• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Background
 Data
 Results
 Summary
 Reference
 Endnotes






Group Title: Economics report 116
Title: The importance of wholesale produce markets for Florida
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027494/00001
 Material Information
Title: The importance of wholesale produce markets for Florida
Series Title: Economics report
Physical Description: i, 18 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Beilock, Richard
Mahan, Ronald
Fletcher, George, 1946-
University of Florida -- Food and Resource Economics Dept
Publisher: Food and Resource Economics Dept., Agricultural Experiment Station, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: 1988
 Subjects
Subject: Produce trade -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Farm produce -- Marketing -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Wholesale trade -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 17).
Statement of Responsibility: Richard Beilock, Ronald Mahan, George Fletcher.
General Note: "September 1988."
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027494
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001611440
oclc - 23663760
notis - AHN5809

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Abstract
        Page i
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Background
        Page 3
    Data
        Page 4
        Comment on data collection strategy
            Page 5
        The importance of wholesale produce markets in consumption areas
            Page 6
    Results
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        The importance of wholesale produce markets in consumption areas
            Page 11
    Summary
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Reference
        Page 17
    Endnotes
        Page 18
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


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

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida







SEPTEMBER 1988


THE IMPORTANCE OF

WHOLESALE PRODUCE

MARKETS FOR FLORIDA


I f. 2iPr 2 7 99?


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


Richard Beilock
Ronald Mahan
George Fletcher


ECONOMICS REPORT 116


1111111111111111111111111111111111111111








THE IMPORTANCE OF WHOLESALE PRODUCE MARKETS FOR FLORIDA


ABSTRACT

Due to the spreading of urban populations into suburbs and growth of

super market chains, it is commonly assumed that wholesale produce markets

have declined to a point of negligible importance in the logistical chain

linking the producer and the retailer. In this report the functions of

these markets are examined and their importance for Florida-origin produce

examined. The findings indicate that 21 percent of trucks exiting the

State have a pickup and 29 percent have a drop at a wholesale produce

market. Loads routed through origin and destination markets differ in

several regards from those bypassing the markets. Finally, the importance

of destination markets differs across regions of the U.S. and Canada.







Key words: Produce, transportation, distribution, logistics


i








I. INTRODUCTION

Like all freight, fresh fruits and vegetables, may be shipped directly

from the producer to the retailer in truckload (TL) or carload lots or in

less-than-truckload (LTL) shipments (Figure 1). Particularly for LTL, it

may be more efficient to assemble and disburse shipments through terminal

or consolidation/break-bulk facilities, rather than requiring linehaul

vehicles to make multiple pickups and drops. Unlike dry freight, however,

there are almost no carrier-owned terminal facilities for produce.1

Rather, government- or shipper/receiver-owned produce markets perform this

function.

It is generally assumed that the importance of wholesale produce

markets as a logistical alternative for produce has declined since the

middle of this century. The principal reasons given for this are the

spread of urban populations into suburbs, relative decline of inner cities,

decline of railroad transport of produce, and rise of large supermarket

chains (Manalytics). Between 1950 and 1985 the share of interstate produce

shipped in boxcars fell from 71 to 7 percent (USDA). Rail carloads, being

two to three times the size of truckloads, almost always require breakbulk

operations to divide the load into individual shipments. Even if a boxcar

contains a single shipment, not all produce receivers have direct access to

rail. However, it is not uncommon for individual produce shipments to be

in truckload lots.2 Sometimes single stops are accomplished with mixed

(i.e., multi-commodity) loads for receivers unable to accept truckload-

sized shipments of individual commodities. This may also be accomplished

by deliveries to chain store warehouses. These facilities are, in effect,

private (i.e., own-account) carriage, LTL terminals. Even for multiple


1









Figure 1: Schematic of Truckload (TL) and Less-Than-Truckload (LTL) Motor Carriage


TL


Shipment
Origin


Shipment
Destination


LTL
LTL


-igin terminal


Destination


I I
I I
I LINEHAUL I

I i
I I


Destinations
for
Shipments


DELIVERY


Origins
for
Shipments


ASSEMBLY


I


I
I


I


I


I


I


I


I







shipment truckloads, going through a market, rather than delivering

straight from the linehaul vehicle, requires one additional handling of the

product. For temperature-, time-, and shock-sensitive cargos, such as

produce, clearly there are incentives to avoiding additional handling.

A search of the literature and discussions with various USDA officials

and agricultural marketing economists reveals almost no studies and no

official statistics about the volumes handled through produce markets,

either for assembly in production regions or for distribution in

consumption regions. The objectives of the current study are to:

1. Estimate the importance of origin and destination terminal
markets for produce shipped from the nation's second largest
producing state, Florida. Estimation of the importance of
destination terminals is the principal contribution of this
study.

2. Identify any differences between produce load types that pass
through and bypass origin and destination markets. Included in
this investigation are tendencies for loads to be mixed, and load
arrangement methods. This line of investigation is important as
the sizes and types of facilities needed depend, in part, upon
these characteristics.



II. BACKGROUND

Several states maintain a system of Farmers Markets. Some of these

markets, such as the Montgomery and Atlanta Farmers Markets, provide space

for direct sales between farmers and final consumers. However, the primary

economic activity at most major Farmers Markets is the consolidation of

shipments into outbound loads. If the Farmers Market is near a major

metropolitan area, the breakdown and distribution of loads inbound from

other regions may also be an important function. In this study, the

importance of Florida's Farmers Market System as origin markets is

examined.


3









Wholesale markets used primarily for receiving commodities from other

areas are scattered across the U.S. and Canada. Typically they are owned

and maintained by cities, counties, or states, though they may be leased to

or maintained by private firms.

Some produce passing through a wholesale market never changes

ownership, and arrives and leaves in vehicles belonging to the same firm

(i.e., either the owner's or a designated carrier's). In these cases, the

market serves the same functions as a terminal facility belonging to an LTL

freight carrier. The only substantive difference would be that the market

normally is not owned by the carrier. However, additional functions are

frequently performed at these markets. Wholesale produce markets are

centers for brokers and buyers dealing in produce and transportation

services. Moreover, the transportation and purchase arrangements for many

shipments that never pass through the market are handled by buyers and

brokers located on the market.



III. DATA

The primary data source for this study is a survey of 1,941 truck

drivers hauling produce from the Florida Peninsula. Interviews were

conducted at the outbound Florida Agricultural Inspection Stations along US

I-10, US 1-75, and US 1-95. These stations are open at all times, and all

trucks are required to stop.3 The survey dates and numbers of interviews

were:


4







Dates Interviews

November 15 and 16, 1986 470

January 30 and 31, 1987 448

March 27 and 28, 1987 462

June 5 and 6, 1987 561

TOTAL 1,941



Interviews were carried out from 6:00PM to 1:00AM, which tend to be the

high traffic times for outbound trucks carrying produce. During these

times, interviews were attempted with all drivers of combination vehicles

hauling produce. Refusal rates at each station were low, averaging 4

percent. Insufficient time was almost always given as the reason for

declining. There were no indications that those refusing to be interviewed

differed from the rest of the sample with regard to any characteristics of

interest in the study.



A. Comment on Data Collection Strategy

It should be noted that acquisition of volume data directly from the

destination markets would have been difficult, if not impossible, for two

principal reasons. First, determining the location of all produce markets

and obtaining their cooperation would be problematic. Moreover, unless the

exceedingly costly step of primary data collection at each market were

undertaken, it is questionable if, even with complete cooperation, a

consistent data set could have been generated. Second, outside of the 23

US cities and 5 Canadian cities for which the Agricultural Marketing

Service, USDA collects produce arrivals information, there would be no


5









sample population with which to compare the volumes going through produce

markets. That is, even if it could be determined that X million pounds of

produce went to produce markets in a region, it would not be known what

proportion of the total volume of produce going to the region that X

represented.

An alternative strategy of estimating the importance of wholesale

produce markets in destination areas for to Florida produce was decided

upon. Florida was selected as the focus for the study because of its

importance as a produce producer (2nd in the nation) and the above-

described complete coverage afforded by the Florida Agricultural Inspection

Stations. Strictly speaking, the results are specific to produce shipped

from Florida. However, there is little reason to suspect that a shipment

from Florida to a given destination would be any more or less likely to go

through a wholesale produce market at that destination than shipments from

other production areas.



IV. RESULTS

A. Importance of Wholesale Produce Markets in Production Areas

The Florida State Farmers Markets (FSFM) operate almost exclusively as

origin markets serving Florida producers. Across the state there are 18

markets (Figure 2). In the 1984/85 crop year, $172 million worth of

produce passed through the system (Florida Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services). Eighty percent of the sales at FSFM occurred at four

markets located adjacent to the major growing areas in the central and

southern portions of the Peninsula (Florida City, Pompano, Plant City, and

Fort Pierce).


6









sample population with which to compare the volumes going through produce

markets. That is, even if it could be determined that X million pounds of

produce went to produce markets in a region, it would not be known what

proportion of the total volume of produce going to the region that X

represented.

An alternative strategy of estimating the importance of wholesale

produce markets in destination areas for to Florida produce was decided

upon. Florida was selected as the focus for the study because of its

importance as a produce producer (2nd in the nation) and the above-

described complete coverage afforded by the Florida Agricultural Inspection

Stations. Strictly speaking, the results are specific to produce shipped

from Florida. However, there is little reason to suspect that a shipment

from Florida to a given destination would be any more or less likely to go

through a wholesale produce market at that destination than shipments from

other production areas.



IV. RESULTS

A. Importance of Wholesale Produce Markets in Production Areas

The Florida State Farmers Markets (FSFM) operate almost exclusively as

origin markets serving Florida producers. Across the state there are 18

markets (Figure 2). In the 1984/85 crop year, $172 million worth of

produce passed through the system (Florida Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services). Eighty percent of the sales at FSFM occurred at four

markets located adjacent to the major growing areas in the central and

southern portions of the Peninsula (Florida City, Pompano, Plant City, and

Fort Pierce).


6















016


14
4 10




13
KEY: $
1 Bonifay
2 Bradford County
3 Brooker
4 Florida City 11
5 Fort Myers
6 Fort Pierce
7 Gadsden County 15
8 Immokalee 6
9 Pahokee
10 Palatka
11 Plant City
12 Pompano
13 Sanford
14 Suwannee Valley 8 9
15 Wauchula
16 White Springs




4


Figure 2 Florida State Farmers' Produce Markets









It is difficult to directly gauge the percent of total State produce

sales that FSFM sales represent. This is due to the fact that state crop

value statistics use farm gate or, in the case of citrus, on-tree prices,

while the valuations given by FSFM officials use prices for produce further

along the marketing chain. It is possible, however, to compare State and

FSFM totals by weight.4 By this method, it is estimated that in the

1984/85 crop year, 10 percent of all Florida's fresh fruits and vegetable

production passed through FSFM.5 There was considerable variation across

commodities. Only 2 percent of all fresh citrus passed through FSFM,

versus over 13 percent of all fresh vegetables (Table 1).

An indirect estimate of the percent of the State's fresh vegetables

and fresh citrus by value passing through the FSFM may be made from the

inner product of the two columns for the vegetable entries and for the

citrus entries in Table 1. The result of this calculation is that 11.6 and

1.6 percent, by value, of all fresh vegetables and fresh citrus,

respectively, pass through the markets. For the 1978/79 crop year,

Pavlovic, et al. also found citrus to be of minor importance, relative to

vegetables, at the FSFM. They estimated that 4 percent of all fresh citrus

and 15 percent of fresh vegetables, by value, passed through the markets.

Comparison of Pavlovic's results for 1978/79 and ours for 1984/85

suggests that the share of produce going through FSFM has declined

modestly. This conclusion is supported by the essentially flat trend in

sales at FSFM. Between 1978/79 and 1984/85 gross commodity sales at FSFM

increased by one percent, in nominal terms (Florida Department of

Agriculture and Consumer Services). Over the same period the value of the

State's vegetable production increased by 34 percent and fresh citrus by 99


8








TABLE 1
Percent of Florida Producel Passing Through Florida
State Farmer's Market, 1984/85
Commodity Percent via Market Importance2

All Vegetables3 13.4 100

Tomatoes 9.6 .327
Potatoes 8.7 .073
Peppers 29.5 .068
Sweet Corn .6 .066
Strawberries 10.9 .060
Watermelons 24.7 .052
Cabbage 5.9 .050
Cucumbers 28.1 .037
Celery .6 .036
Lettuce 1.4 .036
Snap beans 18.7 .035
Squash 45.7 .031
Radishes 1.5 .018
Carrots 2.6 .011
Eggplant 57.9 .006

All Citrus 2.0 100

Grapefruit 2.8 .210
Oranges 1.4 .723
Tangerines & Tangelos .2 .049
Limes .2 .018

SOURCES: Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service (1986a&b)
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

NOTES: 1. Includes only produce for fresh consumption.
2. The proportion of value which that commodity represented of
all fresh vegetables or of all fresh citrus produced in
Florida in 1984/5.
3. Watermelons and strawberries are customarily listed as
vegetables in Florida statistics.


9









percent. It should be stressed again, however, that many, if not most,

loads handled by brokers and buyers located at these markets never actually

pass over the market's docks. Moreover, vehicles may pickup partial loads

at markets. This is suggested by the fact that 21 percent of the drivers

interviewed reported making at least one pickup at a FSFM, a percentage

well in excess of the percent of produce handled through these markets.

Therefore, the total impact of the FSFM on produce movements is not

captured by an analysis of physical movements at the markets.



B. The Importance of Wholesale Produce Markets in Consumption Areas

The results indicate that wholesale produce markets located in

consumption areas (destination markets) continue to be important features

in the produce logistical system. The drivers of 29 percent of the produce

trucks observed leaving Florida in the 1986/87 season indicated that they

would make at least one drop at a destination market. There are

considerable differences across regions of the U.S. and Canada in the

importance of destination markets (Figure 3). Over one third of the

shipments to the Northeast and Canada (primarily eastern Canada6) went

through destination markets, and somewhat less, 28 percent, of the

shipments to the Lake States were through destination markets. However,

less than one quarter of the shipments to the South and West moved through

destination markets.7 The regional pattern observed in this study is

largely consistent with that noted 11 years earlier by Manalytics.


10








CANADA


NORTHEAST


37%


23%


Figure 3 Percent of Producer Trucks from Florida Stopping
at Produce Markets, 1986/87


34%









Considerable variations were noted across cities. Among the 10 most

frequently cited destination cities, the percentage of produce loads going

through terminal markets varied from 35 percent for Montreal to 65 percent

for New York City (Table 2, col. 5). It is not uncommon for one market to

handle a large share of all produce deliveries into a metropolitan area.

Among the 10 most frequently mentioned destination metropolitan areas,

between 33 and 60 percent of the incoming produce loads were handled

through one market, and between 83 and 100 percent of all market drops in

the metropolitan area were at one market (Table 2). It should not be

inferred from the above that these are the 10 most important markets

nationally, rather they are the 10 most important for produce shipped from

Florida. As such, markets in the East would be over-represented, relative

to those in the West. It seems unlikely, however, that the propensity of a

load going to a given metropolitan area to be delivered to a destination

market depends upon the origin point. Therefore, these are reasonable

estimates of the importance of markets in these metropolitan areas.



C. Differences Between Loads Using and Not Using Markets

In this subsection differences between loads going through origin

and/or destination markets and those that do not are explored. The

motivation for this analysis is that these characteristics determine, in

part, the types and amount of facilities needed.



Origin Markets:

Loads routed through Florida State Farmers Markets differ in several

important regards from those bypassing these markets (Table 3). In


12








TABLE 2


Importance of Produce Markets in the 10 Most Frequently Cited Destination


Metropolitan Areas for Florida-Origin Produce, 1986/87
Percent of Metropolitan Area's Load's to: Number
Metropolitan area Primary Market Primary Market other markets all markets obs.

Montreal Montreal Market 34 1 35 62
Baltimore/Washington Jessup 33 7 40 60
Toronto Ontario Food Terminal 42 2 44 108
Boston Boston Markets1 45 3 48 75
Atlanta Atlanta Farmers Market 51 0 51 75
Cleveland N. Ohio Food Terminal 46 6 52 35
Chicago South Water Market 54 0 54 81
Detroit Detroit Produce Market 53 2 55 56
Philadelphia Philadelphia Food
Terminal 60 0 60 45
New York City Hunts Point Market 59 6 65 148


Note: 1. Includes both the Boston and Chelsea markets which are adjacent to one another.









TABLE 3


Selected Characteristics of Produce Loads Routed and Not
Routed Through Origin and Destination Terminal
Markets, 1986/87
Origin Market Destination Market
Characteristic YES NO YES NO
(percentage of observations)
Carrier Status:
Owner-operator 52 50 57 47
For-hire fleet 35 36 29 39
Private carrier 13 14 14 14
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 ***
Mixed Load:
Yes 67 34 41 41
No 33 66 59 59
TOTAL 100 100 *** 100 100
Multiple Pickups:
Yes 72 39 44 46
No 28 61 56 54
TOTAL 100 100 *** 100 100
Multiple Drops:
Yes 35 18 26 20
No 65 82 74 80
TOTAL 100 100 *** 100 100 ***
Transport Arrangement:
Broker 71 62 68 62
Directly 24 30 24 31
Own Load 5 8 8 7
TOTAL 100 100 *** 100 100 ***
Load Type:2
Citrus 11 33 23 30
Tomatoes 21 17 20 18
Watermelons 3 7 7 6
Other 65 43 50 46
TOTAL 100 100 *** 100 100 ***
NOTES:
1. Direct arrangement between the carrier and either the shipper or
receiver.
2. In the case of mixed loads, the driver was asked what commodity
he/she had the most of and for the next most important commodity.
The majority of mixed loads were mixed citrus or within the
"Other" category. There were no mixed loads with watermelons.
In the cases in which commodities from more than one category
were listed, assignment was with the most important commodity.
Levels of statistical significance between loads routed and not routed
through markets:
*** .01 level
** .10 level
.25 level
Based upon 1,941 interviews with drivers of truck hauling produce from
Florida.


14








particular, loads going through FSFM are more likely to be mixed loads,

require multiple pickups, require multiple drops, and be arranged by a

broker. Moreover, citrus and watermelon loads are less likely and

vegetables, other than tomatoes, are more likely to go through a FSFM.

These results are not surprising. One of the primary rationales for these

markets is to facilitate the formation of mixed or multiple shipment loads.

Such loads are more difficult than straight or single receiver loads to

arrange, hence the greater likelihood of brokering. Finally, citrus is

typically loaded at packing houses and watermelons from sites adjacent to

the harvesting sites.

There are no statistically significant differences with regard to the

type of carrier (i.e., owner-operator, for-hire fleet, or private carrier).

That is, there is insufficient evidence to refute a null hypothesis that

all types of carriers are equally likely to service FSFM.



Destination Markets:

Loads routed through destination markets also differ from those

bypassing them, however the pattern of differences are not the same as

between loads going to or bypassing origin markets (Table 3). As with

loads going through origin markets, those going through destination markets

are more likely to have multiple drops, be brokered, and not to be citrus.

However, loads going through destination markets are not more likely to be

mixed or have multiple pickups, but are more likely to be hauled by an

owner-operator, rather than a for-hire fleet. Frequently drivers indicated

that all of their drops were at the destination market. Also as argued


15









above, it seems reasonable that multishipment loads would tend to be

brokered.

It is not clear, however, why citrus is less likely than Florida's

other produce to be delivered through a destination market. This may

reflect the ability of citrus packing houses to maintain sales staffs

better able to deal directly with retailers than are most individual

growers. Also, it is probable that many receivers unable to accept

truckloads or half loads of other produce, such as strawberries and

lettuce, are able to accommodate these shipment sizes for citrus. This

follows because citrus is less perishable, more tolerant of higher

temperatures, and less expensive than most other types of produce.

Moreover, more citrus per pound is consumed than almost any other of

Florida's product types.



V. SUMMARY

In this paper, the importance of wholesale produce markets in the

logistical chain has been examined. Far from being obsolete, as has

commonly been assumed, these markets continue to be important elements in

the logistical chain linking the producer and the retailer. The markets

provide consolidation and breakbulk services similar to LTL terminals

common in dry freight. Moreover, they act as centers for produce and

transportation brokers and buyers.

It is estimated that 13 percent of the fresh vegetables and 2 percent

of the fresh citrus shipped from Florida passes through Florida State

Farmers Markets and that 21 percent of the outbound trucks make at least

one pickup at a State Market. Twenty-nine percent of these vehicles make


16








at least one drop at a destination market. Destination markets appear to

be more important in the Northeast, Lake States, and Eastern Canada than in

the South and West.

Loads routed through origin and destination markets differ in several

regards from those bypassing the markets. For example, such loads are more

likely to have multiple drops and to have been brokered. There is also

some indication that linehaul costs are somewhat higher for loads going

through destination markets. Considering the importance of these markets,

further research seems warranted.



REFERENCES


Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Bureau of State
Farmers' Markets Fifty-First Annual Summary Winter Haven, Florida,
1986.

Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service Citrus Summary: 1985 Orlando,
Florida, 1986a.

Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service Vegetable Summary: 1985
Orlando, Florida, 1986b.

Manalytics A Long-Term Study of Produce Transportation, Volumes 1-3 US DOT
Report, 1977.

Pavlovic, K., G. Long, D. Reaves, and T. Maze. Domestic Transportation for
Florida Perishable Produce, Transportation Research Center, University
of Florida, 1980.
USDA Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Shipments: by Commodities. States, and
Months. Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, various issues 1950-
1986 (annual).


ENDNOTES
* This study was funded by the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services in Cooperation with the Market Research and
Development Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. The
authors are indebted to Larry Summers and Richard Overheim of the USDA
for their advise, comments, and encouragement, and to the departmental
reviewers Leo Polopolus and John Van Sickle.


17









1. The railroad-owned Los Angeles Union Terminal is one of the few
exceptions. Also, many produce markets originally were owned by
carriers.

2. An indication of the prevalence of single drop movements is that only
20 percent of 1,371 produce trucks from Florida not going to a
terminal market during the 1986/87 crop year had more than one drop
(data described in the Data section of the text). Pavlovic et al.
reported similar results.

3. Similar stations are located at all roadways leading out of the
Florida Peninsula. Therefore carriers have no incentives to avoid a
route in order to escape inspection.

4. Statistics on weights for state totals were from Florida Crop and
Livestock Reporting Service (1986a&b). In most cases the units had to
be converted, both within and across commodities (eg., this source
used cwt.'s for potatoes, while Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services use 60 pound units). Also, for some minor crops,
there were no comparable data in the two sources.

5. Produce destined for processing, rather than fresh consumption, is
excluded. The main components of this exclusion are about 94 percent
of the orange crop and 66 percent of the grapefruit crop. Virtually
all vegetables grown in Florida are consumed as fresh.


6. Only 9 percent (21) of the 224 produce trucks observed going to Canada
had destinations west of the Province of Ontario.

7. For all regions, except the West, the distribution of truck
destinations corresponded closely with the distribution of population
across the states or provinces within each region. However, states in
the eastern part of the West appear to receive a disproportionately
large number of truck arrivals from Florida. For example, Texas has
roughly half the population of California but received over twice as
many Florida produce trucks. This pattern was not unexpected as
competition from produce production in California, Arizona, and
Western Mexico makes it difficult for Florida producers to penetrate
markets in the Far West. However, if dependence on produce
destination markets differs systematically across the West, the
estimates of produce markets importance for the region may be biased.


18




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