• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Introduction
 Customer characteristics
 Telephone survey
 Summary
 Authors
 Back Cover






Group Title: Florida Cooperative Extension Service circular 483
Title: Community market characteristics
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00049272/00001
 Material Information
Title: Community market characteristics
Series Title: Circular Florida Cooperative Extension Service
Physical Description: 11 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Wall, George Bryan, 1949-
Stegelin, Forrest E ( Forrest Eugene ), 1947-
Publisher: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1980?
 Subjects
Subject: Farm produce -- Marketing   ( lcsh )
Markets -- Planning   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: George Bryan Wall and Forrest E. Stegelin.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00049272
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 10759165

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Introduction
        Page 2
    Customer characteristics
        Page 3
        Distance traveled
            Page 3
        Demographic factors
            Page 4
    Telephone survey
        Page 5
    Summary
        Page 6
    Authors
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Back Cover
        Page 12
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


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

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida




Circular 483


COMMUNITY MARKET

CHARACTERISTICS



George Bryan Wall a d Forrest E. Stegelin
S ..... Y 'ioj
.-' ^ ^.-. ^.- (


Florida Cooperative Extension Service
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville
John T. Woeste, Dean for Extension








Community Market Characteristics:
Information for Community Market Development

Introduction

This circular is designed to provide guidelines to community leaders
who are interested in supporting a community market. Marketing
preferences of direct-market consumers were studied in a state-wide
survey of direct-market customers. This circular deals mainly with
the community market section of the data, the results pertaining to
other direct-market outlets (roadside markets and u-pick operations)
are included for comparison purposes. This is not intended to be a how-
to book for developing a viable community market. Each ongoing mar-
ket is different and is more a function of the community it represents
than of any standardized concept of community markets.
The concept of direct-to-consumer sales of farm products is currently
enjoying increased attention. This increased level of interest stems
not only from producers but also from large numbers of consumers
viewing such outlets in a more favorable light. It is difficult to identify
all the factors underlying this renewed interest, but the two men-
tioned most often are the increased awareness of the benefit of fresh
produce consumption and the general inflationary state of the
economy.
The first of these factors is not limited to those consumers who are
espousing a strict back-to-the-earth consumption pattern but it does
reflect an increased concern with the type of food consumed. Changes
in food consumption patterns are being promoted on the basis of in-
creased roughage as well as a more balanced nutritional intake.
Both of these trends are proving to be favorable to fresh produce
consumption. While home canners and preservers have always played
a large part in direct-marketing because of the volumes required,
economy conscious consumers now appear to be visiting direct-
marketing outlets in an attempt to make better use of their food dollar.
Sales of canning equipment and such items as canning jars and lids
indicate that consumers are willing to try more time-consuming
methods of food preparation in an attempt to provide what they per-
ceive to be more a wholesome product at a competitive cost.
In addition to the proliferation of roadside stands and u-pick opera-
tions, many governmental localities are attempting to provide a cen-
tral market area to facilitate the producer and the consumer finding
one another. The operation and the setting of these community mar-
kets are as varied as the cities, towns, and communities which support
them but all have as a common trait the attempt to make farm produce
more available to consumers.







Customer Characteristics
Distance Traveled
In the development of customer shopping patterns, one of the most
important factors is the distance the customer travels to the market.
Travel is both time-consuming and expensive, and in the customer's
decision process, the location of the market is an important factor. This
is especially true with the recent increases in the cost of transporta-
tion. Table 1 presents a summation of the travel distance for each of
the three categories of direct-market outlets. It can be seen from
Table 1 that community markets attract customers from a smaller
radius than either of the other two market types. In point of fact, 42
percent of the community market customers travel less than five miles
whereas only 26 percent of roadside market and 16 percent of the u-
pick market customers travel that short a distance. In terms of draw-
ing power, it appears that community markets are severely limited
when compared to their other direct-market counterparts.
On the other hand, community market customers make more fre-
quent shopping trips than other direct-market customers as shown in
Table 2. Sixty percent of the community market shoppers visit the
market at least once every two weeks while 50 percent of the roadside
market and only 25 percent of the u-pick customers visit their markets-
that frequently.
The pattern shown here is one where the community market at-
tracts its customers from within a smaller travel radius but the cus-
tomers that are attracted visit the market more frequently than do
other direct-market customers. Which type of customer purchases the
most produce is an excellent indication ofthe total revenue the market
can expect to receive. By considering both the number of shopping
trips and the dollar expenditure per trip one can estimate the total
dollar sales volume.
Table 3 presents the survey results which indicate dollar expendi-
tures per trip. It can be seen that the community market customer
spends a greater amount per trip than does the roadside market cus-
tomer but somewhat less than the u-pick customer. On the average, 85
percent of the community market customers spend less than 10 dollars
per trip as compared to 91 percent for roadside markets and 84 percent
for u-pick markets as a whole. In the 10 to 15 dollar range, community
market customers spend an amount almost equal to that of u-pick
community market customers. Bear in mind that u-pick market shop-
pers are specialists in handling large volumes of produce and the dol-
lar amounts spent per trip reflect this purchasing pattern. While it is
not possible to estimate physical quantities purchased from this ex-
penditure data, it is reasonable to accept this spending pattern as an
indicator that community market customers purchase larger







Customer Characteristics
Distance Traveled
In the development of customer shopping patterns, one of the most
important factors is the distance the customer travels to the market.
Travel is both time-consuming and expensive, and in the customer's
decision process, the location of the market is an important factor. This
is especially true with the recent increases in the cost of transporta-
tion. Table 1 presents a summation of the travel distance for each of
the three categories of direct-market outlets. It can be seen from
Table 1 that community markets attract customers from a smaller
radius than either of the other two market types. In point of fact, 42
percent of the community market customers travel less than five miles
whereas only 26 percent of roadside market and 16 percent of the u-
pick market customers travel that short a distance. In terms of draw-
ing power, it appears that community markets are severely limited
when compared to their other direct-market counterparts.
On the other hand, community market customers make more fre-
quent shopping trips than other direct-market customers as shown in
Table 2. Sixty percent of the community market shoppers visit the
market at least once every two weeks while 50 percent of the roadside
market and only 25 percent of the u-pick customers visit their markets-
that frequently.
The pattern shown here is one where the community market at-
tracts its customers from within a smaller travel radius but the cus-
tomers that are attracted visit the market more frequently than do
other direct-market customers. Which type of customer purchases the
most produce is an excellent indication ofthe total revenue the market
can expect to receive. By considering both the number of shopping
trips and the dollar expenditure per trip one can estimate the total
dollar sales volume.
Table 3 presents the survey results which indicate dollar expendi-
tures per trip. It can be seen that the community market customer
spends a greater amount per trip than does the roadside market cus-
tomer but somewhat less than the u-pick customer. On the average, 85
percent of the community market customers spend less than 10 dollars
per trip as compared to 91 percent for roadside markets and 84 percent
for u-pick markets as a whole. In the 10 to 15 dollar range, community
market customers spend an amount almost equal to that of u-pick
community market customers. Bear in mind that u-pick market shop-
pers are specialists in handling large volumes of produce and the dol-
lar amounts spent per trip reflect this purchasing pattern. While it is
not possible to estimate physical quantities purchased from this ex-
penditure data, it is reasonable to accept this spending pattern as an
indicator that community market customers purchase larger







volumes of produce, and more often, than their roadside market
counterparts.
In developing a viable community market it is best to remember
that each customer who frequents the market must be attracted from
an existing source of fresh produce. If a community market is going to
develop a clientele, it must do so at the expense of present market
sources of fresh produce such as supermarkets, neighborhood gro-
ceries, and/or other direct-market outlets. In most cases, this involves
convincing the shopper that it is worth the inconvenience of making
separate shopping trips in order to purchase produce. When one con-
siders that a supermarket not only sells the produce but also the serv-
ices associated with the produce such as convenience, uniform quality,
customer service, and attractive well-kept displays, it becomes appar-
ent that building a repeat clientele is not an easy matter. In short,
there must be enticement to attract customers. It might be better qual-
ity, "farm" atmosphere, volume availability, price discounts, or larger
variety selection. Any of these factors may be considered to be impor-
tant by any number of customers but the list is by no means complete.
A listing of those reasons most frequently given by participants in
the survey is presented in Table 4. In order of preference for commu-
nity markets the reasons are (1) quality, (2) prices, (3) convenience, (4)
recreation and (5) volume. It is interesting to note the order of the
ranking of these factors. Quality is rated as being more important
than prices. Convenience and recreation are comparably rated with
convenience being considered important by 29 percent of the cus-
tomers. Recreation was rated as an important factor by 24 percent of
the customers. This indicates the importance of making sure that the
market trip is as enjoyable as possible.
The question as to what role prices will play in the market is always
a difficult one. Customers expect a lower price than that charged in
supermarkets, as shown by the 54 percent rating, and this is
consistent with the statement that one must entice customers to the
market. The growers, however, want to charge more than F.O.B. farm-
level prices in order to pay the increased cost of marketing and sales
such as time, packaging and transportation. Under these circum-
stances it is reasonable to expect the community market price to fall
between the F.O.B. and the retail price level. A good guide is the
wholesale price level since this moves the grower up one level in the
marketing chain and allows the customer to purchase produce at a
price one level down the marketing chain. Pricing strategy is, of
course, dependent on the quality of the produce available.
Demographic Factors
Another factor which plays a major role in determining customer
buying habits is demography. Demographic characteristics are such







things as age, income, and family size and each characteristic has an
influence on what commodities a customer purchases. Tables 5, 6, and
7 present a survey of the age, income, and family size distribution of
direct-market customers.
The largest block of community market customers are between the
ages of 40 and 59, earn over $15,000 per year, and belong to a two-
person family. In addition to this overall pattern, some individual
characteristics are quite interesting. For instance, the community
markets attract a higher percentage of customers over 60 years of age,
34 percent versus 24 and 18 percent for roadside markets and u-pick
markets respectively. They also attract a larger percentage of shop-
pers in the income range of less than $10,000 per year and a smaller
number of shoppers in the upper income bracket. The family size dis-
tribution is very similar to that exhibited by roadside market cus-
tomers. In short, it appears that community markets attract an older
clientele, a large proportion of which earned less than $10,000.00 per
year in 1978.
In promoting a community market, the most effective means of ad-
vertising appears to be word of mouth (Table 8). Newspaper advertise-
ments appear to be moderately successful but less so than customers
driving by the market by chance. This latter process generated 28 per-
cent of total customer numbers while newspaper advertisements cap-
tured slightly more than 11 percent of total customer numbers.

Telephone Survey
The process of developing a community market must first deal with
the question of whether the community is large enough to support
such a market. Since almost any community can support a market of
some description, the question should perhaps more appropriately be
"how large a market can be successful in the community?" Unfortu-
nately, that question is almost impossible to answer directly, but it is
possible to generate some rule-of-thumb estimates of total customer
visits. Table 9 presents the results of a telephone survey conducted in
the Dade County-Miami metropolitan area with a population who
shop at all types of direct-market outlets. To the extent that these find-
ings reflect customer visits to all types of direct-market outlets, the
estimates will not be directly applicable to community markets but
they will provide some useful guidelines. Table 9 is divided into En-
glish and non-English groups. The survey found that 60 percent of the
English-speaking population who responded to the survey never visit
a direct-market outlet, implying that 40 percent of the respondents do.
Since 36 percent of those contacted agreed to answer the survey, the.
total percentage of English-speaking customers who frequent direct-
market outlets is some 22 percent (.56 x 451-269 =.223). Of the 40
45







percent of the English-speaking population who frequent direct mar-
kets, only 3.3 percent shop more than once a week. This is only 8.2% of
the English-speaking who do shop at direct markets. If one sums the
responses of those who shop at least once a week, the total of 12.6
percent (9.3 + 3.3) represents 5.1 percent of the total population as
potential regular direct-market outlet customers. The Spanish-
speaking population exhibited a larger percentage of respondents who
never shop direct-market outlets and consequently the percentage of
regular weekly shoppers is much smaller, approximately 1 percent.

Summary
Each of the community markets covered in the survey exists under a
different set of rules each designed to serve a community's specific
needs. For this reason, the development and presentation of a set of
"recommended procedures" for the formation of a viable and successful
community market has been avoided. It was felt that the most appro-
priate service that could be presented would be to provide the survey
data in as straightforward a manner as possible. Since the intended
audience of this publication is community leaders across the state of
Florida, it is anticipated that the information presented can be inter-
preted in light of various local characteristics and used in the planning
process for new and/or improved community markets. There is one
common characteristic which each of the community markets sur-
veyed had in common: the inclusion of a representative of the county
Extension director's office somewhere in development of the market.
In some cases his function was solely as an intermediary between the
community leaders and the growers, and in some situations he was
more closely involved in organizing the market. Only very rarely was
the county agent and/or his staff involved in the everyday manage-
ment of the market. Community markets do need some form of man-
agement (latent management appears to be the most preferred) and
most community markets appear to function best as self-governing
units. The adage about the best government being the one which gov-
erns least appears to be the best rule of thumb. Since each community
has different strengths and weaknesses, it follows that each commu-
nity market will be different. For a market to be successful, it must
function to fulfil a specific community need. Accurately identifying
that factor is the most important criterion in developing a successful
community market.
Authors
George Bryan Wall and Forrest E. Stegelin are former Adjunct
Assistant Professor and Assistant Professor, respectively, Food and
Resource Economics Department, Institute of Food and Agricul-
tural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611.







percent of the English-speaking population who frequent direct mar-
kets, only 3.3 percent shop more than once a week. This is only 8.2% of
the English-speaking who do shop at direct markets. If one sums the
responses of those who shop at least once a week, the total of 12.6
percent (9.3 + 3.3) represents 5.1 percent of the total population as
potential regular direct-market outlet customers. The Spanish-
speaking population exhibited a larger percentage of respondents who
never shop direct-market outlets and consequently the percentage of
regular weekly shoppers is much smaller, approximately 1 percent.

Summary
Each of the community markets covered in the survey exists under a
different set of rules each designed to serve a community's specific
needs. For this reason, the development and presentation of a set of
"recommended procedures" for the formation of a viable and successful
community market has been avoided. It was felt that the most appro-
priate service that could be presented would be to provide the survey
data in as straightforward a manner as possible. Since the intended
audience of this publication is community leaders across the state of
Florida, it is anticipated that the information presented can be inter-
preted in light of various local characteristics and used in the planning
process for new and/or improved community markets. There is one
common characteristic which each of the community markets sur-
veyed had in common: the inclusion of a representative of the county
Extension director's office somewhere in development of the market.
In some cases his function was solely as an intermediary between the
community leaders and the growers, and in some situations he was
more closely involved in organizing the market. Only very rarely was
the county agent and/or his staff involved in the everyday manage-
ment of the market. Community markets do need some form of man-
agement (latent management appears to be the most preferred) and
most community markets appear to function best as self-governing
units. The adage about the best government being the one which gov-
erns least appears to be the best rule of thumb. Since each community
has different strengths and weaknesses, it follows that each commu-
nity market will be different. For a market to be successful, it must
function to fulfil a specific community need. Accurately identifying
that factor is the most important criterion in developing a successful
community market.
Authors
George Bryan Wall and Forrest E. Stegelin are former Adjunct
Assistant Professor and Assistant Professor, respectively, Food and
Resource Economics Department, Institute of Food and Agricul-
tural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611.





TABLE 1. Mileage traveled by consumers to various markets.

U-Pick

Commu- Road-
All nity side All Vege- Straw- Blue-
Mileage Markets Markets Markets U-Pick tables berries berries Peaches Grapes
----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-5 23.98 42.02 26.48 15.52 25.96 20.09 13.16 3.41 15.97
6-15 22.49 18.81 13.59 25.49 27.80 21.66 32.90 17.05 25.52
16-30 28.68 28.33 11.85 31.41 24.75 31.24 29.51 36.37 24.44
31-50 8.79 3.93 6.27 11.36 12.58 13.34 8.46 21.59 5.39
51-70 4.33 1.79 3.48 5.60 3.45 8.79 2.44 12.50 2.49
> 70 7.76 1.43 12.89 9.81 2.43 2.83 13.53 9.09 16.18
Tourist 3.96 3.69 25.43 .80 3.04 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL
OBSERVATIONS 3002 840 287 1875 493 673 532 88 482

TABLE 2. Frequency of shopping trips to direct-market outlets.

U-Pick*

Number Commu- Road-
of All nity side All Vege- Straw- Blue-
Trips Markets Markets Markets U-Pick tables berries berries Peaches Grapes
----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily .60 1.31 .70 .27 .203 .31 .37 1.14 .207
Weekly 20.12 37.62 29.27 10.88 20.08 16.01 9.40 4.55 6.64
Biweekly 16.46 20.83 20.21 13.92 20.69 18.84 12.59 4.55 10.37
Monthly 23.88 20.60 18.47 26.19 27.38 30.77 23.31 27.27 22.61
Less 1 every
2 months 38.87 19.64 31.36 48.64 31.64 34.07 54.32 62.50 59.75

*During time period each crop is in season.









TABLE 3. Dollar purchases per shopping trip.

U-Pick

Commu- Road-
All nity side All Vege- Straw- Blue-
Dollars Markets Markets Markets U-Pick tables berries berries Peaches Grapes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $5.00 36.68 40.71 50.17 32.80 25.56 19.15 38.53 15.91 51.04
5.00-9.99 48.63 44.64 40.77 51.63 53.96 58.71 50.37 53.41 45.23
10.00- 14.99 10.39 10.48 6.27 10.99 15.21 15.23 8.08 22.73 2.08
15.00 20.00 2.37 1.19 2.09 2.93 3.45 4.71 2.06 5.68 .62
More than 20.00 1.87 2.98 .70 1.55 1.83 2.20 .75 2.27 .83



TABLE 4. Reasons given for shopping at direct-market outlets.

U-Pick

Commu- Road-
All nity side All Vege- Straw- Blue-
Reasons Markets Markets Markets U-Pick tables berries berries Peaches Grapes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prices 63.36 53.69 20.91 74.19 75.66 79.75 78.20 95.45 53.94
Quality 84.31 78.33 79.09 87.88 82.76 87.28 89.10 92.05 90.25
Volume 9.93 3.93 1.39 13.92 20.69 18.84 6.20 38.64 3.53
Convenience 23.88 28.69 52.61 17.33 13.79 10.36 22.37 13.67 24.07
Recreation 47.14 23.81 8.01 63.57 46.05 38.31 81.77 77.27 81.95
Other 3.20 7.98 1.05 1.39 .203 .16 .38 1.13 4.36









TABLE 5. Age distribution of direct-market consumers.

U-Pick

Commu- Road-
All nity side All Vege- Straw- Blue-
Age Markets Markets Markets U-Pick tables berries berries Peaches Grapes
years ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 20 1.04 .36 .70 1.40 .41 .47 2.26 0.00 1.87
20-39 27.02 21.45 31.36 28.86 33.81 34.12 28.30 19.32 27.65
40-59 45.69 43.74 52.27 45.55 47.75 46.03 41.13 53.41 44.91
over 60 26.12 34.45 15.33 24.03 18.03 19.37 28.30 27.27 24.95



TABLE 6. Income distribution of direct-market consumers.

U-Pick

Commu- Road-
Yearly All nity side All Vege- Straw- Blue-
Income Markets Markets Markets U-Pick tables berries berries Peaches Grapes
$ ---------------------------------------- % ----------------------------------------
Less than 5,000 7.64 10.87 9.02 5.90 6.86 7.63 5.43 4.17 2.87
5,000- 9,000 15.46 18.16 7.90 15.40 17.48 7.48 18.04 22.22 16.75
10,000 14,999 32.73 30.82 30.08 34.06 32.52 33.50 35.87 45.83 34.69
more than 15,000 44.02 40.27 53.01 44.47 42.70 50.85 40.65 27.78 45.69






TABLE 7. Family size of direct-market consumers.


U-Pick

Number Commu- Road-
of All nity side All Vege- Straw- Blue-
Persons Markets Markets Markets U-Pick tables berries berries Peaches Grapes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 5.84 3.93 4.53 6.90 2.25 3.31 10.73 7.96 8.71
2 43.67 53.99 50.17 38.04 39.39 35.96 43.13 34.09 35.06
3 15.79 14.54 18.47 15.94 14.69 16.72 15.82 18.18 17.22
4 18.60 17.28 17.07 19.42 23.67 23.50 16.01 17.05 17.84
5 8.88 5.84 7.32 10.49 9.80 11.20 10.17 12.50 8.92
6 4.11 2.38 2.09 5.19 6.94 5.84 2.45 4.55 6.22
7 1.97 1.19 .35 2.57 1.84 2.68 1.51 3.41 3.11
8 1.10 .83 1.39 1.43 .79 .19 2.27 2.70
9 or more .033 -.054 .21


TABLE 8. Source of information pertaining to direct-market outlets.


U-Pick

Commu- Road-
All nity side All Vege- Straw- Blue-
Media Markets Markets Markets U-Pick tables berries berries Peaches Grapes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newspaper 17.86 11.31 .35 23.47 21.70 19.94 32.52 0.00 23.03
Radio 1.63 3.10 .35 1.17 .203 .31 2.82 1.14 .42
Roadsigns 7.26 5.00 0.00 9.39 7.30 3.93 3.95 0.00 24.48
Television 2.83 0.00 0.00 4.53 .47 1.50 0.00 15.56
Word of mouth 49.33 47.14 15.68 55.47 47.47 59.03 65.79 79.55 39.63
Drive-by 20.65 27.62 74.91 9.23 24.34 15.70 3.01 10.23 1.66
Always known 6.23 7.97 9.06 5.01 5.27 5.34 3.20 9.09 6.02










TABLE 9. Response to telephone survey indicating direct-marketing shopping preference.

Ethnic Group

English Speaking Non-English Speaking AGGREGATE
Item Total r Total (7 Total %
Respondents
Never shop 269 59.6 41 75.9 310 61.4
Shop more than Once weekly 15 3.3 1 1.9 16 3.2
Once a week 42 9.3 3 5.6 45 8.9
Once every two weeks 27 6.0 3 5.6 30 5.9
Monthly 32 7.1 5 9.3 37 7.3
3-10 times year 36 8.0 1 1.9 37 7.3
Twice yearly 22 4.9 0 0 22 4.4
Once a year or less 8 1.8 0 0 8 1.6
Subtotal 451 100.0 54 100.2 505 100.0
Non-respondents
No answer 206 34 240
Refuse to answer 56 0 56
Disconnect 99 1 100
Subtotal 361 35 396
Total 812 89 901

1. Percentages are based on total number of respondents.
2. Does not sum to 100.0% due to rounding error.






















































This publication was promulgated at a cost of $777.30, or 38.9
cents per copy, to inform those interested in the development of
community markets. 9-2M-80



COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OF FLOR-
IDA, INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
K. R. Tefertlller, director, in cooperation with the United States
Department of Agriculture, publishes this information to further the
purpose of the May 8 and June 30, 1914 Acts of Congress; and Is
authorized to provide research, educational Information and other
services only to individuals and institutions that function without regard to race, color,
sex or national origin. Single copies of Extension publications (excluding 4-H and Youth
publications) are available free to Florida residents from County Extension Offices.
Information on bulk rates or copies for out-of-state purchasers is available from C. M.
Hinton, Publications Distribution Center, IFAS Building 664, University of Florida,
Galnesville, Florida 32611. Before publicizing this publication, editors should contact
this address to determine availability.




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