advantages and Disadvantages


Customers were also asked to enumerate the advantages and dis-

advantages associated with patronizing citrus stands and farmers'

markets. Freshness was the primary advantage for roadside stands

mentioned by over half of the respondents; in total over 70 percent

of those interviewed cited freshness as an advantage. Price was

the next most frequently mentioned advantage for roadside stands

cited by a total of 48 percent of the respondents. Quality and serv-

ice were advantages mentioned by a total 28 and 5 percent of the

respondents respectively (Table 17). Eighty-six percent of the

respondents could cite no disadvantages associated with patronizing

the roadside stands. One respondent each, 5 percent, mentioned the

price, distance and driving time required as a disadvantage. No re-

spondent mentioned more than one disadvantage for roadside stands.

Price was the advantage mentioned first by farmers' market

patrons, while a total of 59 percent stated price and freshness were

advantages (Table 17). Quality was mentioned by 41 percent and the

selection of goods from other booths by 21 percent of the respondents.

As with roadside stands, 86 percent cited no disadvantages, and no

customers mentioned more than one.













Table 17.--Respondents' perceived advantages and disadvantages
associated with patronizing citrus roadside stands.


Advantages/disadvantages


Advantages

Freshness
Price
Quality
Service
None
Total

Disadvantages

None
Price
Distance
Driving time
Total


FirsL response All responses


--------- Percenta


53
24
19
0
5
T00


percentages were
to 100 percent because


based on 21 observations.
of rounding.


Totals do not sum


percentages were not summed due to multiple responses.

CNo second or third rpsponses.















Table 18.--Respondents' perceived advantages and disadvantages
associated with patronizing farmers' markets for citrus.



Advantages/disadvantages First response All responses


---------- Percent a

Advantages

Price 41 59
Freshness 34 59
Quality 10 41
Convenience 7 7
OLher booLhs 3 21
Friendly service 3 3
Total 00 --

Disadvantages

None 86 -c
Crowded 10
Distance 3
Total 100

percentages were based on 29 observations. Totals do not sum
to 100 percent because of rounding.
bPercentages were not summed due to multiple responses.

CNo second or third responses.













Suggestions for Improvement


Respondents were generally pleased with the direct marketing

operations. None of the 21 roadside sand custoLmers had suggestion fur

improvement, and 22 of 29 farmers' market patrons said no improvements

were necessary (Table 19). Suggestions were made by seven different

farmers' market shoppers. But five of them concerned the farmers'

market facilities. The two suggestions concerning the citrus outlets

were to use mesh not paper bags, and to provide smaller packages (Table

19).


Table 19.--Citrus patrons' suggestions for improving the farmers'
market outlet.


Suggestions Number Percenta


No improvements necessary 22 76

More parking 2 7

Clean up area 1 3

More shade 1 3

Put sand on ground 1 3

Use mesh bags 1 3

Smaller packages 1 3

Total 29 100

a
Percentage does not sum to 100 due to rounding.
















CONCLUSIONS


Marketing oranges and grapefruit directly to consumers is the

only viable outlet for many smaller citrus growers. These growers

have relatively small groves or small lots of many different types

of fruit, have difficulty attracting commercial harvesting crews,

and generally cannot market to commercial packing houses or processors.

Roadside or farmers' market citrus sales provide these growers reason-

able incomes and employment for family members.

Consumers also benefit from direct purchases of citrus. While

most consumers overestimated their monetary savings, they did save

significant amounts, compared with citrus purchases from retail stores.

Consumers also felt freshness and quality of fruit from direct outlets

was much better than that from food stores.

































APPENDIX













Appendix Table l.--Estimated annual per acre costs for a mature grove
producing fresh citrus in central Florida, 1979.



Item Costs


Dollars

Spray program 115.21

Fertilizer 50.12

Dolomite 6.25

Weed control 37.12

Pruning 23.31

Irrigation 103.88

Tree replacement and care 47.23

Return to land and trees 500.00

Total 883.12

opportunity costs based on land and trees valued at $5,000 per
acre at 10 percent per annum.

Source: Adapted from Abbitt and Muraro.














.-Fod and Resource Economics Department
"lorida Agricultural Market Research Center
institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
U diversity of Florida
G.Aiesville, Florida 32G11
In cooperation with USDA/ESCS
Research Agreement ; 58-319W-8-2522X


Form Approved
OTMB No. 40-R 4070
Approval expires 6-30-80
Interviewee No.
Date


Consumer Benefits of Direct Marketing Activities

Section I

Description of Direct Marketing Outlet (complete prior to consumer interview.)
(For office use.)

Hello, I'm _. I represent the University of Florida
Market Research Center. We are conducting a research project on farmer-to-
curinsumer dir t imarr-keting. This research is designed Lu be helpful to both
farmers selling directly to consumers and consumers buying directly from
farmers. In this respect I would like to interview a sample of consumers
patronizing your outlet. Answers to all questions are confidential and
will only be used in summarizing data from this survey. No names will
appear or be related to the questionnaires in any manner. May I ask you a
question or two that will be used in classifying your outlet? Your response
is voluntary and not required by law. (Secure following information when
obtaining permission to interview customers.)


A. Type of outlet (circle one).


1. Roadside stand


2. U-Pick


3. Farmer's Market


For Office
Use


4. Other (specify)


B. Commodities or products sold (list, use back if necessary)









C. Location of above outlet (County) __ (City)


D. Len(thi of time in business at this location


Y easrs












Section II

Direct Marketing Shopping Patterns


Hello I'm I represent the University of Florida's
Market Research Center. We are conducting a research project on farmer-to-
consumer direct marketing. May I ask you a few questions about your pur-
chase(s) and your shopping here today? Your response is voluntary and is
not required by law. Answers to all questions are confidential and will be
used in summarizing data from this survey. Your name will not appear or
be related to the questionnaire in any manner. (If yes, proceed, if no,
terminate interview).

For office use
A. Have you patronized this particular outlet before? (circle one)

1. Yes (If yes,) how many times in the past year?

2. No (If no, skip to item C)


B. How often, on the average, do you patronize this outlet? (circle one)

1. Once per year 2. Once per month 3. 2-3 times per month

4. Once per week 5. More than once per week


C. How many similar outlets, if any, have you patronized during the
past year? (number)

D. How did you get to this location? (circle one)

1. Car 2. Walk 3. Public transportation (taxi, bus)

4. Other (bicycle, motorcycle, etc.) Specify


E. Was your visit to this market outlet today (circle one)


1. A special trip directly from your residence? (if checked, go to F)

2. Combined with other local shopping or similar activities?
( If yes, go to H & I)

3. Ju L pldS ing by y uuLlu L? (Luur ist, joy riding, etc.)

4. Other specify )
(Go to H & I)








For office
Use





F. How many miles is it from here to your residence? (mi.)

G. How much time does it take to come here from your residence? (min)
(Go to J)

H. How many miles out of your way was your visit here? (miles)


I. How much additional travel time did your visit here require? (min)


J. From your standpoint, what are the most important advantages to you
for buying food products here? (probe for 3)

1. 2. 3.


K. Are there any disadvantages to you for buying food products here?
Yes, No (circle one). If yes, specify disadvantages.

1. 2. 3.


L. How could this particular type of outlet be improved ? (probe)








Section III

Consumer Purchases of Specific Commodities

(Please use the following codes for the respective fruits, vegetables, and
other products. Code from observation whenever possible.)

Oranges = 0 Honey = H Blueberries = BB
Grapefruit = GF Milk = M Tomatoes = T
Snap beans = B Strawberries = S Eggs = E
Grapes = G Watermelons = W1 Other (Specify)


A. I see that you have bought some _. hen you stopped here
today, had you planned to buy
CcodeT
(circle one) 1. Ves

2. !o








42 For office
Use

B. How many (units) of did you purchase here today?
(code)


(specify quantity and units)

C. What was the total amount you spent for ___? $
(code)

D. From your standpoint, what are your most important reasons
for buying co here? (probe for 3)


1.

2.

3.


E. Have you bought c___ at a local grocery store or supermarket
(code)
during this time of the year?

(circle une) 1. Yes 2. No (If no, do not ask F, H and J)


F. What would you estimate the total cost of these (this)
(code)
would be if purchased at a local grocery store or

supermarket? $


G. On a rating scale from 1 to 9, where excellent and 9=poor,
how would you rate the freshness of the od you bought today?
(code)

Rating


H. Using the same rating scale (repeat) how would you rate the fresh-
ness of ___c __ bought at the supermarket at this time of the year?
(code)

Rating


I. /gaoin, (1i-ni .l. rn:tir q from 1 to 9 lh roe I-excollent and
9=poor, how would you rate the overall quality of the
you bought today? (code

Rating








43 For office
use



J. Using the same rating scale (repeat) how would you rate the
overall quality of bought at a supermarket at this time
of year? (code)

Rating

(Repeat Section III for each commodity purchased)
Section IV

Consumer Demographics

A. Respondent (circle one) 1. Female 2. Male

B. What is the age of the head of the household?

C. How many people living in your household are 18 years of
age or above? Number

D. How many people-living in your household are under 18 years of
age? Number

E. In school, what is the highest grade you have completed?
(circle number of years)

1. Elementary (grade school 01 02 03 04 05 06 )
2. Junior high 07 08
3. High school 09 10 11 12
4. College 13 14 15-16
5. Graduate school 17 18 19 20 21

F. What is the occupation of the head of your household?
(circle appropriate classification; if in doubt of proper classi-
fication, write answer in Item 6.) (If not employed, skip to G)

1. Administrative, engineering, scientific, teaching and related
occupations, including creative artists.

2. Technical, clerical, sale and related occupations.

3. Service occupations including military occupations.

4. Farming, forestry, fishing and hunting occupations.

5. Production occupations including construction, extractive,
transport, and related occupations.

6. Other

G. Is the hc,d ol the household retired or unemployed ? (circle one)







44 For office
use




H. Are you married or not married? (circle one)

If respondent is married and:

1. Male, ask, Is wife employed? No Yes

2. Female, ask, Are you employed outside your home?
Yes No (circle proper answer)


I. Please tell me which of the following income categories most
closely describes your total family income in 1978 before
taxes, including wages and all other income. Is it--

(show card A; circle response)

1. Under $8,000
2. $8,000-9,999
3. $10,000-14,999
4. $15,000-24,999
5. $25,000 and over



J. (Complete by observation except when in doubt; then turn the
card to side B.) Please tell me how would you classify your-
self with the following racial or ethnic groups? (circle one)

1. White (not Hispanic origin)
2.- White (Hispanic origin)
3. Black (Not Hispanic origin)
4. Black (Hispanic origin)
5. American Indian or Alaskan native
6. Asian or Pacific Islander

K. How did you learn about this outlet?

1. Road signs 2. Newpaper 3. Friends or relatives

4. Known for years 5. Other (specify)


Number of shoppers in your party?

Residence:

1. Permanent area resident.


2. Temporary or visitor
















REFERENCES


Abbitt, Ben and R.P. Muraro. Budgeting Costs and Returns: Central
Florida Citrus Production, 1978-79, Economic Information Report
113, Food and Resource Economics Department, IFAS, University
of Florida, 1979.

Hooks. R.C. and R.L. Kilmer. Estimated Costs of Packing and Selling
Fresh Florida Citrus, 1977-78 Season, Economic Information Re-
port 118, Food and Resource Economics Department, IFAS, University
of Florida, August, 1979.

Hooks, R.C., A.H. Spurlock, and R.L. Kilmer. Estimated Costs of Pick-
int and Hauling Fresh Florida Citrus, 1977-78 Season, Economic
Report 109, Food and Resource Economics Department. IFAS, UIniversity
of Florida, 1979.

Sales and Marketing Management. Survey of Buying Power, Vol. 125,
No. 2, July 28, 1980.

Thompson, Ralph B., ed. Florida Statistical Abstract, Bureau of
Economic and Business Research. University of Florida, Gainesville:
University of Florida Press, 1980.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs