• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Cover
 Abstract
 Title Page
 Foreword
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Summary
 Main
 Appendix
 References














Group Title: Industry report - University of Florida, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center ; no. 81-9
Title: Farmer to consumer direct marketing of tomatoes in Florida
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026913/00001
 Material Information
Title: Farmer to consumer direct marketing of tomatoes 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, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
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
Copyright Date: 1981
 Subjects
Subject: Tomatoes -- 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.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026913
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltuf - ACF7015
oclc - 10795295
alephbibnum - 000410250

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

IR81-9%20Degner ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Cover
        Cover
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page i-a
    Foreword
        Page ii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iii
    Table of Contents
        Page iv
        Page v
    List of Tables
        Page vi
        Page vii
    Summary
        Page viii
        Page ix
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
    Appendix
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
    References
        Page 41
Full Text



Industry Report 81-9.


Farmer


rketing


of 11


PRODUCER AND


December 1981


A C


JTS


A.--g2 M














ABSTRACT


Tomatoes are Florida's leading commercial vegetable crop, and
are important in direct marketing, as well. Three case studies of
growers' pick-your-own operations showed returns per hour of family
labor from $0.81 to $7.60. Consumers bought an average of 17 pounds
of tomatoes at average purchase of $2.85. Consumers' average savings,
compared with retail food store prices for tomatoes, were $3.50 per
purchase. Consumers cited low prices, freshness and quality of tomatoes
and recreation as advantages for patronizing pick-your-own outlets.









Key words: Marketing, direct marketing, tomatoes.


























FARMER TO CONSUMER DIRECT MARKETING OF TOMATOES 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 Aqricultural 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 fur

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 costs to consumers and

increasing financial returns to farmers. This increased interest

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

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

opment and expansion of direct marketing of agricultural commodities

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

required evaluation of direct marketing activities through a series of

research activities.

In 1978, the Florida Agricultural Market Research Center was

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

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

tronizing these outlets. Nine agricultural commodities commonly market-

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

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

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

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

separate publications to allow for greater efficiency in disseminating

the results.


















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


This research was initiated by a request from the United States

Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative
Service, National Economic Analysis Division (now Economic Research

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

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

Economist, was particularly helpful in formulating and guiding the

project, and is due our sincere appreciation.

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

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

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

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

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















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................... iii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revenue........................................... 5
Costs............................................ 7
Net Returns......................................... 7

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

Revenue .................................. .......... 9
Costs............................................ 10
Net Returns ..................................... 10

Case C......................................... ........... 13

Revenue........................................... 13
Costs............................................. 14
Net Returns......................................... 14

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

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

The Patrons......................................... 18
Transportation................................... .. 21
Patrons' Shopping Patterns .......................... 21
Monetary Benefits ..................... ............... 24












Table of Contents--Continued

Page

Freshness and Quality Comparisons....................... 26
Other Advantages and Disadvantages...................... 27
Suggestions for Improvement............................. 28

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

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

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














LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

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

2 Equipment requirements for Grower A's pick-your 8
own and roadside tomato operation..........................

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

4 Annual costs and returns for Grower B's pick-your-
own and roadside tomato operation.......................... 11

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

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

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

8 Equipment requirements for Grower C's pick-your-
own tomato operation...................................... 16

9 Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of
tomato PYO patrons .................................... .. 19

10 Travel distances and times for tomato PYO patrons........... 22

11 Shopping patterns of tomato PYO patrons..................... 23

12 Consumer expenditures and savings associated with tomatoes
purchased at PYO outlets.................................. 25

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

14 Respondents' perceived advantages and disadvantages
associated with patronizing tomato PYO outlets.............. 28

15 Tomato PYO patrons' suggestions for improving the
outlet......................................... ........... 29














LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

Table Page

1 Tomatoes: Costs per acre, in the Dade County
area for commercial production, 1978-79..................... 32

2 Staked tomatoes; Costs per acre in the Immokalee-Lee
area for commercial production, 1978-79 ..................... 33

3 Staked tomatoes: Costs per acre in the Manatee-Ruskin
area for commercial production, 1978-79..................... 34















SUMMARY


Tomatoes for fresh market are Florida's leading vegetable crop.
State acreage in 1978-79 was 41,800 acres and value of production
was $219 million. Nearly all commercial acreage is in the southern
half of the state, and is harvested from October through June. Some
growers plant tomatoes especially for pick-your-own (PYO) sales and
some commercial growers open PYO outlets after commercial harvest.

Three case studies of tomato PYO and roadside stand operations
are discussed. Growers' tomato plantings ranged from two-thirds
acre to 30 acres, and total tomato sales from 15,000 to 123,000
pounds. Revenues from direct sales were from $3,060 to $21,500.

Growers' net returns to direct marketing were from $830 to
$4,800, and returned from $0.81 to $7.60 per hour of family labor.
All producers felt they received higher returns from marketing directly
to consumers than through the commercial market.

A sample of 32 patrons was interviewed at PYO outlets. The
patrons tended to be older, better educated, and had relatively
high incomes. No patrons under 25 years of age were encountered;
over half were over 50. All patrons except one had twelve or more
years of education. About 65 percent reported incomes over $15,000
per year and nearly 45 percent had incomes in excess of $25,000 per
year. Nearly one-third of the patrons were retired, and over 40
percent were temporary winter visitors.

Nearly 60 percent of the patrons had been attracted to the out-
let through roadside signs, and almost all of the remainder had
learned of the outleL Lhrouyh wurd-of-muuth. Nearly half were re-
peat customers. Over two-thirds had shopping companions; for many
shoppers, the excursion to the tomato PYO outlet appeared to be a
social, recreational event.

All those interviewed had planned to patronize a tomato PYO
outlet whenever they left their residences. Slightly over half
made special trips from their residents to the outlet and the re-
mainder combined their patronage of the tomato PYO outlet with
other activities. Those that made special trips drove an average
round trip distance of 22 miles requiring slightly over half-an-hour
driving time. Those making combination trips required only 8 miles
of additional driving and approximately 15 minutes.


viii













On the average, the PYO patrons bought nearly 17 pounds of
tomatoes at a weighted average price of slightly over 17 cents per
pound. The average expenditure was $2.85. Prices observed at PYO
outlets ranged from 10 to 20 cents per pound, but the most prev-
alent was 15 cents.

Customers tended to overestimate their savings. On the average,
they thought they were saving nearly $8 per transaction, but com-
pared with prevailing prices at area grocery stores, they saved about
$3.50 per transaction.

Patrons rated freshness and overall quality of the tomatoes ob-
tained at PYO outlets significantly higher than tomatoes available
at area grocery stores. Customers cited low prices, freshness, qual-
ity, and recreation as the major advantages gained by patronizing the
tomato PYO outlets.

Only one customer in five mentioned disadvantages associated
with patronizing the PYO outlet. The most frequent disadvantage was
inconvenient location, i.e., the travel distance and time required.

















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



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


INTRODUCTION


Tomatoes are one of Florida's most important vegetable crops.

The statewide acreage during the 1978-79 season was 41,800 which

constituted about 10.5 percent of the state's total vegetable acre-

age. Virtually all commercial production occurs in the fall, winter,

and spring quarters of the year. Quarterly acreages were 12,800,

12,300, and 15,700, respectively.

Practically all of Florida's tomato acreage is planted for the

fresh market, although approximately 5 percent is salvaged for or

diverted to processing plants. The total value of Florida's tomatoes

for the fresh market approached $219 million in 1978-79 (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 Farmbank Services, Denver,
Colorado.














Most commercial acreage is in the southern half of Florida.

The Palmetto-Ruskin area, in the west central part of the state,

accounted for about 41 percent of the reported acreage; Dade

County, in south Florida, had 20 percent; Immokalee-Bonita Springs-

Naples had 26 percent; and the Fort Pierce-Pompano area, in the

southeast portion of the state, had slightly over 10 percent. Only

2.6 percent of the state's commercial tomato production was in the

north-central and Panhandle regions (Florida Crop and Livestock Re-

porting Service).

Tomatoes are harvested in Florida from October through June, the

time of the year when many tourists visit areas of the state where

tomatoes are produced. Direct marketing opportunities for producers

are thus enhanced.

OBJECTIVES


The basic objective of this study was to determine the nature

and extent of benefits of direct marketing to tomato producers and

to the customers who purchase tomatoes directly from producers. Spec-

ific 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) deter-

mine farmer net returns obtained through direct marketing and 4) es-

timate returns associated with each input, with particular emphasis

on family labor.














Specific consumer-oriented objectives were to 1) determine

prices paid by consumers for tomatoes at representative direct mar-

keting outlets and compare these prices with those paid at super-

markets; 2) determine consumers' perception of tomato quality at

direct marketing outlets as compared to that obtainable at super-

markets; 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 ben-

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

sistance of county agricultural extension agents and state horti-

cultural 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 March and April of 1979, the peak of the harvest season.

Production cost data were obtained from secondary sources and

slightly modified to reflect general production practices used by

most growers (Brooke). Considerable similarity was discovered with

respect to cultural practices for growers producing ground tomatoes, so

it was assumed that production costs were similar. 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 nonmonetary benefits

derived from direct marketing activities.

Consumer benefits were ascertained through personal interviews

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

ability, convenience basis, at 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 consumers' purchases, demographic characteristics, shopping

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

sumers' monetary savings were determined by comparing prices paid

for tomatoes at PYO outlets with prices prevailing at local grocery stores.


FINDINGS


Producer Benefits of Direct Marketing


Pick-your-own (PYO) operations were found to be the predominant

form of direct marketing for tomatoes. Producer-PYO operator in-

terviews for tomatoes were conducted in three of the four major grow-

ing areas. The mode of operation and financial returns were found to

be similar in areas where interviews were conducted. The three case

studies summarized below are typical of the PYO outlets identified

and interviewed. Their marketing activities were similar, but their

production activities were quite different.

The firsL WdS d smIdll-scale "gruund tomato" uperdLiun planted















specifically for the PYO market. The term "ground tomatoes" refers

to the prevailing cultivation method used by most commercial growers.

Tomato plants are not staked, but are planted on beds, usually on

black plastic mulch. The second PYO outlet grew staked tomatoes, and

the third was a salvage operation of a large-scale commercial grower.


Case A


Grower A had 23 acres of assorted vegetables specifically for

his combination PYO outlet and roadside stand. His farm was several

miles from a city of approximately 20,000 in Dade County. Vegetables

grown by Producer A included tomatoes, peas, collards, cabbage, and

several varieties of bush beans. Tomatoes were the most important

crop, and were grown on 6.5 acres.


Revenues


Yields in 1978-79 was estimated at 630 30-pound carton equiv-

alents per acre, similar to commercial yields in the area. An es-

timated 75 percent of Grower A's tomatoes were sold through the PYO

operation, and the remainder at his roadside stand. Tomatoes sold to

PYO patrons brought 15 cents per pound, and those sold to roadside

stand customers bought 25 cents per pound. Grower A's gross revenue

from-tomatoes was estimated to be approximately $21,500 (Table 1).














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


Costs or returns


Revenue

PYO sales
Roadside sales
Total revenue

Costs

Production costs

Marketing costs

'Equipment
Truck
Scales
Pails
Signs
Table
Interest on capi
Total, equipment

Supplies
Bags

Total marketing cost

Net revenue


92,137 pounds @ $0.15


92,137 pounds @ $0.15
30,713 pounds @ $0.25




6.5 acres @ $1,921




1,400 miles @ $0.20


---- Dollars ----


13,821
7,678


21,499



12.487


280
15
15
16
3
42
371


200


Net return if tomatoes sold commercially (Table 3)

Net return due to direct marketing

Family labor

Marketing 633 hours

Net return per hour of family labor
due to direct marketing


Item


571

8,441

3,640

4,801


7.95













Costs


Grower A's production costs were estimated at $1,921 per acre,

for a total of $12,487 (Table 1). These included fertilizer, pes-
ticides, cultural labor and other expenses, listed in detail in

Appendix Table 1.

Marketing costs totaled $571, made up of $371 for equipment and

$200 for supplies (Table 1). The major portion of equipment costs

were mileage charges for the pickup truck used as sales headquarters

and for checking on fields, carrying supplies, etc. The only other
equipment Grower A used were scales for weighing purchases, pails

for customers' picking, two roadside signs and a table (Table 2).

Net Returns

After all expenses, Grower A netted $8,441 from PYO and road-
side tomato sales (Table 1). If Grower A had sold his tomatoes com-

mercially, his net return would have been $3,640 (Table 3). Grower

A would have had difficulty in obtaining commercial picking crews

because of his small acreage. However, assuming that he could have

sold his tomatoes commercially, his estimated return due to direct

marketing would have been $4,801 (Table 1).

When the time spent at the stand is prorated among the various

items grown and sold, Grower A and his family spent 633 hours selling

their tomatoes through their PYO and roadside stand. On an hourly

basis, Grower A and his family earned $7.59 for their direct mar-

keting efforts (Table 1).












Table 2.--Equipment requirements for Grower A's pick-your-own
and roadside tomato operation.



Deprecigble Price/ Total
Description Quantity life unit investment


Number Years ---- Dollars -----
Truck, one-half ton 1 ----b 3,000 250c

Scales 1 5 75 75

Pails 10 2 3 30

Signs 2 3 24 48

Table 1 5 15 15

Total investment 418

Interest on capital @ 10 percent per annum 42

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

CThe truck was used one month for direct marketing of tomatoes.













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


Costs or returns


---- Dollars ----


Revenue

Tomato sales 122,850 pound:

Costs

Production 6.5 acres @ $
Marketing 6.5 acres @ $

Total

Net return, commercial alternative


s @$0.22


1,921
1,677


27,022


12,487
10,900


23,387

3,640


Case B


Grower B grew two acres of staked tomatoes in the same general

locale as Grower A. His crop averaged 750 30-pound carton equivalents

per acre, or 45,000 pounds. Two-thirds of his production was sold to

local restaurants and food retailers, and one-third directly to con-

sumers.


Revenue


Grower B estimated that he sold 15,000 pounds directly to con-

sumers, 90 percent through his PYO outlet, and the remaining 10 per-

cent at his roadside stand. The 13,500 pounds sold to PYO outlet


Item













patrons brought 20 cents per pound, and the 1,500 pounds sold through
the roadside stand brought 32 cents. Grower B's total revenue from

direct tomato sales amounted to $3,180 (Table 4).

Costs

Production costs for Grower B's staked tomato operation were

nearly $2,600 per acre, substantially more than ground tomato pro-

duction costs (Appendix Table 2). However, his yields were higher and
he could charge higher prices than producers with ground tomatoes.

Grower B's prorata production costs for the one-third of his acreage

(two-thirds of an acre total) were $1,734. Grower B used an attrac-

tive portable shed for his combination PYO outlet headquarters and

roadside stand (Table 5). Total costs for the structure and PYO out-
let equipment, such as his scale, picking pails, and signs, were

$324. Supplies and services such as bags for customers' purchases,

liability insurance, and advertising added an additional $253 in costs

(Table 4).

Net Returns

After deducting production and marketing costs, Grower B was

left with $869. If he had been able to sell his tomatoes through the

conventional commercial market, he would have netted only $41 (Table 6).

His return from direct marketing was $828. It is very unlikely that

Grower B could have sold his production through the commercial market,

however, because of his relatively small acreage.













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


Item


pick-your-own and


Costs or returns


---- Dollars ----


Revenue


PYO sales
Roadside sales
Total revenue


13,500 pounds @ $0.20
1,500 pounds @ $0.32


Costs


Production costs

Marketing costs


0.67 acres @ $2,588


Structures and equipment
PurLable shed
Scale
Pails
Signs
Interest on capital
Total, structures
and equipment

Supplies and services
Insurance
Advertising
Bags
Twine
Flags
Total, supplies and
services


Total marketing cost

Net revenue

Net return if tomatoes sold commercially (Table 6)

Net return due to direct marketing


Family labor


Marketing


1,020 hours


Net return due to direct marketing per hour of family labor


2,700
480


3,180



1,734


577

869

41

828


0.81











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



Deprecigble Price/ Total
Description Quantity life unit investment


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

Portable shed 1 20 2,000 2,000

Scale 1 5 15 15

Pails 20 5 1 20

Signs 6 3 5 30

Total investment 2,065

Interest on capital @ 10 percent per annum 207

aStraight line depreciation is calculated for all items, as-
suming no salvage value.


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



Item Costs or returns

---- Dollars ----

Revenue

Tomato sales 15,000 pounds @ $0.22 3,300

Costsa

Production 0.67 acres @ $2,588 1,734
Marketing 0.67 acres @ $2,276 1,525

Total cost 3,259

Net return, commercial alternative 41


aCosts are prorated to reflect one-third of the total production,
i.e., the proportion sold through the PYO outlet and the roadside stand.


Source: Appendix Table 2.













Grower B's direct marketing operation required a great deal of

family labor. He indicated that it was open 8 1/2 hours per day, six

days per week for about 5 months, December through April. A total of

1,020 hours of family labor were required. The resulting net return

attributable tn Grower R's direct marketing efforts was only $0.81

per hour. However, the return is probably understated because the

family member or members manning the operation occasionally assisted

with production and with marketing to restaurants and grocery stores.

Another consideration is that much of the direct marketing labor was

provided by children after school hours and on weekends. These

children had virtually no employment opportunities other than the

family's direct marketing operation.


Case C


Producer C was a large-scale tomato grower in Dade County. His

total tomato acreage was estimated at 700 acres but only 30 acres

adjacent to a heavily traveled highway was opened as a PYO outlet.

After several commercial pickings two of Grower C's family members

operated the PYO outlet for about three weeks. The 30 acre block was

opened to PYO patrons gradually, so that patrons had access to "fresh"

picking every few days.

Revenue


Grower C's family sold an estimated 20,400 pounds of tomatoes

from the 30 acre field, or about 23 30-pound carton equivalents per














acre. The price for the duration of the PYO activity was 15 cents

per pound, resulting in gross revenue of $3,060 (Table 7).


Costs


No production costs were allocated to the PYO operation because

it was strictly a salvage venture. Marketing costs amounted to only

$236. The major expense was for the pickup truck which was used for
transportation to and from the field and as PYO headquarters. Kitchen

scales, picking pails, and a hand painted plywood sign were the only

other equipment (Table 8). Expenditures for paper bags for customers'

purchases totaled $36.

Net Returns


After deducting marketing costs, Grower C had a net revenue of over

$2,800. The PYO activity required a considerable amount of labor, how-

ever, all provided by Producer C's family. Two persons manned the out-
let for 8 1/2 hours per day, for the entire 24-day period that it

was open. Grower C's net return per hour for the 403 hours of family

labor expended was nearly $7 (Table 7).













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


Costs or returns


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


Revenue

PYO sales

Costs

Production cost

Marketing costs

Equipment
Truck
Scale
Pails
Sign
Interest on capital
Total, equipment

Supplies and services

Bags

Total marketing costs

Net revenue


20,400 pounds @ $0.15



Salvage




530 miles @ $0.20


3,060


0


106
13
6
7
68
200


236

2,824


Family labor

Marketing 408 hours

Net return per hour of family labor due to direct marketing


6.92


Item











Table 8.--Equipment requirements for Grower C's pick-your-own
tomato operation.



Deprecigble Price/ total
Description Quantity life unit investment


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

Truck, one-half ton 1 -b 6,000 500c

Scale 1 10 130 130

Pails 30 5 1 30

Sign 1 3 21 21

Total investment 681

Interest on capital @ 10 percent per annum 68


Straight line depreciation is calculated for all items, assuming
no salvage value.
All operating expenses, including depreciation, are reflected in
the 20 cent-per-mile charge (Table 7).
cOne-twelfth of the truck's use was for tomatoes.


Other Advantages and Disadvantages of Direct Marketing


The growers all said the primary advantage of selling their pro-

duce directly to consumers was the improved financial return, either

due to higher prices received or to reduced marketing expenses. In

the case of Grower C, the return from the salvage PYO was income that

would not have been realized if the PYO outlet had not been operated.

One producer mentioned lack of labor problems as a significant ad-

vantage.












All growers mentioned problems in dealing with people as the

biggest disadvantage. They said some customers were never pleased;

they were dissatisfied whenever they were restricted to certain picking

areas, and frequently complained that tomatoes were too ripe, too

green, etc. The only other disadvantage, mentioned by two of the

growers, was the amount of time required.


Consumer Benefits


Time and resource constraints precluded obtaining a large, random

sample of tomato farm patrons. In keeping with the case study ap-

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

was interviewed. A non-probability, convenience sample of 32 patrons

was interviewed at the three farms described previously. All in-

terviews were obtained during weekdays, between the hours of 9:00 A.M.

and 6:00 P.M. In most cases, the customer traffic flow was sufficiently

slow and the questionnaire brief enough so that all customers could be

interviewed during the surveillance periods.

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

provide a reasonable representation of customers typically patronizing

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

sessment of the qualitative and quantitative benefits accruing to

customers of tomato PYO outlets.

The following sections describe the demographic composition of

the sample, and patrons' transportation and shopping patterns. Cus-

tomers' monetary benefits and other perceived shopping advantages and

disadvantages are also discussed, along with customers' suggestions

for improving the PYO outlets.













The Patrons


Thirty-two tomato purchasers were interviewed at PYO outlets.

Only PYO outlet patrons were interviewed because relatively few customers

bought tomatoes from roadside stands.

Slightly over half of the patrons interviewed were male. Rel-

atively few young people were interviewed at the tomato outlets;

only 16 percent of the customers were under 35 years of age (Table 9).

About 28 percent of the customers had attended college, compared with

about 30 percent of the population of Florida, and 9 percent had

attended college four or more years, compared with 14 percent statewide

(Thompson). Only three percent of the respondents had completed less
than twelve years of schooling.

Most PYO customers came from small households. Over 40 per-

cent came from one-or-two-person households and 22 percent came from

three-person households. Slightly under one-third of the interviewees

were retired. Only two of the respondents were not married (Table 9).

Patrons' incomes were relatively high compared to those re-

ported for the population of the counties in which the tomato farms

were located. The sample contained a disproportionately small number

of low income households, that is under $8,000 per year, and substan-

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

With respect to race, patrons in the sample were all white.

Although blacks and other races constitute approximately 16 percent

of the population in the counties where the tomato PYO operations













Table 9.--Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of tomato
PYO patrons.



Characteristic Number Percenta


Sex of purchaser

Male 18 56
Female 14 44
Totals 32 100

Age of purchaser

18-24 0 0
25-34 5 16
35-49 10 31
50-64 9 28
65 and over 8 25
Totals 32 100

Years of education

Less than 12 1 3
12 22 69
13-15 6 19
16 or more 3 9
Totals 32 100

Number of adults in household

One 1 3
Two 12 38
Three 7 22
Four 6 19
More than four 6 19
Totals 32 100

Employment

Employed 21 66
Retired 10 31
Unemployed 1 3
Totals 32 100

Marital status

Married 30 94
Single 2 6
Totals 32 100












Table 9.--Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of tomato
PYO patrons--Continued.


Characteristic Number Percenta


Income

Under $8,000 1 3
$8,000-9,900 2 6
$10,000-14,999 8 25
$15,000-24,999 7 22
$25,000 and over 14 44
Totals 32 100

Race

White (non-Hispanic) 31 97
White (Hispanic) 1 3
Black (non-Hispanic) 0 0
Totals 32 100

Pesi dncy

Permanent 16 57
Temporary 12 43
Totals 28 100

percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.







were located, none of the 32 customers was black. Over half of the

customers were Florida residents, with 12 persons, or 43 percent,

visitors or temporary residents (Table 9).













Transportation


Personal automobiles were the only means of transportation used

by tomato PYO patrons. Over half of the customers, 18 of the 32

who responded, indicated that the trip to the PYO outlet was a special

trip from their residence; no other activities were conducted in con-

junction with the trip. Fourteen customers combined other activities

with their trip to the PYO outlet. Customers that made a special

trip traveled an average round trip distance of 22 miles. The minimum

round trip distance was 2 miles, and the maximum 100 miles (Table 10).

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. Ad-

ditional round trip distance ranged from none to 60 miles, requiring

driving time of up to 80 minutes. The average round trip distance

traveled by all customers was 8 miles, requiring an average of 13

minutes.


Patrons' Shopping Patterns


Over half of the customers, 58 percent, discovered the out-

let through roadside signs, while nearly all of the remainder had

learned of the outlet through word-of-mouth. One of the outlets where in-

terviews were conducted engaged in limiLed nrewspjper advertising, but

only one of the customers said they discovered the outlet this way.

One person could not recall how the outlet was discovered (Table 11).













Table 10.--Travel distances and times for tomato 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 18 22 2 100
Driving time 18 36 4 120

Combination trip

Miles traveled 14 8 0 60
Driving time 14 13 0 80

aCombination trips included activities in addition to the PYO
visit. The figures reflect patrons' marginal expenditure of mile-
age and driving time attributable to the PYO activity.

Nearly half of the interviewees had previously patronized the

PYO outlet where contacted. Twelve of those 15 customers said they

patronized the outlet more than once each year. All of the 25 cus-

tomers responding to another question said they typically visit at

least one other tomato PYO operation during the harvest season, and

64 percent visited three or more.

Nearly one-third of the shoppers came to the tomato PYO outlet

alone, while 59 percent came with one other shopper, only 10 percent

brought three or more additional customers with them. 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 11).













Table ll.--Shopping patterns of tomato PYO patrons.



Question/responsesa Number Percentb


How did you discover this outlet?

Roadsigns 18 58
Newspaper ads 1 3
Word-of-mouth 11 35
Do not recall 1 3
Totals 31 100

Have you patronized this outlet before?

Yes 15 47
No 17 53
TuLald 32 100

How often do you patronize this outlet
each year?

Once 3 20
Twice 4 27
Three 4 27
More than three 4 27
Totals 15 100

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

None 0 0
One 1 4
Two 8 32
Three 4 16
More than three 12 48
Totals 25 100

How many shoppers in your party?

One 9 31
Two 17 59
Three 2 7
More than three 1 3
Totals 29 100












Table ll.--Shopping patterns of tomato PYO patrons.--Continued.



Question/responsesa Number Percentb


Was your tomato purchase planned?

Yes 32 100
No 0 0
Totals 32 100

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


Monetary Benefits


The 32 PYO customers purchased an average of 16.6 pounds of

tomatoes. The minimum purchase was two pounds and the maximum 62.

Prices at PYO outlets ranged from 10 to 20 cents per pound, and

averaged 15 cents. Consumer purchases ranged from 0.40 to 9.30 with

the average expenditure $2.85 (Table 12).

The PYO customers were asked to estimate retail prices of tomatoes.

The 21 respondents who did, expected to pay an average of $0.50 per

pound for them. Expected prices ranged from $0.25 to $0.99 per pound.

Retail prices observed in stores of two leading super market chains

during the interview period ranged from 19 to 39 cents, averaging 35

cents per pound in all stores (Table .11). Thus, PYO customers tended

to overestimate their dollar savings.












Table 12--Consumer expenditures and savings associated with tomatoes
purchased at PYO outlets.



Number of
Item Unit observations Average Minimum Maximum


Quantity purchased Pounds 32 16.6 2 62

Total expenditure Dollars 32 2.85 0.40 9.30

Price per pound
at PYO outlets 6 0.15 0.10 0.20

Expected retail price 21 0.50 0.25 0.99

Observed retail price 34 0.35 0.19 0.39

Expected savings per
transaction "21 7.85 0.70 50.40

Actual savings per
transaction 21 3.56 0.80 12.40

Hypothetical savings
per transaction -- 3.32 4.15 2.49

aHypothetical savings per transaction are based upon the average
quantity purchased by the 32 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 $7.85 per
transaction. But, compared with prevailing prices they saved an average

of $3.56 per transaction. These "actual" savings ranged from $0.80

to $12.40 per transaction. The average difference between the PYO

outlet price and the prevailing retail price for all 32 customers

amounted to hypothetical savings of $3.32 per transaction (Table 12).

It is important to note, however, that the "actual" or hypothetical
"savings" discussed here do not take into account transportation ex-

penditures or time spent in driving to the PYO outlet and in picking

tomatoes.

Freshness and Quality Comparisons

PYO outlet customers were asked to rate freshness and overall
quality of the tomatoes obtained at the PYO outlet and tomatoes u-

sually 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 both freshness and

overall quality were 1.4 for the tomatoes purchased at the PYO out-

lets, but only 6.3 and 6.0, respectively, for tomatoes typically

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

the freshness and overall quality rating differences were statistically

significant (Table 13).














Table 13.--Consumers' comparisons of freshness and quality of tomatoes
bought at PYO outlets and retail food stores


Rating by source
Attribute PYO Retail grocery t-statistic


Freshness 1.4 6.3 12.12

Overall quality 1.4 6.0 10.68

aRatings were based on a nine point scale where 1 = excellent and
9 = extremely poor. There were 23 observations for both attributes.
A paired t-test was used to determine whether or not rating by
source were significantly different. Both were statistically 'sg-
nificant at the 0.01 probability level.

Other Advantages and Disadvantages


Customers were also asked to enumerate the advantages and dis-

advantages associated with patronizing tomato PYO outlets. Price

was the primary advantage mentioned first by 44 percent of the respon-

dents; in total, 72 percent of those interviewed cited price as an

advantage. Freshness and quality were the next most frequently men-

tioned advantages, each cited in a total of 59 percent of all responses.

Recreation and "helping the farmer" were advantages mentioned by a total

28 and three percent of the respondents, respectively (Table 14).

Over three-fourths of the respondents cited no disadvantages asso-

ciated with patronizing the tomato PYO operation. Thirteen percent

mentioned the travel distance and time as disadvantages, six percent

said picking tomatoes was hard work and one customer each cited other

disadvantages (Table 14).












Table 14.--Respondents' perceived advantages and disadvantages
associated with patronizing tomato PYO outlets.



Advantages/disadvantages First response All responses


---------- Percenta

Advantages

Price 44 72
Freshness 31 59
Quality 19 59
Recreation 6 28
Help the farmer 0 3
Total 100 -_c

Disadvantages

None 78 78
Driving distance and time required 9 13
Hard work 6 6
Lack of tomato varieties 3 3
Can't bring children 3 3
Poor general conditions 0 3
Total O---b c

percentages were based on 32 observations.

percentages were not summed because of multiple responses.

CPercentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.


Suggestions for Improvement


Almost 60 percent of the patrons indicated that the PYO outlets

were satisfactory and offered no suggestions for improvement. How-

ever, 19 percent suggested that the owners advertise more in mass

media to inform potential customers of product availability and the

locations of their outlets (Table 15).













Table 15.--Tomato PYO patrons' suggestions for improving the
outlet.



Suggestions Number Percent


No improvement necessary 19 59

Advertise more 6 19

Need greater selection 2 6

Improve the facilities 2 6

Admit children 1 3

Lower the price 1 8

Find a use for wasted tomatoes 1 3

Total 32 100a

aDoes not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.













CONCLUSIONS


Direct marketing of tomatoes in Florida was profitable for many

producers. Small growers with limited access to commercial market-

ing channels successfully marketed their tomatoes directly to con-

sumers with limited marketing expense. However, most PYO operations

and roadside stands required substantial family labor. Commercial

tomato producers also benefited by opening fields as PYO operations

upon completion of commercial harvest.

The tomato PYO and roadside 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, con-

sumers saved about $3.50 per transaction, if personal time and trans-

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

experiences for growers and consumers alike.

































APPENDIX












Appendix Table l.--Tomatoes: Costs per acre in the Dade County area
for commercial production, 1978-79.



Item Costs


Growing costs:

Land rent $ 76.12
Seed 44.01
Fertilizer 194.28
Spray and dust 430.61
Cultural labor 454.49
Machine hire 25.74
Gas, oil and grease 65.38
Repair and maintenance 107.64
Depreciation 72.19
Licenses and insurance 76.59
Interest on production capital (12% 5 months) 77.35
Interest on capital invested (other than land) 10.83
Miscellaneous expense 285.33

Total growing cost 1,920.56

Harvesting and marketing costs:

Picking expense 367.54
Grading and packing expense 666.38
Containers 347.37
Hauling 147.87
Selling 147.90

Total harvesting and marketing cost 1,677.06

Total crop cost 3,597.62


Source: Adapted from Brooke.











Appendix Table Z.--Staked tomatoes: Costs per acre in the Immokalee-Lee
area for commercial production, 1978-799.



Item Costs


Growing costs: Average per
acre

Land rent $ 77.82
Seed 120.39
Fertilizer 253.18
Spray and dust 438.42
Cultural labor 749.62
Machine hire 50.80
Gas, oil and grease 103.19
Repair and maintenance 179.40
Depreciation 122.07
Licenses and insurance 106-99
Interest on production capital (12% 5 months) 110.09
Interest on capital invested (other than land) 18.31
Miscellaneous expense 257.27

Total growing cost 2,587.55

Harvesting and marketing costs:
Picking expense 570.31
Grading and packing expense 903.77
Containers 465.71
Hauling 171.77
Selling 164.23

Total harvesting and marketing cost 2,275.79

Total crop cost 4,863.34

Costs for staked tomato production in Dade County were not
available, so it was assumed that costs and yields were comparable
to the Immokalee-Lee area.


Source: Adapted from Brooke.












Appendix Table 3.--Staked tomatoes: Costs per acre in the Manatee-Ruskin
area for commercial production, 1978-79.


Item


Costs


Growing costs:


Land rent
Seed
Fertilizer
Spray and dust
Cultural labor
Machine hire
Gas, oil and grease
Repair and maintenance
Depreciation
Licenses and insurance
Interest on production capital (12% 5 months)
Interest on capital invested (other than land)
Miscellaneous expense

Total growing cost


Harvesting and marketing costs:

Picking expense
Grading and packing expense
Containers
Hauling
Selling

Total harvesting and marketing cost

Total crop cost


Average per
acre

$ 53.24
93.58
181.44
228.75
491.31
37.05
99.25
727.82
119.44
111.32
77.16
17.92
177.48

1,815.76


537.21
891.46
404.60
143.15
110.90

2,087.32

3,903.08


Source: Adapted from Brooke.












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 # 58-319W-8-2522X


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


Consumer Benefits of Direct Marketing Activities

Section I

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

Hello, I'm I represent the University of Florida
Market Research Center. We are conducting a research project on farmer-to-
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 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. either (specify)
(Go to II & 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? (rIin)


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)








SecLion 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
(code)
(circle one) 1. Yes

2. No













B. How many (units) of


did you purchase here today?


specifyf quttyaduts


C. What was the total amount you spent for


?(co
(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 od_ 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 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 c 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 l:he 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











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 classic
fiction, 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 unemplHoyed ? (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


Brooke, D.L. Costs and Returns for Vegetable Crops in Florida,
Season 1978-79, with Comparisons, Economic Information
Report 127, Food and Resource Economics Department, IFAS.
University of Florida, 1980.

Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Florida Agricultural
Statistics; Vegetable Summary, 1979.

Rose, G.N. Tomato Production in Florida: A Historic Data Series,
Economics Report 48, Food and Resource Economics
Department, IFAS, University of Florida, 1973.

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

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




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

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