• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Chapter
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Tables
 Acknowledgement
 Foreword
 Summary
 Introduction
 Objectives
 Findings
 Consumer benefits
 The patrons
 Transportation
 Patron's Shopping Patterns
 Monetary benefits
 Freshness and quality comapris...
 Other advantages and disadvant...
 Conclusions
 Appendix
 Conclusions
 Reference






Group Title: Farmer to consumer direct marketing of grapes in Florida: Producer and consumer benefits
Title: Farmer to consumer direct marketing of grapes in Florida
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026888/00001
 Material Information
Title: Farmer to consumer direct marketing of grapes in Florida producer and consumer benefits, a report
Series Title: Industry report Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Physical Description: ix, 41 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: Muscadine grape -- Marketing -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Grapes -- 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. 41.
Statement of Responsibility: by Robert L. Degner, Lance W. Rodan, and Kary Mathis.
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026888
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000410244
oclc - 10795135
notis - ACF7009

Table of Contents
    Chapter
        Historic note
    Front Cover
        Cover
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Title Page
        Title 1
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
    List of Tables
        Page v
    Acknowledgement
        Page vi
    Foreword
        Page vii
    Summary
        Page viii
        Page ix
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Objectives
        Page 2
    Findings
        Producer benefits of direct marketing
            Page 3
            Page 4
        Case A
            Page 4
            Page 5
            Page 6
            Page 7
        Case B
            Page 8
            Page 9
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
            Page 13
        Case C
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
    Consumer benefits
        Page 17
    The patrons
        Page 18
    Transportation
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
    Patron's Shopping Patterns
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
    Monetary benefits
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Freshness and quality comaprisons
        Page 27
    Other advantages and disadvantages
        Page 28 (MULTIPLE)
        Page 29 (MULTIPLE)
    Conclusions
        Page 30
    Appendix
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
    Conclusions
        Page 39
        Page 40
    Reference
        Page 41
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE



The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida




'WIT
No ...
, ... ...
......... ..........
....
......








INSI













ABSTRACT


Florida has a small but growing muscadine grape industry. Many
growers have chosen to market their grapes directly to consumers through
pick-your-own (PYO) outlets. The case study approach was used to describe
three farmers' PYO grape outlets, ranging in size from three to 10 acres.
One grower earned slightly over $5 per hour of family labor as a result
of his direct marketing efforts, one earned $1.57 per hour, and the third
grower incurred a loss of about $400 or roughly nine cents per hour.

Customers patronizing the PYO outlets purchased an average of 14.6
pounds of grapes at an average price of 50 cents per pound. Purchases
ranged from 5 to 35 pounds. Compared with prevailing prices at area
food stores, consumers saved an average of $4.33 per transaction. Un-
rivalled freshness, superior overall quality, desired quantities, and
recreation were prinicpal reasons for patronizing the PYO outlet.








Key words: Marketing, direct marketing, muscadine grapes.














FARMER TO CONSUMER DIRECT MARKETING OF GRAPES IN FLORIDA:

PRODUCER AND CONSUMER BENEFITS












a report by

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


















October 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.














TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES....................................................... iv

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES........... .................................. v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................... vi

FOREWORD.......................... ................................ vii

SUMMARY............................ ................................ viii

INTRODUCTION.......................... ............................ 1

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

PROCEDURE.......................... ............................... 2

FINDINGS ................................................. ......... 3

Producer Benefits of Direct Marketing........................... 3

Case A...................................................... 4

Background ................................. ................ 4
Revenue .................................................... 4
Costs .................................... ................ 4

Production costs.................................... 4
Marketing costs....................................... 6

Structure and equipment requirements............. 6
Supplies and services............................ 7
Hired labor.................................... 8

Net Returns ................................... ........... 8
Other Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Marketing..... 8

Case B...................................................... 8

Background............................................... 8
Revenue .................................................... 10
Costs................................................... 10


ii








TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued
Page

Production costs..................................... 10
Marketing costs..................................... 10

Structure and equipment requirements.............. 10
Supplies and services.. .......................... 11

Net Returns............................................... 12
Other Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Marketi ig...... 12

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

Background................................................ 14
Revenue ................................... ................ 14
Costs...... ................................................. 14

Production costs...................................... 14
Marketing costs..................................... 14

Structure and equipment requirements.............. 14
Supplies and services............................. 16
Hired labor ..................................... 16

Net Returns................................. ......... 16
Other Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Ma'keting. 16

Consumer Benefits............................. ............. 17

The Patrons....................................... ....... 18
Transportation........................................... 19
Patrons' Shopping Patterns................................ 22
Monetary Benefits.............................. ....... 25
Freshness and Quality Comparisons......................... 27
Other Advantages and Disadvantages......................... 28
Suggestions for Improvement ........................ ....... 28

CONCLUSIONS................................................. ....... 30

APPENDIX...................................................... ....... 31

REFERENCES.. ....................................... .......... ..... 41








iii













LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Annual costs and returns for Grower A's pick-your-own grape
operation .................................... .................. 5

2 Structure and equipment requirements for Grower A's pick-your-own
grape operation .................................. .............. 7

3 Annual costs and returns for Grower B's pick-your-own grape
operation ................................... ................... 9

4 Structure and equipment requirements for Grower B's pick-your-own
grape operation .................................. .............. 11

5 Annual costs and returns for Grower B's grape operation, selling
at a farmers' market......................................... 13

6 Annual costs and returns for Grower C's pick-your-own grape
operation ................................... ................... 15

7 Structure and equipment requirements for Grower C's pick-your-own
grape operation .................................. .............. 17

8 Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of grape PYO
patrons........................................................ 20

9 Travel distance and times for grape PYO patrons.................. 22

10 Shopping patterns for grape PYO patrons ........................ 23

11 Consumer expenditures and savings associated with muscadine
grapes purchased at PYO outlets................................. 11

12 Consumers' comparisons of freshness and quality of grapes
bought at PYO outlets and retail food stores ................... 27

13 Respondents' perceived advantages and disadvantages associated
with patronizing PYO grape outlets............................. 29

14 Grape patrons' suggestions for improving the outlet.............. 30







iv













LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

Table Page

1 Estimated per acre annual operating costs for a muscadine
grape vineyard, using hired production labor, Florida, 1979..... 32

2 Estimated per acre annual operating costs for a muscadine grape
vineyard, using family labor, 1979.............................. 33

3 Estimated per acre establishment costs of muscadine grapes,
Florida, 1979............................................... 34




































v











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


This research was initiated by a request from the United States

Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative

Service, National Economic Analysis 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, research

assistant, Mr. Scott Woolley, and Miss Judy King, statisticians, for

their help in conducting and analyzing grower and consumer interviews.

We also express our thanks to Ms. Patricia Beville and Mrs. Lois Schoen

for typing and editing this manuscript.

























vi













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 development 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 patronizing these

outlets. Nine agricultural commodities commonly marketed 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. With

the exception of tomatoes and snap beans, which are very similar with

respect to direct marketing activities, the case study findings for each

commodity are reported in separate publications to allow for greater

efficiency in disseminating the results.





vii













SUMMARY


Florida has a small but growing muscadine grape industry. Small,
scattered acreages have precluded the development of commercial marketing
channels. As a result, growers have chosen to market their grapes directly
to consumers through pick-your-own (PYO) outlets, and most have been very
successful. The case study approach was used to describe and analyze
the PYO operations of three grape growers.

In 1979, these growers had from three to ten acres of grapes for
PYO operations. All growers charged 50 cents per pound for their grapes,
and gross revenues ranged from slightly over $4,600 to nearly $30,500.
Growers' investments in marketing facilities and equipment were relatively
modest. The typical PYO vineyard used a few inexpensive outdoor signs
for roadside advertising and onsite customer instructions, a small barn
or shelter for sales headquarters, a work table, and scales for weighing
purchases. All growers provided customers with containers for picking.

Expenditures for supplies and services were minimal. Two of the
three growers had liability insurance to cover their PYO activities. The
premiums for this insurance were $42 and $80 per year and were based on
gross revenues. Advertising expenses for the season ranged from $200
to $1,500, with newspaper ads, radio time and billboards all being used.
Customers generally brought their own containers for transporting their
grapes home, but all growers provided grocery bags for those that had
no containers.

Two of the growers hired workers to assist them in operating the
PYO outlet. Most labor was hired on a part-time basis during peak
picking periods. Hired labor requirements ranged 560 and 1,232 hours
for the season. Considerable marketing labor was provided by the owners
and their families. Because of the varying lengths of the production
season and the number of family members involved in the respective
outlets, family labor requirements varied widely. For the smallest
operation, which also had the shortest season, 140 hours of family labor
were required for the PYO marketing activity. The largest operation, which
also had one of the longest picking seasons, 600 hours of family labor
were required to man their PYO business. During the picking season, most
PYO outlets were open from 10 to 12 hours per day, which accounts for
the large family labor requirements. Family marketing labor is probably
overstated in most cases because the PYO business did not require the
operators' undivided attention during slack picking periods; family
members were free to do other things even though they were required to
remain on the premises.


viii








Net return per hour of family labor was the common denominator used
to assess producers' monetary benefits. The highest estimated return
per hour of family labor was slightly over $5.00, one return was $1.57
and the lowest was a loss of $0.09.

Most growers felt that marketing their produce directly to con-
sumers through their PYO outlets was their only viable marketing altern-
ative, considering their production volume. A major advantage cited by
growers was smaller capital requirements because of the elimination of
picking, packing and transportation expenses required by other marketing
alternatives. The elimination of picking labor problems was also mention-
ed as an advantage.

The only disadvantage mentioned was the amount of time that the PYO
outlet demanded. Although managing the PYO activities was not especially
strenuous, the business required that someone oversee it 10 to 12 hours
per day, six or seven days per week during the harvest season. Despite
the long hours, the growers were generally pleased with the benefits
afforded by their experiences with direct marketing.

A sample of 25 patrons was interviewed at all three of the vineyards.
About 60 percent of the customers were female and half were 50 years of
age or older. The trip to the PYO outlet was planned by all but one of
the customers interviewed. Customers travelled an average round trip
distance of 33 miles which required an average of 45 minutes. One half
of the patrons discovered the PYO outlet through friends or relatives,
although five of the 25 customers saw road signs and four said they
found the outlet through newspaper advertisements. Nearly three-fourths
of the interviewees were repeat customers. The trip to the blueberry
PYO outlet was a social activity for many of the shoppers. Over 90
percent had companion shoppers.

The 25 PYO customers purchased an average of 14.6 pounds of grapes.
Purchases ranged from 5 to 35 pounds. At a price of 50 cents per pound,
the price charged by all farmers interviewed, the average expenditure
was $7.31. Customers' estimates of their monetary savings averaged
$5.65 per transaction, but compared with prevailing prices at area
supermarkets, they saved an average of $4.33 per transaction.

Customers rated the freshness and overall quality of the grapes
obtained at the PYO outlet significantly higher than freshness and
overall quality of grapes usually found at retail grocery stores.
Quality was the primary advantage of shopping at the PYO operation,
mentioned by a total of 96 percent of those interviewed. Price and
freshness were mentioned by 44 and 20 percent, respectively. Recreation
was an advantage cited by 16 percent.

For most respondents, patronizing the PYO outlet was a positive
experience. Only four of the 25 could think of disadvantages to shopping
there. The time or effort required was the leading disadvantage. Re-
spondents were generally pleased with the PYO operations and offered few
suggestions for improvement. PYO outlets offer consumers an opportunity
to obtain fresh, high quality grapes at prices they feel are reasonable.

tx













Farmer to Consumer Direct Marketing of Grapes in Florida:
Producer and Consumer Benefits


INTRODUCTION


In recent years, agricultural experiment stations in the south-

eastern United States have developed improved varieties of muscadine and

bunch grapes adapted to Florida's growing conditions, resulting in con-

siderable grower interest and rapid increases in new plantings (Crocker

and Mortensen; Mortensen; Mortensen, Nesbitt, and Underwood). By 1979

there were approximately 250 bearing acres of grapes grown in the state,

primarily in the northern half of Florida. Most bearing acreages were

owned by individuals and were quite small, generally less than 10 acres.

Due to the small size of the grape industry, traditional commercial

markets were not available.

In 1979, an estimated 95 percent of the grapes produced in Florida

were marketed directly to consumers. Most were muscadine grapes, sold

through Pick-Your-Own (PYO) outlets. Limited quantities were picked by

several producers and sold at their PYO locations to customers who

preferred not to pick. Also, several growers sold limited quantities to

small, independent retail grocery stores. Muscadine grapes were occasion-

ally found at farmers' markets, but the PYO outlet was by far the most

important method used by farmers for marketing their grapes directly to

consumers.





2


OBJECTIVES


The basic objective of this study was to determine the nature and

extent of benefits to grape producers and to the consumers who purchase

grapes 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) estimate returns associated with each input,

with particular emphasis on family labor.

Specific consumer-oriented objectives were to 11 determine prices

paid by consumers for grapes at representative direct marketing outlets

and compare these prices with those paid at supermarkets 2) determine

consumers' perception of grape quality at direct marketing outlets as

compared to that obtainable at supermarkets 3) identify additional

benefits of direct marketing perceived by consumers patronizing direct

marketing outlets and 4) determine demographic characteristics of direct

marketing outlet patrons.

PROCEDURE


The case study approach was utilized to determine producer benefits.

Grape producers were identified and located with the assistance of

county agricultural extension agents and state horticultural extension

specialists. Specific growers were then selected to reflect a broad

spectrum of direct marketing activity, particularly with respect to size

and type of operation. Producers were personally interviewed by the

Florida Agricultural Market Research Center staff in August of 1979,

during the peak harvest season.





3


Production cost data were obtained from secondary sources and

slightly modified to reflect general production practices used by most

growers (Hewitt). Considerable similarity was discovered with respect

to cultural practices. Thus, with the exception of family labor and

expenditures for hired labor, it was assumed that production costs were

similar for all growers. In some cases, total revenues and costs of

marketing inputs were estimated and used to determine financial returns

whenever growers 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-probability,

convenience basis, at typical pick-your-own (PYO) outlets. The customer

flow at all PYO outlets was sufficiently slow to allow all patrons to be

interviewed during surveillance periods. Information relating to con-

sumers' purchases, demographic characteristics, shopping patterns, and

transportation were obtained in the interviews. Consumers' monetary

savings were determined by comparing prices paid for grapes at PYO

outlets with prices prevailing at local grocery stores.

FINDINGS


Producer Benefits of Direct Marketing


Three grape growers' case studies are presented. As mentioned

previously, the predominant form of direct marketing for grapes is the

PYO outlet. Growers' relatively small production of grapes precluded

serious consideration of commercial marketing prior to and including the

1979 season. Furthermore, consumer demand had been sufficient for most





5


Table l.--Annual costs and returns for Grower A's pick-your-own grape
operation.


Item Costs or returns


---- Dollars ---

Revenue

Grape sales 60,000 Ibs. @ 50 30,000
Vine sales 160 @ $3.00 480
Total revenue 30,480

Costs

Production costs 10.0 acres @ $1,990 19,900
Marketing costs
Structures and equipment
Portable building 100
Truck (pickup) 560 miles @ 20W 112
Signs 78
Tables 24
Baskets 74
Scale 8
Interest on capital 262
Total, structures and equipment 658

Supplies and services
Liability insurance 180
Advertising 1,500
Bags 246
Grape vines 160 @ $1.25 each 200
Total, supplies and services 2,126

Hired labor 1,232 hrs. @ $3.23 3,979

Total marketing costs 6,763

Net revenue 3,817

Family labor

Production 616 hours
Marketing 140 hours
Total family labor 756 hours

Net return per hour of family labor 5.05

a
See Appendix Tables 1 and 2 for detailed production costs.




6


machinery and irrigation used in growing and maintaining the vineyard.

Also included were loss and depreciation of plants, and an opportunity

cost of 10 percent on the original investment in plants, land, and

operating capital (Hewitt).


Marketing costs


Structure and equipment requirements.--Structure and equipment

requirements for Grower A's PYO grape operation were minimal (Table 2).

A small portable building near the vineyard served as a central sales

area where customers were issued baskets for picking. Patrons were then

escorted to the vineyard and assigned to a specific picking area. After

picking, customers returned to the central sales area where the grapes

were weighed on a table-mounted scale. The grapes were then transferred

to grocery bags supplied by the grower. Six signs on two major highways

near the farm were used to attract customers and give directions to the

farm. The grower used a pickup truck in his PYO grape operation.

Growers A's total investment in the marketing structure and equip-

ment was placed at $2,624. Opportunity cost on his investment, at 10

percent per annum, was $262 (Table 2). The depreciable life of the

building was estimated at ten years but the baskets were expected to

last only one year. Depreciation of the signs and tables was based on

an expected useful life of five years. Annual marketing costs for the

structure and equipment were comprised of annual depreciation plus the

interest on the total investment and repairs, where applicable. For

Grower A, this amounted to $658 (Table 1).





7



Table 2.--Structure and equipment requirements for Grower A's pick-
your-own grape operation.



Depreciable Price/ Total
Description Quantity lifea unit investment


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

Portable building
200 sq. ft. 1 10 1,000.00 1,000

Pickup truck 1 N.A. 6,000.00 1,000

Signs 6 5 Variable 390

Tables 3 5 40.00 120

Baskets 121 1 0.61 74

Scale 1 5 40.00 40

Total investment 2,624


Interest on capital @ 10 percent per annum 262


a
Straight line depreciation is calculated for all items, assuming no
salvage value.
b
One-sixth of the truck's use was for grapes.


Supplies and services.--Liability insurance covering the PYO outlet,

bags, and advertising were the major components of Grower A's expenditures

for supplies and services, amounting to $180, $246, and $1,500 per

year, respectively. He also purchased grape vines for resale at the PYO

(Table 1).

The advertising budget included ads in local newspapers during the

harvest season, radio spots, and a billboard on a nearby highway.





8



Hired labor.--Two workers were hired to help supervise the PYO

operation. These were retired people who were paid $3.23 per hour and

provided with housing. Grower A's total expenditure for hired marketing

labor was $3,979 (Table 1).


Net Returns


Total production costs of $19,900 and marketing costs of $6,763

were deducted from the gross revenue of $30,480 resulting in a net

revenue of $3,817 per year. The total amount of family labor expended

in the operation during the year was 756 hours, 616 in production

activities and 140 in direct marketing. The resulting net return per

hour of family labor attributable to direct marketing was $5.05 (Table

1).


Other Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Marketing


Grower A felt that the PYO method of marketing was his most feasible

alternative, since entering the commercial market would require a sub-

stantially greater investment in picking, packing, and transportation

equipment, and would require more hired labor. No disadvantages were

cited.


Case B


Background

Grower B's vineyard was in a rural area, a few miles from a small

town of under 1,000 and 20 miles from a town of approximately 10,000.

His grape season lasted for eight weeks in August and September.

Approximately 95 percent of his 1979 crop was marketed through his PYO





9


Table 3.--Annual costs and returns for Grower B's pick-your-own grape
operation.



Item Costs or returns

----- Dollars -----

Revenue
Grape sales 7,640 Ibs. @ 50 3,820
Vine sales 264 @ $3.00 792
Total revenue 4,612

Costs
Production costs 6 acres @ $676 4,056
Marketing costs
Structures and equipment
Pole shed 25
Signs 51
Buckets 8
Scales 18
Calculator 4
Interest on capital 181

Total, structures and equipment 287

Supplies and services
Advertising 350
Bags 45
Vines 264 @ $1.25 330

Total, supplies and services 725

Hired labor None 0

Total marketing costs 1,012

Net revenue -456

Family labor

Production 2,520 hours
Marketing 576 hours
Total family labor 3,096 hours

Net returns per hour of family labor -0.15





10


operation and the remainder sold at a farmers' market. The PYO business

was operated from about 8:00 am. until 6:00 p.m., six days per week,

approximately 10 hours per day.


Revenue


The 6 acres of grapes grown by Grower B yielded a total of 8,000

pounds. The 7,640 pounds sold to PYO patrons and 360 pounds sold at a

farmers' market all brought 50 cents per pound. In addition, 264 grape

vines were sold at the PYO outlet for $3.00 each, resulting in total

revenue of $4,792. Of this, $4,612 was from the PYO business (Table 3).

Annual costs and returns for the PYO operation were analyzed separately

from those for farmers' market sales.


Costs

Production costs


Grower B's production costs were estimated at $676 per acre because

he and his family provided all production labor (Appendix Table 1).

Production costs included all fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides,

machinery and irrigation, loss and depreciation of plants, land, and

opportunity costs on operating capital.


Marketing costs

Structure and equipment requirements.--Grower B used a small pole

shed as sales headquarters. Customers were issued small metal buckets

for picking. Due to the relatively small size of Grower B's PYO operation,

40 buckets were sufficient (Table 4). Table-mounted scales were used





11


Table 4.--Structure and equipment requirements for Grower B's pick-
your-own grape operation.


Depreciable Price/ Total
Description Quantity life unit investment


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

Pole shed, 100 sq. ft. 1 20 500.00 500

Truck (pickup) 1 N.A. 1,000.00 1,000

Scales 2 5 45.00 90

buckets 40 3 0.60 24

Signs 4 5 45.00 180

Calculator 1 5 20.00 20

Total investment 1,814

Interest on capital @ 10 percent per annum 181


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


for weighing customers' purchases. Grower B had four plywood signs on

the road near the farm to attract customers and give directions. Total

investment in marketing equipment was estimated at $1,814 (Table 4).

The depreciable life of the shed was estimated at 20 years. The

signs, and scales were expected to last five years, and the buckets

three. Annual marketing costs for the structures and equipment, made up

of annual depreciation plus the interest on total investment and repairs,

amounted to $287 (Table 3).

Supplies and services.--Grower B spent $725 for supplies and services,

which included advertising, grocery bags and grape vines for resale.

Advertising consisted of classified ads in local news papers during the

harvest season. Grower B provided grocery bags for customers.





12


Net Returns


When production costs of $4,056 and total marketing costs of $1,012

were deducted from grape and grapevine sales through the PYO outlet,

there was a net loss of $456 (Table 3). Production activities for the 6

acres of grapes required an estimated 2,520 hours of family labor and

the PYO marketing required an additional 576 hours for a total of 3,096

hours of family labor. The resulting net loss per hour of family labor

was $0.15 (Table 3).

Grower B also sold 360 pounds of grapes through a local farmers'

market, at 50 cents per pound, for $180 revenue. No production costs

were charged against the farmers' market sales because this activity was

viewed as a salvage effort. Marketing costs totaled $130 for trans-

portation to and from the farmers' market, stall fees, and containers.

With total costs of $130 and revenue of $180, the farmers' market

sales resulted in a net return of $50. A total of 60 hours of family

labor were expended in marketing. The resulting net return per hour of

family labor due to direct marketing was $0.83 (Table 5).


Other Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Marketing


Grower B's losses from the PYO sales resulted because he sold only

about one-fourth of his total grape production. Even though yields of

5,000 to 6,000 pounds per acre resulted in 30,000 to 40,000 pounds of

grapes, sales of only 8,000 pounds were too low to cover costs and

provide a return to family labor. Sales were low because the vineyard

was on a lightly-travelled road, near smaller towns. The grower estimated

that 18 to 20 customers visited his PYO operation daily. Comparing this

figure with the estimated 100 customers daily at Grower A's vineyard

explains the low grape sales.





13



Table 5.--Annual costs and returns for Grower B's grape operation, selling
at a farmers' market.



Item Cost or returns

----- Dollars ----

Revenue

Grape sales 360 Ibs. @ 504 180

Costs

Production costs (Salvage) 0

Marketing costs
Transportation 540 miles @ 204 108
Stall fees 18
Containers 4
Total, non-labor marketing cost 130

Hired labor None 0

Total marketing cost 130

Net revenue 50


Family labor

Marketing 60 hours


Net return per hour of family labor due to direct marketing 0.83




Grower B felt that marketing his grapes through a PYO operation

avoided costs for harvesting labor and provided the opportunity for

additional income. The disadvantages cited, aside from losses incurred

in 1979, were the long hours needed to care for the vineyard and to

operate the PYO marketing.





14



Case C

Background


Grower C's vineyard was located in a rural area about 20 miles from

a town of 10,000 residents and 25 miles from a city of 80,000. All

production was sold through the PYO operation. The harvest season for

Grower C's grapes lasted eight weeks from late July to September. The

vineyard was open for business seven days per week, 10 hours per day.

The grower lived next to the vineyard.


Revenue


In 1979, Grower C's three acres yielded an estimated 14,000 pounds

of grapes, all of which were sold for 50 cents per pound. No other

items were sold at the PYO outlet. Total revenue was $7,000 (Table 6).


Costs


Production costs


Grower C's basic production practices and resulting production

costs were similar to those of other grape growers interviewed. Pro-

duction costs of $676 per acre included all fertilizer, pesticide,

herbicides, machinery and irrigation, loss and depreciation of plants as

well as an opportunity cost of 10 percent on the original investment in

plants, land and operating capital (Appendix Table 1). Grower C's total

production costs were $2,028 (Table 6).


Marketing costs


Structure and equipment requirements.--Grower C's expenses for

structure and equipment were very similar to those of other growers. A





15


Table 6.--Annual costs and returns for Grower C's pick-your-own grape
operation.



Item Costs or returns

---- Dollars ----

Revenue

Grape sales 14,000 Ibs. @ 504 7,000

Costs

Production 3.0 acres @ $676 2,028
Marketing costs
Structures and equipment
Pole barn 96
Signs 31
Baskets 15
Chairs 10
Scales 8
Table 5
Interest on capital 222
Total on structures and equipment 387

Supplies and services
Bags 30
Advertising 200
Liability insurance 42
Total supplies and services 272

Hired labor 560 hrs. @ $2.50 1,400

Total marketing costs 2,059

Net revenue 2,913

Family labor

Production 1,260 hours
Marketing 600 hours
Total family labor 1,860 hours

Net return per hour of family labor 1.57





16


small pole barn, with a table and scale and some chairs, served as a

central sales area. Baskets were provided for picking. Grower C had

two signs valued at $155 (Table 7). Total investment for the sales

structure and equipment amounted to $2,220, resulting in opportunity

costs of $222. The depreciable life of the barn was estimated at 20

years, while the scale, table, chairs and signs were expected to last

five years. Annual structure and equipment expenses were estimated at

$387 (Table 7).

Supplies and services.--Liability insurance, advertising and grocery

bags were the expenditures in this category. The premium for liability

insurance on the PYO business was estimated at $42, while advertising

amounted to $200, spent for classified ads in area newspapers (Table 6).

Expenditures for bags amounted to $30.

Hired labor.--One person was hired to help supervise customers.

Grower C's total expense for hired labor was $1,400 (Table 6).

Net Revenue

When production costs and marketing costs were deducted from Grower

C's gross revenue of $7,000, $2,913 remained. Six hundred hours of

family labor were expended in the direct marketing operation and 1,200

hours in production. The resulting net return per hour of family labor

due to direct marketing was $1.57 (Table 6).


Other Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Marketing

Grower C felt that direct marketing provided the most desirable

means to market grapes, with no need to hire harvest labor. Since the

grower lived next to the vineyard, the marketing activity was not

burdensome. Grower C did not see any disadvantages to direct marketing.





17


Table 7.--Structure and equipment requirements for Grower C's pick-
your-own grape operation.


Depreciable Price/ Total
Description Quantity lifea unit investment


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

Pole barn, 320 sq. ft. 1 20 1,920.00 1,920

Chairs 5 5 10.00 50

Table 1 5 25.00 25

Baskets 60 2 0.50 30

Scale 1 5 40.00 40

Signs 2 5 Variable 155

Total investment 2,220

Interest on capital @ 10 percent per annum 222


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


Consumer Benefits


Time and resource constraints precluded obtaining a large, random

sample of vineyard PYO patrons. In keeping with the case study approach

prescribed by USDA-ESCS, a relatively small number of customers was

interviewed. A non-probability, convenience sample of 25 patrons was

interviewed at the grape outlets described previously. 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 inter-

viewed during the surveillance periods.





18



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

provide a reasonable representation of customers typically patronizing

this type of outlet. The sample is thought to yield a valid assessment

of the qualitative and quantitative benefits to customers of grape PYO

outlets.

The following sections describe the demographic composition of the

sample, and patrons transportation and PYO outlet shopping patterns.

Customers' monetary benefits and other perceived shopping advantages and

disadvantages are also discussed, along with customers' suggestions for

improving the grape PYO outlets.


The Patrons


Sixty percent of the patrons were female, and over half were 50

years of age or older. No one under 25 was interviewed at any of the

vineyards and only one of the customers was under 35 years of age (Table

8). Nearly two-thirds of the customers had completed high school and

about one-fourth had attended college. Nine of the respondents had

completed less than 12 years of schooling (Table 8).

Most PYO customers came from small households. Over one-third came

from two-person households, and about one-fourth from three-person

households. Another 16 percent lived in four-person households, and 20

percent in a household which contained more than four persons. Only one

of the patrons lived alone. Sixty percent of the interviewees were

employed,slightly over one-third were retired, and one person was un-

employed. Four-fifths of the respondents were married (Table 8).




19


Patrons' incomes were somewhat higher, on the average, than those

reported for the populations of the counties in which the vineyards were

located. The sample contained a smaller proportion of low income house-

holds, under $8,000 per year, and a higher proportion of households with

incomes from $15,000 to $25,000 (Sales and Marketing Management).

With respect to race, the sample contained a larger percentage of

blacks than county populations as a whole. Although blacks constitute

approximately 20 percent of the population in the counties where the

grape PYO operations were located, blacks comprised up 32 percent of the

sample (Bureau of Economic and Business Research). Most of the customers

were Florida residents, although five persons, or 20 percent, were

visitors or temporary residents (Table 8).


Transportation


Personal automobiles were the only means of transportation used by

grape PYO patrons. Most of the customers, 20 of the 25, indicated that

the trip to the PYO outlet was a special trip from their residence; no

other activities were conducted in conjunction with the trip. Five

customers combined other activities with their trips to the PYO outlet

(Table 9). Customers that made special trips from their residence to

the vineyard travelled an average round trip distance of 33 miles. The

minimum round trip distance was four miles, and the maximum 112 miles.

For those customers that combined other activities with their trip to

the PYO outlet, their marginal expenditures of mileage and driving time

attributable to the PYO activity were determined. Average additional

round trip distance for these consumers was four miles, with a range of

zero to six miles. The average round trip distance travelled by all

customers was 27 miles, requiring an average of 37 minutes (Table 9).





20



Table 8--.Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of grape PYO
patrons.



Characteristic Number Percent


Sex of purchaser

Male 10 40
Female 15 60
Totals 25 100

Age of purchaser

18-24 0 0
25-34 1 4
35-49 10 40
50-64 5 20
65 + 9 36
Totals 25 T1

Years of education

Less than 12 9 36
12 10 40
13-15 3 12
16 or more 3 12
Totals 25 100

Number of persons in household

One 1 4
Two 9 36
Three 6 24
Four 4 16
More than four 5 20
Totals 25 100

Employment

Employed 15 60
Retired 9 36
Unemployed 1 4
Totals 25 100

Marital status

Married 20 80
Single 5 20
Totals 25 100





21


Table 8.--Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of grape PYO
patrons -- Continued.


Characteristic Number Percent


Income

Under $8,000 5 20
$ 8,000-9,999 2 8
$10,000-14,999 3 12
$15,000-24,999 10 40
$25,000 + 5 20
Totals 25 100

Race

White (non-Hispanic) 17 68
White (Hispanic) 0 0
Black (non-Hispanic) 8 32
Totals 25 100

Residency

Permanent 20 80
Temporary 5 20
Totals 25 100





22


Table 9.--Travel distances and times for grape PYO patrons.



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

--- Miles or minutes ---

Special trip from
residence to PYO outlet

Miles travelled 20 33 4 112
Driving time 20 45 10 135

Combination trip

Miles travelled 5 4 0 6
Driving time 5 6 0 10

All trips

Miles travelled 25 27 0 112
Driving time 25 37 0 135


a
Combination trips included activities in addition to the PYO visit.
The figures reflect patrons' marginal expenditure of mileage and driving
time attributable to the PYO activity.


Patrons' Shopping Patterns


Over half of the customers, 52 percent, discovered the outlet

through friends or relatives, i.e., word-of-mouth. All outlets used

road signs for advertising and 20 percent of the patrons credited them

with their introduction to the outlet. All three outlets where inter-

views were conducted engaged in limited newspaper advertising, and four

of the 25 customers said they discovered the outlet through newspaper

advertisements. Three persons could not recall how the outlet was dis-

covered (Table 10).





23


Table 10.--Shopping patterns for grape PYO patrons.



Question/responsesa Number Percent


How did you discover this outlet?

Roadsigns 5 20
Newspaper ads 4 16
Word-of-mouth 13 52
Do not recall 3 12
Totals 25 100

Have you patronized this outlet before?

Yes 18 72
No 7 28
Totals 25 100

How many times do you patronize this outlet
each year?

One 18 72
Two 2 8
Three 2 8
More than three 3 12
Totals 25 100

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

None 18 72
One 1 4
Two 2 8
Three 1 4
More than three 3 12
Totals 25 100

How many shoppers in your party?

One 2 8
Two 15 60
Three 3 12
More than three 5 20
Totals 25 100





24



Table 10.--Shopping patterns of grape PYO patrons -- Continued.



Question/responsesa Number Percent


Was your grape purchase planned?

Yes 24 96
No 1 4
Totals 25 100

Have you bought grapes at a local
grocery store this season?

Yes 12 48
No 13 52
Totals 25 100


a
Questions about some aspects of shopping behavior have been abbreviated
for inclusion here.





25


Nearly three-fourths of the interviewees had previously patronized

the PYO outlet where contacted, and the same number said they patronized

the outlet only once each year. The same number of customers, 18 though

not necessarily the same persons, said they typically visit only one

grape PYO operation during the harvest season.

Only two of the 25 shoppers came to the grape PYO outlet alone,

while 15 brought another shopper with them. Nearly one-third brought

three or more additional customers. Thus, it appears that the trip to

the PYO outlet was a social activity for most patrons. Furthermore, the

trip was planned, and not an impulse activity (Table 13). Twelve of the

25 customers had purchased grapes at a local retail store during the PYO

season.


Monetary Benefits


The 25 PYO customers purchased an average of 14.6 pounds of grapes,

with the minimum purchase five pounds and the maximum 35. All three PYO

outlets charged 50 cents per pound, and no quantity discounts were

offered. Purchases ranged from $2.50 to $17.50, with the average

expenditure $7.31 (Table 11).

The PYO customers were asked to estimate retail prices of grapes,

but only nine were able or willing to do so. Those respondents said

they expected to pay an average of $0.88 per pound, with a range of

expected prices from $0.69 to $1.09 per pound. The retail price of 79

cents per pound was observed in one store due to limited distri-

bution of muscadine grapes during the time when the PYO customers were

interviewed (Table 11). Thus, PYO customers tended to overestimate

their dollar savings.





26


Table ll.--Consumer expenditures and savings associated with muscadine
grapes purchased at PYO outlets.


Number of
Item Unit observations Average Minimum Maximum


Quantity purchased Pounds 25 14.6 5 35

Total expenditure Dollars 25 7.31 2.50 17.50

Price per pound at PYO's 5 0.50 0.50 0.50

Expected retail price 9 0.88 0.69 1.09

Observed retail price 1 0.79 0.79 0.79

Expected savings per
transaction 9 5.65 2.28 9.62

Actual savings per
transaction 9 4.33 2.47 6.96

Hypothetical savings
per transaction -- 4.23 4.23 4.23


a
Only one retail firm was found that sold muscadine grapes.

b
Hypothetical savings per transaction are based upon the average
quantity purchased by the 25 customers at average, minimum, and maximum
prices observed at PYO outlets compared with average observed retail
prices.


On the average, the patrons estimated that they saved $5.65 per

transaction. But, based on prevailing prices, their savings averaged

$4.33 per transaction, and ranged from $2.47 to $6.96. The average

difference between the PYO outlet price and the prevailing retail price

for all 25 customers amounted to hypothetical savings of $4.23 per

transaction (Table 11). It is important to note, however, that the

actual and hypothetical "savings" discussed here do not take into account





27


transportation expenditures or time spent in driving to the PYO outlet

and in picking the grapes.


Freshness and Quality Comparisons


PYO outlet customers were asked to rate freshness and overall

quality of the grapes from the PYO outlet with those 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 freshness and overall quality were 1.3 and 1.4

respectively for the grapes purchased at the PYO outlets, but only 4.2

and 4.1 for grapes typically purchased at retail grocery stores. A

paired t test indicated that the freshness and overall quality rating

differences were statistically significant (Table 12).


Table 12.--Consumers' comparisons of freshness and quality of grapes
bought at PYO outlets and retail food stores.


Rating by source
Attribute PYO Retail grocery t statistics


Freshness 1.3 4.2 5.79

Overall quality 1.4 4.1 5.87


a
Ratings were based on a nine point scale where 1 = excellent and
9 = extremely poor.

b
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.




28


Other Advantages and Disadvantages

Customers were also asked to enumerate the advantages and dis-

advantages associated with patronizing grape PYO outlets. Quality was

the primary advantage mentioned by over half of the respondents; in

total, 96 percent of those interviewed cited quality as an advantage.

Price was the next most frequently mentioned advantage, cited by a total

of 44 percent. Recreation and freshness were advantages mentioned by a

total of 16 and 20 percent of the respondents respectively (Table 13).

Twenty-one of the 25 respondents could cite no disadvantages associated

with patronizing the grape PYO operation. One respondent each, or 4

percent, mentioned the time or effort required as a disadvantage, and

two customers complained of poor picking conditions (Table 13). No

respondent mentioned more than one disadvantage.


Suggestions for Improvement


Respondents were generally pleased with the PYO operations. Twenty-

two of the 25 customers, 87 percent, made no suggestions for improvement.

Three suggestions were made by three different shoppers. One said the

PYO operator should provide restroom facilities and one customer suggested

marking base support wires in the vineyard to avoid possible injuries.

Another said that there were too many bees around the vines and that the

bees should be kept away, a suggestion that is undoubtedly easier to

make than to implement (Table 14).





29


Table 13.--Respondents' perceived advantages and disadvantages associated
with patronizing PYO grape outlets.



Advantages/disadvantages First response All responses

-------------- Percenta-----------

Advantages

Quality 56 94
Price 24 44
Fun 8 16
Freshness 4 20
Pick the quantity you want 4 12
Eat all you want 0 4
None 4 4
Total 100 -b

Disadvantages

None 84. --c
Hard work 4
Poor picking conditions 8
Long distance to location 4 --
Total 100



a
Percentages were based on 25 observations.
b
Percentages were not summed because of multiple responses.
c
No second or third responses were given.




30


Table 14.--Grape patrons' suggestions for improving the outlet.


Suggestions Number Percent


No improvement necessary 22 88

Need toilets 1 4

Too many bees 1 4

Mark the bare support wires 1 4

Total 25 100


CONCLUSIONS


In 1979, traditional commercial markets for Florida grown grapes

did not exist. The only practical marketing alternative available to

most growers was to sell their grapes directly to consumers through

pick-your-own operations. This alternative does not generally require a

large capital investment in marketing equipment and related activities,

but it does require considerable personal time or hired labor and it

must be accessible to customers. The grower whose PYO operation was

near a large city experienced favorable returns, but the growers with

remote locations had low net returns for their efforts.

The grape PYO operations afforded consumers a number of advantages

as well. Product quality and freshness, monetary savings, and recreation

were the most important benefits. On the average, consumers saved

slightly over four dollars per transaction, if personal time and trans-

portation are ignored. In general, the PYO operation provided positive

experiences for growers and consumers alike.


































APPENDIX





32



Appendix Table l.--Estimated per acre annual operating costs for a
muscadine grape vineyard, using hired production labor,
Florida, 1979.



Item Unit Quanity Price Cost

----- Dollars -----

Cash expenses
Fertilizer Cwt. 10 4.75 47.50
Lime Ton .33 16.00 5.28
Herbicide Pound 6 3.00 18.00
Insecticide Pound 5 2.30 11.50
Fungicide Gallon .50 28.75 14.38
Tractor (40 hp) Hour 10 1.63 16.30
Truck, pickup Mile 700 .10 70.00
Equipment Hour 10 1.35 13.50
Irrigation Acre 1 35.00 35.00
Labor (includes pruning) Hour 420 2.90 1,218.00

Interest on cash expenses Dollar 1,449 .06 86.94

Total cash expenses Dollar 1,536.40

Fixed costs
Landa Acre 1 1,000.00 100.00
Trellisesa Acre 1 557.00 111.40
Plants Acre 198 1.00 33.00
Tractor Hour 10 2.49 24.90
Truck, pickup Mile 700 .10 70.00
Equipment Hour 10 2.42 24.20
Irrigation Acre 1 89.62 89.62

Total fixed costs 453.12

Total costs 1,989.52



a
An opportunity cost of 10 percent is assumed for land, trellises, and
plants. Straight line depreciation is calculated over 10 years for trellises
and 15 years for plants.

Source: Adapted from production budgets provided by Timothy Hewitt,
Extension Area Farm Management Economist, IFAS, Marianna, Florida.






33

Appendix Table 2.--Estimated per acre annual operating costs for a muscadine
grape vineyard, using family labor, 1979.


Item Unit Quantity Price Cost

-------- Dollars -----

Cash expenses
Fertilizer Cwt. 10 4.75 47.50
Lime Ton .33 16.00 5.28
Herbicide Pound 6 3.00 18.00
Insecticide Pound 5 2.30 11.50
Fungicide Gallon .50 28.75 14.38
Tractor Hour 10 1.63 16.30
Truck Miles 700 .07 49.00
Equipment Hour 10 1.35 13.50
Irrigation Acre 1 35.00 35.00
Interest on cash
expenses Dollars 210.46 .06 12.63

Total cash expenses 223.09

Fixed costs
Landa Acre 1 1,000.00 100.00
Trellises Acre 1 557.00 111.40
Plants Acre 198 1.00 33.00
Tractor Hour 10 2.49 24.90
Truck Miles 700 .10 70.00
Equipment Hour 10 2.42 24.20
Irrigation Acre 1 89.62 89.62

Total fixed cost 453.12

Total cost 676.21

Family production labor Hour 420 ---- ---b


a
An opportunity cost of 10 percent is assumed for land, trellises, and
plants. Straight line depreciation is calculated over 10 years for trellises
and 15 years for plants.

b
Assumes family labor used for all operations.

Source: Adapted from production budgets provided by Timothy Hewitt,
Extension Area Farm Management Economist, IFAS, Marianna, Florida.





34



Appendix Table 3.--Estimated per acre establishment costs of muscadine
grapes, Florida, 1979.



Item Unit Quantity Price Cost

-------- Dollars ------

Land Acre 1 1,000.00 1,000.00
Plants Number 198 1.00 198.00
Posts Number 180 2.00 360.00
End posts Number 18 4.00 72.00
Wire Pound 250 .50 125.00
Lime Ton 2 16.00 32.00
Fertilizer Ton 1.25 95.00 118.75
Herbicide Pound 12 3.00 36.00
Insecticide Pound 5 2.30 11.50
Fungicide Gallon .50 28.75 14.38
Tractor (40 hp)c Hour 40 1.63 65.20
Truck (pickup) Mile 1,000 .07 70.00
Equipment Hour 40 1.35 54.00
Fencing Acre 1 242.00 242.00
Irrigation Acre 1,020.00
Labor Hour 240 2.90 696.00

Miscellaneous

Overhead (including
taxes, interest,
depreciation,
insurance, repairs) 160.00

Total costs 4,424.83


a
Assumes 180 plants to an acre and 10 percent replacement.

b
Assumes nine rows to the acre.

c
Includes use for initial land preparation.

Source: Timothy Hewitt, Extension Farm Management Economist, Marianna,
Florida.





35


Food and Resource Economics Department
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center Form Approved
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences OMB No. 40-R 4070
University of Florida Approval expires 6-30-80
Gainesville, Florida 32611 Interviewee No.
In cooperation with USDA/ESCS Date
Research Agreement # 58-319W-8-2522X


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-
consumer direct marketing. This research is designed to 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).
For Office
1. Roadside stand 2. U-Pick 3. Farmer's Market Use

4. Other (specify)


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









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


D. Length of time in business at this location __(Years)





36



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. Just passing by outlet? (tourist, joy riding, etc.)

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





37
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 = W Other (Specify)


A. I see that you have bought some .When you stopped here
today, had you planned to buy c ?

(circle one) 1. Yes

2. No




38

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 here? (probe for 3)
(code)

1.

2.

3.


E. Have you bought at a local grocery store or supermarket
TcodeT
during this time of the year?

(circle one) 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 l=excellent and 9=poor,
how would you rate the freshness of the you bought today?
(code)

Rating


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

Rating


I. Again, using the rating scale from 1 to 9 where excellent and
9=poor, how would you rate the overall quality of the
you bought today? (code)

Rating





39
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 head of the household retired or unemployed ? (circle one)




40


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?

Residencey:

1. Permanent area resident.

2. Temporary or visitor













REFERENCES


Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Florida Statistical Abstract,
University of Florida Press, Gainesville, 1979 and 1980.

Crocker, T. E. and J. A. Mortensen. "The Muscadine Grape", Fruit Crops
Fact Sheet, FC-16, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS,
University of Florida, Gainesville, 1979.

Hewitt, Timothy. "Estimated Per Acre Establishment Costs of Muscadine
Grapes, Florida, 1979", Mimeo, Florida Cooperative Extension Service,
University of Florida, Quincy, Florida, 1979.

S"Estimated Per Acre Annual Operating Costs for A Pick-
Your-Own Vineyard, Florida, 1979", Mimeo, Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, University of Florida, Quincy, Florida, 1979.

Mortensen, J. A. Liberty: A Red Bunch Grape for Florida, Circular S-243,
Agricultural Experiment Stations, IFAS, University of Florida, Gaines-
ville, August, 1976.

Mortensen, J. A., W. B. Nesbitt, and V. H. Underwood. Dixie: A Bronze
Muscadine Grape Variety, Circular S-244, Agricultural Experiment
Station, IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville, October, 1976.

Sales and Marketing Management, 1979. Survey of Buying Power, Vol. 123,
No. 2, July 23, 1979.



















41




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