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






Group Title: Industry report - University of Florida, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center ; no. 81-8
Title: Farmer to consumer direct marketing of strawberries in Florida
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026899/00001
 Material Information
Title: Farmer to consumer direct marketing of strawberries in Florida producer and consumer benefits, a report
Series Title: Industry report Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Physical Description: viii, 48 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: Strawberries -- 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. 48.
Statement of Responsibility: by Robert L. Degner, Lance W. Rodan, and Kary Mathis.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026899
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000410249
oclc - 10795270
notis - ACF7014

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

IR81-8%20Degner ( 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
        Page vi
        Page vii
    Summary
        Page viii
        Page ix
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Objectives
        Page 3
    Procedure
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Findings
        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
    Conclusion
        Page 35
    Appendix
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
    Reference
        Page 48
Full Text



Industry Report 81-8.


NMRC


Farmer to


-keting


of S


PRODUCER AND


December 1981


ITS





















ABSTRACT

Strawberries are an important commercial crop in Florida, but many
growers market substantial quantities through pick-your-own (PYO) out-
lets or roadside stands. Four strawberry farms are described that
generated gross revenues of $18,600 to $40,300 in the spring of 1979
from strawberry sales to consumers. Farmers' returns per hour of family
labor in direct marketing ranged from about $4.00 to $13.50.

Consumers patronizing the PYO and roadside outlets purchased an
average of nearly five pounds of strawberries at an average price of
$0.82 per pound. Consumers did not save money compared with retail
prices, but rated freshness and quality of the strawberries purchased
significantly higher than those in retail stores. Recreation was also
an important advantage to consumers at PYO outlets.


Key words: Marketing, direct marketing, strawberries.
























FARMER TO CONSUMER DIRECT MARKETING OF STRAWBERRIES 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 agricul-

tural 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 develop-

ment 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 studies of representative direct mar-

keting methods employed by farmers in Florida and of consumers patroniz-

ing 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, toma-

toes, 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

Lhe results.


















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


This research was initiated by a request from the United States

Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative Ser-

vice, National Economic Analysis Division, now Economic Research Ser-

vice, 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,

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

for their help in conducting and analyzing grower and consumer inter-

views. 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

LIST OF TABLES .......................... .................. ... vi

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

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

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

OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 3

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

FINDINGS ................................................... ...... 5

Producer Benefits of Direct Marketing ....................... 5

Case A .................................................. 5
Revenue ................................................. 7
Costs ................................................. .. 7
Net Returns ....................................... ...... 7

Case B .................................................... 9
Revenue ...................... ......................... 9
Costs ................................................... 11
Net Returns ............................................. 11

Case C ........................... ........................... 11
Revenue ............. ................................. 13
Costs ...................... .......................... 13
Net Returns ............................................ 16


















Page


Case D ............................................... ...... 16
Revenue ................................................. 17
Costs ................................................... 17
Net Returns ........................................... 17

Other Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Marketing ....... 20

Consumer Benefits ........................................... 20

The Patrons ............................................. 21
Transportation ........................................... 24
Patrons' Shopping Patterns ............................... 26
Monetary Benefits ....................................... 27
Freshness and Quality Comparisons ....................... 32
Other Advantages and Disadvantages ....................... 32
Suggestions for Improvement .............................. 33

CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 35

APPENDIX .......................... ........ ...................... 3 36

REFERENCES ...................................................... 48



















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Annual costs and returns for Grower A's pick-your-own
strawberry operation ........................................ 6

2 Equipment requirements for Grower A's
pick-your-own strawberry operation ........................... 8

3 Commercial marketing alternatives for grower
A's strawberry operation ................................... 8

4 Structure and equipment requirements for Grower
B's pick-your-own strawberry operation ....................... 10

5 Structure and equipment requirements for Grower
B's pick-your-own strawberry operation ....................... 12

6. Commercial marketing alternative for Grower B's
strawberry operation ........................................ 12

7 Annual costs and returns for Grower C's pick-your-own
strawberry operation ............ ........................... 14

8 Equipment requirements for Grower C's pick-your-own
and roadside strawberry operation ............................ 15

9 Commercial marketing alternative for Grower
C's strawberry operation .................................... 15

10 Annual costs and returns for Grower D's roadside
strawberry operation .......................... ................ 18

11 Structure and equipment requirements for Grower
D's roadside strawberry operation ........................... 19

12 Commercial marketing alter-rdLive for Grower D's
strawberry operation ........................................ 19

13 Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of consumers
purchasing strawberries at roadside stands and outlets ....... 22

14 Travel distances and times for strawberry PYO patrons ........ 25












LIST OF TABLES--Continued


Table Page

15 Travel distances and times for consumers purchasing
strawberries at roadside stands ............................ 26

16 Shopping patterns of consumers purchasing
strawberries directly from producers ........................ 28

17 Consumer expenditures and savings associated with
strawberries purchased at PYO outlets ........................ 30

18 Consumer expenditures and savings associated with
strawberries purchased at roadside stands .................... 31

19 Consumers' comparisons of freshness and quality of
strawberries bought at direct marketing outlets
and retail food stores ...................................... 33

20 Respondents' perceived advantages and disadvantages
associated with patronizing strawberry outlets .............. 34

21 Strawberry PYO patrons' suggestions for improving
the outlets ............................................. 34


LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES



Table Page

1 Estimated variable production costs per acre for
strawberry farms up to 40 acres, 1978-1979 .................. 36

2 Estimated machinery investment and depreciation
costs for strawberry farms of less than 20 acres,
West Central Florida, 1978-1979 ............................. 37

3 Estimated fixed costs of machinery for small
strawberry farms, Florida, 1978-1979 ......................... 38

4 Estimated machinery and equipment investment and
depreciation costs for strawberry farms of 20 to
40 acres, Florida, 1978-1979 ................................. 39

5 Estimated fixed costs for land and equipment for
strawberry farms of 20 to 40 acres, Florida, 1978-1979 ....... 40



















SUMMARY


Commercial strawberry production in Florida was 3.7 million flats,
valued at $22 million in 1978-1979. Strawberry acreage is concentrated
in'Dade County, in the Tampa Bay area, and in three counties in north-
central Florida.

Many commercial growers convert to pick-your-own (PYO) sales in the
spring toward the end of the strawberry season, or reserve some acreage
for PYO or roadside sales. Case studies of four strawberry operations
are discussed in this report.

In 1979, these growers sold strawberries directly to consumers,
through PYO or roadside stand operations, from as much as 40 acres to
one acre. Strawberries were sold by volume (flats of 12 pints) or by
the pound, at prices ranging from about $3.00 per flat PYO to $10.25 per
flat at a stand for premium berries. Gross revenues ranged from $18,600
to $40,300.

Marketing facilities and equipment used were minimal. Two of the
four operators used small portable buildings while the other two used
pickup trucks as sales and supervision headquarters. A few roadside
signs, rented portable restrooms, and sometimes a scale completed equip-
ment needs.

Containers were the primary supply item used in two of the opera-
tions, representing $1,800 of $2,100 for supplies and service in one
case and $1,900 of $2,500 in the other. Two other operations used
relatively few containers. Advertising costs ranged from none to $364,
and liability insurance from $120 to $240.

All the growers used some hired labor, with total costs from $500
to $5,000 All marketing costs ranged from a low of $740 to a high of
$8,000. Family labor time varied widely also. Only 30 hours were spent
in one case, while nearly 1,350 were spent in the operation using the
most family labor. Returns per hour of family labor ranged from almost
$4.00 to nearly $13.50 in three cases. The fourth operation, which used
only 30 hours of family labor, realized an additional return from direct
marketing of $180 per acre, a more relevant measure than return per
hour.

Growers felt they received higher prices and larger returns for
their strawberries by marketing directly to consumers than through the
commercial market, especially late in the season dfLer i.uTmiiercid] market


viii













prices declined. The main disadvantage growers cited was the amount of
time needed to operate the direct outlet.

A sample of 28 customers was interviewed at three of the outlets.
Over 70 percent of strawberry purchasers were 50 years of age or older
and over 40 percent were retired. The customers came from small house-
holds and had relatively high incomes. Over 60 percent were Florida
visitors or temporary residents. The strawberry season coincides with
the heaviest period of winter visitors to Florida, and these visitors
make up a high percentage of strawberry buyers.

About half of the patrons interviewed made a special trip to the
strawberry outlet and the rest combined the stop with other trips. The
trip was planned by nearly 80 percent of the shoppers, and over 80
percent were alone or with one other person.

Quantities purchased at PYO outlets ranged from less than 2 pounds
to more than 15 pounds, at total costs of $1.00 to $9.00. The average
expenditure was $3.18 at an average price of $0.55 per pound for 5.4
pounds average purchase. Customers' estimates of their monetary savings
were $0.90 per transaction but actual savings were $0.17.

Purchases from roadside stands averaged 3.85 pounds at $3.60 total
expenditure. Only three customers made retail price comparisons, but
all overestimated their savings.

The primary advantages cited by direct marketing outlet patrons
were freshness and quality, the recreation of picking strawberries, and
price. Only 3 of the 28 customers mentioned disadvantages, which were
higher prices than retail stores and travel distances.














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


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



INTRODUCTION



Commercial strawberry acreage in Florida has fluctuated widely

since the mid-1950's, but the general trend has been downward. Plant-

ings declined from 3,700 acres in the 1955-1956 season to only 1,200

acres in the 1974-75 season. However, by the 1978-1979 season, acreage

rebounded to 2,400 acres. The average yield in the 1978-1979 season was

1,561 flats (10.25 pounds net) for a statewide total of over 3.7 million

flats which sold for over $22 million. Strawberry sales represented 3

percent of Florida's total vegetable sales in 1979.

Commercial production is concentrated in three major areas. In

1978-1979, approximately 100 acres were grown in south Florida, primar-

ily in Dade County. The central area, the counties surrounding Tampa

Bay, had 2,100 acres, and the north central area, comprised of Alachua.

Bradford, and Union counties, had the remaining 200 acres (Florida Crop

and Livestock Reporting Service).





Robert L. Degner is associate professor and Kary Mathis is profes-
sor 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 Farmhank Services, Denver,
Colorado.














Competition from imports and escalating production costs have been

blamed for the long run decline in Florida's strawberry acreage,

although higher yielding varieties have stimulated production in recent

years. Even so, the cost-price squeeze has fostered greater interest in

direct marketing activities. Roadside and pick-your-own (PYO) opera-

tions are the most common direct marketing methods used. Some straw-

berries are sold at farmers' markets, but the vendors are generally not

farmers. PYO operations consist of relatively small acreages grown

specifically for consumer picking or larger fields that are harvested

for the commercial market early in the season and later converted to

salvage PYO operations. Many commercial strawberry farms are opened up

as PYO outlets late in the season when commercial pickers are scarce

and/or commercial prices decline to relatively unprofitable levels.

Roadside stands were observed in conjunction with commercial har-

vest operations and with PYO outlets. In the former case, some of the

berries harvested for the commercial market were diverted to the far-

mer's roadside stand to be sold at a higher price. Most PYO outlets

also offered picked berries for sale.

Harvesting of strawberries in Florida generally begins in mid-

December in the southern portion of the state and continues into May in

the northern areas, although the bulk of production is harvested January

through April. This harvest season also corresponds with Florida's

large influx of winter visitors, which enhances direct marketing oppor-

tunities.















OBJECTIVES



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

extent of benefits to strawberry producers and to the consumers who

purchase strawberries 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 1) determine prices

paid by consumers for strawberries at representative direct marketing

outlets and compare these prices with those paid at supermarkets; 2)

determine consumers' perception of strawberry quality at direct market-

ing outlets as compared to those obtainable at supermarkets; 3) identi-

fy 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 bene-

fits. Strawberry producers were identified and located with the assis-

tance 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















OBJECTIVES



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

extent of benefits to strawberry producers and to the consumers who

purchase strawberries 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 1) determine prices

paid by consumers for strawberries at representative direct marketing

outlets and compare these prices with those paid at supermarkets; 2)

determine consumers' perception of strawberry quality at direct market-

ing outlets as compared to those obtainable at supermarkets; 3) identi-

fy 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 bene-

fits. Strawberry producers were identified and located with the assis-

tance 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 during February,

March and April, 1979.

Production cost data were obtained from secondary sources and

slightly modified to reflect general production practices used by most

growers (Otte, et al., Prevatt and Pospichal). 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 variable production costs were similar for all growers.

These costs are listed in Appendix Table 1. Fixed costs for machinery

and equipment are different for smaller strawberry farms of less than 20

acres than for farms of 20 to 40 acres. For this reason, investment and

depreciation costs, and annual fixed costs for machinery were developed

for farms under 20 acres from one source (Prevatt and Pospichal). The

some types of costs were developed for farms of 20 to 40 acres from

another source (Otte, et al.). 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) and roadside out-

lets. 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, shopping















patterns, and transportation were obtained in the interviews. Consum-

ers' monetary savings were determined by comparing prices paid for

strawberries at direct outlets with prices prevailing at local grocery

stores.



FINDINGS



Producer Benefits of Direct Marketing


Four case studies are presented which depict the broad range of

direct marketing activities found for strawberries in various parts of

the state. As mentioned previously, the predominant forms of direct

marketing strawberries are PYO outlets and roadside stands.



Case A


Producer A had a 40 acre strawberry farm located about 10 miles

from a city of approximately 30,000 in central Florida. From January

until mid-April, all production was sold commercially. In mid-April

production declined and commercial pickers became scarce. For many

commercial strawberry farms, the lack of harvest labor would have sig-

nalled the end of the season. However, Grower A opened his strawberry

fields to the general public as a pick-your-own (PYO) operation. He

extended his production for an additional month by continuing regular

production practices such as weeding, applying fertilizer and pesti-
cides, and irrigating.















Table 1.--Annual costs and returns for Grower A's pick-your-own straw-
berry operation.

Item Costs or returns
------ Dollars ------
Revenue

Strawberry sales 6,300 flats @ $3.06 19,278

Costs

Production costs 40 acres @ $190 7,600

Marketing costs

Equipment
Truck 400 miles @ $0.20 80
Restroom rental 20
Sign rental 50
Interest on capital 58
Total, equipment 208

Supplies and services
Containers 1,794
Advertising 180
Insurance 120
Total, supplies and services 2,094

Hired labor 900 hours @ $3 2,700

Total marketing costs 5,002

Net revenue 6,676

Net return if strawberries sold commercially
(Table 3) -607

Net return due to direct marketing 7,283

Family labor

Marketing 30 hours

Net return per hour of family labor due to direct marketing 242.77












Revenue

Production sold to PYO patrons amounted to 6,300 flats, for a to"3

revenue of more than $19,000 (Table 1). Average price per acre was

slightly over $3,000. No quantity discounts were offered and no other

items were sold at the PYO outlet.



Costs

The additional production practices noted above to extend the

strawberry season for direct marketing cost Grower A $190 per acre. In

addition, Grower A spent about one hour a day supervising hired workers

in the PYO operation. The only owned equipment used was a pickup truck

(Table 2). A portable restroom was rented, along with portable signs

that were placed on the highway. Total equipment costs were $208 (Table

1).

Containers accounted for $1,794 of the $2,094 costs for supplies

and services. Insurance and newspaper advertising cost $300 (Table

1). Hired labor amounted to $2,700, for total marketing costs of

$5,002.



Net Returns

Production costs of $7,600 and marketing costs of $5,002 deducted

from Grower A's revenue of $19,278 left $6,676. If he had sold the

6,300 flats of strawherries in the commercial market at relatively low

end-of-season prices, he would have lost S607 (Table 3). This avoided

loss plus net revenue from the PYO operation yieldeu total ret returns

of $7,283 from direct marketing (Table 1).









8



Table 2.--Equipment requirements for Grower A's pick-your-own strawberry
operation.

SDepreciable Price/ Total
Description Quantity lifea unit investment

Number
Truck (one-half ton) 1 --_a 7,000 583

Interest on capital @10 percent per annum 58

aStraight line depreciation is calculated for all items, assuming
no salvage value. All operating expenses, including depreciation, are
included in the 20 cent-per-mile charge (Table 1).


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


Item


Costs or returns


------ Dollars ------
Revenue


Strawberry sales


Costs


Production
Marketing
Total


6,300 flats @ $3.75



40 acres @ $190
6,300 flats @ $2.64


Net return, commercial alternative


aSee Appendix Table 1.


23,625


7,600
16,632


24,232

-607












As mentioned earlier, Grower A spent about an hour per day over the

month the PYO was operating, or 30 hours total. On the basis of time

spent operating the PYO outlet, his financial return exceeded $240 per

hour (Table 1). A more realistic way of viewing Grower A's return would

be on a per acre basis, because the profits accruing to the PYO opera-

tion were due not only to his marketing efforts but to his entrepreneur-

ial abilities associated with his entire farming operation. Grower A

earned an additional $182 per acre from the PYO operation.



Case B


Producer B's farm was in north Florida, within 10 miles of several

towns with populations ranging from about 500 to 5,000. Two large

cities with combined populations of almost 750,000 were within 35 miles

of the farm. Grower B had several hundred acres of farm and ranch

land. Beef cattle were his primary agricultural enterprise, but he also

grew about 11 acres of assorted vegetable crops. In 1979, about 8.5

acres were planted in strawberries of which 70 percent, 6 acres, were

sold through the PYO operation. The remaining berries were picked and

sold to fruit and vegetable stands and small retail food stores. The

harvest season lasted about eight weeks, from mid-March through mid-May.



Revenue

Grower B estimated that 8,400 flats of strawberries were sold

through the PYO operation at 60 cents per quart or $4.80 per flat,

resulting in total revenue of $40,320 (Table 4). Other vegetables were

sold through the outlet as well.







10



Table 4.--Annual costs and returns for Grower B's pick-your-own straw-
berry operation.

Item Costs or returns

------ Dollars -----
Revenue

Strawberry sales 8,400 flats @ $4.80a 40,320

Costs

Production costs 6 acres @ $3,437 20,622

Marketing costs

Structures and equipment
Buildings 200
Signs 11
Restroom rental 120
Interest on capital 203
Total,structures and equipment 534

Supplies and services
Containers 1,890
Advertising 364
Insurance 240
Total, supplies and services 2,494

Hired labor 1,680 hours @ $3 5,040

Total marketing costs 8,068

Net revenue 11630

Net return if strawberries sold commercially
(Table 6) 6,342

Net return due to direct marketing 5,288

Family labor

Marketing 30 hours

Net return per hour of family labor due to direct marketing 3.93


aThe PYO price was 60 cents per quart, the equivalent of $4.80 per
flat.














Costs

Grower B's production costs were estimated at $3,437 per acre

(Table 4). These cnots included pre-harvest expenditures of $2,817 and

fixed costs of $620 (Appendix Tables 1 and 3). Marketing costs included

$534 for two small buildings, signs, interest on these capital items,

and rental for a portable restroom (Table 5).

Other marketing costs included $2,494 for supplies and services,

including quart containers, advertising and insurance. Hired labor was

the major marketing cost, representing $5,040 of the $8,068 total (Table

4).



Net Returns

After deducting production and marketing costs, Grower B had a net

revenue of $11,630. If he had sold his strawberries commercially, he

would have netted $6,342 (Table 6). The PYO marketing activity resulted

in almost $5,300 additional income over his commercial alternative.

Direct marketing efforts earned nearly $4 per hour for family labor

(Table 4).



Case C


Grower C's 2.5 acre strawberry farm was in south Florida about 3

miles from a city with a population of 22,000 and near a major metropol-

itan area with over 1.5 million residents. Grower C was retired and

spent about 8 months of the year in Florida and the remainder in a













Table 5.--Structure and equipment requirements for Grower B's pick-your-
own strawberry operation.


Depreciable Price/ Total
Description Quantity life unit investment

Number Years ----- Dollars -----
Buildings 2 10 1,000 2,000

Signs 2 3 17 34

Total investment 2,034

Interest on capital @10 percent per annum 203


aStraight line
no salvage value.


depreciation is calculated for all items, assuming


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


Costs or returns


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

Revenue


Strawberry sales

;tsa

Production
Marketing
Total


8,400 flats @ $5.85



6 acres @ $3,437
8,400 flats @ $2.64


Net return, commercial alternative


aSee Appendix Table 1.


Item


49,140


20,622
22,176


42,798

6.342












northern state. The strawberry farm was a part-time venture which was

undertaken as an income supplement. The 1979 season was the grower's

first year to farm in Florida. As a result, his crop was somewhat late

and his production estimated to be only 1,200 flats per acre, as com-

pared with the state average of 1,561 in the 1978-79 season.

Most of Grower C's production was harvested in a six week period in

late March and April. Grower C operated the farm primarily as a PYO

operation, although he sold about 10 percent of his strawberries picked

in flats at roadside.



Revenues

Grower C's total revenue from strawberries was estimated at nearly

$20,000, with about $16,600 from PYO sales and $3,000 from roadside

sales (Table 7). Strawberry prices were 60 cents per pound PYO or $1.00

per pound for picked berries at roadside. Grower C was the only one of

the four operators interviewed who priced strawberries by the pound.


Costs

Production costs totaled $10,452. Pre-harvest costs were $2,817

per acre and fixed costs $1,364, for per acre production costs of $4,181

(Table 7). Fixed costs for machinery were calculated from Appendix

Table 1, where total machinery costs for a small strawberry operation

were $6,820, or $2,728 per acre. However, Grower C used the machinery

only half of the year, so one-half of machinery costs, or $1,364, was

charged.









14


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

Item Costs or returns

------ Dollars ------
Revenue

Pick-your-own sales 27,675 pounds @ $0.60 16,605
Roadside sales 3,075 pounds @ $1.00 3,075
Total revenue 19,680

Costs

Production costs 2.5 acres @ $4,181 10,452

Marketing costs

Equipment
Truck 432 miles @ $0.20 86
Signs 8
Scale 5
Cash box 2
Interest on capital 64
Total, equipment 165

Supplies and services
Containers 64
Advertising 180
Total, supplies and services 66

Hired labor, picking for roadside sales 512

Total marketing costs 743

Net revenue 8,485

Net return if strawberries sold commercially
(Table 9) 4,128

Net return due to direct marketing 4.357

Family labor

Marketing 30 hours

Net return per hour of family labor due to direct marketing 13.45












Table 8.--Equipment requirements for Grower C's
side strawberry operation.


pick-your-own and road-


Description Quantity Depreciable Price/ Total
Qua y life unit investment

Number
Truck (one-half ton) 1 --- b 700 583c
Signs 3 3 8 24
Scale 1 5 25 25
Cash box 1 5 10 10
Total investment 642

Interest on capital @10 percent per annum 64

aStraight line depreciation is calculated for all items, assuming
no salvage value.
bAll operating expenses, including depreciation, are included in
the 20 cent-per-mile charge (Table 7).
CThe truck was used for the PYO operation for only one month.


Table 9.--Commercial marketing alternative for Grower C's strawberry
operation.
Item Cs or returns


Costs or returns
------ Dollars ------


Revenue


Strawberry sales

.tsa

Production
Marketing


3,000 flats @ $7.50



2.5 acres @ $4,181
3,000 flats @ $2.64


Total

Net return, commercial alternative


aSee Appendix Table 1.


22,500


10,452
7,920


18,372


Item











Marketing costs totaled $743, made up of $165 for a truck and cLiher

items used in the PYO operation (Table 8), $66 for supplies and ser-

vices, and $512 for hired labor (Table 7).



Net Returns

Grower C's net revenue came to almost $8,500. If he had sold his

strawberries commercially, however, his net return would have been less

than half of what he realized through his direct marketing efforts

(Table 9). His net return attributable to direct marketing amounted to

an estimated $4,357, or over $13 per hour for family labor (Table 7).


Case D


Grower D had a vegetable farm of about 40 acres in south Florida

approximately two miles from Grower C's strawberry farm. He grew five

acres of strawberries, 33 acres of eggplant, and one acre of bell pep-

pers. The production from one acre of strawberries, about 2,000 flats,

and the bell peppers were sold at a roadside stand, along with tomatoes

that were bought from neighboring commercial tomato farms. Strawberries

constituted approximately half of his roadside sales. The production

from four acres of strawberries was sold commercially, as was all of the

eggplant production.

The roadside stand was operated by a family member, with Grower D

assisting. The stand was open during the entire strawberry marketing

season, from mid-December through mid-April, the same period as the peak

tourist season.













Revenue

Grower D's total revenue from the one acre of strawberries was

estimated at $18,600 (Table 10). Grower O's berries brought excellent

prices, 75 cents per pint and $2.00 per quart. This was equivalent to a

weighted average price of $9.30 per flat. Quarts brought a premium

price because they contained extra-large berries.



Costs

Production costs for the acre of strawberries sold through the

roadside stand were $3,242. Pre-harvest costs were $2,817 (Appendix

Table 1) as with the other growers, and fixed costs for machinery were

$425 per acre, using the total 39 acres in the farm (Appendix Table 3).

Marketing costs included $96 for structures and equipment, primar-

ily for the share of the portable building represented by strawberry

sales (Tables 10 and 11). Containers were the only supplies needed, and

$3,000 was spent for hired picking labor for total marketing costs of

$3,598 (Table 10).


Net Returns

After deducting production and marketing expenses, Grower D's net

revenue was estimated to be $11,760 (Table 10). If he had sold the

2,000 flats of strawberries commercially rather than marketing them

through his roadside stand, he would have netted an estimated $9,478

(Table 12). Grower 0 and his family earned an additional $2,282 by

marketing the strawberries through their roadside stand. This amounted

to earnings of almost $4.50 per hour for 450 hours of family labor

(Table IU).












Table 10.--Annual costs and returns for Grower D's roadside strawberry
operation.

Item Costs or returns

------ Dollars ------
Revenue

Strawberry sales 2,000 flats @ $9.30 18.600

Costs

Production costs 1 acre @ $3,242 3,242

Marketing costs

Structures and equipment
Portable building 45
Sign 5
Interest on capitdl 46
Total, equipment 96

Supplies
Containers 502

Hired labor 3,000

Total marketing costs 3,598

Net revenue 11,760

Net return if strawberries sold commercially
(Table 12) 9,478

Net return due to direct marketing 2.282

Family labor

Marketing 510 hours

Net return per hour of family labor due to direct marketing 4.47













Table 11.--Structure and equipment
strawberry operation.


requirements for Grower D's roadside


Description Quantity Depreciable Price/ Total
lifea unit investment

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

Portable building 1 10 100 450

Signs 1 2 20 10

Total capital investment 460


Interest on capital @ 10 percent per annum 46


aStraight line depreciation is calculated
no salvage value.
bTotal investment was prorated to reflect
roadside sales represented by strawberries.


for all items, assuming

the proportion of total


Table 12.--Commercial marketing alternative for Grower D's strawberry
operation.

Item~ Cost or r tu n


--- Dollars ---


Revenue
Strawberry sales

Costsa
Production
Marketing
Total


2,000 flats @ $9.00


1 acre @ $3,242
2,000 flats @ $2.64


Net return, commercial alternative


aSee Appendix Table 1.


18,000


3,242
5,280


8,522

9.478


Item


Costs or returns














Other Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Marketing



Three of the four growers felt that their direct marketing activi-

ties resulted in higher prices and greater returns. The PYO operator in

south Florida said a major advantage was not having to deal with the

problems and uncertainties associated with harvest labor. However, the

grower in north Florida that did not have ready access to a commercial

market felt that he would be better off financially if he could sell his

berries commercially.

All growers cited the amount of time required as a definite disad-

vantage. Inability to predict PYO outlet patronage was a problem men-

tioned by one grower. This caused difficulty in scheduling PYO outlet

labor and advertising. Two growers, both PYO operators, complained that

customers damaged plants, plastic mulch, and irrigation equipment.

Despite the disadvantages associated with their direct marketing ef-

forts, most growers were pleased with their improved financial returns.


Consumer Benefits



Time and resource constraints precluded obtaining a large, random

sample of strawberry farm 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 28 patrons

was interviewed at three of the strawberry farms 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 (-uld be interviewed during the surveillance periods.

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

provide a reasonable representation of customers typically patronizing

PYO and roadside outlets. The sample is thought to yield a valid

assessment of the qualitative and quantitative benefits accruing to

customers buying strawberries directly from producers.

The following sections describe the demographic composition of the

sample, and patrons' transportation and direct outlet shopping pat-

terns. Customers' monetary benefits and other perceived shopping advan-

tages and disadvantages are also discussed, along with customers' sug-

gestions for improving the strawberry outlets.


The Patrons

About sixty percent of the patrons were male, and over 70 percent

were 50 years of age or older. Relatively few young people were inter-

viewed at the strawberry farms; less than 15 percent of the customers

were under 35 years of age (Table 13). In general, the customers were

well-educated. Half had attended college, compared with about 30 per-

cent of the population of Florida, and 29 percent had attended college

four or more years, compared with 14 percent statewide (Thompson). Only

one of the respondents had completed less than twelve years of school-

ing.

Most PYO and roadside stand customers came from small households.

Nearly two-thirds came from one- or two- person households, and 18

percent came from three- or four-person households. The remaining 18

percent lived in households with more than four persons. Over half of












Table 13.--Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of consumers
purchasing strawberries at roadside stands and PYO outlet..

Characteristic Number Percenta

Sex of purchaser


Male
Female
Totals


Age of purchaser

18-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65 and over
Totals

Years of education


Less than 12
12
13-15
16 or more
Totals

Number of persons in household


61
39
100



0
14
14
32
39
100



4
46
21
29
100


One
Two
Three
Four
More than four
Totals

Employment

Employed
Retired
Unemployed
Totals












Table 13.--Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of
purchasing strawberries at roadside stands and PYO
Continued.


consumers
outlets. -


Characteristic 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


89
11
100



11
7
0
37
44
100



96
4
0
100


percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.












the interviewees were employed, 43 percent were retired, and one person

was unemployed. Almost 90 percent of the respondents were married

(Table 13).

Patrons' incomes were relatively high compared with those of the

population of the counties where strawberry farms were located. The

sample contained a disproportionately small number of low income house-

holds, that is under $8,000 per year, and half again as many households

with incomes in excess of $25,000 (Sales and Marketing Management).

With respect to race, all consumers were white and only one of

those was Hispanic. Although blacks constitute approximately 15 percent

of the population in counties where the strawberry farms were located,

none were in the consumer sample. Only 39 percent of the customers were

Florida residents, with 17 persons, or 61 percent, visitors or temporary

residents.



Transportation

Personal automobiles were the only means of transportation used by

strawberry PYO or roadside stand patrons. Fifteen of the 28 customers

patronized PYO outlets and 13 roadside stands. Eight PYO patrons said

that the trip to the PYO outlet was a special trip from their residence,

and no other activities were conducted in conjunction with the trip

(Table 14). Seven shoppers combined other activities with their trip to

the PYO outlet. Customers that made a special trip from their residence

to the strawberry PYO outlet traveled an average round trip distance of

29 miles. The minimum round trip distance was 4 miles, and the maximum

100 miles (Table 14).












Table 14.--Travel distances and times for strawberry 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 traveled 8 29 4 100
Driving time 8 46 8 120

Combination tripa

Miles traveled 7 3 0 12
Driving time 7 8 0 30

aCombination 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.



For those customers that combined other activities with their trip

to the PYO outlet, marginal expenditures for mileage and driving time

attributable to the PYO activity were determined. Seven reported an

average round trip distance of 3 miles, requiring an average driving

time of 8 minutes.

Travel distances and times for strawberry customers at roadside

stands were somewhat different than for PYO customers. Roadside stand

patrons making a special trip to the outlet traveled an average of 16

miles, ranging from 6 to 36 miles (Table 15). Average time required was

32 minutes.

Where the trip to the roadside stand area combined with other

activities, eight shoppers traveled 4 miles in an average of 8

minutes. Distance ranged from no extra mileage to 30 miles and time

from none extra to 60 minutes (Table 15).














Table 15.--Travel distances and times for consumers purchasing straw-
berries at roadside stands.
......--- i -
Type of trip/ Number of Distance or time
distance, Lime required observdLiurls A, Minmm vm, m
'tl/oAver ae Mintimim Mivv mi


--- Miles or minutes ---

Special trip from
residence to roadside outlet

Miles traveled 5 16 6 36
Driving time 5 32 12 72

Combination trip

Miles traveled 8 4 0 30
Driving time 8 8 0 60

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





Patrons' Shopping Patterns

Over half of the PYO and roadside stand customers found the outlets

from roadside signs. Almost one-third discovered the outlets through

friends or relatives, i.e., word-of-mouth. Although two of the three

outlets where interviews were conducted engaged in limited newspaper

advertising, only two of the 28 customers said they discovered the

outlet through newspaper advertisements. Another two persons could not

recall how the outlet was discovered (Table 16).

Over 60 percent of the interviewees had not previously patronized

the outlet where contacted. Forty-five percent said they patronized the

outlet twice each year, and 36 percent said they visited it three or

more times per season. Nearly one-third of the customers said they did


nvC j u llUlll 1'l(tA MUllMll












not visit any other strawberry operation during the harvest season,

while 46 percent visited more than three.

One-third of the shoppers came to the strawberry outlet alone.

Over half brought another shopper with them, and the remaining 11 per-

cent brought two more customers with them. Thus it appears the trip to

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

trip was planned, and not an impulse activity (Table 16).


Monetary Benefits

Expenditures and savings on strawberry purchases were calculated

fur PYO customers sepdrately from those of roadside stand patrons. Each

of the 15 PYO customers purchased an average of 5.4 pounds of strawber-

ries. The minimum purchase was 1.7 pounds and the maximum 15.4. Expen-

ditures ranged from $1.00 to $9.00, with the average expenditure $3.18

(Table 17).

The PYO customers were asked to estimate retail prices of strawber-

ries. However, less than one-fourth of the respondents had purchased

strawberries in retail stores during the current season, so a large

proportion were unable or unwilling to estimate retail prices. The four

respondents that did expected to pay an average of $0.81 per pound for

strawberries. Expected prices ranged from $0.71 to $0.96 per pound.

Retail prices in stores of two leading super market chains during the

period when PYO customers were interviewed ranged from $0.54 to $0.81

per pound in all stores. Thus, PYO customers tended to overestimate

their dollar savings.












consumers purchasing strawberries


directly from producers.


Question/responsesa Number Percentb

How did you discover this outlet?


Roadside signs
Newspaper ads
Word-of-mouth
Do not recall
Totals

Have you patronized this outlet before?

Yes
No
Totals

How often do you patronize this outlet each year?


Once
Twice
Three
More than three
Totals


39
61
100



18
45
18
18
100


How many similar outlets
during the past year?

None
One
Two
Three
More than three
Totals


have you patronized


32
7
11
4
46
100


How many shoppers in your party?


One
Two
Three
More than three
Totals


Table 16.--Shopping patterns of












Table 16.--Shopping patterns of consumers purchasing strawberries
directly from producers.

Question/responsesa Number Percentb

Was your strawberry purchase planned?

Yes 22 79
No 6 21
Totals 28 100

aQuestions about some aspects of shopping behavior have been abbre-
viated or paraphrased for inclusion here. See questionnaire in Appen-
dix.
percentage may not sum to 100 due to rounding.




On the average the patrons estimated that they saved $0.90 per

transaction. But, compared with prevailing retail prices they saved

only $0.17 per transaction. The average difference between the PYO

outlet price and the prevailing retail price for all 15 customers

amounted to hypothetical savings of $0.64 per transaction. It is impor-

tant to note, however, that the "actual" and hypothetical "savings"

discussed here do not take into account costs or time spent in driving

to the PYO outlet and in picking strawberries.

Customers at roadside purchased smaller amounts of strawberries but

spent slightly more than PYO patrons. Roadside stand purchases ranged

from 0.9 to 10.3 pounds, averaging 3.85 pounds. Average expenditure was

$3.60, ranging from $0.75 to $9.00. Strawberries averaged $1.00 per

pound at stands (Table 18).

Customers of roadside stands estimated retail prices for strawber-

ries at $0.50 per pound, ranging from $0.68 to $1.19. As reported

earlier, actual retail prices averaged SO.67 (Table 18). Thus, while












Table 17.--Consumer expenditures and savings associated with straw-
berries purchased at PYO outlets.

Number of
Item Unit obsAs average Minimum Maximum
observations

Quantity purchased Poundsa 15 5.4 1.7 15.4

Total expenditure Dollars 15 3.18 1.00 9.00

Price per pound
at PYO outlets 4 0.55 0.20 0.73

Expected retail price 7 0.81 0.71 0.96

Observed retail price 35 0.67 0.54 0.81

Expected savings per
transaction 7 0.90 -0.06 2.45

Actual savings per
transaction 7 0.17 -0.30 0.60

Hypothetical savings
per transaction 0.64 2.52 -0.32

aMost outlets sold strawberries by the pint, quart or "flat"
although several sold them on the basis of weight. The official weight
of a flat of strawberries as defined by the Florida Crop and Livestock
Reporting Service was 10.25 pounds in 1979. Since most flats contain 12
pints, a pint of strawberries was assumed to weight 0.85 pounds, or
about 14 ounces.
bHypothetical savings per transaction are based on the average
quantity purchased by the 15 customers at average, minimum and maximum
prices observed at PYO outlets compared with average observed retail
prices.












Table 18.--Consumer expenditures and savings
ries purchased at roadside stands.


associated with strawber-


Number of
Item Unit obervatins Average Minimum Maximum

Quantity purchased Poundsa 13 3.85 0.9 10.3

Total expenditure Dollars 13 3.60 0.75 9.00

Price per pound
at PYO outlets 6 1.00 0.59 1.76

Expected retail price "3 0.90 0.68 1.19

Observed retail price 35 0.67 0.54 0.81

Expected savings per
transaction 3 0.07 -0.36 0.75

Actual savings per
transaction 3 -0.66 -1.17 -0.20

Hypothetical savings
per transaction -- -1.24 0.30 -4.09

aMost outlets sold strawberries by the pint, quart or "flat"
although several sold them on the basis of weight. The official weight
of a flat of strawberries as defined by the Florida Crop and Livestock
Reporting Service was 10.25 pounds in 1979. Since most flats contain 12
pints, a pint of strawberries was assumed to weight 0.85 pounds, or
about 14 ounces.
bHypothetical savings per transaction are based on the average
quantity purchased by the 15 customers at average, minimum and maximum
prices observed at roadside stands compared with average observed retail
prices.











roadside patrons expected to save an average of $0.07 per transaction,

they actually paid $0.66 more than average retail prices. The average

difference between the roadside stand price and prevailing retail price

for all 13 customers amounted to a hypothetical cost of $1.24 per trans-

action. As with PYO patrons, no time or costs for travel to the stand

were included. However, patrons did not spend time picking strawber-

ries, so roadside purchasers saved some time compared with PYO patrons.



Freshness and Quality Comparisons

Direct outlet customers were asked to rate freshness and overall

quality of the strawberries obtained at the outlets and strawberries

usually found at retail grocery stores. Ratings were based on a nine-

point rating scale where one represented "excellent" and nine repre-

sented "extremely poor." The average ratings for freshness and overall

quality were 1.3 and 1.7 respectively for the strawberries purchased at

the direct outlets, but only 6.1 for the same attributes for strawber-

ries typically purchased at retail grocery stores. A paired t-test

indicated that the freshness and overall quality rating differences were

statistically significant (Table 19).


Other Advantages and Disadvantages

Customers were also asked to enumerate the advantages and disadvan-

tages associated with patronizing strawberry outlets. Freshness was the

primary advantage mentioned by half of the respondents; in total, 61

percent of those interviewed cited freshness as an advantage. Recrea-

tion was the next most frequent first response cited by 18 percent of

the patrons and a total of 21 percent (Table 20). Quality and price












Table 19.--Consumers' comparisons of freshness and quality of straw-
berries bought at direct marketing outlets and retail food
stores.

Rating by source
Attribute t-statisticb
Attribute Direct Retail grocerystatst


Freshness 1.3 6.1 7.03

Overall quality 1.7 6.1 5.04

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




were advantages mentioned by a total of 29 and 36 percent of the

respondents respectively. Almost 90 percent of the respondents cited no

disadvantages associated with patronizing the strawberry operations.

One patron each mentioned price and distance to travel as disadvantages,

and one customer complained that facilities were not clean (Table 20).



Suggestions for Improvement

Respondents were generally pleased with PYO and roadside opera-

tions. Twenty-six of the 28 customers, 93 percent, made no suggestions

for improvement. Two suggestions were made by two different shoppers.

One said the PYO operator should provide more supervision, specifically

to identify areas where picking was best. Another felt that more plants

to pick from should be provided (Table 21).












Table 20.--Respondents' perceived advantages and disadvantages asso-
ciated with patronizing strawberry outlets.

Advantages/disadvantages First response All responses

------ Percenta --

Advantages

Freshness 50 61
Recreation 18 21
Quality 14 29
Price 7 4
Help the farmer 0 4
None 11 11
Totalsc 100 __-b

Disadvantages

None 89 89
Price 4 7
Travel distance 4 4
Convenience 4 4
Not clean 0 4
Totalsc 100 __-b

aPercentages were based on 28 observations.
percentages were not summed because of multiple responses.
CPercentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.


Table 21.--Strawberry patrons' suggestions for improving the outlets.

Suggestions Number Percenta

No improvement necessary 26 93

Provide more supervision 1 4

More plants to pick from 1 4

Totals 28 100

percentage may not sum to 100 due to rounding.











CONCLUSIONS



Marketing strawberries directly to consumers is an important income

source for some commercial growers and for many smaller producers or

those without ready access to commercial markets. Strawberry prices

usually drop sharply toward the end of the marketing season and harvest

workers move on to other areas. Commercial growers can offset these

difficulties with PYO sales to consumers. Other strawberry producers

grow strictly or primarily for the PYO market and some growers outside

major strawberry areas can realize significant income through direct

sales.

Consumers benefit by buying fresher, higher quality strawberries

than from retail stores. Monetary savings were relatively small com-

pared with retail prices, and some consumers actually paid slightly more

for strawberries from roadside stands than from food stores. However,

consumers generally felt the strawberries were better, and the recrea-

tional aspects more rewarding from direct outlets.































APPENDIX












Appendix Table 1.--Estimated variable production costs per acre for
strawberry farms up to 40 acres, 1978-79.

Item Costs

---- Dollars ----
Pre-harvest costs

Remove plastic mulch 24
Land preparation 91
Fertilize 170
Fumigate 399
Set plants 925
Cultivate 17
Spray 857
Electricity for irrigation 50
Land rent 100
Interest on pre-harvest cost
($2,633 @ 12 percent for 7 months) 184
Total pre-harvest costs 2,817

Harvest, packing, transportation and selling costs 2.64/flat

Source: Adapted from Prevatt and Pospichal.












Appendix Table 2.--Estimated machinery investment and depreciation costs
for strawberry farms of less than 20 acres, Florida,
1978-79.

Investment Salvage Depreciable Annual
Item cost value life depreciation

Dollars Years Dollars

Tractor (25 hp)a 7,800 750 10 705
Fumigation rigb 870 80 10 79
Mower 600 50 10 55
Sprayer 2,000 150 10 185
Disk (51/2 ft.) 800 80 10 72
Truck ( V2 ton) 7,000 500 8 813
Irrigation system 8,000 200 10 780
Total 27,070 1,810 2,689

alncludes fertilizer spreader, cultivator and seeder.
blncludes bed press and plastic layer.
CIncludes well, pump, motor, pipe, and sprinkler heads.
Source: Adapted from Prevatt and Pospichal, and adjusted for the
1978-79 season by the U.S. Index of Prices Paid by Farmers.












Appendix Table 3.--Estimated fixed costs of machinery for small straw-
berry farms, Florida, 1978-79.


Item


Total fixed costs


---- Dollars ---

Depreciation (Appendix Table 2) 2,689
Interest, 10.0% of average investmenta 2,573
Taxes, 1.2% of average investment 309
Insurance, 0.3% of average investment 77
Repairs, 3% of average investment 772
Truck tag and insurance 400

Totalb 6,820

aAverage first year investment = $27,070 + (27,070 2,689)
2
= $25,726.
bCost per acre = $6,820 i number of acres.
Source: Adapted from Prevatt and Pospichal.












Appendix Table 4.--Estimated machinery investment and depreciation costs
for strawberry farms of 20 to 40 acres, Florida,
1978-79.

Investment Salvage Depreciable Annual
Item cost value life depreciation

Dollars Years Dollars

Tractor (60 hp) 13,000 1,100 10 1,190
Tractor (25 hp)a 8,150 750 10 740
Fumigation rigb 950 100 10 85
Sprayer 2,150 150 10 200
Rotovator 2,650 200 10 245
Planting and
harvesting aid 800 50 10 75
Portable packing
shed 750 0 10 75
Truck (1/2 ton) 7,000 550 8 806
Irrigation system 43,350 1,100 10 4,225

Total 78,800 4,000 7,641

alncludes fertilizer spreader and cultivator.
blncludes bed press and plastic layer.
CIncludes well, pump, motor, pipe, and sprinkler heads.
Source: Adapted from Otte, et al., and adjusted for the 1978-79
season by the I.S. Index of Prices Paid hy Farmers.













Appendix Table 5.--Estimated fixed costs for land and equipment for
strawberry farms of 20-40 acres, Florida, 1978-79.

Item Total fixed costs

---- Dollars ---

Depreciation (Appendix Table 4) 7,641
Interest 7,498
Taxes, 1.2% of average investment 908
Insurance, 0.3% of average investment 227
Pickup truck tag and insurance 300

Totalb 16,574

aAverage first year investment = 78,800 + (78,800 7,641)
2
= 74,980 @ 10 percent = $7,498.
bCost per acre = $16,574 number of acres.
Source: Adapted from Otte, et al.












Food and Resource Economics Department
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
In cooperation with USDA/ESCS
Research Agreement if 58-319W 8-2522X


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


Consumer Benefits of Direct Marketing Activities

Section I

Description or 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).


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













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 u!
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)










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 ___ ?

(circle one) 1. Yes

2. INo










For office
Use
B. How many (units) of (cod) 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 e here? (probe for 3)
(code)

1. ________

2.

3.


E. Have you bought o___ at a local grocery store or supermarket
(code)
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 hp if piircha~pd at a local grocery storp 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 1-excellent and
9=poor, how would you rate the overall quality of the
you bought today? (code)

Rating











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)










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


Otte, J.A., M.T. Pospichal, C.M. Howard, and E.E. Albregts. Estimated
Costs to Grow Strawberries in the Plant City Area, 1977. Economic
Information Report 86, Food and Resource Economics Department,
IFAS, University of Florida, March, 1978.

Prevatt, J. Walter and M.T. Pospichal. Budgeting Selected Vegetable
Crops for Small Farms, West Central Florida, 1979. Economic Infor-
mation Report 124, Food and Resource Economics Department, IFAS,
University of Florida, December, 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 Eco-
nomic and Business Research, University of Florida, Gainesville:
University of Florida Press, 1980.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National
Economics Division. Working Data for Demand Analysis. June, 1981.




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