• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Abstract
 Center information
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Appendix tables
 List of Figures
 Acknowledgement
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 Objectives
 Findings
 Reference
 Appendix














Group Title: Industry report - University of Florida Florida Agricultural Market Research Center ; 92-3
Title: Long range strategic plans for the Florida State Farmers' Market System
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027557/00001
 Material Information
Title: Long range strategic plans for the Florida State Farmers' Market System
Series Title: Industry report - University of Florida Florida Agricultural Market Research Center ; 92-3
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Degner, Robert L.
Moss, Susan D.
Moseley, Anne E.
Mack, Stephenie K.
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, a part of the Food and Resource Economics Dept., Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1992
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027557
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Abstract
        Page i
    Center information
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
        Page xii
    List of Tables
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
        Page xv
        Page xvi
        Page xvii
        Page xviii
        Page xix
        Page xx
        Page xxi
        Page xxii
        Page xxiii
    Appendix tables
        Page xxiv
    List of Figures
        Page xxv
        Page xxvi
        Page xxvii
        Page xxviii
        Page xxix
        Page xxxii
        Page xxxi
        Page xxxii
        Page xxxiii
        Page xxxiv
    Acknowledgement
        Page xxxv
    Executive summary
        Page xxxvi
        Page xxxvii
        Page xxxviii
        Page xxxix
        Page xl
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Objectives
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Findings
        Page 12
        The Arcadia State Livestock Market
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
            Page 17
            Page 18
            Page 19
            Page 20
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
            Page 24
            Page 25
            Page 26
            Page 27
            Page 28
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
            Page 34
            Page 35
            Page 36
        The Bonifay SFM
            Page 37
            Page 38
            Page 39
            Page 40
            Page 41
            Page 42
            Page 43
            Page 44
            Page 45
            Page 46
            Page 47
            Page 48
            Page 49
            Page 50
            Page 51
            Page 52
            Page 53
            Page 54
            Page 55
            Page 56
            Page 57
            Page 58
            Page 59
            Page 60
            Page 61
            Page 62
        The Bradford County SFM
            Page 63
            Page 64
            Page 65
            Page 66
            Page 67
            Page 68
            Page 69
            Page 70
            Page 71
            Page 72
            Page 73
            Page 74
            Page 75
            Page 76
            Page 77
            Page 78
            Page 79
            Page 80
            Page 81
            Page 82
            Page 83
            Page 84
            Page 85
            Page 86
            Page 87
            Page 88
        The Florida City SFM
            Page 89
            Page 90
            Page 91
            Page 92
            Page 93
            Page 94
            Page 95
            Page 96
            Page 97
            Page 98
            Page 99
            Page 100
            Page 101
            Page 102
            Page 103
            Page 104
            Page 105
            Page 106
            Page 107
            Page 108
            Page 109
            Page 110
            Page 111
            Page 112
        The Fort Myers SFM
            Page 113
            Page 114
            Page 115
            Page 116
            Page 117
            Page 118
            Page 119
            Page 120
            Page 121
            Page 122
            Page 123
            Page 124
            Page 125
            Page 126
            Page 127
            Page 128
            Page 129
            Page 130
            Page 131
            Page 132
            Page 133
            Page 134
            Page 135
            Page 136
            Page 137
        The Fort Pierce SFM
            Page 138
            Page 139
            Page 140
            Page 141
            Page 142
            Page 143
            Page 144
            Page 145
            Page 146
            Page 147
            Page 148
            Page 149
            Page 150
            Page 151
            Page 152
            Page 153
            Page 154
            Page 155
            Page 156
            Page 157
            Page 158
            Page 159
            Page 160
            Page 161
            Page 162
            Page 163
            Page 164
            Page 165
        The Gadsen County SFM
            Page 166
            Page 167
            Page 168
            Page 169
            Page 170
            Page 171
            Page 172
            Page 173
            Page 174
            Page 175
            Page 176
            Page 177
            Page 178
            Page 179
            Page 180
            Page 181
            Page 182
            Page 183
            Page 184
            Page 185
            Page 186
            Page 187
            Page 188
            Page 189
            Page 190
        The Immokalee SFM
            Page 191
            Page 192
            Page 193
            Page 194
            Page 195
            Page 196
            Page 197
            Page 198
            Page 199
            Page 200
            Page 201
            Page 202
            Page 203
            Page 204
            Page 205
            Page 206
            Page 207
            Page 208
            Page 209
            Page 210
            Page 211
            Page 212
            Page 213
            Page 214
            Page 215
            Page 216
            Page 217
            Page 218
        The Palatka SFM
            Page 219
            Page 220
            Page 221
            Page 222
            Page 223
            Page 224
            Page 225
            Page 226
            Page 227
            Page 228
            Page 229
            Page 230
            Page 231
            Page 232
            Page 233
            Page 234
            Page 235
            Page 236
            Page 237
            Page 238
            Page 239
            Page 240
            Page 241
            Page 242
            Page 243
            Page 244
            Page 245
        The Plant City SFM
            Page 246
            Page 247
            Page 248
            Page 249
            Page 250
            Page 251
            Page 252
            Page 253
            Page 254
            Page 255
            Page 256
            Page 257
            Page 258
            Page 259
            Page 260
            Page 261
            Page 262
            Page 263
            Page 264
            Page 265
            Page 266
            Page 267
            Page 268
            Page 269
            Page 270
            Page 271
            Page 272
        The Pompano SFM
            Page 273
            Page 274
            Page 275
            Page 276
            Page 277
            Page 278
            Page 279
            Page 280
            Page 281
            Page 282
            Page 283
            Page 284
            Page 285
            Page 286
            Page 287
            Page 288
            Page 289
            Page 290
            Page 291
            Page 292
            Page 293
            Page 294
            Page 295
            Page 296
            Page 297
            Page 298
            Page 299
            Page 300
            Page 301
            Page 302
            Page 303
            Page 304
        The Sanford SFM
            Page 305
            Page 306
            Page 307
            Page 308
            Page 309
            Page 310
            Page 311
            Page 312
            Page 313
            Page 314
            Page 315
            Page 316
            Page 317
            Page 318
            Page 319
            Page 320
            Page 321
            Page 322
            Page 323
            Page 324
            Page 325
            Page 326
            Page 327
            Page 328
            Page 329
            Page 330
            Page 331
            Page 332
            Page 333
        The Suwannee Valley SFM
            Page 334
            Page 335
            Page 336
            Page 337
            Page 338
            Page 339
            Page 340
            Page 341
            Page 342
            Page 343
            Page 344
            Page 345
            Page 346
            Page 347
            Page 348
            Page 349
            Page 350
            Page 351
            Page 352
            Page 353
            Page 354
            Page 355
            Page 356
            Page 357
            Page 358
            Page 359
            Page 360
            Page 361
        The Trenton SFM
            Page 362
            Page 363
            Page 364
            Page 365
            Page 366
            Page 367
            Page 368
            Page 369
            Page 370
            Page 371
            Page 372
            Page 373
            Page 374
            Page 375
            Page 376
            Page 377
            Page 378
            Page 379
            Page 380
            Page 381
            Page 382
            Page 383
            Page 384
            Page 385
            Page 386
            Page 387
            Page 388
            Page 389
        The Wachula SFM
            Page 390
            Page 391
            Page 392
            Page 393
            Page 394
            Page 395
            Page 396
            Page 397
            Page 398
            Page 399
            Page 400
            Page 401
            Page 402
            Page 403
            Page 404
            Page 405
            Page 406
            Page 407
            Page 408
            Page 409
            Page 410
            Page 411
            Page 412
            Page 413
            Page 414
            Page 415
            Page 416
            Page 417
        Statewide analyses of major issues
            Page 418
            Page 419
            Page 420
            Page 421
            Page 422
            Page 423
            Page 424
            Page 425
            Page 426
            Page 427
            Page 428
            Page 429
    Reference
        Page 430
        Page 431
    Appendix
        Page 432
        Page 433
        Page 434
        Page 435
        Page 436
Full Text

/0,0-

)C-olfl'


.- 3 -DOCUIUNT
. . . . . . . ............. . . ., .,-*-,.*., ....,......-.... ...-.I.......,. .I...... ... ...., .." ...,...'.. -....
....... .." ....................... ....................,.........' . ..-'...........-..:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.:-:.:.:-:-:,:.:.,*.,-*.., .., ..' . . . . . . . .. ....
1........- ...,...,............" ..-........" ......,............" .." ...,.,...,..'..............,................,..,....,...,.........................,.....,. .... ..............''.,...,....,.,. ...,. ........, .. . .
.... .... I .... I ...... .................. ..................... ...... .......... ..... ... ........ .. -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. ....... ........ ..... ........... I.-
. I . . . . . . . . . . ... ... .... ................................,......................,.........'.,....... .. ...,..,....,..,..,." .,....-.........
I ... .....................................,............'......................................... .... . ... . . . . . . . . .., ..' .., ....,......,.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 1 1 . . . . . . . . . ... . ... ..' ... ..,.. ,.......,........................,.." ..',..'-.,..,. ...,.'...,.....,.." ... .,.. ...,.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......,.,........................................,........,......."........................................,..................,..........".......................'.....................'".............,......,.....'..........,.
. . .....................,.............,.,.... ...,...,...,...............,.....
....,.,....".........'...-................,...............,.....,...................-..,..,......................,.,.,...,..,...",..............,........."..............'...",-."................,...........'...,.
I . . ..........,...'..,......" .,.,...........'..........,......................
...., .-........-.,.-,-. ! ! ! . . . . ! ! ! ! ....,....,.,........." .............................................
.. .. .. ... .. ... .1 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. ..
..... I ..... I., .................. .......... ... ............... ...... .... ........ ..... ..... ...... .......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... I ...... I .......... .... .......... ... ............. ........... ........... .1- .......... .............
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
.:::::-,-% ..... :: ..'. .... e' '.: `3 ':
I . . . . :: : :::::,:,
.. ..... ''.,. 1. d """"' -
... .. I ...... ..::,... %,.,.,.% ... ::9 Z .-
.. ... ..... .... ... :: x n ustryfl ''pott
. . . I . ..., I . [ . :
,.. .......,- ...,............. .... I . 1 .-::,:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-,!.:.:.:.,-,.,.,. -X '-*-*-% *.*.*-'.'- .....
.. ......... .... ... .. I I .................... ...... ... .
. . . . . . . . . . . . ,
.. .... ... I ... ........ ....
.,., ........ ..... ....... .,.". '... .'...........",..'.....'...., *::::::::::: t :u '.........
.... ... ....... I .... I .... : ...
. ::::,. :-:-:- . ... . . . .


. . : . . .
...... ...'. ...,. "........... ............. :J 9 .'9 2 ::::::: .
... ... ........ A I $ t ..,. .......
.. -
.. ... 1. 1 . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ..
....... .. '' - ...................................
... .,... 4 ......
........ ... .. ... .... ........... ...... ...
... : :::: ,:::::::,:,.,. ,.,. .." . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
... - A-..--" .. '' ......
. . . . . . . . . . . .
....'.. ::::,:::.: . .. . . . . . . . . . .
. 1 . . . . . . . .
: ....... ........- .,. I.... ..,... ..- .,.,........- ......... ..... ,.- ... ...
. I
.. .. I 11 .. .. ... ... ... . .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .
..:-:-:F:-:-:-:-:-:-:: : ..... .... ...... ................,.- ......................
..... ....... -- R C .... 11 .................... ........
... ... *' "
. '
'
.,... ..... ........... .,............. .. ., . ....... .... -:.:-X .. .. .. .................. .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . I . . . . . . I . I . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
1 . 1 1 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
l .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. I .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. . 1 .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . . . .
1 . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...
i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . I.............,............... ....................,.....................'....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . I I I . I .. .
..1- 1- 1- .................... .... I ...... I.- .. ............................... ............. I ... I ..... ...... I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .- I. I .. ... .. .. .. . .. .. ... ... ... ... .. .. .. .. ... . ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .
... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .... .. .
. I .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. I .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ..
.- ................ ................................................................ ............ .- ... ......
.- .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1- 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . I . I . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..... .. ....... ..... ... .............. ......... ............................... ...... .. .......... .- ..... ...
. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....... ............................. ...................... ..... ................. .......... .... .. .....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ... . .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. . .. 1.
. I . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . .
.- ........... ..... ........... ................. ................................... ......... ........ .1.
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I- : .... : ... :::: :P .1 .11.., ...... ::: .........- '....,..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . -
.l.. ... .. .. ..... ...
....... ..... ... .... l.
........
.. *. ........- ..% .....,. : -
..... ......... ... *.a n s :::'f """"'::- '' ".............'....
.,..:.:,::*:::::::::::::::::::L.-' '- n"' c"' i i::1 R "a" n' g e:: -:: S t t --""!'d'%'::: ..Or::th.e."""""""'*'.'*'
...." ..'. ... .-:-X .:- .......'....... ,....." ., . ... .............. .. . . I . I . . -
'' *:-:-:-:-:-:.:%'W ::-:-:-:-:-:-. ..:-:-:-:.:-:-:-:.:-::-:-:9- .................. .....%
. . . . . . . . I . . .
I . . w . . . . . . ................... . . . . . . . . . .'. . 1 1 . .
. . . I . 1 1 . . . I . . . . . . . . . I . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . 1 . . .
.. ... .... .... .................. ,- .................. .................... ..... .... .... ..... .
I . . I . . . . . .
.. Aft : :.:.:.$:.:- :-:-:-:-:- 5 1- t ., ... ,.........-
...
.., .
: :.:::::.::::::
-
... .,.,. x :-iii --'-'--
.'::::::':::::'::::Fl""O""'*' .-a...::.b rm er .,-: r ::,I
....:... rid. --'' *:","*, "' -I.' em :
.:: ti"6,te."'''F:""'*""""""""*""'*", M .a k atA
"' a .............. 4 ....:.,.:....-:.,.....-.-.-,0.........,.......,.....,...:"*, ''. *
: -. .** '*.,..-,..," ..,..,.*-'." '." '-,.,..,.,-.,.,.,-,..," ...,..'.." .,..,........,.*.'."" ....,.,...." .,..,.,.-.-....." '.'.'.,'-'-'.'.'.'.'-'-" . . . . . ...... ...
. . I I . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.... .. .. ... .............. .... ..... ... .- ....... .... ,- .. ............ .... .... ..
I . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I .
.......... .- ... ................... .1 ... ............ 11- ........ ... ... ....... .. .1- ... '' .., ...
.... ....... 1. ...... ........... .... ..... ........ ,- ............... ... ....... .... ... .. ... .
..,.....,.,.........,.................,....,.,...........,..'','.*........,..,.....,.......,.....".........,.............-...........,...........''..'......".I.......................I
.. ... .. . I ,. .. .. .. I .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. ... I .. . .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. I .- 1 . .. .. .. ... .. . .
...,*.".".,.-,.,.*..,.'."'-'.'..*.,.,...,.*-.".*.'.*".'.*.'.'.'.*.'.'."'.'.'.''.'.'.'.".'-''.'-'.'.*""-''...'-'.'.'-'..*-'-'.'.'.'.-'.'..-'-'.*.'....'.",*.*.''.'........'"'...*,...,,.*".*'*.*.'.'*'*.'....*
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. ...... I ... ....... - ............ .............. .., ... .1- ... .. .. .....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....... ...... .... ................... .......... .1 ......... 1.1- ........ .. 1. ..... .1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.... .......... ...................... .... - ....... ... .l.- ............ .. 11 .... 11- l- ... ...... 1.
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '
........ ..... ....... I.- .................. .................. .1- ..... .... .... '' .. .... -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.1.1 .... ... I ... I .... I- ............... 1- .......... .................. .... .. ..... ... I ....
.... ........ ... .. .... ..................... ... ,.- .......... ..... .... .. ... .... .... ....... I ... I .... ..... ,- ...................... ... .. l.- I.- I ......... I ...... I.
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. .. I ., .. I. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. I .. .. .. .. .. I .. ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... .. .. . .. I ... . ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .- . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I. I -
............. ..... ....... .......... .. ..... .... ... ..- ......... .- ...... .... .. ..
** ....... .1- 1- .1- ..... ....... ......................... ..... ....... ..,.- ... ... I ...... .-
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ., .' .... .. I .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . :::: : ... . .
.
... .- .... ........ ....... I ... ................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . : :f
... ... ............ ....,..... ....... .............,. ,.'.. .. .. .. I ... .. .. .. .. .. ::::::: .::::::A : 4 0 V ...." '...... ... ...
.............. 'd et b ':i:::::::*-'-'-'-'- -*-*
..........,..,.." ............" ......." .,..... . . . . . . . :::: .1 .
... ...... I .... .... .......... ... I.
. . . . . -7 : .f.
I. .. .. 1 1 1 .. .. ... ... .. .. .. . .. .. I .. .. I ... . . .. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........-.........:.:.:.: ..,: ,.: :::. ... ........ ......-.-.. ......'
. . . . . I . . . . I . . . . . . .. I 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I . . I . . . I . . . . . . . -, -, .,. ,.*"
.'. ... .. ...'.." ,.,. ......................................,...........,........-.,.,.,....,.............,....... ... . . . . : .-'.` -'- -*-'-'-* ` -'.,........'.
. I . :::::::::j:::, ...,.,...,...- .....- ....
. . I . . . . . I . . . . . . I .
.. I I I . . . . . .... ...,....,......................,.............,.............,........::::::::.:.*::-::::: I .o ..
:-,.-*.,l-,l-.`l*,.,.-,.%-
. .
'..- .-." .......,.,.,..............,....-.......................'...............................................,.-,-..-.-... :i:'-
. . . . . . .
................'... . . . ...,..................,.,...........,........ ..... ...-.... fth o r ....
I ............ ........ '. ..... I
:. ,..- '........'. .
'........,............................... ... ........ :::::::::::::::::::::R o .lD ft I ..... -
., ...... ..'.I.....................,.....,..,..,...............,. ..................................,..............'...............................................,..........,..... ..............., ..
111- l... ... .. .......... .... ....... ... .................................... ... I ... .. .....
.,.. .........................,.......,.................,......,....,.'....." .,.,.,.,.,.,.,........................... . . . . . . . 0
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . :::.:::::::-:: -4 ..'...... .'.%
......... .,....................................,.........,...........................'...,............................:: -A L
. . . . . . . .
...'. I',....."..I..I...............,...,........................ Z *.U t A h
..... .................. ,*: m fo !T,
.................,............,.......................... . . . . . ....% ....'. i ... A . ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. -
..... .... ..... ..... ........... ..- -
I . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . r ,'.'," ,.
........ ........ :::::::::,-:?
.. ........,." .." ..,.,....'............... . ......................................... . ..,..............,......-......... I *. ,.. .,.,.,.
..... ..... ............. ...................... ....... QP ...... ," 'I" .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . :::.,::::.:.::::::, I I
... 1- 1 ...... ................... ... ................... I .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...... ....... .................... .......', ............ I I 1, X "..'.. ",
. . . . . . . . : .
... ........... ....... .......... I D 'P ::::' "' ""
.- .........,.... A 6 1114 ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ............ ............ ................. ....... % ...".." ,
. ..,......................,...,......-..." ..." ...."...'......,... ... .. .. .. ... .... '...X .-.-% -..-.-.--.-. &A& I A .1 ...'....." .- .. .. .. .. .." ................,............" ...'L..,..'.1'.." .... .. .. :::::::::-::::::: .L '..'
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. I .. ... .1
I. .. ....",.,......-..--,.,..".....,.-..,.......................................................,.......................,.,............S te p h W !iee K c k :" *"
. . I . . . . . L . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . I . . I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . .
,- .-l..'.-..., ......... ........... ............ ..... .......... ........ ...... :::: 1 1- '....L,- ............ ...
... ... ...., .,.....................................,.................,..........,........-.......,......'.....,.....,...,.,..... .....'.....'.... d4 `
. . . . . . . . . I I .
......... ..... .................'.....'......,.....,......,...,.,...",.. .. .. .. ... ,. '.'., :::,::::::' YO
I I I ,
.1- 1. l- .... .... ..... ... .1 .................................... L '' -
. * ,
.1 . I . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. ..... .,,..,.,....................,..,.........,......,..........,.....,..,., . ...............,....... ... . ... .....' .... . . :: .... '..'.....L.. :' '. ...
I .." ..- ....,.,...........,....I..,.........." .......'...,...,,,.,.,..,...,., ...... ............,.....,........ ......,...........,.. . : . . . V 97 .. ... .......'. . 1 .
.. .. L .. .. .. .. l L .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. L' I ... .. .. I .
.. I .. ... .. I I .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. . I ... .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . L . .
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . 1 . . . . . . . L .
.. ... ... ....... .- .- ....................... ........... ..... I.. ...... I ....... ........ .... .....
. I . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . .
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . L . . . . . . I . L . I . . .. . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---
..... .. ......... .............. ................ ...... .1- 1- 1 ............. .. .. .. ..
1 I . . . . L 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . I . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . I . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ......
. . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L . I .
I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . .... I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
1- ................. ............. ..... ....... ................ ......... I.- ... ... ......... ....... -
1 1 1 1 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. .. ... ... .. .. . ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .-
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .... ... ... .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .- .. ..
. . . . . . I . I . . . I . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- . I . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *
....- ..... 1.1- l- ........ ..... 11 ... ...
. . . . . . . . .
,-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:" -,.,.*.*.-'.'.".*.'., ,..,..,-,."-,.,.,..*.'.'.-'..'-'.*-'.'.'.''.'.'.'." .'.'-'.'.-*.*.'.'.'-'..,-*.,.., . . . . . * , ,
.. .- ..... I ............................ ....... ................ ........ ....... - ........ ..............
l l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. I .. .. .. .. .. .. ... I .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. I' 'I .. .. .. -- .. . .. I. .-
I .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .
1 1 1 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. I I . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . I . . . . I . *'*" **'I'*'*" '1'1'1'1'1'**l I L*1'1" '1**'I-*'*" '-" '-" I *
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
.$ .n .. ...- .- .- ..- ...l- l .. .. .. ..... ........,...,...,......,.....,.,'. ....,..........'..,... ........,...,.... .,....,.,. I .
U b t 'ittO.d :"td .:th .'4 "",*"*""'**,*""*""',',"*"."*".,"**"",",*',',*,',"**""*""*,*","",',*,',',',',',',',', -...,"., ... I.-
,.: .... ... ...... .............................. ...... ................. ....... ... .... .............. -
.. I .. . .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. 11 1 I .. l L.. L ..
.- .:: .. .. *.,.- ...'... ......... ....'..."..'
.- ... ......
. I . . .
... D '' Atn-;bht:.df:A '' ", t .. ............ GO.", 'U'hv-?:s de's""""""" *,**' ,
1. ... -id a ...... ...
flor a:: ..... ........ :.. .. flibUl utdand' -,ns* ` I.........,.,
. I I . . I . p . . . . . ....,..- ... '....' '...' ........... ,. ...
. . . . . . . . . .. . . I .
... I I I i I .
I .......................... -
... ........ ........... .....
"t" 'i "'*""',,,,.,,*.,,*,,.,.,.*., .'.''.*.','.',','-' -,-..,
I w- -* h i:0 6 te .(:` ...- '.'',L.'.".. ............... ...- ...
.. !j I. .. I .
-b :-,t.t-,.ie:fl-*-G'-'-'-d'-'-'A'-'-'-"'-*-'- I *I"iw:,M`,.-k6fR' b""* r .. .- ..
.. ::....Y :.. ...: ... .. ril. CW .. 91r .. I .t ,.'O ..:: ... a .............. oir., .. ............ ....'... .. ... I ..'.. .
.. ......... ...... ... ........ ........... .- ......... ... ''.
.... ::....f:. h .....:F .. "" ', '.......' I ...... I .......... :0 6 ...... '' '" '. -, -,
. . . . . .
.. ''' d l i '' -c ....... ...... .- .-.-..., -.
L . .
..6 :- ': O' E o .o m-..i.C- s: ... ''
:.p .1 q.. .. .6. Ah.
.- : -d .. ......... '4i.l'm-'O :*`-",." 0 0 .......... I ..... I... :: ... esou r., :: c ..... 0 I .'h ... L ."'.-.'-.''.'
.. ..... .... ..... ... .. ..
... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. . .. I .. .. ..
. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1- 1.1 ....... I ................. I ..........
I ..... ..... ..... ..... .. .." ..,........... ..,... ..- .,.'...-... ..........
1. '' d ... .. ........
.
I... .... :`**""," ',*"-"" *,',*,',' "'"" ."" *,',*,',',*,',' ,
..- ......... ............... '.. ... :: cu ,U lt W .S 6 .6 hce .."".. ".. L'. -%.''..-- ''. .,
lh!itltutd:*6f:Fbdd,:Ah'd,:A 6 ...
'. I . . . I . . . ." .' '.,." W .l1.1.1.1.1.*..,.'......." ....." ............................" .........,.................-.......,.-,.,.,......,.........' ...... .*.'.. ..
.. .. .. .. . I. ,..." ...'......." ..-..,...,.:,
I . . . . . . . . . . . .
. I I . . . . . . . . . 1 .
. . . . .
I. 'U '' '' i '' "' -`bf,:JM 6fldA :: G ainesville,:FL:::'32'.61:1:"""" ""**'*""""'*""""""*""*""'*""", ""*".'.'.'.'.*.,."..,.*..,..""...,"....
: *: -fliV e rs.1t ...... .... .......
-,-- 7- -.'., ...... y .. ............ .I..........,........,.........,.............,.,.,.,.*.
:,.-...:.............-...-... -, ,.....'..,.. . . . . .
. . . .
!:.:.::.:-:.:-:.:.,-,-,.*.,.,..,.".*.,.,.,.,..*.,-,.,.*.*.*.,.,-,.,..,.,-,.,.,.,.,.,-,......-..-....,..-....-...-..,.,..,.-".*,-,.,, ,,.,.,.,.,.*.*-,...-*.*.*-,.,.,..* ,-*-,.,.,.,. ., . . '. "' ,
I ... I ............... ... .... .. ........... .......................... ............. I ... ...... 1. .... 1,

100 :
F637fi














Long Range Strategic Plans for the
Florida State Farmers' Market System











A report by

Robert L. Degner
Susan D. Moss
Anne E. Mosely
and
Stephenie K. Mack





Submitted to the
Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services


August 1992


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









ABSTRACT


This report is the culmination of a comprehensive, two-year study of the Florida
State Farmers' Market System. Authorized by the State Legislature, the purpose of this
study is to "provide long-range policy direction for the improvement and development
of the Bureau of State Farmers' Markets."

The State Farmers' Market System is comprised of 15 markets located throughout
the state of Florida. Because each market is unique with respect to the role it plays in
the agricultural marketing system of its own geographic service area, a case study
approach was used to assess each market's current and future economic viability.

The majority of SFMs are currently meeting the needs of their respective
agricultural communities. Most are performing admirably despite the scarcity of funds
for maintenance and needed improvements. However, many of the markets have
dilapidated facilities which are in dire need of being repaired or replaced. Unless
necessary funds for maintenance and replacement of dangerous or obsolete facilities are
forthcoming, many markets may lose their ability to serve their clientele effectively.









THE FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL MARKET RESEARCH CENTER


The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center is a service of the Food and
Resource Economics Department. Its purpose is to provide timely, applied research on
current and emerging marketing problems affecting Florida's agricultural and marine
industries. A basic goal of the Center is to provide organized groups with practical
solutions to their marketing problems. The Center seeks to provide marketing research
and related information to producer organizations, trade associations, and governmental
agencies concerned with improving and expanding markets for Florida's agricultural and
marine produces.
Client organizations are required to pay direct costs associated with their research
projects. Such costs include labor for personnel and telephone interviewing, mail
surveys, travel, and computer analyses. Professional time and support is provided at no
charge by IFAS.
Professional agricultural economists with specialized training and experience in
marketing participate in every Center project. Cooperating personnel from other IFAS
units are also involved whenever specialized technical assistance is needed
For more information about the Center, contact:





Dr. Robert L. Degner, Director
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
1083 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
(904) 392-1845










TABLE OF CONTENTS


TABLE OF CONTENTS ....

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

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES


111

Xliii

xxiv


LIST OF FIGURES ............................................. xxv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................... xxxv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................... xxxvi


INTRODUCTION .........


OBJECTIVES ..............................
Overview of the State Farmers' Market System
Structure of the Farmers' Market System
General Operational Policies .........
Research Procedure .....................
Primary Data ....................
Secondary Data ...................
Projection Techniques ...................

FINDINGS ................................

The Arcadia State Livestock Market ........
Description of Service Area ..........
General Description of the Market ..
Facilities....... .. .........
Tenants ...................


Historical Performance of the Arcadia Livestock Market .......
Evaluation of the Arcadia State Livestock Market Facilities .....
Quantity and quality of facilities ....................
Evaluation of services ............................
Overall rating of the market .......................
Suggestions for improvement .......................
Urbanization ...................................
Environmental issues ............................
Availability of water for irrigation. .............


...................
. . . . . .
...................
...................










Water pollution from agricultural use of fertilizers
and pesticides. .......................
M market Projections ...................................
Qualitative projections ...........................
Quantitative projections ..........................
Impact of Closing the Arcadia State Livestock Market .........
Future Directions ....................................

The Bonifay SFM .........................................
Description of Service Area .............................
General Description of Facilities .............................
Facilities......................................
Tenants ......................................
Historical Performance of the Bonifay Farmers Market .........
Evaluation of the Bonifay State Farmers' Market Facilities .....
Quantity and quality of facilities ................... .
EV n1urhl Ir fnV i'r*cc..


JL V11.w U U UUl %ilVlI,,, 0 . . . * . *
Overall rating of the market .......................
Suggestions for improvement .................. .. ..
Factors Affecting Long Term Economic Viability .............
Changes in agricultural production .................
Urbanization ...................................
Environmental and trade issues ...................
Availability of water for irrigation .. ... ...
Water pollution from agricultural use of fertilizers
and pesticides ........................
Free trade with Mexico. ....................
Free trade with Cuba. ..................... .
M market Projections ...................................
Qualitative projections ...........................
Quantitative projections ..........................
Impact of Closing the Bonifav State Farmers' Market .........
Future Directions ....................................

The Bradford County SFM ..................... ... ..........
Description of Service Area .............................
General Description of Facilities ................... .... .
Facilities ......................................
Tenants ......................................
Historical Performance of the Bradford Farmers Market .......
Evaluation of the Bradford County State Farmers' Market
Facilities ................................... ...
Quantity and quality of facilities .................. ..
Evaluation of services ............................










Overall rating of the market ..........
Suggestions for improvement ..........
Factors Affecting Lone Term Economic Viability


Changes in agricultural production ....
Urbanization .....................
Environmental and trade issues ......
Availability of water for irrigation.
Water pollution from agricultural
and pesticides. ...........
Free trade with Mexico. .......
Free trade with Cuba..........
Market Projections ....................
Qualitative projections .............


i]


...........


............


.. . . .
. .. .. .


Quantitative projections .


Impact of Closing the Bradford State Farmers' Market
Future Directions ............................


The Florida City SFM .....................................
Description of Service Area ............................
General Description of the Market ......................
Facilities .....................................
Tenants ............... ......... ..........
Historical Performance of the Florida City Farmers Market ...
Evaluation of the Florida City State Farmers' Market Facilities .
Quantity and quality of facilities ...................
Evaluation of services ...........................
Overall rating of the market ......................
Suggestions for improvement ......................
Factors Affecting Long Term Economic Viability ............


Changes in agricultural production ....
Urbanization .....................
Environmental and trade issues ......
Availability of water for irrigation.
Water pollution from agricultural
and pesticides. .........
Free trade with Mexico. .......
Free trade with Cuba .........
Market Projections .....................
Qualitative projections .............
Quantitative projections ............


. .
use of fertilizers


Impact of Closing the Florida City State Farmers' Market .....
Future Directions ...................................


"' -- --o-f--e----


use of fertilizers


. . .. . ... .


. .
.


111 11









The Fort Myers SFM ..................... ................. 113
Description of Service Area ............................ 113
General Description of the Market ........ ............. 113
Facilities ..................................... 113
Tenants ..................................... 116
Historical Performance of the Fort Myers Farmers Market .... 116
Evaluation of the Fort Myers State Farmers' Market Facilities .120
Quantity and quality of facilities ................... 120
Evaluation of services ........................... 121
Overall rating of the market ...................... 121
Suggestions for improvement .............. ......... 121
Factors Affecting Long Term Economic Viability ............ 123
Changes in agricultural production ................. 123
Urbanization ....... ..... ..................... 128
Environmental and trade issues .................. 128
Availability of water for irrigation. ............ 130
Water pollution from agricultural use of fertilizers
and pesticides. ...................... 130
Free trade with Mexico. .................... 130
Free trade with Cuba........................ 130
M market Projections .................................. 131
Qualitative projections .......................... 131
Quantitative projections .............. ..... ...... 132
Impact of Closing the Fort Myers State Farmers' Market ..... 135
Future Directions ................................... 136

The Fort Pierce SFM .................... .................. 138
Description of Service Area ............................ 138
General Description of Facilities ...... ... ............. 138
Facilities .......................... ......... 138
Tenants .................. ................. 141
Historical Performance of the Fort Pierce Farmers Market .... 141
Evaluation of the Fort Pierce State Farmers' Market Facilities .145
Quantity and quality of facilities ................... 145
Evaluation of services ........................... 146
Overall rating of the market ...................... 146
Suggestions for improvement ........... .... ...... 148
Factors Affecting Long Term Economic Viability ............. 148
Changes in agricultural production ................. 148
Urbanization .................................. 154
Environmental and trade issues ............... ... 156
Availability of water for irrigation. ............ 156
Water pollution from agricultural use of fertilizers
and pesticides ....................... 157









Free trade with Mexico. .................... 157
Free trade with Cuba. ...................... 157
M market Projections .................................. 158
Qualitative projections .......................... 158
Quantitative projections ......................... 158
Impact of Closing the Fort Pierce State Farmers' Market ..... 161
Future Directions ................................... 162

The Gadsden County SFM .................................. 166
Description of Service Area ............................ 166
General Description of the Market ...................... 166
Facilities ......................... ... ........ 166
Tenants ..................................... 169
Historical Performance of the Gadsden County Farmers Market 169
Evaluation of the Gadsden County State Farmers' Market
Facilities ..................................... 173
Quantity and quality of facilities ................. 173
Evaluation of services ........................... 174
Overall rating of the market ...................... 174
Suggestions for improvement ........... ......... 174
Factors Affecting Long Term Economic Viability ............ 174
Changes in agricultural production ................. 176
Urbanization ................................. 181
Environmental and trade issues ................ 181
Availability of water for irrigation ........... 181
Water pollution from agricultural use of fertilizers
and pesticides. ...................... 183
Free trade with Mexico. ................... 183
Free trade with Cuba........................ 183
M market Projections .................................. 184
Qualitative projections .......................... 184
Quantitative projections ......................... 184
Impact of Closing the Gadsden County State Farmers' Market 187
Future Directions ................................... 188

The Immokalee SFM ..... ............... ................. 191
Description of Service Area ............................ 191
General Description of the Market .............. ..... 191
Facilities ..................................... 191
Tenants ..................................... 194
Historical Performance of the Immokalee Farmers Market .... 194
Evaluation of the Immokalee State Farmers' Market Facilities 198
Quantity and quality of facilities ................... 198
Evaluation of services ........................... 199










Overall rating of the market ......................
Suggestions for improvement ..................... .
Factors Affecting Long Term Economic Viability ............

Changes in agricultural production .................
Urbanization ..................................
Environmental and trade issues ...................
Availability of water for irrigation. ............
Water pollution from agricultural use of fertilizers
and pesticides. ......................
Free trade with Mexico. ....................
Free trade with Cuba......................
M market Projections ..................................
Qualitative projections ..........................
Quantitative projections .........................
Impact of Closing the Immokalee State Farmers' Market ......
Future Directions ...................................


The Palatka SFM ................................
Description of Service Area .......................
General Description of the Market ..................
Facilities .................................
Tenants ................................ .
Historical Performance of the Palatka Farmers Market .
Evaluation of the Palatka State Farmers' Market Facilities
Quantity and quality of facilities ...............
Evaluation of services .......................
Overall rating of the market .....................
Suggestions for improvement ..................


Factors Affecting Lone Term Economic Viability ....


Changes in agricultural production ....
Urbanization ....................
Environmental and trade issues ......
Availability of water for irrigation.
Water pollution from agricultural
and pesticides. .........
Free trade with Mexico. .......
Free trade with Cuba ..........
Market Projections .....................
Qualitative projections .............


Quantitative projections


use of ferti


..... 219
..... 219
. ... 221
..... 221
..... 221
... 223
.... 223
... 223
S.... 227
.... 227
... 228
... 228
... 228
..... 235
.... 235
.... 235
liners


Impact of Closing the Palatka State Farmers' Market ........
Future Directions ...................................


237
237
237
237
237
238
241
242


200
200
202

202
208
208
208

210
210
210
211
211
211
214
215


.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
u. of . .. ..


.
.
.


: : : : : : :


. .


. .









The Plant City SFM ...................................... 246
Description of Service Area .............. ............ 246
General Description of the Market ................... .. 246
Facilities ..................................... 246
Tenants ..................................... 249
Historical Performance of the Plant City Farmers Market ..... 249
Evaluation of the Plant City State Farmers' Market Facilities .. 253
Quantity and quality of facilities ................... 253
Evaluation of services ........................... 254
Overall rating of the market ...................... 254
Suggestions for improvement ...................... 254
Factors Affecting Long Term Economic Viability ............ 256
Changes in agricultural production ................. 256
Urbanization .................................. 262
Environmental and trade issues .................. 264
Availability of water for irrigation ............. 264
Water pollution from agricultural use of fertilizers
and pesticides. ...................... 264
Free trade with Mexico .................... 264
Free trade with Cuba........................ 265
M market Projections .................................. 265
Qualitative projections .......................... 265
Quantitative projections ......................... 266
Impact of Closing the Plant City State Farmers' Market ...... 269
Future Directions ................................... 270

The Pompano SFM ....................................... 273
Description of Service Area ................. ......... 273
General Description of the Market ....................... 273
Facilities ..................................... 273
Tenants ..................................... 276
Historical Performance of the Pompano State Farmers Market .276
Evaluation of the Pompano State Farmers' Market Facilities ... 280
Quantity and quality of facilities ................... 280
Evaluation of services ...................... .... 281
Overall rating of the market ...................... 281
Suggestions for improvement .......... ........... 283
Factors Affecting Long Term Economic Viability ............ 283
Changes in agricultural production ................. 283
Urbanization .................................. 290
Environmental and trade issues ................... 293
Availability of water for irrigation. ............ 293
Water pollution from agricultural use of fertilizers
and pesticides. ...................... 294









Free trade with Mexico .................... 294
Free trade with Cuba....................... 294
M market Projections .................................. 295
Qualitative projections ............. ........... 295
Quantitative projections ......................... 296
Impact of Closing the Pompano State Farmers' Market ....... 299
Future Directions ................................... 300

The Sanford SFM ....................................... 305
Description of Service Area ............................ 305
General Description of the Market ...................... 305
Facilities ..................................... 305
Tenants ..................................... 306
Historical Performance of the Sanford Farmers Market ....... 309
Evaluation of the Sanford State Farmers' Market Facilities .... 313
Quantity and quality of facilities ................... 313
Evaluation of services ........................... 314
Overall rating of the market ...................... 314
Suggestions for improvement .................... 314
Factors Affecting Long Term Economic Viability ............ 316
Changes in agricultural production ................. 316
Urbanization .................................. 322
Environmental and trade issues ................... 324
Availability of water for irrigation. ........... 324
Water pollution from agricultural use of fertilizers
and pesticides. ............ .......... 324
Free trade with Mexico .................... 324
Free trade with Cuba .................... 325
Market Projections .................................. 325
Qualitative projections .......................... 325
Quantitative projections ......................... 326
Impact of Closing the Sanford State Farmers' Market ........ 329
Future Directions ................ .................. 330

The Suwannee Valley SFM .................................. 334
Description of Service Area ............................ 334
General Description of the Market ...................... 334
Facilities ..................................... 334
Tenants ..................................... 337
Historical Performance of the Suwannee Valley Farmers Market 337
Evaluation of the Suwannee Valley State Farmers' Market
Facilities ................. .................... 341
Quantity and quality of facilities ................... 341
Evaluation of services ........................... 342









Overall rating of the market ...................... 342
Suggestions for improvement ...................... 342
Factors Affecting Long Term Economic Viability ............ 344
Changes in agricultural production ................. 344
Urbanization ................................. 350
Environmental and trade issues ................... 350
Availability of water for irrigation. ............ 350
Water pollution from agricultural use of fertilizers
and pesticides. ...................... 352
Free trade with Mexico. .................... 352
Free trade with Cuba........................ 352
M market Projections .................................. 353
Qualitative projections .......................... 353
Quantitative projections ......................... 354
Impact of Closing the Suwannee Valley State Farmers' Market 355
Future Directions ................................... 357

The Trenton SFM .. .......................... ............. 362
Description of Service Area .............................. 362
General Description of the Market ...................... .362
Facilities ............................... ........... 362
Tenants ..................................... 365
Historical Performance of the Trenton Market .............. 365
Evaluation of the Trenton State Farmers' Market Facilities .... 369
Quantity and quality of facilities ................... 369
Evaluation of services ............................. 371
Overall rating of the market ...................... 371
Suggestions for improvement ...................... 372
Factors Affecting Long Term Economic Viability ............ 372
Changes in agricultural production ................. 372
Urbanization .................................. 379
Environmental and trade issues ................... 381
Availability of water for irrigation ............. 381
Water pollution from agricultural use of fertilizers
and pesticides. ...................... 381
Free trade with Mexico ................. .. 381
Free trade with Cuba....... ....... .......... 382
M market Projections .................................. 382
Qualitative projections .......................... 382
Quantitative projections ......................... 383
Impact of Closing the Trenton State Farmers' Market ........ 385
Future Directions ................................... 386









The Wauchula SFM .............................. ........ 390
Description of Service Area ............................ 390
General Description of Facilities ...................... 392
Facilities ..................................... 392
Tenants ..................................... 392
Historical Performance of the Wauchula Farmers Market ..... 394
Evaluation of the Wauchula State Farmers' Market Facilities .. 398
Quantity and quality of facilities ... ............... 398
Evaluation of services .......................... 400
Overall rating of the market .............. ...... 400
Suggestions for improvement ............. ..... 400
Factors Affecting Long Term Economic Viability ............ 401
Changes in agricultural production ................. 401
Urbanization .................................. 407
Environmental and trade issues ................... 407
Availability of water for irrigation. ............ 407
Water pollution from agricultural use of fertilizers
and pesticides. ...................... 409
Free trade with Mexico ............. ..... 409
Free trade with Cuba ....................... 409
M market Projections ........................ .......... 410
Qualitative projections .......................... 410
Quantitative projections ....... ......... ........ 411
Impact of Closing the Wauchula State Farmers' Market ...... 413
Future Directions ................................... 414

Statewide Analyses of Major Issues ............................ 418
A Basic Philosophical Issue ....................... ..... 418
Operational Issues ................................ 420
Performance of the SFM System ......................... 422
Environmental and Trade Issues ......................... 426
Conclusions ......................................... 429

REFERENCES ................................................ 430

APPENDIX ................................................... 432











Table 1.0.1.


Table 2.1.1.


Table 2.1.2.


Table 2.1.3.



Table 2.1.4.



Table 2.1.5.



Table 2.1.6.


Table 2.1.7.



Table 2.2.1.


Table 2.2.2.


Table 2.2.3.



Table 2.2.4.


LIST OF TABLES

Opening dates for currently active State Farmers' Market
facilities. ............................................

Summary of the Arcadia State Livestock Market annual report
data, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. .. .......................

Ratings of the quantity and quality of space provided by the
Arcadia State Livestock Market ........................ .

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the
Arcadia State Livestock Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and
1987. .............................................

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in
DeSoto County, host county for the Arcadia State Livestock
Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987...............

Land area, population and population density for the Arcadia State
Livestock Market service area, 1970-1990 and estimates for 1995,
2000, 2005 and 2010 ..................................

Projected gross commodity sales, Arcadia State Livestock Market,
1995-2010. ............... ........................

Opinions regarding the effects of closing the Arcadia State
Livestock Market on different groups of people in the market
area ............................................ ..

Summary of the Bonifay State Farmers' Market annual report data,
1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. ..............................

Advisory Committee and Extension Agent ratings of the quantity
and quality of space provided by the Bonifay SFM. ...........

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the
Bonifay State Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and
1987. .............................................

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in
Holmes County, host county for the Bonifay State Farmers' Market
service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987.....................









Table 2.2.5.



Table 2.2.6.


Table 2.2.7.



Table 2.2.8.


Table 2.3.1.


Table 2.3.2.



Table 2.3.3.



Table 2.3.4.



Table 2.3.5.



Table 2.3.6.


Table 2.3.7.



Table 2.3.8.


Land area, population and population density for the Bonifay SFM
service area, by county, 1970-1990 and estimates for 1995, 2000,
2005 and 2010 .. ...................................

Projected gross commodity sales, Bonifay State Farmers' Market,
1995-2010. ............................. .. ..... .

Advisory Committee and extension agent opinions regarding the
effects of closing the Bonifay SFM on different groups of people in
the m market area .. ..................................

Advisory Committee and extension agent opinions as to types of
activities that should be allowed on the Bonifay SFM premises .

Summary of the Bradford County State Farmers' Market annual
report data, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. ............... ....

Advisory Committee, Extension Agent and Tenant ratings of the
quantity and quality of space provided by the Bradford County
SFM ........... ...... .......................

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the
Bradford County State Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978,
1982 and 1987 .......................................

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in
Bradford County, host county for the Bradford County State
Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987. ......

Land area, population and population density for the Bradford
County SFM service area, by county, 1970-1990 and estimates for
1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 ............................

Projected gross commodity sales, Bradford County State Farmers'
M market, 1995-2010 .. ................................

Advisory Committee and Extension Agent opinions regarding the
effects of closing the Bradford County SFM on different groups of
people in the market area. ............................ .

Advisory Committee, extension agent, and tenant opinions as to
types of activities that should be allowed on the Bradford County
SFM premises .. ...................................









Table 2.4.1.


Table 2.4.2.


Table 2.4.3.



Table 2.4.4.



Table 2.4.5.


Table 2.4.6.



Table 2.4.7.



Table 2.5.1.


Table 2.5.2.


Table 2.5.3.



Table 2.5.4.



Table 2.5.5.


Summary of the Florida City State Farmers' Market annual report
data, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. .........................

Advisory Committee, Extension Agent and Tenant ratings of the
quantity and quality of space provided by the Florida City SFM.

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the
Florida City State Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982
and 1987 .........................................

Land area, population and population density for the Florida City
SFM service area (Dade County), 1970-1990 and estimates for
1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010. .. ..........................

Projected gross commodity sales, Florida City State Farmers'
M market, 1995-2010. ..................................

Advisory Committee and Extension Agent opinions regarding the
effects of closing the Florida City SFM on different groups of
people in the market area. .............................

Advisory Committee, extension agent, and tenant opinions as to
types of activities that should be allowed on the Florida City SFM
premises ..........................................

Summary of the Fort Myers State Farmers' Market annual report
data, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. .. ......................

Advisory Committee, Extension Agent and Tenant ratings of the
quantity and quality of space provided by the Fort Myers SFM.

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the
Fort Myers State Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982
and 1987 .........................................

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in Lee
County, host county for the Fort Myers State Farmers' Market
service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987....................

Land area, population and population density for the Fort Myers
SFM service area, by county, 1970-1990 and estimates for 1995,
2000, 2005 and 2010. .................................









Table 2.5.6.


Table 2.5.7.



Table 2.5.8.



Table 2.6.1.


Table 2.6.2.


Table 2.6.3.



Table 2.6.4.



Table 2.6.5.



Table 2.6.6.


Table 2.6.7.



Table 2.7.1.


Table 2.7.2.


Projected gross commodity sales, Fort Myers State Farmers'
Market, 1995-2010. ................................

Advisory Committee and Extension Agent opinions regarding the
effects of closing the Fort Myers SFM on different groups of
people in the market area..............................

Advisory Committee, extension agent, and tenant opinions as to
types of activities that should be allowed on the Fort Myers SFM
prem ises ...........................................

Summary of the Fort Pierce State Farmers' Market annual report
data, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars.......................

Advisory Committee, Extension Agent and Tenant ratings of the
quantity and quality of space provided by the Fort Pierce SFM..

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the
Fort Pierce State Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982
and 1987 ........................................ .

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in St.
Lucie County, host county for the Fort Pierce State Farmers'
Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987..............

Land area, population and population density for the Fort Pierce
service area, 1970-1990 and estimates for 1995, 2000, 2005 and
2010. ............................... ...... ......

Projected gross commodity sales, Fort Pierce State Farmers'
Market, 1995-2010. ..................................

Advisory Committee and Extension Agent opinions regarding the
effects of closing the Fort Pierce SFM on different groups of
people in the market area..............................

Summary of the Gadsden County State Farmers' Market annual
report data, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. ............ .......

Advisory Committee, Extension Agent and Tenant ratings of the
quantity and quality of space provided by the Gadsden County
SFM .................. ...................... .... .


132



135



137


142


147



150



152



155


159



162


170



175









Table 2.7.3.



Table 2.7.4.



Table 2.7.5.



Table 2.7.6.


Table 2.7.7.



Table 2.7.8.



Table 2.8.1.


Table 2.8.2.


Table 2.8.3.



Table 2.8.4.



Table 2.8.5.



Table 2.8.6.


Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the
Gadsden County State Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978,
1982 and 1987. ...................................

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in
Gadsden County, host county for the Gadsden County State
Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987. .....

Land area, population and population density for the Gadsden
County SFM service area, 1970-1990 and estimates for 1995, 2000,
2005 and 2010. ...................................

Projected gross commodity sales, Gadsden County State Farmers'
Market, 1995-2010. ................................

Advisory Committee and Extension Agent opinions regarding the
effects of closing the Gadsden County SFM on different groups of
people in the market area..............................

Advisory Committee, extension agent and tenant opinions as to
types of activities that should be allowed on the Gadsden County
SFM premises. ...................................

Summary of the Immokalee State Farmers' Market annual report
data, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars.......................

Advisory Committee, Extension Agent and Tenant ratings of the
quantity and quality of space provided by the Immokalee SFM.

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the
Immokalee State Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982
and 1987. .......................................

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in
Collier County, host county for the Immokalee State Farmers'
Market service area .................. ..............

Land area, population and population density for the Immokalee
SFM service area (Dade County), 1970-1990 and estimates for
1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 ........................ .

Projected gross commodity sales, Immokalee State Farmers'
Market, 1995-2010 ............................... .


xvii


177



178



182


185



187



190


195


201



204



205



209


212









Table 2.8.7.



Table 2.8.8.



Table 2.9.1.


Table 2.9.2.


Table 2.9.3.



Table 2.9.4.



Table 2.9.5.



Table 2.9.6.


Table 2.9.7.



Table 2.9.8.



Table 2.10.1.


Table 2.10.2.


Advisory Committee and Extension Agent opinions regarding the
effects of closing the Immokalee SFM on different groups of
people in the market area..............................

Advisory Committee, extension agent, and tenant opinions as to
types of activities that should be allowed on the Immokalee SFM
premises..................................... .......

Summary of the Palatka State Farmers' Market annual report data,
1971-1991, in 1990 dollars..............................

Advisory Committee, Extension Agent and Tenant ratings of the
quantity and quality of space provided by the Palatka SFM ....

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the
Palatka State Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and
1987. ........................................... .

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in
Putnam County, host county for the Palatka State Farmers' Market
service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987 ....................

Land area, population and population density for the Palatka SFM
service area, 1970-1990 and estimates for 1995, 2000, 2005 and
2010. ................................................

Projected gross commodity sales, Palatka State Farmers' Market,
1995-2010. ............................ .............

Advisory Committee and Extension Agent opinions regarding the
effects of closing the Palatka SFM on different groups of people in
the market area. ..................................

Advisory Committee, extension agent, and tenant opinions as to
types of activities that should be allowed on the Palatka SFM
premises. ................ ...........................

Summary of the Plant City State Farmers' Market annual report
data, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars.......................

Advisory Committee, Extension Agent and Tenant ratings of the
quantity and quality of space provided by the Plant City SFM. ..


xviii


215



218


224


229



231



232



236


239



242



245


250


255









Table 2.10.3.



Table 2.10.4.



Table 2.10.5.



Table 2.10.6.


Table 2.10.7.



Table 2.10.8.


Table 2.11.1.


Table 2.11.2.



Table 2.11.3.



Table 2.11.4.



Table 2.11.6.



Table 2.11.7.


Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the
Plant City State Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982
and 1987. .......................................

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in
Hillsborough County, host county for the Plant City State Farmers'
Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987..............

Land area, population and population density for the Plant City
SFM service area, 1970-1990 and estimates for 1995, 2000, 2005
and 2010. .......................................

Projected gross commodity sales, Plant City State Farmers' Market,
1995-2010 ..........................................

Advisory Committee and Extension Agent opinions regarding the
effects of closing the Plant City SFM on different groups of people
in the market area. ................................

Advisory Committee, extension agent and tenant opinions as to
types of activities that should be allowed on the Plant City SFM
premises. .......................... ..............

Summary of the Pompano State Farmers' Market annual
report data, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. ...................

Advisory Committee, Extension Agent and Tenant ratings
of the quantity and quality of space provided by the
Pompano SFM. .....................................

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture
in the Pompano State Farmers' Market service area, 1974,
1978, 1982 and 1987. .................................

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture
in Broward County, host county for the Pompano State
Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987.....

Land area, population and population density for the
Pompano SFM service area, 1970-1990 and estimates for
1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 ..........................

Projected gross commodity sales, Pompano State Farmers'
Market, 1995-2010. .................................


258



260



263


267



270



272


277



282



285



286



292


297









Table 2.11.8.



Table 2.11.9.



Table 2.12.1.


Table 2.12.2.


Table 2.12.3.



Table 2.12.4.



Table 2.12.5.



Table 2.12.6.


Table 2.12.7.



Table 2.12.8.



Table 2.13.1.


Table 2.13.2.


Advisory Committee and Extension Agent opinions regarding the
effects of closing the Pompano SFM on different groups of people
in the market area. ................................

Advisory Committee, extension agent and tenant opinions as to
types of activities that should be allowed on the Pompano SFM
premises................... ........................

Summary of the Sanford State Farmers' Market annual report data,
1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. .............................

Advisory Committee, Extension Agent and Tenant ratings of the
quantity and quality of space provided by the Sanford SFM. ....

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the
Sanford State Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and
1987. ..........................................

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in
Seminole County, host county for the Sanford State Farmers'
Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987 ..............

Land area, population and population density for the Sanford SFM
service area, 1970-1990 and estimates for 1995, 2000, 2005 and
2010. ............................ .... .. ...........

Projected gross commodity sales, Sanford State Farmers' Market,
1995-2010. ......................................

Advisory Committee and Extension Agent opinions regarding the
effects of closing the Sanford SFM on different groups of people
in the market area. ................................

Advisory Committee, extension agent and tenant opinions as to
types of activities that should be allowed on the Sanford SFM
premises. ..........................................

Summary of the Suwannee Valley State Farmers' Market annual
report data, 1988-1991, in 1990 dollars. ...................

Advisory Committee, Extension Agent and Tenant ratings of the
quantity and quality of space provided by the Suwannee Valley
SFM...............................................


300



304


310


315



318



319



323


327



330



333


338



343









Table 2.13.3. Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the
Suwannee Valley State Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978,
1982 and 1987. ...................................

Table 2.13.4. Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in
Suwannee County, host county for the Suwannee Valley State
Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987.....

Table 2.13.5. Land area, population and population density for the Suwannee
Valley SFM service area, 1970-1990 and estimates for 1995, 2000,
2005 and 2010. ...................................

Table 2.13.6. Projected gross commodity sales, Suwannee Valley State Farmers'
Market, 1995-2010. ................................

Table 2.13.7. Advisory Committee and Extension Agent opinions regarding the
effects of closing the Suwannee Valley SFM on different groups of
people in the market area................ ..............

Table 2.13.8. Advisory Committee, extension agent, and tenant opinions as to
types of activities that should be allowed on the Suwannee Valley
SFM premises .................................... .

Table 2.14.1. Summary of the Trenton State Farmers' Market annual report
data, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars.......................

Table 2.14.2. Advisory Committee, Extension Agent and Tenant ratings of the
quantity and quality of space provided by the Trenton SFM. .

Table 2.14.3. Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the
Trenton State Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and
1987. ....................... ....................

Table 2.14.4. Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in
Gilchrist County, host county for the Trenton State Farmers'
Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987..............

Table 2.14.5. Land area, population and population density for the Trenton SFM
service area, 1970-1990 and estimates for 1995, 2000, 2005 and
2010. .............................................

Table 2.14.6. Projected gross commodity sales, Trenton State Farmers' Market,
1995-2010. ..................................... .. .


346



347



351


355



357



361


366


370



373



374



380


383









Table 2.14.7.



Table 2.14.8.



Table 2.15.1.


Table 2.15.2.


Table 2.15.3.



Table 2.15.4.



Table 2.15.5.



Table 2.15.6.


Table 2.15.7.



Table 2.15.8.



Table 3.0.1.



Table 3.0.2.


Advisory Committee and Extension Agent opinions regarding the
effects of closing the Trenton SFM on different groups of people
in the market area ................................. .

Advisory Committee, extension agent and tenant opinions as to
types of activities that should be allowed on the Trenton SFM
premises. .... ... ................................

Summary of the Wauchula State Farmers' Market annual report
data, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars.......................

Advisory Committee, Extension Agent and Tenant ratings of the
quantity and quality of space provided by the Wauchula SFM. ..

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the
Wauchula State Farmers' Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982
and 1987 ........................................

Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in
Hardee County, host county for the Wauchula State Farmers'
Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987..............

Land area, population and population density for the Wauchula
SFM service area, 1970-1990 and estimates for 1995, 2000, 2005
and 2010. .......................................

Projected gross commodity sales, Wauchula State Farmers' Market,
1995-2010 .........................................

Advisory Committee and Extension Agent opinions regarding the
effects of closing the Wauchula SFM on different groups of people
in the market area. ................................

Advisory Committee, extension agent and tenant opinions as to
types of activities that should be allowed on the Wauchula SFM
premises.................... .......................

Advisory Committee and Tenant responses to the question, "Should
it be the state's business to own and operate the Farmers'
M markets ........................................

Advisory Committee opinions regarding the long run affect of a
market closure on different groups. .......................


xxii


386



389


395


399



402



403



408


411



414



417



419


419









Table 3.0.3.



Table 3.0.4.



Table 3.0.5.


Table 3.0.6.


Table 3.0.7.


Table 3.0.8.


Table 3.0.9.




Table 3.0.10.



Table 3.0.11.


Table 3.0.12.



Table 3.0.13.


Advisory Committee and Tenant responses to the question, "What,
if anything, do you think should happen to the SFM policy which
restricts handling imported produce?" ..................... 421

Advisory Committee and Tenant responses to the question, "Do you
consider the SFM policy which restricts handling imported produce an
advantage or a disadvantage to your market?" ............... 421


Advisory Committee and Tenant opinions regarding whether or not
to allow non-traditional business activities on SFM premises. ....

Overall market performance ratings by Advisory Committee and
Tenants, all markets.. .................................

Ratings of on-site managers by Advisory Committee members and
Tenants, all markets...................................

Advisory Committee ratings of the State's involvement in managing
the State Farmers' Market system, all markets. ..............

Ratings of the Legislature's involvement in managing the State
Farmers' Market system and the state-level Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services management, from tenant
respondents across all markets.........................

Advisory Committee and Tenant ratings of the impact of
environmental regulations on agricultural use of fertilizers and
pesticides will be over the next 20 years, all markets ..........

Advisory Committee and Tenant ratings of the impact water
availability for irrigation over the next 20 years, all markets......

Advisory Committee and Tenant ratings of how much of a problem
free trade with Mexico will be over the next 20 years, all
markets. .........................................

Advisory Committee and Tenant ratings of the impact of free trade
with Cuba over the next 20 years, all markets. ...............


421


423


423


425




425



427


427



428


428


xxiii









APPENDIX TABLES

Table 1. Population statistics for SFM host county and service areas, 1990
and 2010. ......................................... 434

Table 2. Interview success rate, Advisory Committees and County Extension
Agents. ........................................... 435

Table 3. Survey response rate, SFM tenants. ....................... 436


xxiv











Figure

Figure

Figure


Figure

Figure


1.0.1.

1.0.2.

2.1.1.


2.1.2.

2.1.3.


Figure 2.1.4.


Figure 2.1.5.


Figure 2.1.6.


Figure 2.1.7.


Figure 2.1.8



Figure 2.1.9.



Figure 2.1.10.


Figure 2.2.1.


Figure 2.2.2.

Figure 2.2.3.


LIST OF FIGURES

State Farmers' Markets in Florida. ................... .....

Organizational chart, Bureau of State Farmers' Markets. ......

Market volume contributed by counties in the Arcadia State
Livestock Market service area. ..........................

Site plan of the Arcadia State Livestock Market. ............

Gross commodity sales, Arcadia State Livestock Market, 1971-
1991, in units .. ..................................

Gross commodity sales, Arcadia State Livestock Market, 1971-
1991, in 1990 dollars. ................................

Total revenue, Arcadia State Livestock Market, 1971-1991, in
1990 dollars. ......................................

Total expenses, Arcadia State Livestock Market, 1971-1991, in
1990 dollars .. ...................................

Net income, Arcadia State Livestock Market, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars ........................................ .

Value of total agricultural production in the Arcadia State
Livestock Market, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by county, in 1990
dollars .. .......................................

Value of total agricultural production in DeSoto County (host
county for the Arcadia State Livestock Market), 1974, 1978, 1982
and 1987, by commodity group in 1990 dollars .............

Gross commodity sales, Arcadia State Livestock Market, 1971-
1991, with projections to 2010. ..........................

Market volume contributed by counties in the Bonifay SFM
service area .................................... .

Site plan of the Bonifay SFM. .............. ...........

Gross commodity sales, Bonifay SFM, 1971-1991, in units. ....


xxV









Figure 2.2.4.


Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure


2.2.5.

2.2.6.

2.2.7.

2.2.8.


Figure 2.2.9.



Figure 2.2.10.


Figure 2.3.1.


Figure

Figure


2.3.2.

2.3.3.


Figure 2.3.4.


Figure 2.3.5.


Figure 2.3.6.


Figure 2.3.7.


Figure 2.3.8.


Gross commodity sales, Bonifay SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars ........................................ .

Total revenue, Bonifay SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars.......

Total expenses, Bonifay SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. .....

Net income, Bonifay SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. .......

Value of total agricultural production in the Bonifay SFM
service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by county, in 1990
dollars. .................................. ......

Value of total agricultural production in Holmes County (host
county for the Bonifay SFM), 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by
commodity group, in 1990 dollars. ................... ...

Gross commodity sales, Bonifay SFM, 1971-1991, with
projections to 2010. .................................

Market volume contributed by counties in the Bradford County
SFM service area .. ...............................

Site plan of the Bradford County SFM. ..................

Gross commodity sales, Bradford County SFM, 1971-1991, in
units. ................... .. ............... ......

Gross commodity sales, Bradford County SFM, 1971-1991, 1990
dollars ..........................................

Total revenue, Bradford County SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars. ................... .............. .........

Total expenses, Bradford County SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars ........................................ .

Net Income, Bradford County SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars ............ ...........................

Value of total agricultural production in the Bradford County
SFM service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by county, in 1990
dollars. .. .......................................


xxvi










Figure 2.3.9.



Figure 2.3.10.


Figure 2.4.1.


Figure

Figure

Figure


Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure


2.4.2.

2.4.3.

2.4.4.


2.4.5.

2.4.6

2.4.7

2.4.8


Figure 2.4.9.


Figure 2.5.1.


Figure

Figure

Figure


Figure

Figure


2.5.2.

2.5.3.

2.5.4.


2.5.5.

2.5.6.


Value of total agricultural production in Bradford County (host
county for the Bradford County SFM), 1974, 1978, 1982 and
1987, by commodity group, in 1990 dollars. ................

Gross commodity sales, Bradford County SFM, 1971-1991, with
projections to 2010. .................................

Market volume contributed by counties in the Florida City SFM
service area. .....................................

Site plan of the Florida City SFM. ......................

Gross commodity sales, Florida City SFM, 1971-1991, in units.

Gross commodity sales, Florida City SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars ..........................................

Total revenue, Florida City SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. ..

Total expenses, Florida City SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. ..

Net income, Florida City SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars ....

Value of total agricultural production in Dade County (host
county for the Florida City SFM), 1974, 1987, 1982 and 1987, by
commodity group, in 1990 dollars. .....................

Gross commodity sales, Florida City SFM, 1971-1991, with
projections to 2010. ................................

Market volume contributed by counties in the Fort Myers SFM
service area. .....................................

Site plan of the Fort Myers SFM. ......................

Gross commodity sales, Fort Myers SFM, 1971-1991, in units. .

Gross commodity sales, Fort Myers SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars .........................................

Total revenue, Fort Myers SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. ..

Total expenses, Fort Myers SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars.


xxvii









Figure

Figure


2.5.7.

2.5.8.


Figure 2.5.9.



Figure 2.5.10.


Figure 2.6.1.


Figure 2.6.2.

Figure 2.6.3.

Figure 2.6.4.


Figure 2.6.5.

Figure 2.6.6.

Figure 2.6.7.

Figure 2.6.8



Figure 2.6.9.



Figure 2.6.10.


Figure 2.7.1.


Net income, Fort Myers SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars .

Value of total agricultural production in the Fort Myers SFM
service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by county, in 1990
dollars. .........................................

Value of total agricultural production in Lee County (host
county for the Fort Myers SFM), 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by
commodity group in 1990 dollars. ................... ...

Gross commodity sales, Fort Myers SFM, 1971-1991, with
projections to 2010. ............... .. ............

Market volume contributed by counties in the Fort Pierce SFM
service area. ...................................

Site plan of the Fort Pierce SFM .................... .

Gross commodity sales, Fort Pierce SFM, 1971-1991, in units..

Gross commodity sales, Fort Pierce SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars ........................................

Total revenue, Fort Pierce SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. ..

Total expenses, Fort Pierce SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars.

Net income, Fort Pierce SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars .....

Value of total agricultural production in St. Lucie County (host
county for the Fort Pierce SFM), 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by
county, in 1990 dollars............................

Value of total agricultural production in St. Lucie County (host
county for the Fort Pierce SFM), 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by
commodity group, in 1990 dollars. .........................

Gross commodity sales, Fort Pierce SFM, 1971-1991, with
projections to 2010. ................................

Market volume contributed by counties in the Gadsden County
SFM service area. ...............................


xxviii


119



125



127


133


139

140

143


143

144

144

144



151



153


160


167










Figure 2.7.2.

Figure 2.7.3.


Figure 2.7.4.


Figure 2.7.5.


Figure 2.7.6.


Figure 2.7.7.

Figure 2.7.8.



Figure 2.7.9.



Figure 2.7.10.


Figure 2.8.1.


Figure 2.8.2.

Figure 2.8.3.

Figure 2.8.4.


Figure 2.8.5.

Figure 2.8.6.

Figure 2.8.7.


Site plan of the Gadsden County SFM.................

Gross commodity sales, Gadsden County SFM, 1971-1991, in
units. ...........................................

Gross commodity sales, Gadsden County SFM, 1971-1991, in
1990 dollars .................................... .

Total revenue, Gadsden County SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars ............. ........................

Total expenses, Gadsden County SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars ........................................ .

Net income, Gadsden County SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars.

Value of total agricultural production in the Gadsden County
SFM service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by county, in 1990
dollars .. ......................................

Value of total agricultural production in Gadsden County (host
county for the Gadsden County SFM), 1974, 1978, 1982 and
1987, by commodity group, in 1990 dollars. ...............

Gross commodity sales, Gadsden County SFM, 1971-1991, with
projection to 2010. .................................

Market volume contributed by counties in the Immokalee SFM
service area .. ..................................

Site plan of the Immokalee SFM. ................... ....

Gross commodity sales, Immokalee SFM, 1971-1991, in units. .

Gross commodity sales, Immokalee SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars ........................................ .

Total revenue, Immokalee SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. ..

Total expenses, Immokalee SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars.

Net income, Immokalee SFM, 1971-1991, with projections to
2010. ...........................................


xxix









Figure 2.8.8.



Figure 2.8.9.



Figure 2.8.10.


Figure 2.9.1.


Figure 2.9.2.

Figure 2.9.3.

Figure 2.9.4.


Figure 2.9.5.

Figure 2.9.6.

Figure 2.9.7.

Figure 2.9.8.


Figure 2.9.9.



Figure 2.9.10.


Figure 2.10.1.


Figure

Figure


2.10.2.

2.10.3.


Value of total agricultural production in the Immokalee SFM
service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by county, in 1990
dollars ........ .... ...........................

Value of total agricultural production in Collier County (host
county for the Immokalee SFM), 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by
commodity group, in 1990 dollars. ................... ..

Gross commodity sales, Immokalee SFM, 1971-1991, with
projections to 2010. ................................

Market volume contributed by counties in the Palatka SFM
service area. ...................................

Site plan of the Palatka SFM. ........................

Gross commodity sales, Palatka SFM, 1971-1991, in units. .

Gross commodity sales, Palatka SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars ....................................... .

Total revenue, Palatka SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars......

Total expenses, Palatka SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars ....

Net income, Palatka SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars ......

Value of total agricultural production in the Palatka SFM service
area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by county, in 1990 dollars. ..

Value of total agricultural production in Putnam County (host
county for the Palatka SFM), 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by
commodity group, in 1990 dollars. ................... ..

Gross commodity sales, Palatka SFM, 1971-1991 with projections
to 2010. .........................................

Market volume contributed by counties in the Plant City SFM
service area. ...................................

Site plan of the Plant City SFM. ................... .

Gross commodity sales, Plant City SFM, 1971-1991, in units. .


206



207


213


220

222

225


225

226

226

226


233



234


240


247

248

251









Figure 2.10.4.


Figure 2.10.5.

Figure 2.10.6.

Figure 2.10.7.

Figure 2.10.8.



Figure 2.10.9.



Figure 2.10.10.


Figure 2.11.1.


Figure 2.11.2.

Figure 2.11.3.

Figure 2.11.4.

Figure 2.11.5.

Figure 2.11.6.

Figure 2.11.7.

Figure 2.11.8.



Figure 2.11.9.


Gross commodity sales, Plant City SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars ....................................... .

Total revenue, Plant City SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. ...

Total expenses, Plant City SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. ..

Net income, Plant City SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars......

Value of total agricultural production in the Plant City SFM
service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by county, in 1990
dollars ............................. ...........

Value of total agricultural production in Holmes County (host
county for the Plant City SFM), 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by
commodity group, in 1990 dollars. ................... ..

Gross Commodity sales, Plant City SFM, 1971-1991, with
projections to 2010 .. .......... ....................

Market volume contributed by counties in the Pompano SFM
service area. ...................................

Site plan of the Pompano SFM. .......................

Gross commodity sales, Pompano SFM. 1971-1991, in units. ..

Gross commodity sales, Pompano SFM, 1971-1991, in dollars.

Total revenue, Pompano SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. .

Total expenses, Pompano SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. .

Net income, Pompano SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. .....

Value of total agricultural production in the Pompano SFM
service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by commodity group, in
1990 dollars. ...................................

Value of total agricultural production in Broward County (host
county for the Pompano SFM), 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by
commodity group, in 1990 dollars. ................... ..


xxxi


251

252

252

252



259



261


268


274

275

278

278

279

279

279



288



289









Figure 2.11.10.


Figure 2.12.1.


Figure

Figure

Figure


2.12.2.

2.12.3.

2.12.4.


Figure 2.12.5.

Figure 2.12.6.

Figure 2.12.7.

Figure 2.12.8.



Figure 2.12.9.



Figure 2.12.10.


Figure 2.13.1.


Figure

Figure


2.13.2.

2.13.3.


Figure 2.13.4.


Figure 2.13.5.


Gross commodity sales, Pompano SFM, 1971-1991, with
projections to 2010. ................................

Market volume contributed by counties in the Sanford SFM
service area. ...................................

Site plan of the Sanford SFM. ........................

Gross commodity sales, Sanford SFM, 1971-1991, in units. ...

Gross commodity sales, Sanford SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars ....................................... .

Total revenue, Sanford SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars ....

Total expenses, Sanford SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars ....

Net income, Sanford SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. ......

Value of total agricultural production in the Sanford SFM
service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by county, in 1990
dollars ....................................... .

Value of total agricultural production in Seminole County (host
county for the Sanford SFM), 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by
commodity group, in 1990 dollars ......................

Gross commodity sales, Sanford SFM, 1971-1991, with
projections to 2010. ................................

Market volume contributed by counties in the Suwannee Valley
SFM service area. ...............................

Site plan of the Suwannee Valley SFM. .................

Gross commodity sales, Suwannee Valley SFM, 1988-1991, in
units. ...........................................

Gross commodity sales, Suwannee Valley SFM, 1988-1991, in
1990 dollars ................................... .

Total revenue, Suwannee Valley SFM, 1988-1991, in 1990
dollars .............. .......................


xxxii


298


307

308

311


311

312

312

312



320



321


328


335

336


339


339


340









Figure 2.13.6.


Figure 2.13.7.


Figure 2.13.8.



Figure 2.13.9.



Figure 2.13.10.


Figure 2.14.1.


Figure

Figure

Figure


Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure


2.14.2.

2.14.3.

2.14.4.


2.14.5.

2.14.6.

2.14.7.

2.14.8.


Figure 2.14.9.


Figure 2.14.10.


Total expenses, Suwannee Valley SFM, 1988-1991, in 1990
dollars .........................................

Net income, Suwannee Valley SFM, 1988-1991, in 1990
dollars .........................................

Value of total agricultural production in the Suwannee Valley
SFM service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by county, in 1990
dollars .........................................

Value of total agricultural production in Seminole County (host
county for the Suwannee Valley SFM), 1974, 1978, 1982 and
1987, by commodity group, in 1990 dollars ...............

Gross commodity sales, Suwannee Valley SFM, 1988-1991, with
projections to 2010. ................................

Market volume contributed by counties in the Trenton SFM
service area .....................................

Site plan of the Trenton SFM .............................

Gross commodity sales, Trenton SFM, 1971-1991, in units. .

Gross commodity sales, Trenton SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars .........................................

Total revenue, Trenton SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars ....

Total expenses, Trenton SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars .....

Net income, Trenton SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. ......

Value of total agricultural production in the Trenton SFM
service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by county, in 1990
dollars .........................................

Value of total agricultural production in Gilchrist County (host
county for the Trenton SFM), 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by
commodity group, in 1990 dollars. .....................

Gross commodity sales, Trenton SFM, 1971-1991, with
projections to 2010. ................................


xxxiii


340


340



348



349


356


363

364

367


367

368

368

368



375



376









Figure 2.15.1.


Figure

Figure

Figure


2.15.2.

2.15.3.

2.15.4.


Figure 2.15.5.

Figure 2.15.6.

Figure 2.15.7.

Figure 2.15.8.



Figure 2.15.9.



Figure 2.15.10.


Market volume contributed by counties in the Wauchula SFM
service area. ........................ ...........

Site plan of the Wauchula SFM. .....................

Gross commodity sales, Wauchula SFM, 1971-1991, in units. .

Gross commodity sales, Wauchula SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars ....................................... .

Total revenue, Wauchula SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars ...

Total expenses, Wauchula SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars. ..

Net income, Wauchula SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars......

Value of total agricultural production in the Wauchula SFM
service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by county, in 1990
dollars. ....................... ........ .. .... ...

Value of total agricultural production in Hardee County (host
county for the Wauchula SFM), 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by
commodity group, in 1990 dollars. .....................

Gross commodity sales, Wauchula SFM, 1971-1991, with
projections to 2010. ................................


xxxiv


391

393

396


396

397

397

397



404



405


412









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


We would like to express our sincere appreciation to Dr. Harold Ricker of the

USDA agricultural Marketing Service for partial financial support of this study and to

Doyle Conner, Former Commissioner of Agriculture, and Bob Crawford, current

Commissioner of Agriculture for their support. We would also like to express our

gratitude to Dr. H. Vance Young, Director, Division of Marketing, FDACS for his

guidance and support throughout this study and to Francis Home, Bureau Chief,

Division of State Farmers' Markets, FDACS. Particular thanks go to John Walthall,

Planner, Division of State Farmers' Markets for his help throughout this study and for

the vast amount of data that he provided and to all of the market managers for their

assistance.



Additionally, we would like to thank Drs. John Van Sickle and Richard Kilmer

of the Food and Resource Economics Department for their assistance during the

formative stages of this project. We also thank Dr. H.B. Clark, Professor Emeritus, for

his help in interviewing many of the market managers. We also appreciate the efforts

of Dave Sayers, Graduate Assistant, for his help in conducting many of the Advisory

Committee and extension agent interviews. Our thanks also go to Buck Brooks for his

developing many of the graphics for this report and to Donna Hyde for her secretarial

assistance throughout this project. We would also like to thank our student assistants,

Lisa Mazak for help with graphs and figures, Sharon Brackett for editorial assistance,

and Beth Williams for assistance with data procurement and analysis.


xxxV






EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


* This report is the culmination of a comprehensive, two-year study of the Florida
State Farmers' Market System. Authorized by the State Legislature, the purpose
of this study is to "provide long-range policy direction for the improvement and
development of the Bureau of State Farmers' Markets."

* The State Farmers' Market System is comprised of 15 markets located throughout
the state of Florida. Because each market is unique with respect to the role it
plays in the agricultural marketing system of its own geographic service area, a
case study approach was used to assess each market's current and future
economic viability.

* Supporting data for each market were obtained from published statistics, personal
and telephone interviews of market managers, advisory committee members and
a mail survey of market tenants. A brief overview of each market follows below.

* ARCADIA.--Located in DeSoto County, 78% of the Arcadia Livestock Market
gross sales are from the sale of calves. The outlook is favorable for the Arcadia
Livestock Market. Cattle population in the market's service area is more than
500,000 head. Livestock numbers in the region are stable. The needs of the
market are roof repairs and paving repairs. It appears that this market is in a
position to serve area livestock producers well into the 21st century at little or no
cost to the State of Florida.

* BONIFAY.--The Bonifay SFM is a major watermelon market for West Florida
and also handles a significant volume of tomatoes. The general outlook for the
Bonifay SFM is positive. Gross sales have trended upward and the market has
a tenant waiting list. Production of watermelons and tomatoes will continue to
be an important economic activity, but dramatic increases in production are not
likely. Conservative building programs should be considered.

* BRADFORD (Starke).--The Bradford County SFM area is developing into a
bedroom community for Jacksonville and Gainesville. The market primarily
handles blueberries, pecans, strawberries and mixed vegetables. Future direction
is not encouraging except for recent activity in the blueberry industry. Fruit, nut
and vegetable production has decreased. If the blueberry industry fails to thrive,
leasing the market to a limited number of tenants without a resident manager
should be considered.

* FLORIDA CITY.--All of the Florida City State Farmers' Market volume is from
Dade County. Although Dade County is highly urbanized with a population of


xxxvi








about 1.9 million, it is also a major producer of agricultural products. Eighteen
traditional vegetables, 16 tropical vegetables and 15 tropical fruits are grown
along with numerous nursery crops in Dade County. The outlook for the Florida
City SFM is very positive. The market's performance history of gross sales, net
returns and number of people served has been exemplary. Proposed construction
of another small packinghouse and cooler is considered conservative with 23
people on the waiting list for space.

* FORT MYERS.--Traditional agricultural packing and shipping activities at Fort
Myers are likely to continue their long-term decline. Population growth rate in
the host county is forecast to be among the highest in the state, increasing by
82% between 1990 and 2010. Rapid urbanization is likely to cause additional
agricultural producers to go out of business or relocate over the next 20 years.
It may be necessary to increase the amount of space leased for non-traditional
uses, in order to maintain a market for agricultural producers as long as
economically possible.

* FORT PIERCE.--Despite rapid urbanization, agriculture, particularly citrus,
remains a major economic force in the Fort Pierce service area. Citrus
production is expected to increase through the year 2000, but long term
vegetable production trends are negative in the host county. Although fresh
market citrus may foster increased demand for packing and shipping facilities,
there may be some excess capacity of space in the future which could be leased
to non-traditional tenants. For example, the burgeoning population has fostered
demand for food distribution facilities, and leasing some space to this type of user
could enable the market to maintain positive net returns while continuing to
serve the agricultural sector.

* GADSDEN.--Long term outlook for the Gadsden County SFM is positive.
Growers have made a successful transition from traditional row crops to
tomatoes. The market is fully leased and the rapid growth of the tomato industry
has generated considerable optimism for the market. Modest improvements and
additions would enable the market to achieve increased volume, better serving
the vegetable industry.

IMMOKALEE.--The Immokalee SFM appears to have a bright future, although
many of the largest farm operations in the market's service area have their own
packing and shipping operations. The Immokalee SFM is one of the most
successful state operated markets in Florida. Since 1980, gross sales have
averaged nearly $29 million annually and net operating revenues have been
positive each year since 1975. The climate allows the area to be one of the
earliest watermelon and cantaloupe markets in the state. Furthermore, the
market's service area is sufficiently removed from urbanization pressures to


xxxvii









ensure continued availability of land and water for the foreseeable future.
However, the future of the market is threatened by deteriorating facilities.

* PALATKA.--The outlook for Palatka is mixed. The volume of commodities sold
through the market is erratic, with cut flowers being the only crop currently being
packed and shipped on the market. The major crops in the area, cabbage and
potatoes, have significant quantities weighed at the market and bought and sold
by brokers with offices on the market, but none are being packed and shipped
from the Palatka SFM. Most packing and shipping is done from the farm. It is
unlikely that these marketing practices will change over the years ahead. There
may be some need for cold storage facilities for tablestock potatoes, but the
current site is probably too small to allow for much additional construction and
also to continue to serve large numbers of trucks hauling potatoes and cabbage.
One possible solution would be to establish a new facility designed to serve
potato, cabbage and mixed vegetable producers which could be built nearer the
geographic center of production on less valuable land, if adequate needs are
demonstrated.

* PLANT CITY.--The outlook for the Plant City SFM is positive within the
foreseeable future. Despite rapid urbanization of Hillsborough County, trends
indicate continued growth in the production of strawberries, tomatoes and other
vegetables. However, inadequacy of facilities at the market is likely to be a
limiting factor in sustained growth.

* POMPANO.--There are strong indications that physical volume of produce
handled by the Pompano SFM will continue to decline during the years ahead
and the markets' importance may decline as physical volume dwindles. This
trend is attributed to shifting production areas as urbanization encroaches on
agricultural lands. Also, changes are occurring in the marketing structure. As
larger producers become more vertically integrated, they sell directly to
wholesalers and major retailers, by-passing traditional middlemen such as buying
and selling brokers. However, the market is strategically located in an area
relatively convenient to all major vegetable production areas in South Florida,
and is likely to remain a viable load-mixing facility for the next decade or two.

* SANFORD.--The future of the Sanford SFM is uncertain. In recent years, activity
at the market has been at or near all time historic lows with gross sales dipping
to $2.2 million in FY 90-91. With increased urbanization, the few remaining
vegetable producers may be enticed to abandon production for real estate
development opportunities. However, there may be an increase of small
diversified truck farms which could benefit from centralized marketing facilities
at the Sanford SFM. It should be noted that this general pattern and need for
marketing facilities for small producers has not been experienced in other host
counties of State Farmers' Markets where rapid urbanization has occurred.


xxxviii










* SUWANNEE VALLEY.--The Suwannee Valley SFM is still in its infancy as
compared to other SFMs but is already showing signs of promise. The physical
volume handled by the market has grown rapidly. Increasing urbanization in
South Florida may make the market's service area a more attractive growing
region, but the timeliness of production and the overlap of market windows with
competing growing areas will be the major limiting factors for this market.

* TRENTON.--The outlook for the Trenton SFM appears positive. Watermelon
acreage and production have been declining but revenues remain strong. If
trends of the past 10 to 15 years continue, declining physical volume could
adversely affect the demand for marketing facilities. However, the produce trade
has been shifting from bulk shipments of watermelons to uniformly sized, boxed
and palletized melons. These services require traditional packing facilities, thus
strengthening the outlook at the Trenton SFM.

* WAUCHULA.--The overall outlook for the Wauchula SFM is positive. Although
the market's gross sales have been variable in recent years with no strong
indications of positive or negative trends, there is ample evidence that the
agricultural economy of the market's service area is strong. Citrus and vegetable
production has been steadily increasing in recent years in terms of physical
volume and value. There are indications that blueberries may emerge as a very
profitable crop because of market timing. Blueberries produced in the Wauchula
area would be the earliest in the U.S. and, perhaps, the world in early springtime.

* As a general rule, the State Farmer's Markets in the northern half of the state
tended to have a greater frequency of negative returns of smaller net operating
revenues. This is probably due to their highly seasonal nature. Specializing in
watermelons or tomatoes with a few mixed vegetables, these markets operate
nearly year round. Even so, the north Florida markets make an important
contribution to their respective agricultural economies in terms of total value of
production with relatively small expenditures of state funds. If the Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services' objective is to minimize negative returns
on a market by market basis, it may be necessary to operate some of the smaller
highly seasonal markets without the services of a resident manager. It may be
possible to have a floating manager oversee a number of these markets,
contracting with outside vendors to supply some maintenance services or other
day to day functions of local managers.


Several markets have requested funds to establish retail facilities. Those
requesting funds for this purpose argue that a retail facility will increase farmers'
incomes by providing a place for them to sell directly to consumers. With one
or two exceptions, retail facilities should not be established for three basic


xxxix








reasons. First, most existing markets have limited space which is devoted to
commercial packing and shipping activities. Retail markets which would draw
sufficient traffic to be successful would create safety hazards because of the
incompatibility of automobile and pedestrian traffic with truck traffic. A second
and more basic reason to not establish retail markets is that most markets
currently requesting such facilities do not have sufficient population bases or
traffic flows to make them economically feasible. The third reason for not
establishing retail markets is the lack of funds. Any funds that come available
should be used for maintaining or expanding commercial packing and shipping
facilities because of the greater economic impact of commercial production which
is shipped out of the growing region.

* In general, local managers received high ratings from Advisory Committee
respondents and tenants. Many respondents were sympathetic to the plight of the
local managers, and they had the perception that the local manager had little
authority but much responsibility. They tended to blame an inflexible
bureaucracy and the political system for lack of proper maintenance and for
failure to build needed facilities.

* There was also a widespread perception that the local managers had virtually no
discretionary spending for small-ticket incidentals or maintenance. If indeed this
is the case, efforts should be made to allow managers more flexibility. Perhaps
some discretionary funds could be allocated by the Advisory Committee. Some
committee members expressed frustration that they were powerless to make
decisions of any consequence. Giving the local advisory committees some
budgetary powers would provide them with a greater sense of responsibility and
strengthen their commitment to their markets.

* The majority of SFMs are currently meeting the needs of their respective
agricultural communities. Most are performing admirably despite the scarcity of
funds for maintenance and needed improvements. However, many of the markets
have dilapidated facilities which are in dire need of being repaired or replaced.
Unless necessary funds for maintenance and replacement of dangerous or
obsolete facilities are forthcoming, many markets may lose their ability to serve
their clientele effectively.








INTRODUCTION


This report is the culmination of a comprehensive, two-year study of the Florida
State Farmers' Market System. Authorized by the State Legislature, the basic purpose
of this study is to "provide long-range policy direction for the improvement and
development of the Bureau of State Farmers' Markets" ( F.S. 570.531 s. 6, 1988). The
main thrust of the study was to examine the forces shaping the future of agriculture in
each of the 15 geographic areas served by state-owned farmers' markets. Trends in
population growth and agricultural production were analyzed for the service areas of
each market. Performance trends for each market were studied, and other factors such
as emerging environmental constraints such as water quality and supplies, soil erosion,
environmental regulations and changing trade policies investigated. Finally, qualitative
and quantitative projections as to the economic viability of each market were made in
five-year increments through the year 2010.


OBJECTIVES

Overview of the State Farmers' Market System

There are 15 state-owned farmers' markets currently in operation. Fourteen
specialize in the marketing of fruits and vegetables, and one in livestock. The one
livestock market is located in DeSoto County in Arcadia, and the 14 produce markets
are located throughout the state from Bonifay in the panhandle to Florida City in south
Dade County (Figure 1.0.1). Several other markets have been closed during the past
decade; a livestock facility in Jay and produce markets in Brooker and Pahokee have
been closed due to changing economic patterns and conditions in their respective service
areas.
Of the 15 state-owned farmers' markets currently in operation, 10 were
established prior to World War II. One was opened in late 1945, two in the early 1950's
and one in the mid-1960's. The newest market was opened in 1988 (Table 1.0.1).
The original purpose of the markets was to provide farmers with a centralized
facility where relatively small lots of fresh produce or livestock could be assembled into
larger, more uniform lots for more efficient marketing and greater profits for producers.








INTRODUCTION


This report is the culmination of a comprehensive, two-year study of the Florida
State Farmers' Market System. Authorized by the State Legislature, the basic purpose
of this study is to "provide long-range policy direction for the improvement and
development of the Bureau of State Farmers' Markets" ( F.S. 570.531 s. 6, 1988). The
main thrust of the study was to examine the forces shaping the future of agriculture in
each of the 15 geographic areas served by state-owned farmers' markets. Trends in
population growth and agricultural production were analyzed for the service areas of
each market. Performance trends for each market were studied, and other factors such
as emerging environmental constraints such as water quality and supplies, soil erosion,
environmental regulations and changing trade policies investigated. Finally, qualitative
and quantitative projections as to the economic viability of each market were made in
five-year increments through the year 2010.


OBJECTIVES

Overview of the State Farmers' Market System

There are 15 state-owned farmers' markets currently in operation. Fourteen
specialize in the marketing of fruits and vegetables, and one in livestock. The one
livestock market is located in DeSoto County in Arcadia, and the 14 produce markets
are located throughout the state from Bonifay in the panhandle to Florida City in south
Dade County (Figure 1.0.1). Several other markets have been closed during the past
decade; a livestock facility in Jay and produce markets in Brooker and Pahokee have
been closed due to changing economic patterns and conditions in their respective service
areas.
Of the 15 state-owned farmers' markets currently in operation, 10 were
established prior to World War II. One was opened in late 1945, two in the early 1950's
and one in the mid-1960's. The newest market was opened in 1988 (Table 1.0.1).
The original purpose of the markets was to provide farmers with a centralized
facility where relatively small lots of fresh produce or livestock could be assembled into
larger, more uniform lots for more efficient marketing and greater profits for producers.











GADSDEN O


STAKEK)


r SFM LOCATIONS PLANTMT HAR- HM?. C ME h
WAUCHUA X a \ \






FT. MYERS UK VA3LM
-POWPANO
case mo
MMOKALEE


FLORIDACrY







Figure 1.0.1.-State Farmers' Markets in Florida. U.C A







Table 1.0.1. Opening dates for currently active State Farmers' Market facilities.

Location Date Opened

Arcadia June 30, 1939

Bonifay January 25, 1938a

Bradford County (Starke) May 17, 1938

Florida City April 1, 1940

Fort Myers November 1, 1945

Fort Pierce November 1, 1940

Gadsden County (Quincy) October 24, 1954

Immokalee November 28, 1951

Palatka February 10, 1938

Plant City March 9, 1939

Pompano November 16, 1939

Sanford December 18, 1934

Suwannee Valley (White Springs) May, 1988

Trenton May 1, 1965

Wauchula April 12,, 1937


aThe current facility in Bonifay officially opened April 24, 1957.








The vegetable marketing facilities were typically designed to provide space where bulk
lots from farms could be sorted, graded and packed for shipment to terminal markets
in other regions of the U.S. Designs usually provided cooler space for short-term
refrigerated storage of perishable crops. Some markets were designed to facilitate
auction sales, but virtually all included office space for produce and truck brokers,
providing vital communication and transportation links to buyers in terminal markets.
The livestock markets were designed to accommodate similar basic marketing
functions. They provided a centralized site where sellers and buyers could get together
so that uniform lots of feeder calves could be assembled for feedlots, cull cattle procured
by slaughter plants and where breeding stock could be bought and sold.
Most of the markets continue to provide many of the same basic marketing
functions as originally planned. However, many have adapted to structural changes in
the produce industry and to changes in agricultural production within their service areas
by providing an altered mix of facilities and services to their clientele. For example,
some markets experienced a reduced need for platform space as large farms adopted
field packing or built their own packing sheds. However, many of these same markets
had an increased need for office space for salesmen and brokers. Some markets have
also made space available for agricultural input suppliers, agricultural service agencies
and firms, and distributors of finished food products as demand for packing facilities has
declined.
A few of the produce markets have retail vendors that sell directly to consumers,
but the major emphasis is on wholesale activities. In virtually all markets, the
overwhelming majority of sales volume goes to the wholesale trade.




5



Structure of the Farmers' Market System

The Bureau of State Farmers' Markets is a part of the Division of Marketing
which in turn is a part of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(FDACS). The Bureau, headed by a Bureau Chief, has a total of 62 full-time positions.
The central office staff, located in Tallahassee, consists of the Bureau Chief, an
administrative secretary, a planner, a building construction engineer, two regional
supervisors, two secretary specialists and a senior clerk. The individual Farmers'
Markets are organized into two regions. Region I serves the eastern portion of the state
and is comprised of seven markets located from White Springs to Florida City. Region
II consists of the markets located in the western half of the state from Bonifay to
Immokalee (Figure 1.0.2).
Each farmers' market has an Advisory Committee which is appointed by the
Commissioner of Agriculture. The Advisory Committee is generally comprised of
farmers, market tenants such as packers and brokers, and other community leaders.
Committee members provide the Bureau input with respect to the operation of their
local market. Each local committee elects a chairperson who in turn serves on an
informal statewide Farmers' Market Advisory Committee.

General Operational Policies

The Bureau operates and manages the state farmers' market system and the
individual markets pursuant to Chapter 570, F. S. The Bureau is required to charge fees
at levels sufficient to cover the costs of operating and maintaining the facilities
(Legislative Staff Report, 1990). When leasing farmers' market facilities, priority is given
to those engaged in the production or sale of Florida's agricultural products. However,
if space is available, it may be leased to firms for storage and distribution of meats,
produce, poultry, dairy products or other processed foods that do not compete directly
with Florida produced items. Lessees of farmers' market facilities are prohibited from
handling imported produce items at those times when they are being harvested in
Florida.









DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & CONSUMER SERVICES
Bob Crawford, Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Ann Wainwright

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Carl Carpenter

DIVISION OF MARKETING
Dr. H. Vance Young, Jr., Director

BUREAU OF STATE FARMERS' MARKETS
Francis Home, Chief

ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
SECRETARY ADMINISTRATOR
Sandy Meador W. M. Markley


Figure 1.0.2.-Organizational chart, Bureau of State Farmers' Markets.







The Market Improvement Working Capital Trust Fund was established by Section
570.531, F.S., as the sole depository for funds collected by or appropriated for
agricultural marketing facilities. The fund is to be used only for operating, maintaining
and expanding agricultural marketing facilities. For the past few years, net operating
revenues for the entire farmers' market system have averaged nearly $550,000 per year.
However, the Bureau does not have the authority to allocate the trust funds for uses it
deems necessary; rather, it makes recommendations and requests through FDACS for
consideration by the Legislature, which in turn earmarks and appropriates funds for
specific uses by the Bureau. Major expansions or renovations of Farmers' Market
facilities are funded by the Legislature from the trust fund whenever possible, although
general revenues are the usual source of funding.
The majority of the markets have been self-supporting, that is, revenues generated
have covered their basic operating costs. Rental fees for warehouse and office space are
the major source of revenue for most markets, although package fees and weighing fees
from truck scales are significant sources of income for some. Rental fees vary from
market to market depending on local demand for space. However, rates at a given
market are the same for comparable facilities. Rates are reviewed annually so that
adjustments for inflation and operating costs can be made. One-year leases are
negotiated with tenants, and incumbents are generally given the right of first refusal to
provide stability and continuity.










Research Procedure

Although there are many similarities among the state operated farmers' markets,
meaningful appraisal of their long-term economic viability required an individual market-
by-market analysis because each market is unique with respect to the role it plays in the
agricultural marketing system of its own geographic service area. The basic analytical
approach was the same for each market, however, requiring a combination of primary
and secondary data.

Primary Data

Three surveys were conducted to obtain qualitative and quantitative data
pertaining to the operation of each market. The first was a site visit of each market and
a personal interview with each market manager. These visits and interviews were
conducted by Florida Agricultural Market Research Center (FAMRC) personnel in the
spring and summer of 1991. This survey allowed researchers to obtain a first-hand view
of the facilities and operations of the markets, and it gave each manager the opportunity
to identify problems and opportunities associated with long-term operation of his or her
respective market or markets. The managers were also helpful in defining the relevant
geographic service areas for each market.
A second survey targeted members of each market's Advisory Committee and the
county agricultural extension agent of each county included in the market's service area.
These individuals were interviewed by telephone by FAMRC staff in the spring, summer
and early fall of 1991. Approximately 147 individuals were interviewed; interviews
averaged about 30 minutes in length, and ranged from about 15 minutes to over an
hour. Over 80 percent of the Advisory Committee members and all county extension
agents contacted cooperated in the study. The rationale for interviewing these two
groups of respondents was to solicit evaluations and opinions from active community
leaders that were familiar with the various market's operations and with agricultural
production and marketing trends affecting the market's long-term economic viability.
A third survey sought input from all tenants on all markets. Each tenant was
mailed a questionnaire in October of 1991 and a reminder postcard approximately two
weeks after the first mailing. Tenants were asked to evaluate market facilities and








operations and to provide opinions as to the market's long-term outlook. They were also
asked to give suggestions for the market's improvement.
Most responses from the three surveys were analyzed independently for each
market. However, several issues of statewide significance were examined across all
markets. Tabular analysis and simple statistics were used to analyze data from the
surveys because of relatively small numbers of observations for any given market.

Secondary Data

Historical performance of each market was ascertained from an analysis of 21
years of data obtained from annual reports published by FDACS (Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 1971-1991). These reports provided data on each
market's physical volume (units handled), the value of sales, revenue sources and
operating expenses. Other reports and documents from FDACS provided details of each
market's facilities, clientele and future plans.
Throughout this report, all financial data have been converted to a constant dollar
basis to adjust for inflation. All dollar values reported are in 1990 real dollars, based
upon the Index of Prices Paid to Producers (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1991).
The Census of Agriculture was another major secondary data source (Census of
Agriculture, 1974, 1978, 1982, 1987). This source provided a general indicator of
agriculture's economic health for each county within each market's geographic service
area for the 1974-1987 period. The Census of Agriculture, presently conducted every
five years, is scheduled for 1992; thus, 1987 was the most recent year available.
Nevertheless, the 1974-1987 series provides a progression of snapshots of agriculture that
reflect general agricultural trends. Data from the Census of Agriculture included
aggregated statistics on the total number of farms (including ranches), total acreage in
agricultural production and the market value of all agricultural production. Major sub-
categories of farm types examined for this study included "vegetable farms," "orchards,"
"nurseries" and "livestock and poultry." Data from several studies conducted by or for
the state's water management districts were also used to assess the long term potential
of agriculture in the market's respective service areas; most of these studies projected
acreage of various agricultural crops to 2010 and also discussed water use by various










sectors of the economy, including agriculture (Lynne and Kiker, 1991; Southwest Florida
Water Management District, 1992; South Florida Water Management District, 1992).

Projection Techniques

A business executive recently observed that, "he who lives by the crystal ball will
soon have to eat ground glass." Despite the hazards of long range projections, several
techniques were used to provide insights into each market's long-term economic viability.
Interviews with market managers, Advisory Committee members and county
extension agents as well as survey responses from tenants all provided qualitative
indications of each market's future. Additionally, quantitative estimates of each market's
sales activity were made using historical sales data and several widely-used projection
methods.
One was a smoothing model of a type commonly used in business forecasting.
The smoothing model used is based upon the assumption that historical data can be
broken into two components, its level and a residual. Moving averages are used to
estimate the data series level component, then variations in the level are made using a
weighted average of the most recent observation and the moving average component.
This technique is described in detail by Taylor, et. al. in a recent study which predicted
acreage of specific crops for a water management study (Lynne and Kiker, 1991). The
smoothing technique described by Taylor and used here requires the user to specify the
relative weights given to the moving average component and the most recent
observation. For projecting gross sales at the various markets, the most recent
observation was given a weight of 0.5 and the moving average component was based
upon three time periods, i.e., three years. This relatively large weight for the previous
year and short time period for the moving average were used because it was rationalized
that vegetable crops comprised the majority of sales volume for most farmers' markets,
resulting in a shorter planning horizon and hence greater reliance on more recent events
in determining future production. This smoothing model, when used to forecast beyond
the observed data, uses predicted values to feed back into the moving average or level
component. Thus, when used for long-term forecasts, the values converge very quickly,
resulting in predicted values that are similar to those observed in recent time periods.








The second basic projection technique used was a trend analysis which was based
upon gross sales for the 1971 through 1991 period. A simple regression model was used
to estimate the relationship between each market's annual gross sales and time. Two
forms of the model were used to see which best described the relationship between these
two variables. The first was a linear (straight line) model expressed as Y=a+bX where
Y= annual gross sales in 1990 dollars, a=a constant, b is a coefficient or parameter
estimate for X, which is the calendar year which concludes a fiscal year, i.e., fiscal 1970-
71 is represented by 1971. A log (curvilinear) model was also tested, of the form
Y=aebx, where Y, a, b, and X are defined as above and e is the natural log base. In
general, where the linear regression model detected a statistically significant upward
trend in a market's gross sales, the linear projections are reported because projections
made with log models tend to "blow up," i.e., explode to unrealistically high levels. Thus,
upward trending projections made with the linear model are more conservative than
those made with the log model and are judged to be more realistic. Conversely, when
statistically significant downward trends were detected with either the linear or the
curvilinear models, the one with the best statistical fit was reported. For markets where
no statistically significant relationship was detected between gross sales and time with
either model, a simple average for the 1971-1991 period was calculated and used in lieu
of regression projections.
While the quantitative estimates may give the impression of accuracy and
precision, it is important to keep in mind that they are based upon the past. The
estimation techniques make the implicit assumption that the factors that influence each
market's gross sales will remain in effect indefinitely, with no major shocks to the system.
It is presumed that past sales patterns will continue throughout the projection period.
Obviously, this is a simplistic assumption, because it is impossible to anticipate changes
in the political, social and economic system that could drastically impact a given market.
Rather than predicting exact sales activities 20 years hence, these quantitative estimates
should be used only as a general indicator of possible long-term directions of the
markets' gross sales and used in conjunction with the qualitative projections discussed
above to appraise their long-term economic health.








FINDINGS

The research findings are organized into 16 major sections, representing each of
the 15 State Farmers' Markets plus one section which provides a statewide overview of
major issues affecting the economic viability of agriculture in general and farmers'
markets in particular. The sections, which appear in alphabetical order of the markets'
names, are written as free-standing, independent units. This format was chosen so that
readers could go directly to the market or markets of particular interest without having
to read the entire report. This approach is not without its shortcomings, however; it
results in considerable redundancy in the text from one market to the next because of
the similarity of data sources and analytical techniques.
The sections for the individual markets all follow the same basic format. Each
begins with a brief description of the market's service area and facilities, and an
overview of its historical performance. Next, survey respondents' evaluations of the
market's facilities and services are discussed, along with their suggestions for
improvement. Then the factors affecting the market's long-term economic viability are
addressed, with emphasis on shifting agricultural production patterns, urbanization trends
and environmental issues. The next major subsections focus on qualitative and
quantitative projections as to the market's future and the perceived impacts of closing
the market on various segments of the economy. The final subsection summarizes the
long-term outlook for the market and makes general recommendations for its future.








The Arcadia State Livestock Market

Description of Service Area

The Arcadia State Livestock Market is one of three livestock auction markets in
South Florida. It is located in Arcadia and is the only state owned market in Florida
that continues to handle livestock. The market is located in DeSoto County, which
borders with Hardee, Highlands, Glades, Charlotte, Sarasota and Manatee counties.
The market primarily serves Lee, Manatee, Sarasota and DeSoto counties, but some
livestock comes from Hendry, Glades, Hardee and Highlands counties (Figure 2.1.1).
Arcadia's 1990 commodity report showed that nearly 45,000 head of cattle were
sold for over $14.5 million. Nearly 40,000 calves valued at $11.3 million represented
about 78 percent of the market's total dollar volume. Cattle are the only type of
livestock handled by the market.


General Description of the Market

Facilities

The market is situated on about nine acres off U.S. Highway 17 in Arcadia
(Figure 2.1.2). Facilities consist of an office, covered and open pens, loading chutes, an
auction ring, restrooms and a hay barn. There are a total of 57,558 square feet under
roof insured for about $410,000.

Tenants

Since the market's establishment in 1939, one family has leased and operated the
facility. The lessee pays one-third of one percent of gross sales as rent. The state
furnishes the shell of the facility and the tenant furnishes all the equipment, except for
the electronic scales which the state installed in 1989. The state maintains the basic
structures and paved areas, but the tenant maintains the facility at a working level.




















































MOWO


Figure 2.1.1.--Market volume contributed by counties in the

Arcadia State Livestock Market service area.


FARMERS' MARKET VOLUME
FROM SERVICE AREA COUNTIES:

LEE 30%
MANATEE 13%
SARASOTA 12%
DE SOTO 20%
ALL OTHER COUNTIES 25%




15





Total Acreage 9 Acres
Total Sq. ft. 57,558
Approximate Scale 1" = 100 ft.






















S...... .B Covered Pen
............:.. C Open Pen
D Loading Chutes
.... .........E Restrooms
.. .......... .....F Hay Barn
G( Auction Ring
..-. '.... ... ... .., C









Figure 2.1.2.--Site plan of the Arcadia State Livestock Market.









Historical Performance of the Arcadia Livestock Market

Average gross sales were higher in the 1970's than in the 1980's, but with the
exception of 1987, have been fairly stable since 1980. Excluding 1986, for which data
were unavailable, the market averaged over 43,000 head sold each year from 1980 to
1991 for nearly $12.5 million per year over that time period (Table 2.1.1, Figures 2.1.3
and Figure 2.1.4). Total state revenue averaged $32,500 per year in the 1970's and
about $43,400 per year since 1980 (Table 2.1.1, Figure 2.1.5). Total state expenses for
the 21 years studied averaged about $3,800 per year, but fluctuated from a low of $700
to a high of $19,600 (Table 2.1.1, Figure 2.1.6). Net state income since 1971 has
averaged about $35,000 per year with a low of $15,100 in 1975 and a high of $57,000 in
1979 (Table 2.1.1, Figure 2.1.7).












Table 2.1.1. Summary of the Arcadia State Livestock Market annual report data, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars."


Revenue sourcesb Expense categories Gross commodity sales
Total Total Net Capital 1,000 1,000
Year Fees Rentals Other revenue Salaries Operating Indirect expenses income outlay head dollars
------------------------------------Thousanddollars- ---------------------
1971 0.0 33.9 0.0 33.9 0.0 1.9 0.5 2.3 31.5 0.0 52.9 13,782.5
1972 39.8 0.0 0.0 39.8 0.0 2.2 0.5 2.7 37.1 0.4 56.7 15,665.8
1973 33.8 0.0 0.0 33.8 0.0 1.6 0.4 2.0 31.7 14.7 54.2 13,755.8
1974 31.1 0.0 0.0 31.2 0.0 1.5 0.3 1.9 29.3 0.0 49.5 12,289.2
1975 16.2 0.0 0.2 16.4 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 15.1 0.0 53.8 6,350.5
1976 22.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 2.6 19.4 0.0 63.3 8,741.0
1977 23.6 1.1 0.5 25.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 1.1 24.1 0.0 56.5 9,853.1
1978 25.4 0.0 6.4 31.8 0.0 11.2 2.4 13.6 18.2 0.0 66.2 12,633.0
1979 56.1 0.0 2.2 58.4 0.0 1.2 0.2 1.4 57.0 0.0 54.4 16,734.7
1980 45.5 0.0 1.8 47.3 0.0 16.3 3.3 19.6 27.7 88.3 42.8 13,579.9
1981 33.3 0.0 1.3 34.6 0.0 1.1 0.2 1.3 33.3 0.0 38.3 10,033.0
1982 35.9 0.0 1.5 37.5 0.0 0.9 0.2 1.1 36.3 0.0 42.8 10,476.9
1983 40.2 0.0 2.0 42.2 0.0 2.3 0.4 2.7 39.5 0.0 51.2 12,058.6
1984 33.7 0.0 1.7 35.3 0.0 2.2 0.3 2.5 32.8 0.0 44.7 9,897.9
1985 38.8 0.0 0.0 38.8 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.7 38.2 0.0 47.6 14,463.6
1986 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3 0.0 1.2 0.3 1.5 31.9 n.a. n.a. n.a.
1987 0.0 0.0 45.3 45.3 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.7 44.6 n.a. 27.6 6,284.1
1988 52.7 5.8 0.0 58.4 0.0 5.5 1.4 6.8 51.6 0.0 50.9 15,969.0
1989 45.8 0.0 0.0 45.8 0.0 5.1 1.3 6.3 39.4 0.0 44.1 13,606.2
1990 49.3 0.0 0.0 49.3 0.0 5.0 1.5 6.4 42.9 0.0 45.0 14,574.6
1991 0.0 0.0 53.5 53.5 0.0 1.3 0.4 1.7 51.8 0.0 44.8 16,152.7

'The index of prices paid to producers from the Survey of Current Business was used to deflate nominal dollars to 1990 dollars. Because of rounding, some very small numbers were
reported as zeroes. Also, the notation "n.a." indicates the data was not available.

bSources of revenue may not be categorized consistently over the entire 20 years.


Source: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.














80


70
06.2
83.3

0 56.7 56.5

52.9 6 54.2 538 54,4
51.2 50.B
50 49 47.8

42 48 7441 42 448
C 40 3&3


0 30 278


20


10 -
10

0na

Q ---- --l---L ------ J--L--I--LJ- Ye-- ar-L---L-- --J---------- ----L------Ii -^--
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1978 1977 1978 1979 1980 1961 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Year

Figure 2.1.3.-Livestock sales, Arcadia State Livestock Market, number of head,

1971-1991.
"n.a." Indicates data not available.


20


10


5


1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 197 1977 1978 1979 190 19 1979 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1969 190 1991
Year

Figure 2.1.4.-Livestock sales, Arcadia State Livestock Market, 1971-1991, in
1990 dollars.
"n.a." Indicates data not available.


16.7
S18.0 18.2
15.7 1. .
14.5 :::: 14.6
13.8 13.8 13.6 13.86

12.3 12.1

105
9 '0.0 99
67


64 63







na


r L











70

60 54 68.4
.53
50- 453 458
0 422
40 38 375 38
339 338 348 353
31? 318 333
S 30 -
1 252
S20 18
20 ,11

10 -


1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 84 1 14 18 1867 1868 1888 1800 1881
Year
Figure 2.1.5.-Total revenue, Arcadia State Livestock Market, 1971-1991, in 1990
dollars.

25


138






- 3 2.7 9 2.


\ ~ \ 12"


8 8.3 8.4

2.7 2.5 -I
3 0 7 0 7
I1II


U
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1988 1990 1991
Year
Figure 2.1.6.-Total expenses, Arcadia State Livestock Market, 1971-1991, in
1990 dollars.


70

60 57.0
S518 518
50 -
448 429
in 385 38i 384
40 371 3 3 3 --
S31 5 31 7 33 32 31
30 23 277
8 24 1
0 20 1 194 182

10


1971 t972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1960 1961 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988 1987 1888 1989 1990 1991
Year
Figure 2.1.7.-Net income, Arcadia State Livestock Market, 1971-1991, In 1990
dollars.


10


5









Evaluation of the Arcadia State Livestock Market Facilities

To obtain an evaluation of the market's facilities and operations, plans were to
survey members of the market's Advisory Committee; however, because of the
organizational structure of the Arcadia market, there was not an active Advisory
Committee when interviews were conducted in 1991. County extension agents in the
market's service area were interviewed because of their familiarity with the livestock
industry and the market. They provided evaluations of the market's facilities and
services, suggestions for improvement and assessments of the market's long-term
economic viability.

Quantity and quality of facilities

Survey respondents were asked to rate existing market facilities which included
holding pens and corrals, loading docks, scales, feed storage space, parking/open space,
seating, buyers' office space, operator's office space and restaurant space. They rated
each with respect to adequacy of size or capacity and quality. The amount of available
space was evaluated by survey respondents and placed into one of five possible
classifications: far too small, somewhat too small, just right, somewhat too large and far
too large.
Quality was rated on a scale from zero to ten where "0" indicated very poor
quality and "10" indicated excellent quality. In addition to rating the quality of specific
market facilities, survey respondents were asked to provide a composite overall quality
rating for all physical facilities (Table 2.1.2).
In general, most of the facilities at the Arcadia State Livestock Market were
judged by a majority of respondents to be adequate in size or capacity and in quality.
The notable exceptions were parking/open space, seating and restaurant space. Four-
fifths indicated that parking/open space was somewhat too small, all respondents felt
seating capacity was somewhat too small and four-fifths thought restaurant space was
limited.
Quality ratings of the various types of space were fairly good; respondents'
average rating of the overall quality of the market's facilities was 6.6 on a 10 point scale
(Table 2.1.2).






















Table 2.1.2. Ratings of the quantity and quality of space provided by the Arcadia State Livestock Market.
Rating
Quality

Respondents Far too small Somewhat too small Just right Somewhat too large Far too large rating *
Facility Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Mean


Holding pens & corrals 5 0 0 1 20 4 80 0 0 0 0 6.8
Loading docks 5 0 0 1 20 4 80 0 0 0 0 7.6
Scales 4 0 0 1 25 3 75 0 0 0 0 6.8
Feed storage space 3 0 0 0 0 3 100 0 0 0 0 6.3
Parking/open space 5 0 0 4 80 1 20 0 0 0 0 6.4
Seating 6 0 0 6 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.0
Buyers' office space 3 0 0 1 33 2 67 0 0 0 0 6.7
Operators' office space 4 0 0 1 25 3 75 0 0 0 0 6.8
Restaurant space 5 1 20 3 60 1 20 0 0 0 0 6.8
Overall sanitation 4 (not applicable) 6.0
Degree of security 5 (not applicable) 7.8
Overall physical facilities 5 (not applicable) 6.6

a Quality was rated on a scale from 0 to 10 where "0" equals very poor and "10" equals excellent.









Evaluation of services

Sanitation and security services were also evaluated with respect to quality by survey
respondents. Overall sanitation had a fairly good mean rating of 6.0, and the degree of
security was good with a mean quality rating of 7.8 (Table 2.1.2).

Overall rating of the market

Again, using the rating scale where "10" is excellent and "0" is very poor, the survey
respondents were asked to rate the Arcadia State Livestock Market, overall. The market
earned a very good mean rating of 7.5. Those that rated the market low indicated that there
was room for improvement, but the majority rated the market higher mentioning that prices
were right in line with other markets and that the Arcadia State Livestock Market was
managed well.

Suggestions for improvement

Survey respondents made several different suggestions for the market. Improving
parking and open spaces was mentioned by two respondents. One mentioned that the loading
ramp was confusing and signs could be clearer. Another thought the facilities could be
updated a bit and security improved. Selling in batches instead of one head at a time was
also suggested. Other suggestions for change at the market included adding more sale days,
having sale days for other livestock such as hogs and goats, upgrading and improving
facilities, adding security and reducing the commission.

Factors Affecting Long Term Economic Viability

Census of Agriculture data indicate the total value of agricultural production has
increased substantially since the 1970's in the Arcadia State Livestock Market service area
and in DeSoto County, the market's host county. Hendry, Manatee and Highlands counties
have been dominant in terms of value of total agricultural production in the nine-county
Arcadia State Livestock Market service area (Figure 2.1.8). Agriculture production in all
counties in the service area increased between the 1974 and 1987 Census. Highlands and
Lee counties more than tripled in terms of agricultural value, followed by DeSoto, Hardee
and Manatee, all of which increased nearly three fold.








In 1974, there were over 3,900 farms and ranches which comprised over 3 million
acres in the Arcadia State Livestock Market service area (Table 2.1.3). By 1987, Census
data showed the number of farms and ranches in the area had increased by nearly 23
percent, but total acreage decreased by about 14 percent, resulting in a decrease in average
size of about 30 percent (Table 2.1.3, Figure 2.1.8). In the nine-county service area average
farm and ranch size went from about 793 acres in 1974 to 554 acres in 1987, total acreage
decreased from about 3.1 million acres to 2.7 million acres, and the value of agricultural
production increased from $409.8 million to $896.7 million.
Although the Arcadia State Livestock Market is exclusively a livestock market, it is
worth noting that the value of vegetable, orchard (predominantly citrus) and nursery activity
has increased in both the Arcadia State Livestock Market service area and its host county,
DeSoto, since the 1970's (Tables 2.1.3 and 2.1.4). Citrus acreage alone increased by nearly
105,400 acres in the nine-county service area between 1980 and 1990, a 58 percent increase.
For the primary service area consisting of DeSoto, Lee, Manatee and Sarasota counties,
citrus acreage increased by 46 percent or 27,000 acres during the 1980-1990 period (Citrus
Summary, 1991 and 1981). The rapid increases in citrus acreage is a direct result of
devastating freezes of the mid-1980's in the northern and central citrus growing regions of
the state.
Livestock and poultry production, as a component of total agriculture, remained fairly
stable in the Arcadia State Livestock Market service area between 1974 and 1987. Although
the Census of Agriculture reporting category combines livestock and poultry, livestock
production, particularly cattle, represents an extremely high proportion of the category. The
number of farms and ranches which produced livestock increased by 22.2 percent and
continued to comprise about 52 percent of all farms and ranches in the service area. The
value of livestock and poultry increased by more than 88 percent and remained roughly one-
fifth of total agricultural value in the service area (Table 2.1.3).









In 1991, total cattle numbers in the Arcadia livestock market's nine-county service
area were down slightly to 519,000 head. This is about two percent below the peak of
527,514 reported in 1982 (Livestock Summary, 1991). In the four-county area where three-
quarters of the market's volume originates, total cattle numbers were down about 7 percent
between 1982 and 1991, but in DeSoto County, the host county, the total increased about
nine percent during the same period.
In DeSoto County, the market's host county, the number of livestock and poultry
farms increased by more than 30 percent between 1974 and 1987 (Table 2.1.4, Figure
2.1.9). By 1987, 57 percent of all farms in DeSoto County engaged in some livestock
production, nearly 15 percent more than in 1974. The value of livestock and poultry
production more than doubled in the same time period, but other crops also increased in
value causing the value of livestock and poultry as a component of total agriculture in
DeSoto County to decline by about 10 percent.
The large increases in citrus acreage in the market's service area has undoubtedly
reduced the acreage of pasture land in the region and possibly has had an adverse effect on
total livestock numbers. Even so, the cattle industry remains a large and important
component of the agricultural economy of the area. Further, continuing decreases in the
average size of farms and ranches over the past several decades will probably lead to
increased reliance on auctions as a means of marketing livestock, as smaller producers are
less likely to have truck lots of feeder calves or cull cattle for sale.




25





Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the Arcadia State Livestock Market service area,
1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987.'


Census of Agriculture Yearb
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Population and Change Change Change Change
economic indicators 1974 1978 74-78' 1982 78-82C 1987 82-87c 74-87c


Population (000)d


588.0 658.6 12.0


787.0 19.5


955.4 21.4 625


Total Agriculture
Total no. of farms
Acreage in farms
Average farm size (acres)
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)

Vegetable Farms
Number
Percent of all farms
Acres
Average farm size (acres)
Percent of all farm acreage
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value

Orchards
Number
Percent of all farms
Acres
Average orchard size (acres)
Percent of all farm acreage
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value

Nurseries
Number
Percent of all farms
Acres (including under glass)
Average nursery size (acres)
Percent of all farm acreage
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value

Livestock and Poultry
Number
Percent of all farms
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value


3,946 3,998 1.3 4,039 1.0 4,839 19.8 22.6
3,127,981 3,042,422 -2.7 2,974,104 -2.2 2,679,201 -9.9 -14.3
792.7 761.0 -4.0 736.3 -3.2 553.7 -24.8 -30.2
409,755.5 540,587.4 31.9 570,151.7 5.5 896,716.0 57.3 118.8


189 255 34.9 217 -14.9 233 7.4 23.3
4.8 6.4 1.6 5.4 -1.0 4.8 -0.6 0.0
25,381 47,507 87.2 39,130 -17.6 48,536 24.0 91.2
134.3 186.3 38.7 180.3 -3.2 208.3 15.5 55.1
0.8 1.6 0.8 1.3 -0.2 1.8 0.5 1.0
n.a. 102,025.9 n.a. 108,481.5 6.3 162,762.1 50.0 n.a.
n.a. 18.9 n.a. 19.0 0.2 18.2 -0.9 n.a.


2,030 1,802 -11.2 1,603 -11.0 2,024 26.3 -0.3
51.4 45.1 -6.4 39.7 -5.4 41.8 2.1 -9.6
166,310 179,031 7.6 205,947 15.0 228,945 11.2 37.7
81.9 99.4 21.3 128.5 29.3 113.1 -12.0 38.1
5.3 5.9 0.6 6.9 1.0 8.5 1.6 3.2
n.a. 230,402.0 n.a. 209,447.4 -9.1 380,289.9 81.6 n.a.
n.a. 42.6 n.a. 36.7 -5.9 42.4 5.7 n.a.


n.a. 325 n.a. 336 3.4 435 29.5 n.a.
n.a. 8.1 n.a. 8.3 0.2 9.0 0.7 n.a.
n.a. 11,059.5 n.a. 6,305.8 -43.0 11,914.4 88.9 n.a.
n.a. 34.0 n.a. 18.8 -44.8 27.4 45.9 n.a.
n.a. 0.4 n.a. 0.2 -0.2 0.4 0.2 n.a.
33,243.7 46,788.9 40.7 71,270.2 52.3 121,303.0 70.2 264.9
8.1 8.7 0.5 12.5 3.8 13.5 1.0 5.4


2,039 2,234 9.6 2,310 3.4 2,491 7.8 22.2
51.7 55.9 4.2 57.2 1.3 51.5 -5.7 -0.2
96,250.0 140,473.8 45.9 149,793.4 6.6 181,332.6 21.1 88.4
23.5 26.0 2.5 26.3 0.3 20.2 -6.1 -3.3


"Ihe Arcadia State Livestock Market service area includes Lee, Sarasota, Manatee, DeSoto, Hendry, Charlotte, and Highlands
counties.
bCensus of Agriculture 1974, 1978,1982 and 1987, Florida Edition, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census provided
agricultural data. The notation "n.a." indicates data were not available or not reported due to Census disclosure rules. Market values
are deflated to 1990 dollars using the index of prices paid to producers from the Survey of Current Business, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
CPercentage changes and differences in percentages are both reported in the column. For example, the number of vegetable
farms increased by 34.9 percent between 1974 and 1978 while vegetable farms as a percent of all farms increased 1.6 percentage points.
dBureau of Economics and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Florida Statistical
Abstract, 1975, 1979, 1983 and 1988 issues, county population tables.


Table 2.1.3.





























1974 1978 1982 1987
Year


H Desoto (host county)

[I Hendry


J Lee

E Glades


Sarasota

SHardee


SManatee

SHighlands


Figure 2.1.8.-Value of total agricultural production in the Arcadia State Livestock Market
service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by county, in 1990 dollars.


1,000


800


600


400


200


0










Table 2.1.4.


Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in DeSoto County, host county for the Arcadia State
Livestock Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987.


Census of Agriculture Yeara
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Population and Change Change Change Change
economic indicators 1974 1978 74-78b 1982 78-82b 1987 82-87b 74-87b


Population (000)c

Total Agriculture
Total no. of farms
Acreage in farms
Average farm size (acres)
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)

Vegetable Farms
Number
Percent of all farms
Acres
Average farm size (acres)
Percent of all farm acreage
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value

Orchards
Number
Percent of all farms
Acres
Average orchard size (acres)
Percent of all farm acreage
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value

Nurseries
Number
Percent of all farms
Acres (including under glass)
Average nursery size (acres)
Percent of all farm acreage
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value

Livestock and Poultry
Number
Percent of all farms
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value


18.4 4.0


20.2 9.8


22.9 13.4 29.4


677 495 -26.9 541 9.3 654 20.9 -3.4
280,316 313,158 11.7 347,957 11.1 351,402 1.0 25.4
414.1 632.6 52.8 643.2 1.7 537.3 -16.5 29.8
29,089.9 50,305.4 72.9 40,652.5 -19.2 85,900.6 111.3 195.3


10 22 120.0 20 -9.1 22 10.0 120.0
1.5 4.4 3.0 3.7 -0.7 3.4 -0.3 1.9
1,947 2,930 50.5 2,688 -8.3 3,195 18.9 64.1
194.7 133.2 -31.6 134.4 0.9 145.2 8.1 -25.4
0.7 0.9 0.2 0.8 -0.2 0.9 0.1 0.2
n.a. 2,290.8 n.a. 2,706.7 18.2 3,802.4 405 n.a.
n.a. 4.6 n.a. 6.7 2.1 4.4 -2.2 n.a.


449 269 -40.1 259 -3.7 324 25.1 -27.8
66.3 54.3 -12.0 47.9 -6.5 49.5 1.7 -16.8
40,753 39,287 -3.6 38,606 -1.7 40,164 4.0 -1.4
90.8 146.0 60.9 149.1 2.1 124.0 -16.8 36.6
14.5 12.5 -2.0 11.1 -1.5 11.4 0.3 -3.1
n.a. 32,079.4 n.a. 19,007.2 -40.7 55,439.1 191.7 n.a.
n.a. 63.8 n.a. 46.8 -17.0 64.5 17.8 n.a.


n.a. 12 n.a. 16 33.3 27 68.8 n.a.
n.a. 2.4 n.a. 3.0 0.5 4.1 1.2 n.a.
n.a. 332.7 n.a. 2.6 -99.2 623.8 24155.1 n.a.
n.a. 27.7 n.a. 0.2 -99.4 23.1 14273.4 n.a.
n.a. 0.1 n.a. 0.0 -0.1 0.2 0.2 n.a.
553.2 1,398.0 152.7 1,672.3 19.6 3,387.0 102.5 512.3
1.9 2.8 0.9 4.1 1.3 3.9 -0.2 2.0


285 294 3.2 327 11.2 372 13.8 30.5
42.1 59.4 17.3 60.4 1.0 56.9 -3.6 14.8
10,645.6 14,456.3 35.8 15,657.0 8.3 23,118.3 47.7 117.2
36.6 28.7 -7.9 38.5 9.8 26.9 -11.6 -9.7


aCensus of Agriculture 1974,1978, 1982 and 1987, Florida Edition, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Bureau of Census provided
agricultural data. The notation "n.a." indicates data were not available or not reported due to Census disclosure rules. Market values are
deflated to 1990 dollars using the index of prices paid to producers from the Survey of Current Business, U.S. Department of Commerce.

bPercentage changes and differences in percentages are both reported in the column. For example, the number of vegetable
farms increased by 120.0 percent between 1974 and 1978 while vegetable farms as a percent of all farms increased 3.0 percentage points.

CBureau of Economics and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Florida Statistical
Abstract, 1975, 1979, 1983 and 1988 issues, county population tables.











100

85.9
-- 0.2
(Other)
80
23.1




5-J 0.1 (ofter)
0 14.5 40.7
-- 40 n~ .i............... 1.6
40 1.4 // / 55.4
29.1 1 15.7

1.7
20 ,17.9 32.1
.I- I 'L 19.0
10.6
02.3-- 0.6 liiii Y.ii 2.3 2.7 3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii .8
1974 1978 1982 1987
Year

SVegetables Orchards Nurseries Livestock & Poultry Other

Figure 2.1.9.-Value of total agricultural production in De Soto County (host county
for the Arcadia State Livestock Market), 1974, 1978, 1987 and 1987,
by commodity group, in 1990 dollars.
* Other includes data unavailable or not reported due to disclosure rules.








Urbanization

The population of the Arcadia State Livestock Market service area is projected to
grow from 1,065,100 in 1990 to 1,645,200 by 2010, with most of the growth expected to
occur in the coastal counties of Lee, Sarasota, Manatee and Charlotte (Table 2.1.5). During
this period, population in DeSoto County is expected to increase from 24,900 to 32,700.
This represents a population increase of 31 percent in the host county compared to a 55
percent in the market's service area. For DeSoto County, the population density in terms
of people per square mile is projected to increase from 51 people per square mile in 1990
to 67 in 2010.
Despite the relatively large percentage increase in population, DeSoto County is
expected to retain its rural character and reliance on agriculture for the foreseeable future
as are other inland counties in the market's service area, namely Hendry, Glades and Hardee
counties.

Environmental issues

Environmental issues may adversely affect long-term economic viability of some
markets. Respondents, in the Arcadia service area, were asked how much of a problem
water availability and pollution from agricultural chemical use would be over the next
20 years for agricultural production and marketing in the area. Respondents gave a
rating from zero to ten for each issue where "0" represented no problem and "10" meant
the issue would be a major problem.
Availability of water for irrigation.--Four out of six respondents indicated that
water availability will be a major problem for agriculture in the area within the next 20
years. Those expressing concern thought restrictions on water will cause permitting
problems in the future and that increasing urbanization will further limit the water
supply. There was general agreement that water availability would be a problem for
citrus and vegetable growers. However, most everyone felt the problem was not serious
for livestock production since pastures in the area are generally not irrigated.














Land area, population and population density for the Arcadia State Livestock Market service area, 1970-1990 and estimates for 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010.


Year
COUNTIES
Lee
Land area (mi2)
Population (1,000 people)
Density (people/mi?)

Sarasota
Land aea (mi.)
Population (1,000 people)
Density (peoplelmi.?)

Manatee
Land area (mi.)
Population (1,000 people)
Density (people/mi.)

DeSoto
Land area (mi.')
Population (1,000 people)
Density (poplc/mi.)


Land area (mi.')
Population (1,000 people)
Desity (people/mi.)

Glade,
Land area (ti)
Population (1,000 people)
Density (peopleni.2)

Handee
Land aea (mi.2)
Population (1,000 peop)
Denity (people/mi.)

Charlotte
Land aea (mi.?)
Population (1,000 people)
Denity (peopl/mi.)

HihLtods
Land area (mi.)
Population (1,000 people)
Desity (people/mi.)

Total
Land aca (mi.2)
Population (1,000 people)
Density (people/mi.')


1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988


803
105.2 115.3 131.8 143.6 157.0 162.0 164.5 170.6 182.2 192.7 205.3 214.9 227.3 235.5 251.8 264.4 277.4 293.7 307.5
215.6 236.3 270.1 294.3 321.7 332.0 337.1 349.6 373.4 394.9 420.7 440.4 465.8 482.6 516.0 541.8 568.4 601.8 630.1


120.4 127.7 140.1
246.7 261.7 287.1


747
97.1 102.0 116.4
199.0 209.0 238.5


636
13.1 13.6 14.9
26.8 27.9 30.5


1,163
11.9 12.5 13.7
24.4 25.6 28.1


763
3.7 3.8 4.6
7.6 7.8 9.4


637
14.9 15.7 16.6
30.5 32.2 34.0


690
27.6 30.8 34.9
56.6 63.1 71.5


1,029
29.5 31.8 36.1
60.5 65.2 74.0


423.4
60.1


150.2 160.7 164.3 166.5 172.4 182.2 193.5 202.3 209.5 215.4 223.5 231.2 238.0 244.6 251.3 257.7
307.8 329.3 336.7 341.2 353.3 373.4 396.5 414.5 429.3 441.4 458.0 473.8 487.7 501.2 515.0 528.1



122.0 131.0 131.4 132.7 134.9 137.8 142.8 148.4 154.3 159.0 161.5 165.5 170.6 175.9 181.7 187.5
250.0 268.4 269.3 271.9 276.4 282.4 292.6 304.1 316.2 325.8 330.9 339.1 349.6 360.5 372.3 384.2



16.5 17.7 17.9 17.9 17.9 18.4 18.6 19.0 19.4 20.2 20.6 21.1 21.6 22.3 22.9 23.4
33.8 36.3 36.7 36.7 36.7 37.7 38.1 38.9 39.8 41.4 42.2 43.2 44.3 45.7 46.9 48.0



14.9 15.7 16.1 16.4 16.9 17.4 18.1 18.6 19.4 20.3 20.7 21.7 22.7 23.5 24.6 25.5
30.5 32.2 33.0 33.6 34.6 35.7 37.1 38.1 39.8 41.6 42.4 44.5 46.5 48.2 50.4 52.3



5.0 5.7 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.2 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.4 6.4 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.4 7.5
10.2 11.7 12.1 12.3 12.3 12.7 12.3 12.3 12.5 13.1 13.1 13.5 14.1 14.5 15.2 15.4



17.5 18.2 18.4 18.7 18.8 18.9 19.3 20.4 19.9 20.0 19.8 20.8 21.1 21.8 22.1 22.2
35.9 37.3 37.7 38.3 38.5 38.7 39.5 41.8 40.8 41.0 40.6 42.6 43.2 44.7 45.3 45.5



37.9 42.1 44.6 44.7 47.1 50.8 54.9 58.5 61.6 66.4 69.9 74.1 78.5 83.0 88.2 93.4
77.7 86.3 91.4 91.6 96.5 104.1 112.5 119.9 126.2 136.1 143.2 151.8 160.9 170.1 180.7 191.4



37.6 39.9 41.1 41.8 43.3 44.7 46.3 47.5 49.8 52.0 53.7 56.0 58.2 60.2 63.5 66.4
77.0 81.8 84.2 85.7 88.7 91.6 94.9 97.3 102.0 106.6 110.0 114.8 119.3 123.4 130.1 136.1


453.2 509.1 545.2 588.0 601.7 609.2 627.9 658.6 692.2 726.0 754.9 787.0 811.6 848.8 882.0 915.8 955.4 991.1
64.4 72.3 77.4 83.5 85.5 86.5 89.2 93.5 98.3 103.1 107.2 111.8 115.3 120.6 125.3 130.1 135.7 140.8


1,030.3 1,065.1
146.3 151.3


1989 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010


495.6
1,015.6



351.7
720.7



254.4
521.3



31.1
63.7



35.3
72.3



10.1
20.7



26.7
54.7



157.9
323.6



98.8
202.5


616.7
1,263.7



372.6
763.5



269.1
551.4



32.7
67.0



37.4
76.6



10.6
21.7



27.6
56.6



172.5
353.5



106.0
217.2


1,221.8 1,350.3 1,461.6 1,645.2
173.5 191.8 207.6 233.7


aHost county for the Arcadia State Livestock Market.


Table 2.1.5.


_ _








While water availability in the market service area's coastal counties may be
limited by urbanization, the SWFWMD land use projections from 1990 to 2010 indicate
use of irrigation for livestock production in the Arcadia State Livestock Market service
area is minor and will remain so into the future (Southwest Florida Water Management
District, 1992). Relative to all other uses, stock watering consumes an insignificant
amount of water and irrigation of improved pasture is not common. Thus, it is unlikely
that chronic water shortages, should they develop, would have any significant, adverse
effect on livestock production in the region.
Water pollution from agricultural use of fertilizers and pesticides.--Most survey
respondents believed agricultural use of chemicals presents little hazard and that
pastures and rangeland were not responsible for the pollution in the area. But another
concerned respondent mentioned that a dairy in his county was moved by the water
management district in order to protect the Everglades from pollution. Another voiced
the opinion that farmers are well educated and policed for proper chemical usage. Still
another respondent mentioned that citrus runoff may present some problems for
livestock since water resources are shared, but agriculture is less likely to pollute water
than surface runoff from urbanized areas where homeowners use chemicals in their
homes and landscaping.

Market Projections

Qualitative projections as to the Arcadia market's long-term economic viability
were obtained from those responding to the survey, as well as from comments from the
market tenant and manager. Quantitative projections of the market's economic activity
were based upon the historical performance as measured by gross commodity sales.

Qualitative projections

Five out of the six county extension agent respondents were confident that
livestock production would continue to be important in the area over the next 20 years,
and that the Arcadia State Livestock Market would be needed. Although parts of the
service area are starting to urbanize, there will still be a great deal of rural land for
agricultural use. Several thought livestock production would increase in the region over









the next 20 years and that Arcadia provided an important competitive market for
producers. Several other respondents said that no significant reduction in livestock
production was likely to occur because of the abundance of land best suited for livestock
production.
Meat and dairy goats were mentioned by several respondents as increasing in
importance to the area, largely due to demand from the increasing Hispanic population
in South Florida, but this feeling was not widely shared among those interviewed. Two
respondents expected hogs to increase in importance and mentioned the possible need
for periodic hog sales at the market. The overall outlook among those interviewed was
for the Arcadia market to continue to serve the region over the next 20 years.

Quantitative projections

Several simple, widely-used projection techniques were employed to make
quantitative estimates of the market's future gross sales. These techniques are based
upon the assumption that the factors affecting the market's gross sales will remain in
effect indefinitely with no major shocks to the system. Simply put, it is assumed that the
past sales patterns will continue throughout the projection period. Two basic projection
techniques were used. One was a smoothing model which is based upon a combination
of the immediate past year's sales and a three year moving average. Details of this
technique are found in the Research Procedure section. The second approach was a
trend analysis which is based upon the entire 21 year series of gross sales data. The
trend analysis utilized a simple regression model to estimate the relationship between
the market's annual gross sales and time. Two forms of the model were examined to
see which best described the relationship between these two variables, a linear (straight
line) model and a log (curvilinear) model. However, because of the extreme variability
of gross sales, neither of the regression models was statistically significant, i.e., no
discernable trends could be detected. In lieu of the trend analysis, a simple mean
(average) was calculated over the past 21 years and reported in Table 2.1.6 and depicted
in Figure 2.1.10.








Table 2.1.6. Projected gross commodity sales, Arcadia State Livestock Market, 1995-2010.
Projection Technique
Year Smoothing Meanb
(------ Million Dollars )
1995 15.638 12.251
2000 15.634 12.251
2005 15.634 12.251
2010 15.634 12.251

aThe smoothing technique predicts values based upon a weighted calculation that utilizes a moving three year average and
the previous year's observation.
bThe simple mean was calculated using data from 1971-1991.

Typically, these types of projections or forecasts are only done for a few time periods

into the future. Where historical data are somewhat erratic, as in the current situation,

long-term projections should be viewed with caution, and used only as a general
indication of long-term trends. The smoothing model results in future gross sales

estimates that change very little from recent sales levels. Most estimates approach $15.6

million, not very different from current sales levels.

The long-term average is much more conservative, just over $12 million per year

and substantially below the gross sales experienced in recent years. Independent

projections made for the South Florida Water management District (SFWMD) and the
Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) in 1991 showed no

significant changes in water usage by livestock producers from 1990 to 2010 in any of the

nine counties in the market's service area (South Florida Water Management District,

1991 and Southwest Florida Water Management District, 1991). These studies are
further indications of long-term stability of the livestock industry in the region.










18

16 *














1 ..Sm oothing.............................





Year


Figure 2.1.10.-- Gross livestock sales, Arcadia State Livestock Market, 1971-1991, with
projections to 2010.
5 12 --T--


10 *



O 21 year average
6 Smoothing
Actual data *




Year


Figure 2.1.10.-- Gross livestock sales, Arcadia State Livestock Market, 1971-1991, with
projections to 2010.









Impact of Closing the Arcadia State Livestock Market

The extension agents were asked to assess how specific groups of people would

be affected, from an economic standpoint, if the market were to be closed at some time

in the future. Small producers, large producers, livestock buyers, truck brokers,

independent truckers, other markets, local restaurants, the local economy and consumers

in the market service area were the specific groups of concern. The effect of market

closure on these groups was assessed in terms of whether they would be hurt or helped

and to what degree, i.e., very much, moderately or slightly. Most respondents felt that

both large and small livestock producers, truck brokers, independent truckers and the

local economy would be hurt to some degree by Arcadia's State Livestock Market

closure, but a few said each of these groups would be unaffected (Table 2.1.7). All

respondents felt the private livestock markets in Wauchula and Okeechobee would

benefit by closure of the Arcadia market, and all respondents felt consumers and local

restaurants would be unaffected.

One tenant, an estimated 700 farmers and ranchers which utilize the market, four

full-time employees and up to 35 part-time employees would be adversely affected by

its closure.

Table 2.1.7. Opinions regarding the effects of closing the Arcadia State Livestock Market on different groups of people in
the market area.
Effect of market closing
Hurt Help
Group Respondents very much moderately slightly No effect very much moderately slightly
Number (- Percent )
Small producers 6 67 17 0 17 0 0 0
Large producers 6 17 17 33 17 0 17 0
Livestock buyers 5 20 20 20 20 0 0 20
Truck brokers 5 40 20 0 40 0 0 0
Ind. truckers 5 40 20 20 20 0 0 0
Other markets 5 0 0 0 0 60 40 0
Local restaurants 6 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
Local economy 6 0 33 17 50 0 0 0
Consumers 6 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
Others 3 0 67 0 33 0 0 0

a Others that might be hurt by a market closure include youth that use the scales to weigh steers and calves, those
extension groups and the cattle association that uses the facility for meetings and Arcadia businesses.









Future Directions

The general economic outlook for the Arcadia State Livestock Market is
favorable. Located in the heart of a nine-county service area with a total cattle
population of more than one-half million, the market services a large number of
relatively small livestock producers and many larger ranches as well. Over the past
decade, livestock numbers handled by the market have been fairly stable. Livestock
numbers in the region appear to be relatively stable as well and are not likely to change
significantly over the next 20 years. Possible reasons for the livestock industry's stability
could be the offsetting effects of improved production technology and competing land
uses such as citrus and vegetable production. However, emerging land ownership and
use patterns indicate a trend towards smaller operations. This could result in increased
use of auction markets by smaller-scale livestock producers.
Over the past several decades, relatively little has been spent on capital
improvements. Even so, the modest facilities appear to be adequate to serve current
and foreseeable needs. However, they will need major repairs over the next few years.
The most pressing and costly needs are for roof repair and repaving. Other proposed
repairs include replacing windows and revamping the market's water system. These
repairs are necessary to maintain a reasonable quality of service, and are justified in
view of the economic outlook for the market. In summary, the historical and projected
performance of the Arcadia State Livestock Market, in terms of livestock numbers and
net operating revenues, is positive. It appears that the market is in a position to
continue to serve area livestock producers well into the 21st century at little or no cost
to the State of Florida.








The Bonifay SFM

Description of Service Area

The Bonifay SFM is located at Bonifay, Florida in Holmes County. The host
county, Holmes, is located just south of the Alabama state line in the Florida panhandle
and shares borders with Walton, Washington and Jackson counties (Figure 2.2.1). About
50 percent of Bonifay's business comes from farmers in Holmes County, 25 percent from
Washington County and 10 percent from Jackson county. In addition, the market serves
farmers from Bay, Okaloosa, Walton, Calhoun and Gulf counties and some from south
Alabama.
Bonifay is the major watermelon market for west Florida. Farmers bring
watermelons to the Bonifay market to be graded and packed for shipping. In addition
to watermelons, the market also handles a significant volume of tomatoes. Floor space
is available for receiving, grading, packaging and ripening tomatoes. The tenant of the
tomato facility grows most of the tomatoes now being packed at the facility. A small
volume of cantaloupes is also handled at the Bonifay SFM.

General Description of Facilities

Facilities

The Bonifay SFM is situated on a little over five acres located on Highway 90
(Figure 2.2.2). There are about 34,000 square feet under roof on the market grounds
with a total insured value of $535,000. The three primary building structures are the
watermelon shed, the packinghouse and the agricultural center. The agricultural center
has a meeting room with a kitchen and three offices for rent to brokers. The center
serves as a gathering place for farmers and community leaders. A picnic pavilion and
rest rooms are proximate to the agricultural center. In addition, the only certified truck
scales in the region are on the Bonifay market property, providing a valuable service to
the area (Appendix Figure 1).






















































mowPe


Figure 2.2.1.--Market volume contributed by counties in the

Bonifay SFM service area.


FARMERS' MARKET VOLUME
FROM SERVICE AREA COUNTIES:

HOLMES 50%
WASHINGTON 25%
JACKSON 10%
OTHER COUNTIES 15%
















N Total Acreage 5.19 Acres
Total Sq. ft. 34,400

Approximate Scale 1" = 90 ft.









HIGHWAY 90











SCALE
........................................... ...... ...... ................... .......








##3

i WATERMEN LON ..
....... ..PLATF O RM..... ... .. .. I......... .......................... .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



































Figure 2.2.2.--Site plan of the Bonifay SFM.
I . . . . . . . . . I . . . ..
. . . . . ... .
. . . . I . . . . . .
. . . . . . ... .
......... ..... I......
........... 3* .....
;~ ~~' ~ ~ ............... ............ ........ ..... ...........'--'' ~ '''' ~'- ~' '`' `--'''P G N~''''
.. . . . . I . . .. ........ . . . .

'W' EAMELOW
AND -.'.................... .....
PL T O M .. .. ......... .. .. 1
..........













Figur 2.22.--Ste panI: Phe sALIO NFM









Tenants

The market has five agricultural tenants; four are produce brokers and one is a
farmer. Tenants of the Bonifay market employ about 170 workers, and there are two
more potential tenants on a waiting list. The facilities generate about $21,000 in lease
fees each year.

Historical Performance of the Bonifay Farmers Market

Over the 21 year time span from 1971 through 1991, gross commodity sales have
fluctuated from a high of 513,900 units of produce in 1972 to a low of 5,900 units in
1981, with higher average sales volume since 1982 (Table 2.2.1, Figure 2.2.3). In terms
of gross commodity sales dollars, Bonifay averaged over a million dollars annually during
the 1980's, and reached nearly $2 million in 1991 (Table 2.2.1, Figure 2.2.4). However,
the Bonifay SFM has operated at a net loss over the entire 21 years studied. While total
revenue increased rather steadily during the 1980's, peaking at $33,000 in 1989, total
expenses more than doubled during the last half of the 1980's, resulting in even greater
losses in terms of net income (Table 2.2.1, Figures 2.2.5, 2.2.6, and 2.2.7).












Table 2.2.1. Summary of the Bonifay State Farmers Market annual report data, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars.a


Revenue sourcesb Expense categories Gross commodity sales
Total Total Net Capital 1,000 1,000
Year Fees Rentals Other revenue Salaries Operating Indirect expenses income outlay units dollars
(--- -Thousand dollars- --------)
1971 10.5 1.9 1.5 13.9 20.3 6.3 6.5 33.0 -19.0 0.1 260.4 296.6
1972 6.7 0.0 0.6 7.3 22.4 10.4 6.9 39.7 -32.4 16.3 513.9 584.8
1973 6.1 0.4 0.0 6.6 18.1 6.2 5.4 29.6 -23.1 0.0 96.9 207.7
1974 4.0 0.2 0.0 4.2 21.1 3.8 5.8 30.7 -26.5 0.0 84.8 279.9
1975 4.3 0.5 0.0 4.8 25.6 5.7 8.3 39.6 -34.8 0.0 78.6 224.4
1976 4.9 0.3 0.1 5.3 23.8 4.3 7.6 35.6 -30.3 0.0 146.1 889.9
1977 9.1 2.9 0.2 12.1 26.9 5.8 7.0 39.6 -27.5 41.8 265.7 1,209.9
1978 5.5 1.8 4.8 12.0 21.3 4.0 5.6 31.0 -18.9 0.0 63.4 208.0
1979 2.4 1.7 0.2 4.2 24.4 2.0 5.6 31.9 -27.7 0.0 33.9 92.1
1980 2.4 0.5 0.1 3.0 17.1 2.4 3.9 23.3 -20.4 0.0 10.7 103.6
1981 2.9 2.2 0.1 5.2 23.1 3.8 5.7 32.7 -27.4 0.0 5.9 26.1
1982 4.9 3.2 0.3 8.4 23.4 3.7 4.8 31.9 -23.5 0.0 202.1 1,395.3
1983 4.6 3.7 0.4 8.7 23.9 4.0 4.6 32.4 -23.7 0.0 84.6 573.2
1984 5.0 5.1 0.3 10.4 24.8 43 4.4 33.5 -23.2 0.0 252.7 1,072.9
1985 7.0 6.2 0.0 13.2 25.2 3.3 3.1 31.6 -18.4 0.0 429.2 1,190.3
1986 0.0 13.2 0.0 13.2 36.7 13.2 12.6 62.4 -49.2 n.a. 196.4 625.1
1987 7.2 9.9 2.7 19.9 39.3 29.0 15.4 83.8 -63.9 n.a. 105.8 927.0
1988 6.9 12.1 0.0 19.0 40.0 18.3 14.6 72.9 -53.9 141.1 189.0 1,233.9
1989 6.0 26.6 0.0 32.6 38.7 18.6 14.4 71.7 -39.0 41.7 190.0 1,144.0
1990 7.2 20.1 0.0 27.3 38.0 22.5 17.8 78.3 -51.0 0.0 230.1 1,277.1
1991 4.4 20.0 2.2 26.6 42.9 18.7 17.7 79.3 -52.7 0.0 336.8 1,981.2

'The index of prices paid to producers from the Survey of Current Business was used to deflate nominal dollars to 1990 dollars. Because of rounding, some very small numbers
were reported as zeroes. Also, the notation "n.a." indicates the data were not available.

bSources of revenue may not be categorized consistently over the entire 20 years.


Source: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

































100


2604


u
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 183 1984 185 19 1987 1988 1 1990 1991
Year

Figure 2.2.3.--Gross commodity sales, Bonifay SFM, 1971-1991, In units.


2,500


2,000 -


1,981.2

7".


1.2099


5848


2966 2799
207 7 2244

F1 17 1


1.395.3







5732


2080
| 921 1036


1 1903
0729


Fj


1.2339 12771
ih1.1,ol I


1890 1900


1461

- 848 '86
i-


634
339
S |107 59


S 1,500

C

S1,000
0
OE


0 11 1 .
1971 1872 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Year

Figure 2.2.4.-Gross commodity sales, Bonifay SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars.


L---". .." -" I- .. ~"


,





43






35
32.6

30 -:
2: 7 27.3
25 .:.:.:.:: : [ : 6.6
45 25 -
0
20 1- 9a 19.0 .
C
15 13.9 1 132 "
S12.1 12.0 ""
o0 F -:'" 10.4 .: :..; ......
10 8.4 187 0





1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 190 191 192 1963 1964 1965 196 1987 1988 19 1990 1991
Year
Figure 2.2.5.-Total revenue, Bonifay SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars.

100

63.8
80 7&3 79.
72.9 7 7

0 0624
Q 60 -


( 40 397 38 396
S330 29.6 30.7 310 319 327 319 324 31a
L .. 233 |
20 -
0 - - - - - - - L - L


1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1978 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 193 1984 1985 198 1997 1988 1989 190 1991
Year
Figure 2.2.6.-Total expenses, Bonifay SFM, 1971-1991, In 1990 dollars.


10




1 -10 -

-20 -19.0 189 20 .84
-231 -235 237 -232
-30 265 Y -27 -277 -274
C -32.4 -34.8 '
-34.8

0 0 -
0-4,2 .51.0 .2
E --53.9 -52.7
-60
-63.9
-70
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Year

Figure 2.2.7.-Net income, Bonifay SFM, 1971-1991, in 1990 dollars.









Evaluation of the Bonifav State Farmers' Market Facilities

To obtain an adequate evaluation of the market's facilities and operations,
attempts were made to survey all Advisory Committee members, all tenants and all
extension agents in the market's service area. Three Advisory Committee members and
five county extension agents provided responses, but no tenants responded. Those
responding to the survey provided evaluations of the market's facilities and services,
suggestions for improvement and assessments of the market's long-term economic
viability.

Quantity and quality of facilities

Survey respondents were asked to rate existing market facilities which included
platform floor space, dock space, loft space, cold storage space, parking/open space,
platform office space, brokers' office space and truck scale capacity. They rated each
with respect to adequacy of size or capacity and quality. The amount of available space
was evaluated by survey respondents and placed into one of five possible classifications:
far too small, somewhat too small, just right, somewhat too large and far too large.
Quality was rated on a scale from zero to ten where "0" indicates very poor
quality and "10" indicates excellent quality. In addition to rating the quality of specific
market facilities, survey respondents were asked to provide a composite overall quality
rating for all physical facilities (Table 2.2.2).
In general, most of the facilities at the Bonifay SFM were judged by a majority
of respondents to be adequate in size or capacity and in quality. The notable exceptions
were loft and cold storage space. Loft space was viewed as far too limited by all those
responding, and the quality rating was extremely low. Two-thirds of those evaluating
cold storage space said the amount of space was far too small and the remaining one-
third said it was somewhat too small. The quality ratings for cold storage space were
also quite low.
Although a few respondents said the amount of platform, dock and office space
was somewhat too small, the majority felt that these facilities were adequate. They also
rated the quality of the various types of space as very good; respondents' average rating
of the overall quality of the market's facilities was 8.1 on a 10 point scale (Table 2.2.2).






















Table 2.2.2. Advisory Committee and Extension Agent ratings of the quantity and quality of space provided by the Bonifay SFM.

Rating
Quality
Respondents Far too small Somewhat too small Just right Somewhat too large Far too large rating a
Facility Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Mean

Platform floor space 7 0 0 2 29 4 57 1 14 0 0 8.1
Dock space 7 0 0 1 14 6 86 0 0 0 0 8.4
Loft space 3 3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0b
Cold storage space 6 4 67 2 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6b
Parking/open space 8 0 0 0 0 8 100 0 0 0 0 8.8
Platform office 4 0 0 1 25 3 75 0 0 0 0 7.8
Brokers' office 7 0 0 2 29 5 71 0 0 0 0 7.3
Truck scale capacity 5 0 0 0 0 5 100 0 0 0 0 95
Overall sanitation 4 (not applicable) 9.3
Degree of security 6 ( not applicable) 6.0
Overall physical facilities 8 ( not applicable) 8.1

a Quality was rated on a scale from 0 to 10 where "0" equals very poor and "10" equals excellent.

b Mean quality rating of loft space is based on two responses and mean quality rating of cold storage space is based on five responses.









Evaluation of services

Sanitation and security services were also evaluated with respect to quality by
survey respondents. Overall sanitation had a mean quality rating of 9.3, almost
excellent, and the degree of security was good with a mean quality rating of 6.0 (Table
2.2.2).

Overall rating of the market

Again, using the rating scale where "10" is excellent and "0" is very poor, the
survey respondents were asked to rate the Bonifay SFM, overall. The mean rating was
6.4. Those that gave the market low ratings indicated that the market was not useful to
small producers, that it was only used heavily for six to seven weeks per year and that
the market was poorly located. Although location was criticized, there was no consensus
as to a better location. One respondent suggested Walton County and another Jackson
County as preferred because of proximity to production areas. Another suggested a
location near I-10. Given the regional service area of the Bonifay market, it is unlikely
that a more centralized, accessible location could be identified.
Those that rated the market higher mentioned that the manager was good and
the community appreciated the market, but they also mentioned concerns about the
short tomato season, the need for additional buying power for watermelons, too few
watermelon buyers and fear that there is not enough volume to keep the market running
for long. Most of the concerns voiced are structural in nature; while they may affect the
long-term economic viability of the market, most cannot be directly addressed by
changes in the market's operations.

Suggestions for improvement

Survey respondents made a wide variety of suggestions for the market.
Suggestions included a retail outlet, diversification into other produce items, a cucumber
line, better access for small farmers, a need to get county extension agents involved with
the market, more grower and broker participation, more buyers on the market, more
cold storage space and more office space for brokers. Reflooring the old market
building to accommodate heavy equipment was also suggested.







Factors Affecting Long Term Economic Viability

To help evaluate the long-term economic viability of each SFM, agricultural
production and population trends were studied and the Advisory Committee members,
county extension agents in the market area and the market's manager were asked for
their opinions concerning several major factors affecting market viability, including
environmental and trade issues.

Changes in agricultural production

Census of Agriculture data indicate the total value of agricultural production has
increased substantially since the 1970's in the Bonifay SFM service area and in Holmes
County, the market's host county. Holmes, Jackson and Walton counties have been
dominant in terms of value of total agricultural production in the seven county Bonifay
SFM service area (Table 2.2.3 and Figure 2.2.8). As a portion of all value from
agriculture production in the service area, Holmes, Washington and Jackson counties
increased between 1974 and 1987, Bay and Okaloosa counties declined, and Walton and
Calhoun remained relatively unchanged.
In 1974, there were over 3,300 farms which comprised of nearly 781,000 acres in
the Bonifay SFM service area. By 1987, Census data showed both acreage and the
number of farms in the area had decreased by about 17 percent, but the total value of
production had increased by 27 percent (Table 2.2.3). In the seven county service area,
average farm size remained stable at about 230 acres per farm. Holmes County, host
county for the Bonifay SFM, lost 50 farms between 1974 and 1987, an eight percent
decrease, and over 36,000 acres, a decrease of nearly 30 percent. Row crops such as
field corn and soybeans accounted for most of the acreage reductions. Average farm
size in Holmes County decreased from 198 acres to about 152 acres, a 23.4 percent
decrease. Even so, the total value of agricultural production increased by nearly 150
percent during this period (Table 2.2.4).
Vegetable production in the Bonifay SFM service area and in Holmes County
contributed about four percent of total agricultural value in 1987; this has changed
little since the 1974 Census (Tables 2.2.3 and 2.2.4, Figure 2.2.9). Fewer, larger
vegetable farms are earning more on less total acreage. The number of vegetable farms









in the Bonifay service area has decreased by nearly a third since the 1970's and
vegetable acreage has decreased by about 12 percent. However, the average vegetable
farm size has increased by about 30 percent and the total value of vegetables increased
by nearly 24 percent between 1978 and 1987 even though there have been some declines
in recent years (Table 2.2.3).
Orchards and nurseries have been and continue to be a relatively small portion
of total agriculture production in the Bonifay SFM service area. A few orchards have
expanded acreage and increased average orchard size since the 1970's, but the total
value of orchard products has declined slightly (Table 2.2.3). In Holmes County,
production and sales of fruit crops and ornamentals have increased in recent years, but
remains small in absolute terms (Table 2.2.4). Further, given current production levels
and marketing patterns, these crops are not likely to be marketed through state farmers'
market facilities in the foreseeable future.
Advisory Committee and extension agent responses indicated that watermelons
and tomatoes will continue to be of importance to the region because they are good cash
crops. Snap beans and winter vegetables were also cited as possibly increasing in
importance to the area. Peanuts, crucifers, southern peas, butter beans, cotton, sweet
corn, squash, collards, turnips, cabbage and string beans were also mentioned as
production possibilities for area farmers in the future. When asked which crops were
expected to decrease in importance to the area, field crops such as soy beans, wheat, rye,
oats and corn were mentioned because of increasing production costs and declining
profitability. One respondent felt tomatoes would also decline in time, and five felt that
little change would occur over the next 20 years.










Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in the Bonifay State Farmers Market service
area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987.a


Census of Agriculture Year b
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Change Change Change Change
1974 1978 74-78c 1982 78-82C 1987 82-87c 74-87c


2815 297.8 5.8


323.2 8.5


Total Agriculture
Total no. of farms 3,353 3,385 1.0 3,066 -9.4
Acreage in farms 780,604 777,342 -0.4 715,641 -7.9
Average farm size (acres) 232.8 229.6 -1.4 233.4 1.6
Market value of ag. products 109,785.3 139,716.8 27.3 132,573.0 -5.1


Vegetable Farms
Number
Percent of all farms
Acres
Average farm size (acres)
Percent of all farm acreage
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value

Orchards
Number
Percent of all farms
Acres
Average orchard size (acres)
Percent of all farm acreage
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value

Nurseriese
Number
Percent of all farms
Acres (including under glass)
Average nursery size
Percent of all farm acreage
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value

Livestock and Poultry
Number
Percent of all farms
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value


275 242 -12.0 221 -8.7
8.2 7.1 -1.1 7.2 0.1
4,878 8,250 69.1 3,877 -53.0
17.7 34.1 92.2 175 -48.5
0.6 1.1 0.4 0.5 -0.5
n.a. 4,723.9 n.a. 5,043.8 6.8
n.a. 3.4 n.a. 3.8 0.4


201 239 18.9 192 -19.7
6.0 7.1 1.1 6.3 -0.8
2,161 2,695 24.7 2,033 -24.6
10.8 11.3 4.9 10.6 -6.1
0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 -0.1
n.a. 186.7 n.a. 350.4 87.7
n.a. 0.1 n.a. 0.3 0.1


n.a. 62 n.a.
n.a. 1.8 n.a.
n.a. 1,340.0 n.a.
n.a. 21.6 n.a.
n.a. 0.2 n.a.
1,385.1 1,669.5 20.5
1.3 1.2 -0.1


67 8.1
2.2 0.4
155 -98.8
0.2 -98.9
0.0 -0.2
953.5 -42.9
0.7 -0.5


2,530 2,419 -4.4 2,138 -11.6
75.5 71.5 -4.0 69.7 -1.7
44,909.0 67,060.4 49.3 66,728.4 -0.5
40.9 48.0 7.1 50.3 2.3


Population (000)d


*he Bonifay SFM service area includes Holmes, Washington, Jackson, Bay, Okaloosa, Walton, Calhoun counties.
Census of Agriculture 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, Florida Edition, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census
provided agricultural data. The notation "n.a." indicates data were not available or not reported due to Census disclosure rules.
Market values are deflated to 1990 dollars using the index of prices paid to producers from the Survey of Current Business, U.S.
Department of Commerce.

CPercentage changes and differences in percentages are both reported in the column. For example, the number of vegetable
farms decreased by 12 percent between 1974 and 1978 while vegetable farms as a percent of all farms decreased 1.1 percentage points.
dBureau of Economics and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Florida Statistical
Abstract 1975, 1979, 1983 and 1988 issues, county population tables.

eNursery acreage was not reported consistently in the Census, therefore percent change columns regarding nursery acreage
should be discounted.


Table 2.2.3.


3913 21.1 39.0


2,796 -8.8 -16.6
644,526 -9.9 -17.4
230.5 -1.2 -1.0
139,376.3 5.1 27.0


185 -16.3 -32.7
6.6 -0.6 -1.6
4,286 10.5 -12.1
23.2 32.1 30.6
0.7 0.1 0.0
5,850.9 16.0 n.a.
4.2 0.4 n.a.


217 13.0 8.0
7.8 1.5 1.8
3,006 47.9 39.1
13.9 30.8 28.8
0.5 0.2 0.2
334.9 -4.4 n.a.
0.2 0.0 n.a.


46 -31.3 n.a.
1.6 -0.5 n.a.
33.3 114.9 n.a.
0.7 213.0 n.a.
0.0 0.0 n.a.
445.0 -53.3 -67.9
0.3 -0.4 -0.9


1,611 -24.6 -36.3
57.6 -12.1 -17.8
79,2355 18.7 76.4
56.9 6.5 15.9









160

140

120

M 100
o
80

E 60


1974 1978 1982 1987
Year


D Holmes (host county)
P Okaloosa


SWashington
L7 Walton


D Jackson
^ Calhoun


Figure 2.2.8.-Value of total agricultural production in the Bonifay SFM service area,
1974, 1978, 1982, and 1987, by county, in 1990 dollars.


M Bay











Population and selected economic indicators for agriculture in Holmes County, host county for the Bonifay State


Farmers Market service area, 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987.

Census of Agriculture Yeara
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Population and Change Change Change Change
economic indicators 1974 1978 74-78b 1982 78-82b 1987 82-87b 74-87"


Population (000)c


Total Agriculture
Total no. of farms
Acreage in farms
Average farm size (acres)
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)

Vegetable Farms
Number
Percent of all farms
Acres
Average farm size (acres)
Percent of all farm acreage
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value

Orchards
Number
Percent of all farms
Acres
Average orchard size (acres)
Percent of all farm acreage
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value

Nurseries
Number
Percent of all farms
Acres (including under glass)
Average nursery size (acres)
Percent of all farm acreage
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value


Livestock and Poultry
Number
Percent of all farms
Value (1,000 1990 dollars)
Percent of all ag. value


13.1 14.2 8.4


622
123,159
198.0
13,471.3


48
7.7
678
14.1
0.6
n.a.
n.a.


33
5.3
453
13.7
0.4
n.a.
n.a.


646 3.9
122,302 -0.7
189.3 -4.4
27,194.9 101.9



44 -8.3
6.8 -0.9
786 15.9
17.9 26.5
0.6 0.1
989.4 n.a.
3.6 n.a.


30 -9.1
4.6 -0.7
228 -49.7
7.6 -44.6
25.2 24.8
10.4 n.a.
0.0 n.a.


4 n.a.
0.6 n.a.
n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a.


513
82.5
7,717.6
57.3


493 -3.9
76.3 -6.2
20,069.2 160.0
73.8 16.5


15.3 7.7


579 -10.4
106,128 -13.2
183.3 -3.2
27,347.3 0.6



48 9.1
8.3 1.5
901 14.6
18.8 5.1
0.8 0.2
1,825.0 84.5
6.7 3.0



29 -3.3
5.0 0.4
183 -19.7
6.3 -17.0
225 -2.7
7.9 -24.7
0.0 0.0


4 0.0
0.7 0.1
n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a.


446 -9.5
77.0 0.7
20,156.1 0.4
73.7 -0.1


16.3 6.5 24.4


572 -1.2 -8.0
86,701 -18.3 -29.6
151.6 -17.3 -23.4
33,546.6 22.7 149.0


36 -25.0 -25.0
6.3 -2.0 -1.4
650 -27.9 -4.1
18.1 -3.8 27.8
0.7 -0.1 0.2
1,357.4 -25.6 n.a.
4.0 -2.6 n.a.


38 31.0 15.2
6.6 1.6 1.3
293 60.1 -35.3
7.7 22.2 -43.8
0.3 -22.2 0.0
15.4 95.7 n.a.
0.0 0.0 n.a.



3 -25.0 n.a.
0.5 -0.2 n.a.
n.a. n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a. n.a.
37.9 n.a. 432.5
0.1 n.a. 0.0


352 -21.1 -31.4
61.5 -15.5 -20.9
28,030.8 39.1 263.2
83.6 9.9 26.3


aCensus of Agriculture 1974,1978,1982 and 1987, Florida Edition, U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Bureau of Census provided
agricultural data. The notation "n.a." indicates data were not available or not reported due to Census disclosure rules. Market values are
deflated to 1990 dollars using the index of prices paid to producers from the Survey of Current Business, U.S. Department of Commerce.

bPercentage changes and differences in percentages are both reported in the column. For example, the number of vegetable
farms decreased by 8.3 percent between 1974 and 1978 while vegetable farms as a percent of all farms decreased 0.9 percentage points.

CBureau of Economics and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Florida Statistical
Abstract, 1975, 1979, 1983 and 1988 issues, county population tables.


Table 2.2.4.










40

33.5
4.1
30
27.2 27.3

.6.1 5.4

20 28.0

13.5 20.2
20.1
10


7.7
0 1.0 .'* .. ,M, 1.8 A 1.4
1974 1978 1982 1987
Year

SVegetables E Orchards Nurseries Livestock & Poultry Other

Figure 2.2.9.-Value of total agricultural production in Holmes county (host county for
the Bonifay SFM), 1974, 1978, 1982 and 1987, by commodity group,
in 1990 dollars.
* Other includes data unavailable or not reported due to disclosure rules.







Urbanization

Although the population of the Bonifay SFM service area is projected to grow
from 424,200 in 1990 to 584,300 by 2010, most of the growth is expected to occur in the
peripheral, coastal counties (Table 2.2.5). During this period, population in Holmes
County is expected to increase from 18,200 to 22,400. Even though this represents a
population increase of 23 percent in the host county and 38 percent in the market's
service area, the total population density will remain quite low. For Holmes County, the
population density in terms of people per square mile is projected to go from 37 in 1990
to 45.9 in 2010. Compared with other host counties and SFM service areas, Holmes
County and the Bonifay SFM service area will remain among the most rural markets in
the state (Table 2.2.5 and Appendix Table 1). It is very unlikely that population growth
will have a detrimental impact on the production of commodities typically marketed
through the Bonifay SFM facilities.












Land area, population and population density for the Bonifay SFM service area, by county, 1970-1990 and estimates for 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010.


Year 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
COUNTIES
Holmess
Land area (mi.) 488
Population(1,000people) 10.7 11.3 10.9 12.1 13.1 13.4 13.9 14.0 14.2 14.5 14.7 15.0 15.3 15.1 15.4 15.6 16.2 16.3 16.9 17.7 18.2 19.6 20.8 21.6 22.4
Density (people/mi.2) 21.9 23.2 22.3 24.8 26.8 27.5 28.5 28.7 29.1 29.7 30.1 30.7 31.4 30.9 31.6 32.0 33.2 33.4 34.6 36.3 37.3 40.2 42.6 44.3 45.9

Washington
Land area (mi.2) 590
Population(1,000 people) 11.5 11.8 11.7 12.6 13.5 13.6 13.5 13.6 14.1 14.3 14.5 14.8 15.0 14.9 14.9 15.0 15.3 15.4 16.1 16.6 16.9 18.0 18.9 19.7 20.4
Density (people/mi.2) 19.5 20.0 19.8 21.4 22.9 23.1 22.9 23.1 23.9 24.2 24.6 25.1 25.4 25.3 25.3 25.4 25.9 26.1 27.3 28.1 28.6 30.5 32.0 33.4 34.6

Jackson
Land area (mi.) 942
Population(1,000 people) 34.4 35.7 34.7 34.7 36.3 37.2 37.9 38.2 38.7 39.1 39.2 39.7 39.7 39.5 39.9 40.9 42.1 43.7 43.7 44.8 45.6 48.7 51.1 53.0 54.8
Density (people/mi.) 36.5 37.9 36.8 36.8 38.5 39.5 40.2 40.6 41.1 41.5 41.6 42.1 42.1 41.9 42.4 43.4 44.7 46.4 46.4 47.6 48.4 51.7 54.2 56.3 58.2


Land area (mi.) 758
Population (1,000 people) 75.3 78.5 78.6 80.9 89.4 89.9 91.8 94.1 94.1 94.4 97.7 100.2 104.5 107.6 112.9 119.5 125.4 129.7 133.1 135.7 139.8 158.3 173.2 186.2 198.4
Density (people/mi.) 99.3 103.6 103.7 106.7 117.9 118.6 121.1 124.1 124.1 124.5 128.9 132.2 137.9 142.0 148.9 157.7 165.4 171.1 175.6 179.0 184.4 208.8 228.5 245.6261.7

Okaloosa
Land area (mi.) 936
Population (1,000 people) 88.2 89.9 94.4 98.0 103.5 102.4 103.9 105.8 107.8 108.6 109.9 112.9 117.2 122.5 128.9 136.4 142.7 149.0 154.3 157.5 162.4 184.2 201.9 217.2231.5
Density (people/mi.2) 94.2 96.0 100.9 104.7 110.6 109.4 111.0 113.0 115.2 116.0 117.4 120.6 125.2 130.9 137.7 145.7 152.5 159.2 164.9 168.3 173.5 196.8 215.7 232.1 247.3

Walton
Land area (mi.) 1,066
Population (1,000 people) 16.1 16.3 16.0 16.8 17.5 17.9 18.4 19.4 20.1 20.6 21.3 21.7 22.2 22.7 24.2 25.7 26.4 27.5 28.2 28.9 29.8 33.8 37.1 39.9 42.5
Density (people/mi.2) 15.1 15.3 15.0 15.8 16.4 16.8 17.3 18.2 18.9 19.3 20.0 20.4 20.8 21.3 22.7 24.1 24.8 25.8 26.5 27.1 28.0 31.7 34.8 37.4 39.9

Calhoun
Land area (mi.) 568
Population (1,000 people) 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.2 8.5 8.7 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.3 9.4 9.3 9.2 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.7 10.4 11.3 11.5 12.4 13.2 13.7 14.3
Density (people/mi.) 13.4 13.6 13.7 13.9 14.4 15.0 15.3 15.3 15.5 15.7 16.4 16.5 16.4 16.2 16.4 16.7 17.1 17.1 18.3 19.9 20.2 21.8 23.2 24.1 25.2

Total
Land area (mi3) 5,348
Population(1,000 people) 243.8 251.2 254.1 263.0 281.5 282.9 288.1 293.8 297.8 300.4 306.6 313.7 323.2 331.5 345.5 362.6 377.8 391.3 402.7 412.5 424.2 475.0 516.2 551.3 584.3
Density (people/mi.2) 45.6 47.0 47.5 49.2 52.6 52.9 53.9 54.9 55.7 56.2 57.3 58.7 60.4 62.0 64.6 67.8 70.6 73.2 75.3 77.1 79.3 88.8 96.5 103.1 109.3

aHolmes County is the host county for the Bonifay SFM..


Table 2.2.5.









Environmental and trade issues

Environmental and trade issues are other factors affecting long term market
viability. Respondents were asked how much of a problem each issue would be over the
next 20 years for agricultural production and marketing in the area. Respondents gave
a rating from zero to ten for each issue where "0" meant no problem and "10" meant the
issue would be a major problem.
Availability of water for irrigation.--Three out of four respondents believe water
availability is generally not a problem, indicating there is an abundance of water and not
much irrigation use.
Water pollution from agricultural use of fertilizers and pesticides.--Three out of
four survey respondents believed there is not much pollution nor chemical use, indicating
changing cultural practices and farmer concern.
Free trade with Mexico.--Seventy-five percent of respondents believed this is a
major concern particularly if the growing seasons overlap. Cheaper labor and lack of
chemical restrictions in Mexico was also stated as a concern that will affect the Florida
agricultural industry.
Free trade with Cuba.--On the other hand, seventy-five percent of Bonifay
respondents did not see Cuban free trade as a problem for their area, because Cuba
produces different commodities. Respondents believe free trade with Cuba would have
little effect on North Florida crops.

Market Projections

Qualitative projections as to the Bonifay market's long-term economic viability
were also obtained from Advisory Committee members and county extension agents.
Quantitative projections of the market's economic activity were based upon historical
performance as measured by gross commodity sales.

Qualitative projections

For the most part, Advisory Committee members and county extension agents
were optimistic as to the market's future. Three out of four of the Bonifay survey
respondents believed there would be enough production in the area over the next 20









years to justify having packing and shipping at the SFM but three out of four did not
believe a retail operation was justified, citing the lack of population necessary to support
a retail outlet as the primary reason. Three out of four respondents gave a high rating
for the location of the market relative to production areas and urbanization, saying it
was centrally located and accessible.
Most felt that watermelons and tomatoes would continue as the leading crops
handled by the market, but other produce items such as cucumbers, snap beans, butter
beans, southern peas, sweet corn and winter vegetables were mentioned by a few
respondents as crops which were likely to increase in importance over the next 20 years.
If greater production of these items materializes, demand for space at the market could
increase. However, it appears that the anticipated increases in vegetable production are
the result of shifts from unprofitable field crops such as soybeans and corn. The market
potential of additional vegetable production should be studied in more detail prior to
making substantive changes in the Bonifay SFM facilities.

Quantitative projections

Several simple, widely-used projection techniques were employed to make
quantitative estimates of the market's future gross sales. These techniques are based
upon the assumption that the factors affecting the market's gross sales will remain in
effect indefinitely with no major shocks to the system. Simply put, it is assumed that the
past sales patterns will continue throughout the projection period. Two basic projection
techniques were used. One was a smoothing model which is based upon a combination
of the immediate past year's sales and a three year moving average. Details of this
technique are found in the Research Procedure section. The second approach was a
trend analysis which is based upon the entire 21 year series of gross sales data. The
trend analysis utilizes a simple regression model to estimate the relationship between
the market's annual gross sales and time. Two forms of the model were examined to
see which best described the relationship between these two variables. The first was a
linear (straight line) model and the second was a log (curvilinear) model. Results
estimated with both the smoothing model and trend analysis model with the best
statistical "fit" are reported below and depicted in Figure 2.2.10.









Table 2.2.6. Projected gross commodity sales, Bonifay State Farmers' Market, 1995-2010.

Projection Technique
Year Smoothing* Trend Analysisb
( -Million Dollars )
1995 1.779 1.557
2000 1.777 1.848
2005 1.777 2.140
2010 1.777 2.431

'The smoothing technique predicts values based upon a weighted calculation that utilizes a moving three year average and
the previous year's observation.
bTrend analysis figures are based upon a simple linear regression model where annual gross sales (Y) are a function of
time (X); the estimated model was Y =-144,788592+58,318X; R2 =0.44, t= 3.90, 19 d.f. The coefficient is statistically significant at the
0.001 probability level.

Typically, these types of projections or forecasts are only done for a few time periods

into the future. Where historical data are somewhat erratic, as in the current situation,

long-term projections should be viewed with caution, and used only as a general

indication of long-term trends. The smoothing model results in future gross sales

estimates that change very little from current sales levels. From the year 2000 to 2010,

estimated gross sales are $1.78 million, not very different from current sales levels. The

linear trend analysis model projects annual sales increases of approximately $58,000

resulting in projected sales of about $1.85 million in the year 2000 and $2.4 million by

2010 (Table 2.2.5). Again, caution should be used when projecting so far into the future.




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