• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Preface
 Summary
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Direct-marketing methods
 The 1979 Survey
 The 1980 Survey
 Probable trends in farmer-to-consumer...
 Tables
 Back Cover






Group Title: Statistical bulletin ;, no. 681
Title: Farmer-to-consumer direct marketing
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053879/00001
 Material Information
Title: Farmer-to-consumer direct marketing selected states, 1979-80
Series Title: Statistical bulletin
Physical Description: iv, 86 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Henderson, Peter Louis, 1918-
Linstrom, Harold Richard, 1933-
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Economic Research Service
Publisher: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service
Place of Publication: Washington D.C
Publication Date: 1982
 Subjects
Subject: Farm produce -- Marketing -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre: federal government publication   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: Peter L. Henderson, Harold R. Linstrom.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "February 1982"--P. i.
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00053879
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000392294
oclc - 08310504
notis - ACD7234
lccn - 82601545

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Abstract
        Page i
    Preface
        Page ii
    Summary
        Page ii
        Page iii
    Table of Contents
        Page iv
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Direct-marketing methods
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    The 1979 Survey
        Page 7
        Comparison of direct-marketing methods
            Page 8
            Produce sold
                Page 8
            Added and avoided costs
                Page 9
            Location of farms
                Page 10
            Use of advertising
                Page 11
        Characteristics of direct-marketing farmers
            Page 12
            Full-time and part-time farming
                Page 12
                Page 13
            Reasons for selling directly to consumers
                Page 14
            Reasons for not selling directly to consumers
                Page 14
    The 1980 Survey
        Page 15
        Comparison of direct-marketing methods
            Page 16
            Products sold
                Page 16
            Added and avoided costs
                Page 17
            Location of farms
                Page 17
            use of advertising
                Page 17
        Characteristics of direct-marketing farmers
            Page 18
            Full-time and part-time farmers
                Page 18
            Products produced
                Page 18
            Reasons for selling directly to consumers
                Page 19
            Reasons for not selling directly to consumers
                Page 19
    Probable trends in farmer-to-consumer direct marketing
        Page 19
        Page 20
    Tables
        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
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        The 1980 Survey (Tables 33-61)
            Page 56
            Page 57
            Page 58
            Page 59
            Page 60
            Page 61
            Page 62
            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 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
    Back Cover
        Back Cover
Full Text
/o" o0-f


United States
Department of
AgrcSulture Farmer-to-Consumer
Economic
Research
riDirect Marketing
Statistical
Bulletin
umber681 Selected States, 1979-80
Peter L. Henderson
Harold R. Linstrom


"-iA li








FARMER-TO-CONSUMER DIRECT MARKETING, Selected
by Peter L. Henderson and Harold R. Linstrom.
Economics Division, Economic Research Service,
of Agriculture. Statistical Bulletin No. 681.


States, 1979-80,
National
U.S. Department


About 21,000 farmers surveyed in seven States in March 1980
reported selling $126 million worth of farm products directly
to consumers. About 44,000 farmers in nine States surveyed in
December 1979 reported $260 million worth of direct sales. The
States surveyed in 1980 were California, Illinois, Missouri,
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Texas. Those surveyed in
1979 were Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachu-
setts, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. The
chief products sold in both years were floral and nursery prod-
ucts, apples, peaches, strawberries, sweet corn, and tomatoes.
The chief selling methods were pick-your-own operations,
farmers' markets, and roadside stands.


Keywords:


Direct sales, Roadside stands, Pick-your-own,
Farmers' markets, Fruits, Vegetables, Floral and
nursery, 1976 Direct-Marketing Act.


Copies of this report can be ordered from:

EMS Publications, Room 0054-South
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20250

Telephone: (202) 447-7255


Washington, D.C. 20250


February 1982


i


ABSTRACT








PREFACE The increased interest by consumers and farmers in the midsev-
enties for direct buying and selling of farm products resulted
in the passage of the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct-Marketing Act
of 1976 (P.L. 94-463). The purpose of the law is to appraise
the extent of direct marketing and its benefits to consumers
and farmers and to promote the development and expansion of
direct marketing of agricultural commodities.

The act also directs the Secretary of Agriculture, through the
Economic Research Service, to conduct continual surveys to de-
termine the number of farmers marketing directly, the types of
direct-marketing methods in existence, the volume of business
conducted through each method, and the impact of such marketing
methods on financial returns to farmers and on food quality
and cost to consumers.

This is the second report of research findings under the 1976
Act. The first (AIB-436, July 1980) reported on direct mar-
keting in Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio,
and Pennsylvania.




SUMMARY Farmers in 16 States sold about $386 million worth of farm
products directly to consumers in 1979. Although that repre-
sents a little less than 1 percent of total farm sales in those
States, most of the direct-marketing farmers planned to expand
or keep their present level of direct sales in the next few
years; only about 14 percent planned to reduce their direct
sales activities.

Fifteen percent of the farmers in nine States surveyed during
December 1979 (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wiscon-
sin) sold $260 million worth of farm products directly to
consumers. About 5 percent of the farmers in seven States
surveyed in March 1980 (California, Illinois, Maine, Missouri,
New Hampshire, Texas, and Vermont) sold almost $126 million
worth of farm products directly to consumers. Direct farmer-
to-consumer sales represented about 2 percent of total cash
farm receipts for the nine States surveyed in December 1979,
but only 0.4 percent for the seven States surveyed in March
1980. The difference in total direct sales volume and the
percentage of total cash receipts represented by direct sales
is most likely related to the dominant types of farming, the
presence or absence of conventional wholesale buyers, and
number and nearness of urban population centers to farming
areas in the two groups of States.

The leading products sold directly (by dollar value) were simi-
lar for the two groups of States: floral and nursery products
(including bedding plants), apples, peaches, strawberries,
sweet corn, tomatoes, green beans, melons, and livestock and
poultry products.


ii








PREFACE The increased interest by consumers and farmers in the midsev-
enties for direct buying and selling of farm products resulted
in the passage of the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct-Marketing Act
of 1976 (P.L. 94-463). The purpose of the law is to appraise
the extent of direct marketing and its benefits to consumers
and farmers and to promote the development and expansion of
direct marketing of agricultural commodities.

The act also directs the Secretary of Agriculture, through the
Economic Research Service, to conduct continual surveys to de-
termine the number of farmers marketing directly, the types of
direct-marketing methods in existence, the volume of business
conducted through each method, and the impact of such marketing
methods on financial returns to farmers and on food quality
and cost to consumers.

This is the second report of research findings under the 1976
Act. The first (AIB-436, July 1980) reported on direct mar-
keting in Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio,
and Pennsylvania.




SUMMARY Farmers in 16 States sold about $386 million worth of farm
products directly to consumers in 1979. Although that repre-
sents a little less than 1 percent of total farm sales in those
States, most of the direct-marketing farmers planned to expand
or keep their present level of direct sales in the next few
years; only about 14 percent planned to reduce their direct
sales activities.

Fifteen percent of the farmers in nine States surveyed during
December 1979 (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wiscon-
sin) sold $260 million worth of farm products directly to
consumers. About 5 percent of the farmers in seven States
surveyed in March 1980 (California, Illinois, Maine, Missouri,
New Hampshire, Texas, and Vermont) sold almost $126 million
worth of farm products directly to consumers. Direct farmer-
to-consumer sales represented about 2 percent of total cash
farm receipts for the nine States surveyed in December 1979,
but only 0.4 percent for the seven States surveyed in March
1980. The difference in total direct sales volume and the
percentage of total cash receipts represented by direct sales
is most likely related to the dominant types of farming, the
presence or absence of conventional wholesale buyers, and
number and nearness of urban population centers to farming
areas in the two groups of States.

The leading products sold directly (by dollar value) were simi-
lar for the two groups of States: floral and nursery products
(including bedding plants), apples, peaches, strawberries,
sweet corn, tomatoes, green beans, melons, and livestock and
poultry products.


ii







The most popular method of direct selling was also the same for
the two groups of States: Selling from a farm building (sales-
room of nurseries and greenhouses, packinghouse, shed, or
farmhouse). Following in order were roadside stands, public
farmers' markets, and pick-your-own.

Most of the direct-market farmers surveyed were small farmers
(total farm sales under $20,000 annually). In addition, about
65 percent of the direct-marketing farmers were part-time
farmers with off-farm sources of income.

About 85 percent of the direct-marketing farmers in both groups
of States were located less than 20 miles from an urban popula-
tion center. Distance to a nearby city appeared to be less
critical for farmers selling through public farmers' markets
and pick-your-own than other direct methods of selling.

The leading reasons farmers gave for selling directly to con-
sumers were higher income, access to market (able to sell
directly to consumers but not to conventional buyers), labor
concerns (family labor and hired labor not available), and
social considerations. The primary reason given by farmers
who did not sell any of their products directly to consumers
was that their products were not suitable for direct selling.
Other reasons for not selling direct to consumers included
"too much trouble" and "volume too large."


iii








CONTENTS Page

SUMMARY . . . . . . ii


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


DIRECT-MARKETING METHODS. . . ... 4


THE 1979 SURVEY . . . . ... .. 7
Comparison of Direct-Marketing Methods. . . 8
Products Sold . . . .... .. 8
Added and Avoided Costs . . . 9
Location of Farms . . . .... 10
Use of Advertising. . . . ... 11
Characteristics of Direct-Marketing Farmers . .. 12
Full-Time and Part-Time Farming . ... 12
Products Produced . . . ... 12
Reasons for Selling Directly to Consumers . .. 14
Reasons for Not Selling Directly to Consumers .. 14


THE 1980 SURVEY . . . . ... .. 15
Comparison of Direct-Marketing Methods. . ... 16
Products Sold . .... .. . 16
Added and Avoided Costs .............. 17
Location of Farms . . . ... 17
Use of Advertising. . . . ... 17
Characteristics of Direct-Marketing Farmers . .. 18
Full-Time and Part-Time Farming . . ... 18
Products Produced . . . .... 18
Reasons for Selling Directly to Consumers . .. 19
Reasons for Not Selling Directly to Consumers . 19


PROBABLE TRENDS IN FARMER-TO-CONSUMER DIRECT MARKETING.. 19


TABLES . .. . ............
The 1979 Survey (Tables 1-32) ............ 21
The 1980 Survey (Tables 33-61). ... .. .... 56


iv












Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing,

Selected States, 1979-80


Peter L. Henderson
Harold R. Linstrom


INTRODUCTION


Direct farmer-to-consumer marketing includes any method by
which farmers sell their products directly to consumers. This
study covers the extent of direct farmer-to-consumer marketing
of farm products in selected States during 1979 and 1980. Re-
sults contained in this report are based on surveys of approx-
imately 350 direct-marketing farmers per State (or per sampling
unit). I/ The surveys were conducted under provisions of the
Farmer-to-Consumer Direct-Marketing Act of 1976 during December
1979 and March 1980 and primarily covered the 1979 marketing
season. This is the second report based on systematic surveys
conducted by the Economic Research Service to monitor the ex-
tent of direct marketing as required by the act.

There are both economic advantages and disadvantages in farmer-
to-consumer direct marketing. Farmers can increase their
incomes by obtaining higher prices, reducing costs, or putting
underemployed resources to better use. Consumers benefit from
lower per-unit prices and higher quality products.

A prime disadvantage to farmers is that the total volume of
product in-a given area that can be sold during a specified
time period is limited by the number of consumers in the area.
Since many agricultural products are highly perishable and
must be consumed quickly, the local demand may be insufficient
to absorb local supplies. With pick-your-own methods, there is
risk from adverse weather and insufficient number of customers,
especially during critical periods of maturity. There is also
risk associated with consumer injuries while on farmers'
property, as well as possible damage to crops and property by
consumers while on the farmers' land.



1/ Some States were grouped with others to arrive at valid
estimates for areas with small numbers of farmers. Specifi-
cally, Maryland and Delaware were treated as one State, as were
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island (hereafter called
the southern New England States), and Maine, New Hampshire, and
Vermont (hereafter called the northern New England States) for
estimating the total value of direct sales and similar
tabulations.


1








Disadvantages to consumers include the time and expenses in-
volved in going to the farmer's place of business and lack of
experience in harvesting or judging the quality and maturity
of produce.

The States surveyed were selected because of the availability
of sampling lists, the importance of direct marketing to their
economies, and their geographical distribution. A sample of
500 to 1,500 farmers was selected in each State from lists of
farmers with direct-marketing potential, for example, nurseries
and fruit and vegetable growers. The names on the initial
sample were screened by telephone to identify those who sold
directly to consumers. This procedure identified approximately
350 direct-marketing farmers per State, or per sampling unit.
Those identified as direct-marketing farmers were personally
interviewed about their direct-marketing activities. Those who
did not participate in direct sales were contacted and asked
why they did not sell direct to consumers. All the responses
are summarized in the tables.

In addition to those contacted from the above lists, an area
sampling frame was used in each State to identify direct-mar-
keting farmers not on the lists. 2/ Area samples consisted of
an average of 230 farmers per State, or sampling unit, selected
from economic area frames. These segments were screened to
locate all resident farm operators. Those who marketed di-
rectly (and were not included on the sample lists previously
described) were then interviewed to obtain data to estimate
direct-marketing activities for farmers not included on the
lists of potential direct marketers.

The variability in estimates for individual products is largely
associated with the sampling procedure. The lists were largely
composed of farmers producing fruits, vegetables, and floral
and nursery products. The area sample frames were mainly
relied on to obtain direct sales of other products such as
livestock and livestock products, poultry and poultry products,
dairy products, forest products, and farmers selling fruits and
vegetables that were not included in the list sample frames.
Thus, overestimates and underestimates of the value of direct
sales are likely to be greatest for those specific products
which are summarized in the other product category, table 1
(1979 survey) and table 33 (1980 survey). Sales data for spe-
cific products in those tables (1 and 33) are not comparable to
those reported for the six States surveyed in 1978. Sales data
for the products that were questioned (because of the rela-
tively small number of farmers that reported sales of these
products from the area sampling frames) were included in the
sales of the other product category so that sales of the
individual products would not be overstated in 1978 tables.

2/ The area sampling frame represents all land in States in
which surveys are conducted. The frame is stratified into
land-use strata and expansion factors are derived by dividing
the sample size (acres) in each stratum by total land (acres)
in the stratum.


2








However, evidence from case studies of direct farmer-to-con-
sumer marketing and conversations with research workers in some
of the States surveyed in 1979 and 1980 indicate that estimates
derived from the statewide surveys of farmers are more likely
to underestimate than overestimate sales for such products.
For example, case studies of nine farmer-owned integrated live-
stock operations in Texas (integrated from production through
retailing) revealed that those operations sold 30 percent more
livestock products directly to consumers in 1979 than was found
in the statewide survey for all livestock, poultry, and live-
stock and poultry products in that State. 3/ A University of
Maine researcher also informed the authors that he had records
showing that one Maine dairy farmer had greater direct sales
of milk than our data showed for the entire State. Therefore,
the 1979 and 1980 sales data for individual products were
unadjusted expanded totals from the sample farmers interviewed.

In addition to the direct sales to consumers, the nine farmer-
owned integrated firms did custom slaughtering and processing
for farmers and consumers. The estimated value of custom
slaughter and processed cattle and hogs was $3.3 million. It
is not known how much of this amount represented direct farmer-
to-consumer sales. 4/ The Texas study also analyzed the opera-
tion of eight nonfarm firms (integrated from slaughter through
retail) that provided custom slaughter and processing services
for farmers and consumers. The estimated value of custom
slaughter and processed cattle and hogs was $4.7 million for
the eight firms, but it is not known what percentage repre-
sented direct farmer-to-consumer sales of live animals.

Since data furnished by most farmers in the surveys was from
memory of the previous year's operation, it is more likely
that the sales estimates of individual products are understated
rather than overstated. This is because minor and small sales
are not too important to the total farming operation and are
readily forgotten, the direct-marketing enterprise is only
"pin money" to the farm family and not considered part of the
farming operations, and farmers tend to be conservative when
reporting sales and income data.

As illustrated in the preceding discussions, together with
normal sampling errors, the estimated sales volume in dollars
for individual products are subject to error. Even so, the
estimates do reflect the relative importance of specific
products in contribution to the total direct sales of agri-
cultural products to consumers.



3/ David Paul Crawford, "Economics of Vertically Integrated
Livestock and Meat Operations," M.S. thesis, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas, May 1980.
4/ Custom services for farmers for their own consumption do
not involve farmer-to-consumer sales. But custom slaughter
and processing for consumers do, since consumers purchase live
animals that are custom slaughtered from farmers.


3








DIRECT-MARKETING
METHODS


Farmers sell their products directly to consumers by several
means. The commonly used methods in the States surveyed were
sales from the farmhouse or another farm building (referred to
in this report as "farm building"), pick-your-own (sometimes
called PYO or U-pick), roadside stands or markets, public
farmers' markets located in or near urban centers (commonly
called "farmers' markets" or "curb markets"), house-to-house
delivery, and sales from a truck or other vehicle parked along
roadsides, in parking lots, and in similar places with poten-
tial consumer traffic (this method is sometimes referred to
as "tailgating"). House-to-house delivery and selling from
trucks or other vehicles were summarized in the tables under
"other" because of the relatively low volume of sales through
these methods (see tables at the back of this report).

Sales by farmer-owned cooperative marketing associations
directly to consumers are also defined by the 1976 Direct-Mar-
keting Act to be direct farmer-to-consumer marketing. 5/
These organizations usually assemble, grade, pack or process,
ship, and sell in wholesale lots to wholesale buyers and dis-
tributors. However, there are some exceptions to the general
operating practices for farmer-owned cooperative associations.
For example, some cooperative dairy marketing associations
still sell milk through house-to-house delivery routes. 6/

There are also consumer cooperatives that buy and distribute
food to their members. Some are formally organized and operate
similarly to conventional foodstores, except that any profits
are refunded to their patrons in proportion to their purchases.
Other consumer purchasing organizations are less formally
organized, sometimes operating out of a member's home. Such
organizations assemble orders in wholesale units and buy
directly from a wholesaler, distributor, or farmer and then
divide the purchase among their members. In this survey of
direct-marketing activities, it was not possible to determine
the volume and value of sales made by farmers to such coopera-
tive buying organizations.

The pick-your-own method offers the greatest potential savings
to both farmers and consumers, despite some disadvantages.
Since the consumer harvests the product, much of the cost as-
sociated with harvesting and marketing is borne directly by the
consumer. However, most consumers are not experienced with
harvesting agricultural products and require close supervision
for their own protection as well as for the protection of the
surrounding crops and property of the farmer and to insure that
customers pay for all the produce they harvest. To that end,


5/ Direct sales to consumers by cooperative marketing associ-
ations are covered in other surveys since individual farmers
are not generally aware of what portion of the products they
deliver to the cooperative is sold directly to consumers.
6/ Harold R. Linstrom and Peter L. Henderson, "Direct Market-
ing by Farm Cooperatives," National Food Review, Summer 1980,
NFR-11, Econ. Stat. Coop. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., p. 15.


4








most farmers establish-relatively rigid rules pertaining to
minimum volumes, parking of vehicles, inspection of containers,
and minimum age for children accompanying adults into the
fields. Some farmers have adopted one or more of the following
to facilitate supervision and crowd control: check-in sta-
tions, designated parking areas, checkout area between field
and vehicles, a supervised play area for children, and trans-
portation from check-in or parking areas to fields. Such
measures add to farmers' cost of operations and must be re-
covered through higher product prices. Nevertheless, consumer
prices for pick-your-own operations are usually the lowest
among all direct-marketing methods. Consumers also benefit in
being able to select fruits or vegetables that are, in their
judgment, the freshest and best quality in the fields. Con-
sumers do have to consider their added cost in time and
transportation, and the inconvenience involved in this method.

Some products do not lend themselves to the pick-your-own
method because some experience, skill, or strength are required
to determine optimum maturity and to harvest the produce.
Picking out ripe watermelon or mature sweet corn, for example,
requires a fair amount of expertise; harvesting apples and
cherries from a fully mature standard tree (nondwarf stock)
requires both strength and skill to move and climb ladders.

Roadside stands or markets represent the retailing operation of
a farmer-to-retail integrated operation for farm produce. The
stand (market) consists of facilities to display and protect
farm produce. When "stands" and "markets" are differentiated
it is largely on the basis of the kind of facilities provided.
In general, facilities for roadside markets are larger and more
modern than roadside stands. The latter may offer only tempo-
rary shelter and minimum facilities for storing and displaying
produce.

Some roadside markets have elaborate facilities, including re-
frigerated coolers for storing produce as well as refrigerated
display cases. Such markets generally stay open a longer
period of time and offer a wider array of products, including
nonfood products, for customer convenience and to help spread
the overhead costs of the facility. Operators of such markets
frequently purchase part of their products from other farmers,
as well as from conventional wholesale outlets.

Roadside stands are located adjacent to a public road. Some of
the costs associated with conventional marketing are eliminated
or materially reduced with this method, so farmer-operators can
charge lower prices to consumers while at the same time enhanc-
ing their own income. The costs for transportation from the
farm to shipping points, shipping containers, and handling
charges of assemblers and wholesalers are eliminated. Addi-
tional economies may be obtained in the integrated operation
from greater use of both family and hired labor, and other
inputs among the various production and marketing components
of the operation.


5








Operators of retail farm outlets (including roadside markets or
stands) do have additional operating costs not incurred by
farmers selling to conventional wholesale buyers. Such costs
include the fixed and variable costs of their physical facili-
ties (such as interest, taxes, depreciation, repairs, parking
lots, utilities, and insurance), labor for operating the stand,
consumer packaging materials, advertising, and other items re-
quired to satisfy the demand of consumers. The extent of such
additional cost items is closely related to the size and elab-
orateness of the facilities, customer traffic, and sales
volume. However, the larger, higher volume markets may gain
economies of scale that lead to lower per-unit costs for labor
and other items.

The farmers' market is a designated location where a group of
farmers can sell their products directly to consumers. These
markets are usually located within or near urban centers and
may be owned and maintained by farmers' cooperative associa-
tions or by local or State governments. Facilities may range
from an open lot where farmers park their vehicles and display
products to enclosed buildings with display counters, lights,
heat, and refrigeration. Regardless of ownership, farmers
usually pay a fee for the space occupied to cover maintenance
costs and advertising. Some markets are open every day of the
week, but most are open only on certain days. 7/

Prices for produce at farmers' markets tend to be lower than
prices for similar items in foodstores. Consumers also have a
wide array of products from which to choose since a number of
growers offer their goods for sale. This concentration of
farmer marketers and the close proximity to large numbers of
urban consumers tend to attract large numbers of customers.

Some farmers sell directly from a farm building or an off-road
stand or market. This method is similar to the roadside stand,
except that the facilities are less formal and may be used
primarily for other purposes. Moreover, the personnel serving
customers usually perform other duties between customer visits.
Many large, specialized farm operators that sell most of their
production through conventional outlets use this method of
direct marketing to dispose of that part of their production
that does not meet or exceeds the requirements of conventional
outlets. Such products include undersized or oversized fruit,
and fruit too ripe to withstand the rigors of the conventional
marketing system.

House-to-house delivery or door-to-door selling is the most
expensive method of direct marketing for farmers. Farmers


7/ During recent years there has been a significant growth in
the number of farmers' markets. Part of the growth has re-
sulted from activities conducted under section 5 of the Direct-
Marketing Act of 1976, while others have been established by
municipal governments, Chambers of Commerce, and similar orga-
nizations to meet the demands of consumers and small farmers.


6








using this method perform all the marketing services performed
by the conventional marketing system plus delivery of items to
the consumer's door. This method was relatively important in
past years, especially for products such as milk, butter, and
eggs that were purchased regularly and could be delivered on
a consistent schedule. 8/

THE 1979 SURVEY The survey of direct-marketing farmers conducted during
December 1979 in Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin
revealed that approximately 44,000 farmers in those States
(about 15 percent of all farmers in those States) sold about
$260 million worth of farm products directly to consumers in
1979 (table 1).

The leading products sold, by dollar value, were floral and
nursery products (including bedding plants), apples, straw-
berries, peaches, sweet corn, tomatoes, livestock and poultry
products, dairy products, and honey and syrups. The only
States in the survey with a significant volume of dairy product
sales were New York, Colorado, and the three southern New
England States.

When asked to indicate their plans for direct marketing over
the next 5 years, about 38 percent of all the farmers respond-
ing said they plan to continue at the same level as in 1979
(table 2). Almost 28 percent said they would increase their
direct marketing, about 15 percent planned to reduce their
direct marketing, and about 20 percent were undecided.

The $260 million in direct sales to consumers by those farmers
who sold all or part of their total production through direct
sales methods represented only 2 percent of total sales of all
farmers in the nine States but 24 percent of total sales of the
farmers in those States who sold some or all of their product
directly to consumers. 9/ The percentage of total production
of specific farm products by farmers selling directly to con-
sumers in the nine States varied from about 4 percent for plums
and sweetpotatoes to 84 percent for strawberries and 97 percent
for other berries (mainly blueberries, blackberries, and rasp-
berries). The percentage of production of direct-marketing
farmers that was sold direct in each State was associated with
the size of operation, availability of harvest labor, and the
availability of conventional market outlets, which in turn de-
pends on the volume of commercial production. For example,
over 60 percent of the apple crop was sold direct to consumers
in Tennessee and Wisconsin; but in Colorado, New York, and
Maryland, where apples are produced chiefly by large, special-
ized growers, 20 percent or less of apple production was sold

8/ The sales volume sold to consumers by this method in the
States surveyed in 1979 and 1980 was not of sufficient magni-
tude to warrant separate tabulation.
9/ Based on total units produced (bushels, pounds, dozen,
etc.) and units sold direct to consumers weighted by dollar
value of direct sales of specific products.


7












Comparison of
Direct-Marketing
Methods


Products Sold


through direct-market outlets. Similar variations in the
percentage of production of specific products sold direct to
consumers can be observed in table 3.

Eighty-five percent of direct-marketing farmers used only one
method to sell direct to consumers, 1 percent used two methods,
and 2 percent used three or more methods.

Sales at a farm building, including the farmhouse, were the
leading direct sales method in all nine States, used by 59
percent of all farmers (table 4). That method was followed by
roadside stands (15 percent), farmers' markets (8 percent),
and pick-your-own (8 percent). About 27 percent of farmers
utilized other methods such as house-to-house delivery, cata-
logue and mail order, farm vehicles parked on roadsides and in
parking lots, mobile markets, and other methods not separately
tabulated because of the relatively small volume sold through
each method. Although sales from a farm building were the
leading method used in each State, the importance of other
methods varied considerably among States (tables 5-10).

Between 50 and 90 percent of strawberries were sold by the
pick-your-own method in all States. Approximately 31 percent
of total fruit sales in the nine States were by the pick-your-
own method, ranging from 7 percent in Colorado to over 50
percent in Wisconsin. The pick-your-own method was less impor-
tant for vegetable products, floral and nursery products, and
products included in the "other product" category. Christmas
trees and firewood accounted for all sales by this method for
products in the "other product" category. Roadside stands were
important direct sales outlets for all kinds of fruits, vegeta-
bles, and melons in all States, accounting for about 50 percent
of direct-marketed fruits and nuts (ranging from 17 to 65 per-
cent among the nine States), and 60 percent of direct-marketed
vegetable and melon sales (ranging from 37 to 88 percent).
About 16 percent of the total direct sales of floral and nur-
sery products (ranging from less than 1 percent to 35 percent)
were sold through roadside stands. Bedding plants, potted
plants, and shrubs accounted for substantially all floral and
nursery products sold by this method. About 6 percent of the
total sales of products in the "other" category were sold
through roadside stands (ranging from less than 1 to 25 percent
among States). Eggs, Christmas trees, honey and syrup, and
processed fruits accounted for most of these sales.

Direct sales of farm products from a farm building (not adja-
cent to a public road) varied from 27 percent in the southern
New England States to 70 percent in Colorado for an overall
average (for all products) of 38 percent. This was the most
important method of sales for products in the "other" category
and for floral and nursery products, accounting for 53 and 41
percent of sales, respectively. About 13 percent of total
fruit sales and 18 percent of vegetable and melon sales were
by this method.


8












Comparison of
Direct-Marketing
Methods


Products Sold


through direct-market outlets. Similar variations in the
percentage of production of specific products sold direct to
consumers can be observed in table 3.

Eighty-five percent of direct-marketing farmers used only one
method to sell direct to consumers, 1 percent used two methods,
and 2 percent used three or more methods.

Sales at a farm building, including the farmhouse, were the
leading direct sales method in all nine States, used by 59
percent of all farmers (table 4). That method was followed by
roadside stands (15 percent), farmers' markets (8 percent),
and pick-your-own (8 percent). About 27 percent of farmers
utilized other methods such as house-to-house delivery, cata-
logue and mail order, farm vehicles parked on roadsides and in
parking lots, mobile markets, and other methods not separately
tabulated because of the relatively small volume sold through
each method. Although sales from a farm building were the
leading method used in each State, the importance of other
methods varied considerably among States (tables 5-10).

Between 50 and 90 percent of strawberries were sold by the
pick-your-own method in all States. Approximately 31 percent
of total fruit sales in the nine States were by the pick-your-
own method, ranging from 7 percent in Colorado to over 50
percent in Wisconsin. The pick-your-own method was less impor-
tant for vegetable products, floral and nursery products, and
products included in the "other product" category. Christmas
trees and firewood accounted for all sales by this method for
products in the "other product" category. Roadside stands were
important direct sales outlets for all kinds of fruits, vegeta-
bles, and melons in all States, accounting for about 50 percent
of direct-marketed fruits and nuts (ranging from 17 to 65 per-
cent among the nine States), and 60 percent of direct-marketed
vegetable and melon sales (ranging from 37 to 88 percent).
About 16 percent of the total direct sales of floral and nur-
sery products (ranging from less than 1 percent to 35 percent)
were sold through roadside stands. Bedding plants, potted
plants, and shrubs accounted for substantially all floral and
nursery products sold by this method. About 6 percent of the
total sales of products in the "other" category were sold
through roadside stands (ranging from less than 1 to 25 percent
among States). Eggs, Christmas trees, honey and syrup, and
processed fruits accounted for most of these sales.

Direct sales of farm products from a farm building (not adja-
cent to a public road) varied from 27 percent in the southern
New England States to 70 percent in Colorado for an overall
average (for all products) of 38 percent. This was the most
important method of sales for products in the "other" category
and for floral and nursery products, accounting for 53 and 41
percent of sales, respectively. About 13 percent of total
fruit sales and 18 percent of vegetable and melon sales were
by this method.


8




























Added and Avoided
Costs


Sales through other methods of direct marketing (house-to-
house delivery, from vehicles parked on roads or in parking
lots, and mail order) accounted for 43 percent of floral and
nursery product sales and 40 percent of sales of products in
the "other" category, but only about 1 percent each of fruit,
vegetable, and melon sales. The relatively high percentage of
sales of floral, nursery, and other products by these other
methods can be at least partially explained by the nature of
the products in these categories, traditional methods of sell-
ing, and the degree of integration in some of the farming
operations. For example, in some floral and nursery opera-
tions, production and marketing are integrated to the extent
that floral arrangements are prepared and delivered directly to
the consumer; in addition, some nurseries provide landscaping
service. Other examples include the traditional butter-and-egg
home delivery routes and home delivery of milk by some dairy
producer-distributors.

Each method of marketing has its own inherent costs. In choos-
ing a method of marketing, a farmer ought to consider all costs
associated with each method in relation to expected returns and
to the volume of sales for each method. The direct-marketing
farmers surveyed were asked to identify added costs they in-
curred and costs they avoided for the direct-marketing method
(or methods) they employed as compared with the cost of selling
through conventional market outlets (table 11). The variations
in the responses for specific added cost items among users of
different methods were generally logical. Farmers selling at
public farmers' markets have additional costs for stall rent
and transportation. Farmers using the pick-your-own method
have additional advertising costs, but lower costs for labor,
transportation, and containers. Overall, the pick-your-own
direct marketers generally reported fewer added costs and
avoided more costs than farmers using other methods.

Labor, containers, and transportation were reported as both an
added and avoided cost, and for some methods these may appear
to be inconsistent. However, most of these apparent inconsist-
encies in percentages can be explained by the number of farmers
replying, and the type or kind of labor and containers used.
For example, pick-your-own operators would avoid harvest and
packinghouse labor cost, but would require labor for super-
vision, crowd control, and sales. Container costs avoided
were largely packing crates or shipping containers, but addi-
tional container costs represented consumer packages used in
the retail operation.

Advertising was a major added cost item for all methods of
direct marketing, except for public farmers' markets; ranging
from about 30 to 64 percent of farmers using each method.
Pick-your-own and roadside stand operators were the heaviest
users of media advertising and many used more than one medium
as evidenced by the sum of the percentages using each medium--
about 1.3 times the total reporting the use of advertising,
including "word of mouth" by customers. Pick-your-own direct


9








marketers were heavier users of newspaper advertising than
roadside stand operators but the latter were heavier users of
road signs and radio, and used direct mail to about the same
extent as pick-your-own operators. Only 8 percent of the
farmers using a public farmers' market reported advertising as
an added cost item. However, advertising is an indirect cost
to most of these farmers, since most markets do incur advertis-
ing costs, which are included in the stall rent and market
fees paid by participating farmers.

Location of Farms A successful direct-marketing operation must generate a sales
volume large enough to cover operating expenses, and earn
sufficient profits to cover risk and competitive returns on
invested capital. Therefore, the location of a direct-market-
ing enterprise with respect to population concentrations and
accessibility to potential customers affects its feasibility
and potential profitability. Farmers were asked in the survey
about the size and distance to the closest cities and towns
with and without public farmers' markets (tables 12-25) and the
type of road accessible to their farms (table 26).

The potential numbers of customers for a farmer depends largely
upon the population of nearby urban centers, the distance to
such urban centers, and the types of roads potential customers
must travel. The population of nearby urban areas generally
governs the number of customers who can be attracted to the
market outlet. But the inconveniences associated with travel
and accessibility limit the number of customers that can be
attracted to farms or direct market outlets.

The population of the city nearest to almost two-thirds of di-
rect-marketing farmers in the nine States was under 10,000 and
the population of the nearest city for an additional 22 percent
of these farmers was between 10,000 and 50,000 (table 12).
That is, fewer than 15 percent of the farmers were close to
cities of over 50,000. Only farmers using public farmers'
markets showed a significant number (28 percent) located near
a city with a population of 100,000 or more.

The size of the nearest city with a farmers' market for 35
percent of all farmers was between 10,000 and 50,000, followed
by cities between 100,000 and 500,000 for 25 percent of the
farmers, and under 10,000 for 23 percent of all farmers
(table 12).

The distribution of direct-marketing farmers with respect to
the size of the nearest city with and without public farmers'
markets varied considerably from the overall averages among
States (tables 13-25). This variation among States is asso-
ciated with the number of urban areas within each State and
the degree of industrial activity in smaller cities and towns.

About 89 percent of direct-marketing farmers in the nine States
were located less than 20 miles from the nearest city (table
22). Almost 75 percent were less than 10 miles from the


10






































Use of Advertising


nearest city; 14 percent were between 10 and 20 miles; and
11 percent were more than 20 miles from the nearest city.

Farmers using the pick-your-own, roadside stand, and public
farmers' markets were more likely to be more than 20 miles
from the nearest city than farmers using other methods (18-25
percent versus about 7 percent). However, except for those
using farmers' markets, between 40 and 48 percent of farmers
were located within 5 miles of the nearest city.

The impact of distance from potential customers in choosing
methods to sell directly to consumers is illustrated in table
22. Farmers seem to prefer other methods when the distance to
a public farmers' market increases. This tendency was espe-
cially pronounced for farmers selling to consumers through
roadside stands, farm buildings, and other methods. About 44
to 57 percent of the farmers using these methods were located
20 miles or more from cities with public farmers' markets.

The type of road accessible to direct-marketing farmers affects
the convenience or inconvenience to potential customers. The
importance of access to a paved road or street is clearly
illustrated in table 26: only 9 percent of direct-marketing
farmers were located on unpaved roads, 63 percent were located
on secondary paved roads, and 16 percent were located on U.S.
and major State highways.

Advertising was one of the leading added cost Items incurred by
direct-marketing farmers compared with selling to conventional
wholesale buyers. About 84 percent of the farmers reported
using some form of advertising, ranging from about 77 percent
in Maryland and Delaware to 86 percent in the southern New
England States (table 27). Almost 80 percent indicated that
they relied on "word of mouth" advertising by satisfied cus-
tomers to attract potential customers. While "word of mouth"
information conveyed by satisfied customers does not meet the
classical definition of advertising (using public media--news-
papers, radio, television, etc.--for a fee), it is conceded to
be one of the most effective means of attracting customers for
products and services, since the personal endorsement of
friends and acquaintances tends to be believable. However,
producers of goods and services must attract an initial core
of customers, and continually strive to maintain and broaden
their base of customers by other means as there is a continuous
loss of customers through attrition. Direct-marketing farmers
used various media to inform customers of their existence and
the products available for sale. Road signs, newspapers,
direct mail, and radio were the most important media for
direct-marketing farmers in the nine States surveyed.

The low percentage of farmers selling through farmers' markets
who reported advertising costs is understandable since the
managers of such markets conduct their own advertising and
publicity to attract customers. Thus, farmers who did not use
other methods of direct selling or advertise individually prob-
ably would not incur any direct advertising costs.


11

























Characteristics of
Direct-Marketing
Farmers







Full-Time and Part-
Time Farming


Products Produced


Pick-your-own and roadside, stand operators were the heaviest
users of media advertising and many used more than one medium
as evidenced by the sum of the percentages using each medium--
about 1.3 times the total reporting the use of advertising,
including "word of mouth" by customers. Pick-your-own direct-
marketers were heavier users of newspapers than roadside stand
operators but the latter were heavier users of road signs and
radio, and used direct mail to about the same extent as pick-
your-own operators (table 27).

The use of various types of advertising by direct-marketing
farmers selling from a farm building and using other methods
was approximately the same as the average for all direct-mar-
keting methods.

Almost three-fourths of the direct-marketing farmers in the
nine States surveyed in 1979 had total farm sales of less than
$20,000 annually (table 28). These farmers accounted for only
20 percent of the nine-State total direct farmer-to-consumer
sales, ranging from a low of 7 percent in Colorado to 46
percent in Tennessee. Those size characteristics of direct-
marketing farmers in the nine States are similar to the size
characteristics of all farmers in the United States.

Almost two-thirds of the direct-marketing farmers in the nine
States were part-time farmers with off-farm sources of income
(table 29). The ratio of full-time and part-time direct-market-
ing farmers varied considerably among the States. Full-time
farmers ranged from a high of 55 percent in Colorado to a low
of 14 percent in Maryland and Delaware. There was less varia-
tion in the overall (nine-State total) ratios of full- and
part-time farmers among direct-marketing methods; the percent-
age of full-time farmers ranged from 26 percent of those using
public farmers' markets to 37 percent for those selling from a
farm building. However, the percentage of full- and part-time
farmers varied significantly among marketing methods both
between and within States.

Direct marketing was thus important to both full- and part-time
farmers as a means of supplementing their income. Direct
marketing may be the primary outlet for small full-time or
part-time farmers who do not produce in sufficient quantities
to attract large-volume conventional buyers. Large-scale,
full-time farmers also use direct-market outlets to dispose of
products that do not meet the requirements of conventional
buyers, and for salvage and gleaning operations. Pick-your-own
and sales from a farm building are direct-marketing methods
frequently used by large-scale commercial operators in salvage
or gleaning operations when harvest and marketing costs associ-
ated with selling to conventional shipping points and wholesale
buyers exceed prices paid by such buyers.

Direct-marketing farmers in the nine States generally grew
several products (table 30). Over a third produced field
crops; almost half produced livestock; a fourth produced poul-
try and vegetables; 15 to 18 percent produced fruits and nuts,


12

























Characteristics of
Direct-Marketing
Farmers







Full-Time and Part-
Time Farming


Products Produced


Pick-your-own and roadside, stand operators were the heaviest
users of media advertising and many used more than one medium
as evidenced by the sum of the percentages using each medium--
about 1.3 times the total reporting the use of advertising,
including "word of mouth" by customers. Pick-your-own direct-
marketers were heavier users of newspapers than roadside stand
operators but the latter were heavier users of road signs and
radio, and used direct mail to about the same extent as pick-
your-own operators (table 27).

The use of various types of advertising by direct-marketing
farmers selling from a farm building and using other methods
was approximately the same as the average for all direct-mar-
keting methods.

Almost three-fourths of the direct-marketing farmers in the
nine States surveyed in 1979 had total farm sales of less than
$20,000 annually (table 28). These farmers accounted for only
20 percent of the nine-State total direct farmer-to-consumer
sales, ranging from a low of 7 percent in Colorado to 46
percent in Tennessee. Those size characteristics of direct-
marketing farmers in the nine States are similar to the size
characteristics of all farmers in the United States.

Almost two-thirds of the direct-marketing farmers in the nine
States were part-time farmers with off-farm sources of income
(table 29). The ratio of full-time and part-time direct-market-
ing farmers varied considerably among the States. Full-time
farmers ranged from a high of 55 percent in Colorado to a low
of 14 percent in Maryland and Delaware. There was less varia-
tion in the overall (nine-State total) ratios of full- and
part-time farmers among direct-marketing methods; the percent-
age of full-time farmers ranged from 26 percent of those using
public farmers' markets to 37 percent for those selling from a
farm building. However, the percentage of full- and part-time
farmers varied significantly among marketing methods both
between and within States.

Direct marketing was thus important to both full- and part-time
farmers as a means of supplementing their income. Direct
marketing may be the primary outlet for small full-time or
part-time farmers who do not produce in sufficient quantities
to attract large-volume conventional buyers. Large-scale,
full-time farmers also use direct-market outlets to dispose of
products that do not meet the requirements of conventional
buyers, and for salvage and gleaning operations. Pick-your-own
and sales from a farm building are direct-marketing methods
frequently used by large-scale commercial operators in salvage
or gleaning operations when harvest and marketing costs associ-
ated with selling to conventional shipping points and wholesale
buyers exceed prices paid by such buyers.

Direct-marketing farmers in the nine States generally grew
several products (table 30). Over a third produced field
crops; almost half produced livestock; a fourth produced poul-
try and vegetables; 15 to 18 percent produced fruits and nuts,


12








dairy products, floral and nursery products, and other products
such as cider, honey, syrup, and forest products. The sum of
the percentages of direct-marketing farmers producing products
in each of these categories was 196 percent for all nine
States, ranging from 150 percent to 227 percent among States.
Thus, it can be surmised that on the average each farmer pro-
duced products in about two product categories.

Direct marketing was one of two or more enterprises on most
farms, and supplemented income from other farm enterprises and
from nonfarm sources. For example, field crops are inputs for
other products or require further processing for human consump-
tion; thus, the 36 percent of farmers who produced field crops
produced other types of products that were marketed directly to
consumers. The same can be said for most producers of live-
stock, dairy products, and poultry, since the sale of consumer
products derived from these commodities must adhere to rather
rigid health regulations. Direct sales of livestock and live-
stock products are generally limited to those areas where
custom slaughter and processing facilities are available.
Thus, we surmise that most farmers producing livestock sold
the majority of their livestock production through conventional
channels and produced other products for direct sale to con-
sumers. Live poultry sales are also limited by the avail-
ability of slaughter and processing facilities, although a
limited amount of live poultry (primarily turkeys and roasting
chickens) are sold direct to consumers for home processing.

Farmers selling dairy products directly to consumers are clas-
sified as producer-distributors. These producer-distributors
must adhere to most of the same regulations pertaining to
health and sanitation as large-scale dairy handlers and distri-
butors. Therefore, due to capital requirements for facilities
and equipment, and economies of scale associated with process-
ing and distribution, the number of producer-distributors has
declined significantly since World War II. Those that still
sell direct to consumers are likely to be relatively large
operations located in areas where home delivery systems and
specialty milk stores prevail or have advantages not available
to all producers.

Regulatory requirements for selling eggs directly to consumers
are less stringent than those for meats and dairy products.
Sales of eggs accounted for a large part of poultry products
sold directly to consumers. About 25 percent of direct-market-
ing farmers in the nine States produced poultry and poultry
products.

Fresh fruits, nuts, melons, and vegetables require only removal
of spray residue, dirt, trash (leaves, stems, etc.) and sorting
to remove damaged or decayed products before selling to
consumers. About a fourth of the direct-marketing farmers
surveyed produced and sold vegetables and melons and 17 percent
produced and sold fruits directly to consumers, but total
direct sales of fruit and vegetables were about equal, approxi-
mately $41 million each (table 1).


13








Reasons for Selling
Directly to
Consumers


Reasons for Not
Selling Directly
To Consumers


When questioned why they sold products directly to consumers
most farmers gave more than one reason (table 31). Although
the wording varied somewhat among individual answers, the
reasons were grouped into four major categories:

Higher prices and income.
Access to market.
Social reasons.
Labor-related reasons.

The higher prices and income responses, given by three-fourths
of all farmers, included these items per se as well as such
statements as "cutting out middleman," "capturing middleman's
profit," and "reducing marketing cost." Replies about market
access, given by about two-thirds of farmers, included "easily
accessible to market" as well as "not marketable in regular
channels," "volume too small for conventional outlets," "outlet
for excess produce," and "only available outlet."

Social-related reasons included: "accommodate customers,"
"opportunity to socialize," "enjoy meeting people and talking
with customers," and "tradition." Labor-related reasons were
about evenly divided between opportunity to employ family
labor gainfully, and unavailability of harvest labor. The
latter was given most frequently by farmers utilizing the pick-
your-own method of direct marketing. Fewer than 15 percent of
those interviewed gave a number of miscellaneous reasons such
as "to meet competition" and "customers just come to the farm."

Farmers surveyed in the nine States who did not sell directly
to consumers were asked to give their reasons for not doing
so. The number of farmers and the distribution of reasons
given are summarized in table 32. The leading reason given
for not selling directly (almost 75 percent of those respond-
ing) involved the products produced. That is, some products
do not lend themselves to direct marketing to consumers without
further processing, and investments and costs associated with
processing would be excessive for economical operation. "Too
much trouble" was the second leading reason (by '28 percent of
farmers) for not selling directly to consumers. Twelve percent
of the farmers said their volume was too large to rely on
direct sales to consumers as an outlet for their production,
and 6 percent gave other reasons such as government regulation,
not enough potential customers, produce under contract, and
location of farm with respect to urban centers.

On the basis of products produced, the reasons appear to be
logical except for producers of vegetables, fruits, and nursery
and greenhouse products. From 30 to 44 percent of these
producers (of fruits, vegetables, etc.) indicated that they
did not sell directly to consumers because of the commodity
produced, which appears to be inconsistent since such products
were the leading products sold by farmers selling directly to
consumers. However, these answers may have resulted from how
questions were asked and how data were recorded and tabulated.
That is, farmers who had gross sales of agricultural products


i4








Reasons for Selling
Directly to
Consumers


Reasons for Not
Selling Directly
To Consumers


When questioned why they sold products directly to consumers
most farmers gave more than one reason (table 31). Although
the wording varied somewhat among individual answers, the
reasons were grouped into four major categories:

Higher prices and income.
Access to market.
Social reasons.
Labor-related reasons.

The higher prices and income responses, given by three-fourths
of all farmers, included these items per se as well as such
statements as "cutting out middleman," "capturing middleman's
profit," and "reducing marketing cost." Replies about market
access, given by about two-thirds of farmers, included "easily
accessible to market" as well as "not marketable in regular
channels," "volume too small for conventional outlets," "outlet
for excess produce," and "only available outlet."

Social-related reasons included: "accommodate customers,"
"opportunity to socialize," "enjoy meeting people and talking
with customers," and "tradition." Labor-related reasons were
about evenly divided between opportunity to employ family
labor gainfully, and unavailability of harvest labor. The
latter was given most frequently by farmers utilizing the pick-
your-own method of direct marketing. Fewer than 15 percent of
those interviewed gave a number of miscellaneous reasons such
as "to meet competition" and "customers just come to the farm."

Farmers surveyed in the nine States who did not sell directly
to consumers were asked to give their reasons for not doing
so. The number of farmers and the distribution of reasons
given are summarized in table 32. The leading reason given
for not selling directly (almost 75 percent of those respond-
ing) involved the products produced. That is, some products
do not lend themselves to direct marketing to consumers without
further processing, and investments and costs associated with
processing would be excessive for economical operation. "Too
much trouble" was the second leading reason (by '28 percent of
farmers) for not selling directly to consumers. Twelve percent
of the farmers said their volume was too large to rely on
direct sales to consumers as an outlet for their production,
and 6 percent gave other reasons such as government regulation,
not enough potential customers, produce under contract, and
location of farm with respect to urban centers.

On the basis of products produced, the reasons appear to be
logical except for producers of vegetables, fruits, and nursery
and greenhouse products. From 30 to 44 percent of these
producers (of fruits, vegetables, etc.) indicated that they
did not sell directly to consumers because of the commodity
produced, which appears to be inconsistent since such products
were the leading products sold by farmers selling directly to
consumers. However, these answers may have resulted from how
questions were asked and how data were recorded and tabulated.
That is, farmers who had gross sales of agricultural products


i4








of $1,000 or more were asked to list commodities or products
produced on their farms and whether they sold any of their
products directly to consumers. Those farmers selling directly
to consumers were asked for detailed information, but those who
did not were only asked their reasons for not selling directly
to consumers. Answers given were tabulated for each commodity
or product produced. Thus, some farmers may have produced
primarily field crops or livestock, and also produced fruits
or vegetables for their own use. Under such circumstances the
answer to the question of reasons for not selling directly to
consumers would probably pertain to the primary enterprise
rather than fruits and vegetables; but such answers would be
tabulated for fruits and vegetables as well as for the primary
commodities produced. Since farmers were not asked their
reasons for not selling each type of individual product it is
not possible to distinguish whether the reasons given pertained
to all types of products produced, or only to the primary
products produced. However, it seems more rational to conclude
that the reasons pertained to their primary commodities.

THE 1980 SURVEY A March 1980 survey of farmers in California, Illinois,
Missouri. northern New England, and Texas showed that 20,786
farmers in those States (about 5 percent of all farmers in
those States) sold almost $126 million worth of farm products
directly to consumers in their 1979 marketing seasons (table
33). 10/

The leading products sold, by dollar value, were floral and
nursery products (including bedding plants), apples, straw-
berries, peaches, sweet corn, tomatoes, melons, potatoes, live-
stock and poultry products, Christmas trees and forest products
(primarily firewood), honey and syrups, dairy products, nuts,
and wine. The value of specific product sales varied consider-
ably among States. This variation can be associated with:
specialized producing areas for certain products such as
citrus and nuts in California and Texas and dried fruits in
California; and high unit values of specified products and
possible sampling errors in data for such products. Since
the value of products sold directly to consumers was estimated
by expansion of sample data, the values for individual products
may be overstated or understated. That is especially true for
products not sold by most farmers in specific areas of a State,
and when expansions were based on a small number of farmers in
the State. However, category totals and the total value of all
products sold directly by farmers within each State are con-
sidered to be reliable since overestimates and underestimates
for individual products are likely to offset one another in
the totals.

When asked to indicate their plans for selling directly to
consumers over the next 5 years, 55 percent said they would

10/ Due to the relatively small number of farmers in the
individual State samples; Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont
were treated as a single sampling unit in order to increase
the reliability of estimates.


15








continue at the same level; 16 percent planned to increase
direct selling; 14 percent planned to reduce their direct
selling; and 15 percent were undecided (table 34). Farmers'
direct-marketing intentions varied considerably among States.
A significantly higher percentage of farmers in northern New
England and Texas indicated they would increase their direct
sales to consumers than for those in other States. In con-
trast, a significantly higher percentage of Missouri's direct-
marketing farmers intended to reduce direct selling than was
found for other States. Similar variations in planning direct-
marketing activities was observed among farmers employing
various methods of direct selling. Those using pick-your-own,
roadside markets, and farmers' markets were more likely to
increase direct sales to consumers than those using other
methods. Those selling direct to consumers from a farm build-
ing were the least likely to change. Assuming those farmers
who were undecided on plans for the next 5 years at the time
of the survey follow plans proportionate to those who indicated
definite plans, direct sales to consumers by farmers in these
States are likely to increase by a small amount during the next
5 years.

The $126 million in direct sales of farm products by farmers
who sold all or part of their total production direct to con-
sumers represented 0.4 percent of total sales of all farmers
in the seven States. But this amount represented 17 percent
of the total sales of farmers in the seven States who sold part
or all of their production directly to consumers (based on
total units--bushels, pounds, etc., produced). The proportion
of specific products sold direct to consumers varied from 2
percent to about 70 percent (table 35). Compared with earlier
surveys, the 1980 survey found significantly lower proportions
of total sales by all farmers and total sales of farmers sell-
ing direct to consumers. The differences between this survey
and the others are probably associated with differences in the
dominant types of agricultural enterprises in the States, the
presence or absence of conventional market buyers, and the
nearness of urban population centers to the farms. Except for
northern New England, the States surveyed in 1980 are among
the leading States in the commercial production of field crops
(including grains and cotton), livestock (cattle and hogs),
and specialized production of fruits and vegetables.

Comparison of Selling from a farm building was the most popular method of
Direct-Marketing selling directly to consumers by farmers surveyed in 1980,
Methods followed by roadside stands, public farmers' markets, and
pick-your-own methods (table 36).

Products Sold The distribution of total sales through different direct-
marketing methods varied among States and product categories
within States (tables 37 through 41). The pick-your-own method
was an important outlet for fruits and selected vegetables
(green beans, tomatoes, peppers, and pumpkins). About the only
products in the other product category sold by this method were
Christmas trees and firewood. Roadside stands and farm
buildings were utilized for all product categories and public


16








continue at the same level; 16 percent planned to increase
direct selling; 14 percent planned to reduce their direct
selling; and 15 percent were undecided (table 34). Farmers'
direct-marketing intentions varied considerably among States.
A significantly higher percentage of farmers in northern New
England and Texas indicated they would increase their direct
sales to consumers than for those in other States. In con-
trast, a significantly higher percentage of Missouri's direct-
marketing farmers intended to reduce direct selling than was
found for other States. Similar variations in planning direct-
marketing activities was observed among farmers employing
various methods of direct selling. Those using pick-your-own,
roadside markets, and farmers' markets were more likely to
increase direct sales to consumers than those using other
methods. Those selling direct to consumers from a farm build-
ing were the least likely to change. Assuming those farmers
who were undecided on plans for the next 5 years at the time
of the survey follow plans proportionate to those who indicated
definite plans, direct sales to consumers by farmers in these
States are likely to increase by a small amount during the next
5 years.

The $126 million in direct sales of farm products by farmers
who sold all or part of their total production direct to con-
sumers represented 0.4 percent of total sales of all farmers
in the seven States. But this amount represented 17 percent
of the total sales of farmers in the seven States who sold part
or all of their production directly to consumers (based on
total units--bushels, pounds, etc., produced). The proportion
of specific products sold direct to consumers varied from 2
percent to about 70 percent (table 35). Compared with earlier
surveys, the 1980 survey found significantly lower proportions
of total sales by all farmers and total sales of farmers sell-
ing direct to consumers. The differences between this survey
and the others are probably associated with differences in the
dominant types of agricultural enterprises in the States, the
presence or absence of conventional market buyers, and the
nearness of urban population centers to the farms. Except for
northern New England, the States surveyed in 1980 are among
the leading States in the commercial production of field crops
(including grains and cotton), livestock (cattle and hogs),
and specialized production of fruits and vegetables.

Comparison of Selling from a farm building was the most popular method of
Direct-Marketing selling directly to consumers by farmers surveyed in 1980,
Methods followed by roadside stands, public farmers' markets, and
pick-your-own methods (table 36).

Products Sold The distribution of total sales through different direct-
marketing methods varied among States and product categories
within States (tables 37 through 41). The pick-your-own method
was an important outlet for fruits and selected vegetables
(green beans, tomatoes, peppers, and pumpkins). About the only
products in the other product category sold by this method were
Christmas trees and firewood. Roadside stands and farm
buildings were utilized for all product categories and public


16













Added and Avoided
Costs


Location of Farms


Use of Advertising


farmers' markets were relatively more important as an outlet
for vegetables than for other product categories. A signifi-
cant volume of floral and nursery sales were made through
other methods (primarily direct delivery and mail order).

Farmers selling directly to consumers incur some added cost for
providing marketing services that are normally provided by the
conventional marketing system. At the same time they also
avoid some cost they would incur if products were sold to con-
ventional wholesale buyers. Added and avoided cost items and
the percentage of farmers reporting each by marketing methods
are shown in table 42.

The added cost items are those associated with the retailing
phase of the operations (serving customers) including advertis-
ing, insurance, supervisory and clerk labor, utilities, trans-
portation, and consumer containers. Avoided cost items were
those associated with selling to wholesale buyers, such as
shipping containers, brokers' commissions, transportation,
storage, and packinghouse labor.

Eighty-five percent of the direct-marketing farmers were
nearest towns with populations of less than 50,000. About 64
percent of the growers said the town nearest them had a popu-
lation of less than 10,000 (tables 43-48).

The distance to the nearest city was less than 10 miles for 64
percent of the direct-marketing farmers (tables 49-54). Over-
all, the seven-State totals showed that growers utilizing
onfarm methods of direct marketing were nearer to population
centers than were those who sold at farmers' markets. Almost
67 percent of the respondents selling produce through farmers'
markets had farms located 20 or more miles from the nearest
city, and 69 percent lived 20 or more miles from the nearest
city with a public farmers' market. Farmers in northern New
England generally were closer to cities, and 84 percent of
those selling through farmers' markets in that region operated
farms fewer than 5 miles from a town with such a market
(table 53).

About half the direct marketers surveyed had access to a sec-
ondary paved road. The access to such roads ranged from 84
percent of the farmers in California to about 28 percent of
those in northern New England. Operators of roadside stands
tended to be located on U.S., State, and divided highways,
while growers marketing produce by the pick-your-own method
and from farm buildings accounted for the greatest proportion
of farming operations located on unpaved roads (table 55).

As in earlier surveys, word of mouth was the most frequently
mentioned method farmers used for promoting their direct-mar-
keting operations, but they also used newspapers, radio,
television, and direct mail advertising to attract customers.
Roadside stand operators led in the use of newspaper advertis-
ing and signs along the road or highway. Overall, about 12


17













Added and Avoided
Costs


Location of Farms


Use of Advertising


farmers' markets were relatively more important as an outlet
for vegetables than for other product categories. A signifi-
cant volume of floral and nursery sales were made through
other methods (primarily direct delivery and mail order).

Farmers selling directly to consumers incur some added cost for
providing marketing services that are normally provided by the
conventional marketing system. At the same time they also
avoid some cost they would incur if products were sold to con-
ventional wholesale buyers. Added and avoided cost items and
the percentage of farmers reporting each by marketing methods
are shown in table 42.

The added cost items are those associated with the retailing
phase of the operations (serving customers) including advertis-
ing, insurance, supervisory and clerk labor, utilities, trans-
portation, and consumer containers. Avoided cost items were
those associated with selling to wholesale buyers, such as
shipping containers, brokers' commissions, transportation,
storage, and packinghouse labor.

Eighty-five percent of the direct-marketing farmers were
nearest towns with populations of less than 50,000. About 64
percent of the growers said the town nearest them had a popu-
lation of less than 10,000 (tables 43-48).

The distance to the nearest city was less than 10 miles for 64
percent of the direct-marketing farmers (tables 49-54). Over-
all, the seven-State totals showed that growers utilizing
onfarm methods of direct marketing were nearer to population
centers than were those who sold at farmers' markets. Almost
67 percent of the respondents selling produce through farmers'
markets had farms located 20 or more miles from the nearest
city, and 69 percent lived 20 or more miles from the nearest
city with a public farmers' market. Farmers in northern New
England generally were closer to cities, and 84 percent of
those selling through farmers' markets in that region operated
farms fewer than 5 miles from a town with such a market
(table 53).

About half the direct marketers surveyed had access to a sec-
ondary paved road. The access to such roads ranged from 84
percent of the farmers in California to about 28 percent of
those in northern New England. Operators of roadside stands
tended to be located on U.S., State, and divided highways,
while growers marketing produce by the pick-your-own method
and from farm buildings accounted for the greatest proportion
of farming operations located on unpaved roads (table 55).

As in earlier surveys, word of mouth was the most frequently
mentioned method farmers used for promoting their direct-mar-
keting operations, but they also used newspapers, radio,
television, and direct mail advertising to attract customers.
Roadside stand operators led in the use of newspaper advertis-
ing and signs along the road or highway. Overall, about 12


17













Added and Avoided
Costs


Location of Farms


Use of Advertising


farmers' markets were relatively more important as an outlet
for vegetables than for other product categories. A signifi-
cant volume of floral and nursery sales were made through
other methods (primarily direct delivery and mail order).

Farmers selling directly to consumers incur some added cost for
providing marketing services that are normally provided by the
conventional marketing system. At the same time they also
avoid some cost they would incur if products were sold to con-
ventional wholesale buyers. Added and avoided cost items and
the percentage of farmers reporting each by marketing methods
are shown in table 42.

The added cost items are those associated with the retailing
phase of the operations (serving customers) including advertis-
ing, insurance, supervisory and clerk labor, utilities, trans-
portation, and consumer containers. Avoided cost items were
those associated with selling to wholesale buyers, such as
shipping containers, brokers' commissions, transportation,
storage, and packinghouse labor.

Eighty-five percent of the direct-marketing farmers were
nearest towns with populations of less than 50,000. About 64
percent of the growers said the town nearest them had a popu-
lation of less than 10,000 (tables 43-48).

The distance to the nearest city was less than 10 miles for 64
percent of the direct-marketing farmers (tables 49-54). Over-
all, the seven-State totals showed that growers utilizing
onfarm methods of direct marketing were nearer to population
centers than were those who sold at farmers' markets. Almost
67 percent of the respondents selling produce through farmers'
markets had farms located 20 or more miles from the nearest
city, and 69 percent lived 20 or more miles from the nearest
city with a public farmers' market. Farmers in northern New
England generally were closer to cities, and 84 percent of
those selling through farmers' markets in that region operated
farms fewer than 5 miles from a town with such a market
(table 53).

About half the direct marketers surveyed had access to a sec-
ondary paved road. The access to such roads ranged from 84
percent of the farmers in California to about 28 percent of
those in northern New England. Operators of roadside stands
tended to be located on U.S., State, and divided highways,
while growers marketing produce by the pick-your-own method
and from farm buildings accounted for the greatest proportion
of farming operations located on unpaved roads (table 55).

As in earlier surveys, word of mouth was the most frequently
mentioned method farmers used for promoting their direct-mar-
keting operations, but they also used newspapers, radio,
television, and direct mail advertising to attract customers.
Roadside stand operators led in the use of newspaper advertis-
ing and signs along the road or highway. Overall, about 12


17











Characteristics of
Direct-Marketing
Farmers














Full-Time and Part-
Time Farming


Products Produced


percent of the growers reported using no advertising or promo-
tional efforts in their direct marketing (table 56).

About 60 percent of direct-marketing farmers in the seven
States surveyed in 1980 had total farm sales (direct and con-
ventional) of less than $20,000 annually, and they accounted
for about 17 percent of direct sales to consumers (table 57).
The remaining 40 percent of direct-marketing farmers had annual
gross sales of farm products of $20,000 and over and accounted
for approximately 83 percent of all direct sales. The percent-
age of direct-marketing farmers with annual gross sales of farm
products under $20,000 ranged from 45 percent in Missouri to 79
percent in Texas, and the percentage of direct sales to con-
sumers by these farmers ranged from 12 percent in Illinois to
29 percent in Texas. In previous surveys, about 75 percent of
the direct-marketing farmers had gross sales of farm products
below $20,000 annually and accounted for 20 to 25 percent of
total sales made directly to consumers.

Sixty-three percent of direct-marketing farmers in the seven
States surveyed in 1980 were part-time farmers (had off-farm
income). Missouri had the highest percentage of part-time
direct-marketing farmers (91 percent), followed by Texas,
California, northern New England, and Illinois (table 58).
Illinois, with 63 percent full-time farmers, was one of 2
States among the 22 surveyed between 1978 and 1980 in which
the majority of direct-marketing farmers were full-time farmers
(the other State was Colorado with 56 percent full-time
farmers).

Direct-marketing farmers utilizing public farmers' markets had
a significantly higher percentage of part-time farmers than
those using other direct-marketing methods. Similar findings
were obtained in the distribution of part-time farmers among
marketing methods utilized for the surveys conducted in 1978
and 1979. The consistency of these findings indicates that
public farmers' markets may offer unique advantages to small
part-time farmers with only a limited amount of time to market
their produce.

Direct-marketing farmers generally produce products in more
than one product category--field crops, fruits and nuts, vege-
tables, livestock, and dairy (table 59). Direct-marketing
farmers produced one or more products in an average of 1.8
product categories ranging from 1.3 in California to 2.4 in
Missouri. Livestock was the leading product category in the
percentage of farmers represented (51 percent), followed by
field crops, fruits and nuts, poultry, vegetables, and about 10
percent each for dairy and floral and nursery products. The
percentage of farmers producing in each product category varied
significantly among States. This appeared to be associated
with the dominant type of farming in each State. For example,
California, northern New England, and Texas had a significantly
higher percentage of farmers producing fruits and vegetables
than Illinois and Missouri, which had a higher percentage
producing field crops.


18











Characteristics of
Direct-Marketing
Farmers














Full-Time and Part-
Time Farming


Products Produced


percent of the growers reported using no advertising or promo-
tional efforts in their direct marketing (table 56).

About 60 percent of direct-marketing farmers in the seven
States surveyed in 1980 had total farm sales (direct and con-
ventional) of less than $20,000 annually, and they accounted
for about 17 percent of direct sales to consumers (table 57).
The remaining 40 percent of direct-marketing farmers had annual
gross sales of farm products of $20,000 and over and accounted
for approximately 83 percent of all direct sales. The percent-
age of direct-marketing farmers with annual gross sales of farm
products under $20,000 ranged from 45 percent in Missouri to 79
percent in Texas, and the percentage of direct sales to con-
sumers by these farmers ranged from 12 percent in Illinois to
29 percent in Texas. In previous surveys, about 75 percent of
the direct-marketing farmers had gross sales of farm products
below $20,000 annually and accounted for 20 to 25 percent of
total sales made directly to consumers.

Sixty-three percent of direct-marketing farmers in the seven
States surveyed in 1980 were part-time farmers (had off-farm
income). Missouri had the highest percentage of part-time
direct-marketing farmers (91 percent), followed by Texas,
California, northern New England, and Illinois (table 58).
Illinois, with 63 percent full-time farmers, was one of 2
States among the 22 surveyed between 1978 and 1980 in which
the majority of direct-marketing farmers were full-time farmers
(the other State was Colorado with 56 percent full-time
farmers).

Direct-marketing farmers utilizing public farmers' markets had
a significantly higher percentage of part-time farmers than
those using other direct-marketing methods. Similar findings
were obtained in the distribution of part-time farmers among
marketing methods utilized for the surveys conducted in 1978
and 1979. The consistency of these findings indicates that
public farmers' markets may offer unique advantages to small
part-time farmers with only a limited amount of time to market
their produce.

Direct-marketing farmers generally produce products in more
than one product category--field crops, fruits and nuts, vege-
tables, livestock, and dairy (table 59). Direct-marketing
farmers produced one or more products in an average of 1.8
product categories ranging from 1.3 in California to 2.4 in
Missouri. Livestock was the leading product category in the
percentage of farmers represented (51 percent), followed by
field crops, fruits and nuts, poultry, vegetables, and about 10
percent each for dairy and floral and nursery products. The
percentage of farmers producing in each product category varied
significantly among States. This appeared to be associated
with the dominant type of farming in each State. For example,
California, northern New England, and Texas had a significantly
higher percentage of farmers producing fruits and vegetables
than Illinois and Missouri, which had a higher percentage
producing field crops.


18











Characteristics of
Direct-Marketing
Farmers














Full-Time and Part-
Time Farming


Products Produced


percent of the growers reported using no advertising or promo-
tional efforts in their direct marketing (table 56).

About 60 percent of direct-marketing farmers in the seven
States surveyed in 1980 had total farm sales (direct and con-
ventional) of less than $20,000 annually, and they accounted
for about 17 percent of direct sales to consumers (table 57).
The remaining 40 percent of direct-marketing farmers had annual
gross sales of farm products of $20,000 and over and accounted
for approximately 83 percent of all direct sales. The percent-
age of direct-marketing farmers with annual gross sales of farm
products under $20,000 ranged from 45 percent in Missouri to 79
percent in Texas, and the percentage of direct sales to con-
sumers by these farmers ranged from 12 percent in Illinois to
29 percent in Texas. In previous surveys, about 75 percent of
the direct-marketing farmers had gross sales of farm products
below $20,000 annually and accounted for 20 to 25 percent of
total sales made directly to consumers.

Sixty-three percent of direct-marketing farmers in the seven
States surveyed in 1980 were part-time farmers (had off-farm
income). Missouri had the highest percentage of part-time
direct-marketing farmers (91 percent), followed by Texas,
California, northern New England, and Illinois (table 58).
Illinois, with 63 percent full-time farmers, was one of 2
States among the 22 surveyed between 1978 and 1980 in which
the majority of direct-marketing farmers were full-time farmers
(the other State was Colorado with 56 percent full-time
farmers).

Direct-marketing farmers utilizing public farmers' markets had
a significantly higher percentage of part-time farmers than
those using other direct-marketing methods. Similar findings
were obtained in the distribution of part-time farmers among
marketing methods utilized for the surveys conducted in 1978
and 1979. The consistency of these findings indicates that
public farmers' markets may offer unique advantages to small
part-time farmers with only a limited amount of time to market
their produce.

Direct-marketing farmers generally produce products in more
than one product category--field crops, fruits and nuts, vege-
tables, livestock, and dairy (table 59). Direct-marketing
farmers produced one or more products in an average of 1.8
product categories ranging from 1.3 in California to 2.4 in
Missouri. Livestock was the leading product category in the
percentage of farmers represented (51 percent), followed by
field crops, fruits and nuts, poultry, vegetables, and about 10
percent each for dairy and floral and nursery products. The
percentage of farmers producing in each product category varied
significantly among States. This appeared to be associated
with the dominant type of farming in each State. For example,
California, northern New England, and Texas had a significantly
higher percentage of farmers producing fruits and vegetables
than Illinois and Missouri, which had a higher percentage
producing field crops.


18








Reasons for Selling
Directly to
Consumers




Reasons for Not
Selling Directly
to Consumers






PROBABLE TRENDS IN
FARMER-TO-CONSUMER
DIRECT MARKETING


The farmers surveyed in 1980 cited the same reasons for selling
directly to consumers as farmers in the previous surveys:
higher income, access to market, and labor (table 60). As in
previous surveys, a large percentage of farmers (94 percent)
gave social reasons, such as "like to meet people" and "oppor-
tunity to socialize" in addition to the economic reasons.

The major reasons for not selling directly to consumers were
the same as in 1979--"commodity produced," "too much trouble,"
and "volume too large"; but the percentage for each reason
varied significantly between the two years (table 61; compare
with table 32 for 1979 responses). These differences in
responses could be associated with the States surveyed or
sampling variability.

The volume of farm products sold directly by farmers to con-
sumers tends to be limited for a number of reasons:

Some farm products are not consumed in their natural
form and economies of scale are involved in the pro-
cessing and distribution of consumer products derived
from raw agricultural products.

The seasonal nature of production of most products
consumed in their natural state limits the marketing
season.

Health and sanitary regulations for food processing
and associated costs of compliance tend to discourage
or deter small-scale community plants for processing
and preserving locally produced farm products, but such
regulations are not applicable to home preserving food
products for one's own consumption.

Other forces, however, tend to encourage farmer-to-consumer
direct marketing. Consumers resist food price increases in
the conventional marketing system that have accompanied infla-
tionary forces. At the same time, inflationary forces and
consumer resistance have depressed the farm prices of agricul-
tural products. These economic forces encourage consumers to
buy directly from farmers and preserve food at home for future
use as a means of lowering their food costs. These forces also
encourage farmers to perform some or all of the marketing ser-
vices provided by the conventional marketing system as a means
of increasing their incomes. Direct-marketing farmers are able
to eliminate or reduce some marketing costs (such as shipping
containers, shipping point selling costs, and transportation
costs) and thereby sell at lower prices to consumers. Other
advantages encouraging direct farmer-to-consumer marketing
include: products can be harvested at their optimum stage of
maturity for best eating quality, the reduced length of time
products are in the marketing channels prolongs the shelf or
usable life in the consumer's home, and both consumers and
farmers can gainfully employ underutilized family labor in
direct-marketing activities. In addition to these advantages,
under certain conditions, local food-processing plants that








Reasons for Selling
Directly to
Consumers




Reasons for Not
Selling Directly
to Consumers






PROBABLE TRENDS IN
FARMER-TO-CONSUMER
DIRECT MARKETING


The farmers surveyed in 1980 cited the same reasons for selling
directly to consumers as farmers in the previous surveys:
higher income, access to market, and labor (table 60). As in
previous surveys, a large percentage of farmers (94 percent)
gave social reasons, such as "like to meet people" and "oppor-
tunity to socialize" in addition to the economic reasons.

The major reasons for not selling directly to consumers were
the same as in 1979--"commodity produced," "too much trouble,"
and "volume too large"; but the percentage for each reason
varied significantly between the two years (table 61; compare
with table 32 for 1979 responses). These differences in
responses could be associated with the States surveyed or
sampling variability.

The volume of farm products sold directly by farmers to con-
sumers tends to be limited for a number of reasons:

Some farm products are not consumed in their natural
form and economies of scale are involved in the pro-
cessing and distribution of consumer products derived
from raw agricultural products.

The seasonal nature of production of most products
consumed in their natural state limits the marketing
season.

Health and sanitary regulations for food processing
and associated costs of compliance tend to discourage
or deter small-scale community plants for processing
and preserving locally produced farm products, but such
regulations are not applicable to home preserving food
products for one's own consumption.

Other forces, however, tend to encourage farmer-to-consumer
direct marketing. Consumers resist food price increases in
the conventional marketing system that have accompanied infla-
tionary forces. At the same time, inflationary forces and
consumer resistance have depressed the farm prices of agricul-
tural products. These economic forces encourage consumers to
buy directly from farmers and preserve food at home for future
use as a means of lowering their food costs. These forces also
encourage farmers to perform some or all of the marketing ser-
vices provided by the conventional marketing system as a means
of increasing their incomes. Direct-marketing farmers are able
to eliminate or reduce some marketing costs (such as shipping
containers, shipping point selling costs, and transportation
costs) and thereby sell at lower prices to consumers. Other
advantages encouraging direct farmer-to-consumer marketing
include: products can be harvested at their optimum stage of
maturity for best eating quality, the reduced length of time
products are in the marketing channels prolongs the shelf or
usable life in the consumer's home, and both consumers and
farmers can gainfully employ underutilized family labor in
direct-marketing activities. In addition to these advantages,
under certain conditions, local food-processing plants that








Reasons for Selling
Directly to
Consumers




Reasons for Not
Selling Directly
to Consumers






PROBABLE TRENDS IN
FARMER-TO-CONSUMER
DIRECT MARKETING


The farmers surveyed in 1980 cited the same reasons for selling
directly to consumers as farmers in the previous surveys:
higher income, access to market, and labor (table 60). As in
previous surveys, a large percentage of farmers (94 percent)
gave social reasons, such as "like to meet people" and "oppor-
tunity to socialize" in addition to the economic reasons.

The major reasons for not selling directly to consumers were
the same as in 1979--"commodity produced," "too much trouble,"
and "volume too large"; but the percentage for each reason
varied significantly between the two years (table 61; compare
with table 32 for 1979 responses). These differences in
responses could be associated with the States surveyed or
sampling variability.

The volume of farm products sold directly by farmers to con-
sumers tends to be limited for a number of reasons:

Some farm products are not consumed in their natural
form and economies of scale are involved in the pro-
cessing and distribution of consumer products derived
from raw agricultural products.

The seasonal nature of production of most products
consumed in their natural state limits the marketing
season.

Health and sanitary regulations for food processing
and associated costs of compliance tend to discourage
or deter small-scale community plants for processing
and preserving locally produced farm products, but such
regulations are not applicable to home preserving food
products for one's own consumption.

Other forces, however, tend to encourage farmer-to-consumer
direct marketing. Consumers resist food price increases in
the conventional marketing system that have accompanied infla-
tionary forces. At the same time, inflationary forces and
consumer resistance have depressed the farm prices of agricul-
tural products. These economic forces encourage consumers to
buy directly from farmers and preserve food at home for future
use as a means of lowering their food costs. These forces also
encourage farmers to perform some or all of the marketing ser-
vices provided by the conventional marketing system as a means
of increasing their incomes. Direct-marketing farmers are able
to eliminate or reduce some marketing costs (such as shipping
containers, shipping point selling costs, and transportation
costs) and thereby sell at lower prices to consumers. Other
advantages encouraging direct farmer-to-consumer marketing
include: products can be harvested at their optimum stage of
maturity for best eating quality, the reduced length of time
products are in the marketing channels prolongs the shelf or
usable life in the consumer's home, and both consumers and
farmers can gainfully employ underutilized family labor in
direct-marketing activities. In addition to these advantages,
under certain conditions, local food-processing plants that









provide custom service to consumers for a fee, such as communi-
ty canning plants and local slaughter plants, are economically
viable. 11/ Such plants provide a means to conform to health
and sanitary regulations, and further encourage direct farmer-
to-consumer transactions. Moreover, they encourage large
volume transactions and potentially greater savings to con-
sumers and gains to farmers.

Increased awareness of benefits and popularity of direct
farmer-to-consumer marketing is evidenced by the intentions
expressed by farmers in the nine States surveyed in 1979 and
seven States surveyed in 1980 pertaining to their future
direct-marketing activities, the substantial increase in the
number of public farmers' markets in recent years, and the
increased number of articles pertaining to direct marketing in
daily newspapers. Large metropolitan newspapers now often
feature direct-marketing articles with a list of farmers in
surrounding areas who have on-farm markets and pick-your-own
operations. 12/

Direct farmer-to-consumer marketing is most likely to increase
for:

Relatively high-value farm products--fresh fruits and
vegetables, floral and nursery products (including
bedding plants), Christmas trees, firewood, and meats
for home freezers and frozen food lockers.

Small and part-time farmers within 20 miles of urban
population centers.

Complementary enterprises on larger farms with under-
utilized resources.

Auxiliary salvage markets for commercial fruit and
vegetable producers for that part of their production
not suitable for conventional market outlets.


















11/ David Paul Crawford, op. cit.
12/ For example, see Washington Post, Weekend section
pages 1, 34, and 35, May 22, 1981.


20







Table 1--Value of


products sold directly to consumers, by product and
(To compare with 1980 survey, see table 33)


State, 1979 1/


: Maryland :: Southern : : : Nine-State
Item :Unit : Colorado : and : New York : New : Tennessee : Wisconsin : total
: Delaware : :England : : : (or aver-
: : 2/ 3/ : : :age)


Fruits and nuts:
Apples
Strawberries
Other berries
Peaches and nectarines
Cherries
Pears
Grapes
Plums
Other

Total fruit and'
nut sales
Average fruit sales
per farmer
Farmers selling fruits
and nuts

Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn
Tomatoes
Melons
Potatoes
Green beans
Cabbage, broccoli,
cauliflower, brussels
sprouts
Squash
Peppers
Cucumber
Pumpkins
Green peas
Asparagus
Sweetpotatoes
Other


Dol.
Dol.
:Dol.
:Dol.
Dol.
:Dol.
:Dol.
:Dol.
Dol.


:Dol.

Dol.

:No.


: Do:
: Do
:Do.
: Do:
: Do.


:Do
:Do
Do
Do
:Do
:Do
:Do
:Do:
:Do

table.


211,159
4,254
266
301,494
113,513
119,016
1,276
16,727
31,408


1,254,018
1,488,781
26,000
1,528,605
22,991
76,318
23,005
14,704
5,119


8,825,632
2,452,125
873,429
575,800
120,049
226,919
231,657
110,853
0


799,113 4,439,478 13,416,464


1,800

444


112,084
152,754
176,320
135,572
17,967


9,317
13,947
42,317
27,328
7,156
1,067
13,543
0
34,385


1.
1.
i.
i.
1.


i.
i.
1.
1.
i.
1.
I.
i.
1.


8,808

504


970,261
335,843
148,024
252,356
97,570


51,266
66,712
4,326
30,973
243,710
7,994
349,592
8,261
130,152


12,434

1,079


5,833,660
2,307,173
999,906
6,365,121
770,227


1,159,569
834,127
308,446
984,850
4,806,830
37,980
33,542
0
164,786


9,286,830
1,911,374
535,614
1,172,548
23,450
392,592
57,662
157,659
4,548


13,542,277

11,370

1,191


3,473,709
1,696,940
163,705
363,193
360,205


314,574
540,357
321,374
329,991
502,439
36,761
1,589
0
375,208


925,801
569,125
12,851
253,439
0
0
0
0
2,237


3,766,115
1,618,691
901,085
0
224,190
21,290
20,774
907
18,520


24,269,555
8,044,287
2,349,245
3,831,886
504,193
836,135
334,374
300,850
61,832


1,763,453 6,571,572 40,532,357


1,702

1,036


60,978
2,127,437
139,911
24,904
71,268


1,245
1,807
0
14,297
0
1,603
0
48,929
44,333


2,518

2,610


544,619
283,003
178,489
238,265
206,619


134,958
159,998
6,499
133,084
57,159
0
31,792
0
117,489


5,905

6,864


10,995,311
6,903,150
1,806,355
7,379,411
1,523,856


1,670,929
1,616,948
682,962
1,520,523
5,617,294
85,405
430,058
28,825
866,353


See footnotes at end of


continued--








Table 1--Value of products sold directly to consumer, by product and State, 1979 1/--continued


: Maryland : Southern : : : Nine-State
Item :Unit :Colorado : and : New York : New : Tennessee : Wisconsin : total
: Delaware : England :: : (or aver-
: 2/ : 3/ : age)


Vegetables and melons (cont'd):

Total vegetable sales :Dol.
Average vegetable
sales per farmer : Dol.
Farmers selling
vegetables : No.

Floral and nursery:
Total floral and
nursery : Dol.
Average sales per farmer : Dol.
Farmers selling floral and
nursery products : No.

Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
livestock and poultry
products : Dol.
Processed fruit products
(cider, jelly, jam, etc.) :Dol.
Christmas trees and forest
products : Dol.
Honey and syrups : Dol.
Dairy products : Dol.
Other :Dol.

Total other product
sales : Dol.
Average sales of other
products : Dol.
Farmers selling other
products : No.


743,757 2,697,040 24,606,217


2,143

347



12,128,940
32,344

375


938

2,875


8,716

2,823


5,962,277 12,417,404
13,250 7,471


450


1,662


1,653,835 6,496,328 18,881,556


8,480,045

7,910

1,072



23,218,761
17,225

1,348




7,244,150


2,222 123,886 782,083 957,015


7,579
165,956
5,011,453
2,903


2,985,569
52,132
15,560
1,249,721


6,843,948 10,923,196


9,324

734


3,130

3,490


342,555
2,913,573
8,168,064
4,825,369


35,913,200

5,392

6,660


2,062,011
482,471
1,180,614
910,638


12,836,899

3,807

3,372


2,536,612 2,091,974


1,460

1,738


763

2,740


3,217,193 32,763,028
3,015 32,471


1,067


1,009


397,753 17,007,819


41,155,645

3,550

11,595



89,707,603
15,176

5,911




51,681,441


0 115,598 1,980,804


1,253,371
60,485
5,714
489,941


1,380,156
1,096,081
10,085
56,606


2,207,264 19,666,345


678

3,257


1,935

10,163


8,031,241
4,770,698
14,391,490
7,535,178


88,390,852

3,194

27,676


See footnotes at end of table.


continued--
















Table 1--Value of products sold directly to consumers, by product and State, 1979 1/--continued


Item


Total direct sales
Farmers selling direct
Average sales per farmer
selling direct

N Total number of farmers
in State
Farmers selling direct

Percent of cash receipts
derived from direct
marketing


: Unit



SDol.
: No.

: Dol.


SNo.
: No.
: Pet.


: Pet. :


Colorado :


2051,582401,9


20,515,758
1,978

10,372


26,300
1,978
7.5


.6


Maryland
and
Delaware
2/


24,021,991
4,677

5,136


19,200
4,677
24.2


1.9


: New York


86,353,285
10,153

8,505


45,000
10,153
22.6


3.9


: Southern
: New
: England
: 3/


: : Nine-State
Tennessee : Wisconsin : total
: : (or aver-
: : age)


58,077,982 9,724,522
5,084 6,784


11,424


9,390
5,084
54.1


10.7


1,433


94,000
6,784
7.2


.5


61,092,919 259,786,457
15,103 43,779


4,045


95,000
15,103
15.9


5,934


288,890
43,779
15.2


1.4


2.0


1/ Values of some specific products in each State subject to error (over and under estimate) due to relatively small
number of farmers in State sample that provide information on which estimates were based. Estimates for the nine State
totals for specific products, as well as category totals for each State and State totals for all products, however, are
based on samples of sufficient size to provide reliable estimates.
2/ Maryland and Delaware treated as one State for reporting purposes because of small number of farms and sample size.
3/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Treated as one State for reporting purposes because of small number
of farms and sample size.


-------------------










Table 2--Changes in direct-marketing operations anticipated through 1984,
by State and marketing method, 1979
(To compare with 1980 survey, see table 34)


Item : Number of : Increase : No change : Decrease : Undecided : Total
: farmers 1/:


Number --------------------------Percent--------------------------

State:
Colorado : 1,978 10.5 49.7 6.1 33.7 100.0
Maryland and Delaware : 4,677 30.4 33.3 16.2 20.1 100.0
New York : 10,153 29.0 32.4 20.1 18.5 100.0
Southern New England 2/: 5,084 38.0 33.2 12.8 16.0 100.0
Tennessee :6,784 24.4 43.6 17.4 14.6 100.0
Wisconsin : 15,103 25.3 39.7 11.0 24.0 100.0

Total and weighted
average : 43,780 27.5 37.6 14.6 20.3 100.0

Marketing method:
Pick-your-own 3,699 31.8 21.0 17.2 30.0 100.0
Roadside stand :6,673 28.1 43.7 7.4 20.8 100.0
Farmers' market :3,736 35.4 28.1 16.5 20.0 100.0
Farm building : 25,615 27.2 38.7 14.5 19.6 100.0
Other : 11,530 36.8 29.8 15.0 18.4 100.0

Weighted average : NA 27.5 37.6 14.6 20.3 100.0


NA = Not applicable.
1/ Number of farmers by methods may not sum to total since some farmers use more than one
marketing method.
2/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.








Table 3--Percentage of direct sales to total production of direct-marketing farmers, by product and State, 1979
(To compare with 1980 survey, see table 35)


: Maryland :: Southern : : : Nine-
Product :Colorado : and : New York : New : Tennessee : Wisconsin : State
: Delaware :: England 1/ : : : average


Percent

Fruits:
Apples 2 12 22 47 69 61 25
Strawberries 100 83 88 97 54 96 84
Other berries 100 54 98 93 95 97 97
Peaches and nectarines 24 43 94 97 93 NA 52
Cherries 63 30 8 NA NA 26 20
Pears 7 100 42 59 75 100 20
Grapes 76 90 42 52 100 100 44
Plums : 2 100 100 78 NA 80 4
Other 71 100 NA 100 100 85 74

Weighted average 5 28 29 55 66 68 35

Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn 51 77 39 69 92 49 47
Tomatoes 45 50 53 71 25 72 42
Melons 17 48 98 100 97 78 40
Potatoes 3 19 59 46 95 7 35
Green beans 78 55 33 58 85 100 57
Cabbage 2/ 3/ 9 1 91 2 68 2
Squash 1 84 98 23 29 36 25
Peppers 48 NA 78 51 NA NA 62
Cucumbers 5 3/ 64 100 83 94 19
Pumpkins 100 100 86 12 NA 97 72
Green peas 77 89 100 100 58 NA 94
Asparagus 25 92 93 NA NA 100 80
Sweetpotatoes NA 1 NA NA 68 NA 4
Other 1 62 3 43 67 67 15

Weighted average : 6 44 16 64 28 33 20

See footnotes at end of table, continued--











Table 3--Percentage of


direct sales to total production of direct-marketing farmers,
by product and State, 1979--continued


: Maryland :: Southern : : : Nine-
Product Colorado : and : New York : New : Tennessee : Wisconsin : State
: Delaware :: England 1/ : : : average


Percent

Floral and nursery : 79 26 62 56 5 76 43
(bedding plants, floral,
and nursery products
combined)

Other products:
Livestock, poultry,
and products 3/ 29 39 14 73 15 19
Christmas trees and
forest products : 100 51 29 38 99 48 46
Honey and syrups 17 64 2 67 52 33 5
Processed fruit : 5 12 92 34 NA 91 36
Dairy 77 95 100 73 78 3/ 31
Other 1 00 51 99 57 100 100 97

Weighted average 6 34 18 20 91 15 16

Weighted average, all
products 13 31 20 35 12 32 24


N.)
ON


NA = Not applicable.
I/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
2/ Also includes broccoli, brussels sprouts, and
3/ Less than 0.05 percent.


cauliflower.









Table 4--Direct-marketing farmers, by marketing method, number of methods used, and
(To compare with 1980 survey, see table 36)


State, 1979


: Maryland : Southern : : : Total or
Item : Unit : Colorado : and : New York : New : Tennessee : Wisconsin : weighted
:: Delaware : : England 1/: : average 2/



Marketing method:

Pick-your-own : No. 132 563 592 716 542 1,154 3,699
: Pet. : 6.7 12.0 5.8 14.1 8.0 7.6 8.4
Roadside stand : No. 134 616 2,265 1,418 1,213 1,027 6,673
:Pet. : 6.8 13.2 22.3 27.9 17.9 6.8 15.2
Farmers' market : No. 221 210 1,280 223 285 1,517 3,736
: Pet. : 11.2 4.5 12.6 4.4 4.2 10.0 8.5
Farm building : No. : 1,765 3,021 5,157 1,363 4,775 9,534 25,615
: Pet. : 89.2 64.6 50.8 26.8 70.4 63.1 58.7
Other 3/ : No. : 67 1,604 3,080 2,331 507 3,941 11,530
: Pet. : 3.4 34.3 30.3 45.8 7.5 26.1 26.7
Total 2/ No. : 1,978 4,677 10,153 5,084 6,784 15,103 43,779
:Pet. : 117.3 126.1 121.8 119.0 108.0 113.6 117.5

Methods used:

One : No. : 1,671 3,485 8,332 4,360 6,255 13,273 37,376
:Pet. : 84.5 74.5 82.1 85.8 92.2 87.9 84.9
Two : No. : 280 1,061 1,456 489 521 1,591 5,398
:Pet. : 14.1 22.7 14.3 9.6 7.7 10.5 12.8
Three or more : No. 27 131 365 235 8 239 1,005
: Pet. : 1.4 2.8 3.6 4.6 .1 1.6 2.3
Total : No. 1,978 4,677 10,153 5,084 6,784 15,103 43,779
:Pet. : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly
one direct sales method.
3/ Includes catalogue and mail order, house-to-house
tailgates on roadsides or parking lots.


to consumers or 100 percent because some farmers use more than

delivery, and methods not elsewhere classified, such as truck








Table 5--Colorado: Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product
and marketing method, 1979


Item


Pick-
your-
own


Road -
side
stand


Farmers' :
market


Farm
building :


Other : Total


Percent


Fruits and nuts:
Apples
Strawberries
Other berries
Peaches and nectarines
Cherries
Pears
Grapes
Plums
Other

Weighted average,
fruit and nut sales

Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn
Tomatoes
Melons
Potatoes
Green beans
Cabbage, broccoli, cauli-
flower, brussels sprouts
Squash
Peppers
Cucumbers
Pumpkins
Green peas
Asparagus
Sweetpotatoes
Other

Weighted average,
total vegetable sales

Floral and nursery

Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
livestock and poultry
products
Processed fruit products
(cider, jelly, jam, etc.):
Christmas trees and
forest products
Honey and syrups
Dairy products
Other


Weighted average,
other product sales


Weighted average, total
direct sales, all products :


2.4
79.4
0
8.7
10.5
1.3
0
12.9
18.2


16.4
0
0
66.5
51.8
66.4
0
11.6
10.3


7.1 47.4


2.0
21.4
4.1
0
18.4

2.6
3.5
35.2
.3
0
18.0
0
0
5.0


8.6


0


0

0

0
0
0
0


0


22.6
44.9
75.0
11.5
50.2

5.3
.7
28.8
6.0
0
0
0
0
10.6


38.2


.2


2.5


0


99,2
9.4
0
0


.9


.5 3.4


7.2
0
0
3.8
0
8.4
0
5.0
16.1


5.3


7.5
6.9
2.7
.3
11.5

5.7
6.4
6.0
1.2
0
79.3
0
0
1.2


4.2


68.9
20.6
100.0
17.6
37.7
21.1
100.0
70.5
50.1


37.0


65.1
21.0
18.0
88.2
19.9

86.4
89.4
29.9
92.5
100.0
2.7
100.0
0
83.2


47. 1


0 76.9


0 97.4

0 100.0


0
11.7
0
8.1


.8
66.2
52.8
91.9


.3 63.9


.4 70.1


4.8
0
0
3.4
0
2.8
0
0
5.3


3.2


2.8
5.8
.2
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


1.9

22.9


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0
100.0


100.0

100.0


.1 100.0


0

0
11.6
47.2
0


34.9


25.6


100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0


100.0


28







Table 6--Maryland and Delaware: 1/ Distribution of direct-marketing
sales, by product and marketing method, 1979


F

0


Fi


Weighted average,
other product sales


Weighted average, total
direct sales, all products :


Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm :Other : Total
your side : market : building :
own : stand


Percent


Item






ruits and nuts:
Apples
Strawberries
Other berries
Peaches and nectarines
Cherries
Pears
Grapes
Plums
Other

Weighted average,
fruit and nut sales

vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn
Tomatoes
Melons
Potatoes
Green beans
Cabbage, broccoli, cauli-
flower, brussels sprouts
Squash
Peppers
Cuoumbers
Pumpkins
Green peas
Asparagus
Sweetpotatoes
Other

Weighted average,
total vegetable sales

loral and nursery

other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
livestock and poultry
products
Processed fruit products
(cider, jelly, jam, etc.):
Christmas trees and
forest products
Honey and syrups
Dairy products
Other


56.3
.8
4.2
32.2
15.7
74.1
0
0
0


28.9


69.5
41.4
59.6
10.4
1.2

2.4
.5
0
25.0
73.7
0
0
100.0
.9


2.7 44.5

1.7 11.5




0 10.6

0 10.9


13.2
0
0
0


.5
5.7
0
0


3.6 6.6


8.0


15.8


1.2
.1
0
21.5
0
0
0
0
0


7.9


1.3
5.2
0
1.8
5.1

15.1
51.1
0
35.2
0
0
0
0
4.2


20. 1
51.0
80.7
21.8
84.3
25.9
15.6
38.9
100.0


31.5


28.0
46.0
40.4
87.8
83.6

18.9
48.4
0
37.6
26.3
43.5
100.0
0
83.3


1.9 50.6

.1 80.9




.5 55.5

0 89.1


0
6.4
8.3
0


83.5
80.7
5.1
91.9


.3 67.8


1.9 62.6


3..1
0
0
.9
0
0
0
0
0


1.2


.6
.2
0
0
0

.3
0
0
2.2
0
0
0
0
0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


.3 100.0

5.8 100.0


33.4


100.0


0 100.0


2.8
7.2
86.6
8.1


21.7


11.7


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0


100.0


1/ Treated as one State for
size.


reporting purposes because of small number of farms and sample


29


_~~~~


19.3
48.1
15.1
23.6
0
0
84.4
61.1
0


30.5


.6
7.2
0
0
10.1

62.9
0
0
0
0
56.5
0
0
11.6


V(







Table 7--New York: Distribution of
and marketing


direct-marketing sales, by product
method, 1979


Pick- Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other :Total
Item : your- : side : market : building :
own :stand
:


Percent


Fruits and-nuts:
Apples
Strawberries
Other berries
Peaches and nectarines
Cherries
Pears
Grapes
Plums
Other

Weighted average,
fruit and nut sales

Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn
Tomatoes
Melons
Potatoes
Green beans
Cabbage, broccoli, eauli-
flower, brussels sprouts
Squash
Peppers
Cucumbers
Pumpkins
Green peas
Asparagus
Sweetpotatoes
Other

Weighted average,
total vegetable sales

Floral and nursery

Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
livestock and poultry
products
Processed fruit products
(cider, jelly, jam, etc.):
Christmas trees and
forest products
Honey and syrups
Dairy products
Other


Weighted average,
other product sales


Weighted average, total
direct sales, all products :


15.3
78.1
84.4
7.6
56.1
8.3
7.2
15.5
NA


31.0


16.6
12.2
0
.1
0

4.1
0
32.2
.3
0
25.6
0
NA
0


6.5

1/




0


76.3
15.2
12.8
82.1
7.7
85.3
88.9
84.5
NA


61.1


66.9
73.6
10.7
5.9
86.1

71.9
78.7
37.6
56.2
98.2
0
24.0
NA
1.2


54.4

30.3




0.2


0 31.4


9. 1
0
0
0


.1


3.7
9.3
0
0


1.3


6.7 28.5


3.2
1.0
2.8
1.7
11.9
4.8
0
0
NA


2.7


5.5
5.7
89.3
52.2
13.9

9.0
12.5
2.5
20.8
.5
62.1
61.0
NA
32.0


20.3


4.0
5.4
0
8.5
21.4
1.5
1.6
0
NA


4.3


9.9
8.0
0
41.8
0

10.7
8.8
27.7
22.7
1.3
12.3
0
NA
66.2


18.4


1.7 24.7




0 48.3


1.5

5.5
1.1
0
.4


1.2
.3
0
.1
2.9
.1
2.3
0
NA


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA


.9 100.0


1.1
.5
0
0
0

4.3
0
0
0
0
0
15.0
NA
.6


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
100.0


.5 100.0


43.3




51.5


1.9 65.2


59.2
76.8
1.7
98.7


.3 54.2


5.7 29.2


22.5
12.8
98.3
.9


44.1


29.9


100.0




100.0

100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0


100.0


NA = Not applicable.
1/ Less than 0.05 percent.


30








Table 8--Southern


New England: 1/ Distribution of direct-marketing sales,
by product and marketing method, 1979


Pick- Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total
your- : side : market : building :
own :stand


Percent


Item





Fruits and nuts:
Apples
Strawberries
Other berries
Peaches and nectarines
Cherries
Pears
Grapes
Plums
Other

Weighted average,
fruit and nut sales

Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn
Tomatoes
Melons
Potatoes
Green beans
Cabbage, broccoli, cauli-
flower, brussels sprouts
Squash
Peppers
Cucumbers
Pumpkins
Green peas
Asparagus
Sweetpotatoes
Other

Weighted average,
total vegetable sales

Floral and nursery

Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
livestock and poultry
products
Processed fruit products
(cider, jelly, jam, etc.):
Christmas trees and
forest products
Honey and syrups
Dairy products
Other

Weighted average,
other product sales

Weighted average, total
direct sales, all products


9.2
68.1
59.7
1.2
0
7.3
34.9
0
0


18.4


.1
12.4
0
6.8
1.8

0
.2
1.7
1.4
.8
1.1
NA
NA
0


3.6

1.1


0 31.5

0 85.4


10.0
0
0
0


9.1
37.5
2/
1.5


1.6 27.1


5.6 46.5


5.5
2/
3.5
2.6
0
19.9
0
13.8
0


10.8
.9
.4
8.5
0
13.9
0
14.2
100.0


4.8 9.0


71.8
31.0
35.2
87.7
0
58.7
59.6
72.0
0


65.9


91.9
81.6
98.3
81.8
93.7

94.0
69.7
90.7
91.4
83.7
98.9
NA
NA
95.3


87.7

34.7


4.7
4.5
.3
4.7
0

3.4
16.8
7.2
5.4
3.6
0
NA
NA
3.7


1.6 5.0

.1 40.1


2.2

.2

0
1.0
0
0


53.1

13.9

2.2
48.4
3.9
10.9


1.3 34.4


1.6 27.4


2.7
0
1.2
2/

.2
5.5
0
0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0
100.0
100.0
'100.0
100.0


1.9 100.0


1.7
0
0
6.2
0

0
10.9
0
0
10.7
0
NA
NA
0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
NA
100.0


2.1 100.0


24.0




13.2


100.0




100.0


.5 100.0


78.7
13.1
96.1
87.6


35.6


18.9


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0


100.0


NA = Not applicable.
1/ Connecticut, Massachusetts,
2/ Less than 0.05 percent.


and Rhode Island.


31


__


1.6
1.5
1.4
.5
4.5

2.6
2.4
.4
1.8
1.2
0
NA
NA
1.0


----








Table 9--Tennessee: Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product and
marketing method, 1979


Item






Fruits and nuts:
Apples
Strawberries
Other berries
Peaches and nectarines
Cherries
Pears
Grapes
Plums
Other

Weighted average,
fruit and nut sales

Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn
Tomatoes
Melons
Potatoes
Green beans
Cabbage, broccoli, cauli-
flower, brussels sprouts
Squash
Peppers
Cucumbers
Pumpkins
Green peas
Asparagus
Sweetpotatoes
Other

Weighted average,
total vegetable sales

Floral and nursery

Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
livestock and poultry
products
Processed fruit products
(cider, jelly, jam, etc.):
Christmas trees and
forest products
Honey and syrups
Dairy products
Other


Weighted average,
other product sales


Weighted average, total
direct sales, all products :


Pick-
your-
own


Road-
side
stand


Farmers' :
market


Farm
building :


Other


Total


Percent


,46. 9
54.8
15.3
39.5
NA
0
0
NA
0


48.1


.2
8.7
0
0
.3

71.9
51.1
NA
0
NA
0
NA
0
94.4


2.3
36.2
0
28.0
NA
0
0
NA
0


16.9


0
71.6
2.3
0
76.3

0
0
NA
94.8
NA
0
NA
0
0


8.9 63.1

0 30.5


0

NA

3.0
0
0
0


0

NA

0
9.7
0
20.8


1.7 4.9


11.4


30.7


0.3
.2
77.0
0
NA
0
0
NA
0


50.5
8.7
7.7
32.5
NA
100.0
100.0
NA
100.0


.8 34.2


5.4
18.7
.8
.7
8.7

0
31.3
NA
4.9
NA
0
NA
0
0


16.2


90.5
1.0
95.3
92.0
14.7

28.1
17.6
NA
.3
NA
52.5
NA
97.6
5.6


11.5


.1 49.9




0.2 98.6


NA

0
0
0
0


1/


NA

2.9
87.6
100.0
79.2


39.7


4.4 34.7


0
.1
0
0
NA
0
0
NA
0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
100.0
100.0
NA
100.0


1/ 100.0


3.9
1/
1.6
7.3
0

0
0
NA
0
NA
47.5
NA
2.4
0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
NA
100.0
NA
100.0
NA
100.0
100.0


.3 100.0


19.5


100.0


1.2 100.0


NA


94.1
2.7
0
0


53.7


18.8


NA


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0


100.0


NA = Not applicable.
1/ Less than 0.05 percent.


32








Table 10--Wisconsin: Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product
and marketing method, 1979


Road-
side
stand


: Farmers'
: market


Farm :Other
building :


Total


Percent


Fruits and nuts:
Apples
Strawberries
Other berries
Peaches and nectarines
Cherries
Pears
Grapes
Plums
Other

Weighted average,
fruit and nut sales

Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn
Tomatoes
Melons
Potatoes
Green beans
Cabbage, broccoli, cauli-
flower, brussels sprouts
Squash
Peppers
Cucumbers
Pumpkins
Green peas
Asparagus
Sweetpotatoes
Other

Weighted average,
total vegetable sales

Floral and nursery

Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
livestock and poultry
products
Processed fruit products
(cider, jelly, jam, etc.):
Christmas trees and
forest products
honey and syrups
Dairy products
Other

Weighted average,
other product sales

Weighted average, total
direct sales, all products


25.4
93.3
91.8
NA
86.5
2.7
99.8
0
0


53.4


5.9
11.8
7.5
11.3
0

9.2
0
NA
0
0
NA
27.8
NA
0


6.4

.1


0 1/

0 38.1


13.5
0
0
0


.9


6.3


.4
9.0
0
0


5.4
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0


33.4
1.1
2.0
NA
0
79.0
.2
76.0
100.0


3.1 20.3


34.3
5.2
0
NA
12.6
17.7
0
24.0
0


21.4


51.7
58.6
91.7
3.0
0

40.2
8.7
NA
10.7
96.2
NA
0
NA
0


37.1

1.9


6.2
23.2
0
17.7
0

40.8
36.7
NA
83.2
3.8
NA
72.2
NA
0


16.8


0 25.6




.9 70.6

0 50.2


1/
19.3
0
0


23.3
45.0
100.0
97.6


.4 1.9 65.8


4.6 2.1 37.8


1.5
.4
6.2
NA
.9
.6
0
0
0


100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


1.8 100.0


1.8
2.2
0
0
1/

1/
1/
NA
0
0
NA
0
NA
.2


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
NA
100.0
100.0
NA
100.0
NA
100.0


.9 100.0

72.4 100.0


28.5

11.7

62.8
26.7
0
2.4


30.6


49.2


100.0

100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0


100.0


NA = Not applicable.
1/ Less than 0.05 percent.


33


Item


Pick-
your-
own


_I_________I___I _C__


34.4
4.2
.8
68.0
100.0

9.8
54.6
NA
6.1
0
NA
0
NA
99.8


38.8









Table 11--Percentage of farmers with added cost or less cost as a result of direct
selling, by type of cost and marketing method, nine States, 1979
(To compare with 1980 survey, see table 42)


: Pick- : Road- : Farmers': Farm :Other : Total or
Item : Unit : your- : side : market : building: 1/ : weighted
: : own : stand : : : : average 2/
:


Farmers

Added cost replies 2/


Added cost:
Advertising
Insurance
Labor
Maintenance
Utilities
Rent (stall rent)
Transportation
Containers
Miscellaneous

Avoided cost replies 2/


Avoided cost:
Containers
Labor
Transportation
Broker and commission
agents fees
Storage
Packinghouse
facilities
Miscellaneous


:No.

:No.
:Pet.


:Pet.
:Pet.
Pet.
:Pet.
:Pet.
: Pct.
:Pet.
: Pet.
:Pet.

:No.
Pet.


: Pet.
:Pet.
: Pet.

:Pet.
:Pet.

:Pet.
: Pt.


3,699

2,329
63.0


63.4
31.8
7.4
21.0
3.3
1.5
11.2
29.5
1.3

2,873
77.7


64.1
79.3
89.0

67.7
54.2

30.5
.3


6,673 3,736 25,615 11,530 43,779


4,210 3,530
63.1 94.5


54.4
28.3
24.6
27.1
24.7
2.7
13.8
49.4
2.1

5,626
84.3


46.4
36.6
84.4

57.3
37.0

29.8
.4


8.1
3.0
12.1
.7
.8
72.8
78.6
51.0
5.7

2,534
67.8


38.6
37.1
34.9

72.0
48.1

43.1
.3


10,128
39.2


32.9
25.6
18.9
24.2
14.1
5.5
19.6
37.3
5.0

21,011
81.3


28.0
34.0
81.0

61.0
24.7

24.0
.1


7,409 39,456
63.1 89.7


1/ Includes mail order sales, house-to-house delivery, and methods not elsewhere classified,
such as off wagon or truck tailgate on roadsides or parking lots.
2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers or 100 percent because
some farmers used more than one direct sales method or mentioned more than one cost item.


34


6,492
55.3


34.1
17.6
23.3
11.5
15.4
1.4
51.6
33.4
4.9


26,719
60.7


31.4
18.2
17.5
16.4
12.2
12.4
33.1
34.5
4.2


33.3
31.2
50.0

61.9
30.3

22.7
0


31.3
33.5
67.8

54.2
26.9

21.4
.1








Table 12--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of
nearest city with farmers' market and by marketing method, nine


(To compare with


nearest city and
States, 1979


1980 survey, see table 43)


Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total or
Item your- :side : market : building : : weighted
own :stand : : : : average 1/


Number

Farmers 1/ 3,699 6,672 3,736 25,615 11,530 43,779

Percent

Population of nearest
city:
Under 10,000 43.6 52.9 41.3 71.5 65.9 63.7
10,000-49,999 : 31.5 32.2 27.8 17.4 21.7 22.0
50,000-99,999 : 8.7 4.1 3.3 4.5 5.7 4.9
100,000-499,999 : 8.6 6.6 21.8 3.9 5.1 6.1
500,000 and over : 7.6 4.2 5.8 2.7 1.6 3.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest
city with farmers'
market:
Under 10,000 20.9 17.3 29.4 26.4 19.3 23.4
10,000-49,999 : 32.8 32.0 32.5 38.6 32.0 35.4
50,000-99,999 : 15.9 11.9 8.4 5.1 7.6 7.6
100,000-499,999 : 17.1 29.3 23.9 22.0 31.9 25.0
500,000 and over : 13.3 9.5 5.8 7.9 9.2 8.6

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Sum may exceed number of farmers
more than one direct sales method.


selling directly to consumers because some farmers used









Table 13--Colorado: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest
city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1979


S Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total or
Item : your- : side : market : building : : weighted
Sown : stand : : : : average


Number

Farmers 1/ 132 134 221 1,765 67 1,978

Percent

Population of nearest
city:
Under 10,000 22.7 20.9 73.6 51.1 43.3 49.6
10,000-49,999 : 47.9 63.4 16.1 25.4 29.8 28.1
50,000-99,999 18.2 5.2 2.7 19.3 3.0 16.4
100,000-499,999 : 3.0 0 .9 .9 0 .9
500,000 and over 9.1 10.5 6.7 3.3 23.9 5.0

Total 1 00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest
city with farmers'
market:
Under 10,000 12.3 17.3 71.2 14.5 16.7 20.0
10,000-49,999 : 47.7 57.9 18.0 25.2 36.4 28.0
50,000-99,999 : 22.3 9.8 3.1 2.7 7.6 4.4
100,000-499,999 : 3.1 0 .9 13.7 6.0 10.9
500,000 and over 14.6 15.0 6.8 43.9 33.3 36.7

Total 1 00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Sum may exceed number of farmers
more than one direct sales method.


selling directly to consumers because some farmers used








Table 14--Maryland and Delaware: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of
nearest city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1979


Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total or
Item : your- : side : market : building : : weighted
: own : stand : : : average


Number


Farmers 1/ 563 616 210 3,021 1,604 4,677
Percent


Population of nearest
city:
Under 10,000 : 63.1 54.0 53.5 73.4 64.6 67.6
10,000-49,999 : 27.9 28.4 4.7 16.3 35.0 23.6
50,000-99,999 .6 11.9 30.0 3.0 0 3.2
100,000-499,999 : 0 0 0 0 0 0
500,000 and over : 8.4 5.7 11.8 7.3 .4 5.6

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest
city with farmers'
market:
Under 10,000 : 35.6 26.2 20.2 45.4 12.6 33.2
10,000-49,999 : 29.8 48.7 36.1 34.3 79.3 47.5
50,000-99,999 .6 12.8 32.4 3.7 0 3.8
100,000-499,999 : 0 0 0 0 0 0
500,000 and over : 34.0 12.3 11.3 16.6 8.1 15.5

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used
more than one direct sales method.









Table 15--New York:
city and nearest


Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest
city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1979


: Farmers' : Farm
: market : building :


Number


Farmers 1/



Population of nearest
city:
Under 10,000
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-499,999
500,000 and over


Total


Population of nearest
city with farmers'
market:
Under 10,000
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-499,999
500,000 and over


Total


Item


Pick-
your-
own


Road -
side
stand


Other


: 592


Total or
weighted
average


2,265


1,280


5,157


Percent


3,080


10,153


58.6
20.6
3.8
11.1
5.9


: 100.0


58.7
14.8
1.8
15.5
9.2

100.0




19.0
34.5
3.5
22.8
20.2

100.0


29.4
24.1
1.8
44.7
0

100.0




23.7
24.1
2.6
49.6
0

100.0


77.0
11.1
5.9
5.1
.9

100.0




29.4
44.3
10.8
13.4
2. 1

100.0


16.4
44.7
5.7
21.9
11.3


: 100.0


72.6
16.4
.7
9.3
1.0

100.0




27.9
17.4
9.3
32.8
12.6

100.0


66.8
14.9
3.3
12.4
2.6

100.0




25.9
33.7
8.0
24.1
8.3

100.0


1/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used
more than one direct sales method.








Table 16--Southern New England: 1/ Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population
of nearest city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1979


Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total or
Item : your- : side : market : building : : weighted
own : stand : : : average


Number

Farmers 2/ 716 1,418 223 1,363 2,331 4,084

Percent

Population of nearest
city:
Under 10,000 28.6 41.0 54.7 50.6 39.6 41.7
10,000-49,999 : 35.8 43.9 32.5 42.9 24.7 34.9
50,000-99,999 29.0 8.5 6.2 4.0 19.2 14.0
100,000-499,999 : 3.9 5.2 5.3 2.4 11.3 6.8
500,000 and over 1.8 1.4 1.3 .1 5.2 2.6

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest
city with farmers'
market:
Under 10,000 : 3.1 3.9 2.2 20.5 1.7 6.6
10,000-49,999 : 34.6 33.8 77.7 39.2 16.9 30.2
50,000-99,999 : 29.5 14.0 9.8 9.8 1.8 10.0
100,000-499,999 : 31.0 44.1 8.9 26.5 69.2 47.0
500,000 and over : 1.8 4.2 1.4 4.0 10.4 6.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used
more than one direct sales method.








Table 17--Tennessee: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest
city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1979


SPick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total or
Item : your- : side : market : building : : weighted
Sown : stand : : : : average


Number

Farmers 1/ 542 1,213 285 4,775 507 6,784

Percent

Population of nearest
city:
Under 10,000 8.1 38.9 5.9 68.9 94.2 58.7
10,000-49,999 : 88.9 60.2 85.4 21.1 2.8 33.8
50,000-99,999 : 0 0 0 0 .4 2/
100,000-499,999 : 3.0 .9 8.7 9.9 2.6 7.4
500,000 and over : 0 0 0 .1 0 .1

Total 1 00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest
city with farmers'
market:
Under 10,000 3.7 20.3 5.2 16.5 1.6 14.7
10,000-49,999 : 43.8 20.5 86.0 40.5 5.7 36.8
50,000-99,999 44.6 19.3 0 .2 0 6.6
100,000-499,999 : 7.2 39.6 8.8 42.4 46.4 38.3
500,000 and over : .7 .3 0 .4 46.3 3.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


o


1/ Sum may exceed number of farmers
more than one direct sales method.
2/ Less than 0.05 percent.


selling directly to consumers because some farmers used











Table 33--Value


of products sold directly to consumers by products and State, 1980
(To compare with 1979 survey, see table 1)


SNorthern : :Seven-State
Item : Unit : California : Illinois : Missouri : New England : Texas : total
:: : : (or average)


Fruits and nuts:
Apples
Strawberries
Other berries
Peaches and nectarines
Cherries
Pears
Plums
Apricots
Oranges
Other citrus
Nuts
Other fruit

Total fruit and
nut sales
Average fruit and nut
sales per farmer
Farmers selling fruits
and nuts

Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn
Tomatoes
Melons
Potatoes
Green beans
Cabbage, cauliflower,
broccoli, brussels
sprouts


: Dol.
:Dol.
:Dol.
:Dol.
: Dol.
: Dol.
: Dol.
: Dol.
:Dol.
: Dol.
Dol.
:Dol.


Dol.

Dol.

No.


Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
Dol.
:Dol.


:Dol.


993,058
578,045
173,609
1,058,251
221,795
281,794
112,242
322,048
254,361
147,510
287,176
107,624


4,537,513

2,391

1,898


405,036
388,344
390,542
2,143
233,757


19,806


4,166,142
896,501
172,591
9,764,808
1,083
6,618
14,342
2,190
0
0
0
5,211


15,029,486

23,391

642


1,318,793
881,766
382,601
24,556
218,599


155,754


1,076,358
390,366
1,810
627,389
0
5,697
18,386
0
0
0
117,611
24,712


2,262,329

11,542

196


10,188
93,881
63,981
680
15,912


12,047


4,789,171
2,131,688
296,397
119,746
6,378
63,887
13,215
35,440
0
0
0
697


7,456,619

6,766

1,102


1,327,546
640,365
132,329
1,266,186
325,509


245,429.


73,972
23,637
16,725
1,772,516
0
9,808
34,015
26,242
344,132
89,724
4,350,665
1,940


6,743,376


11,098,701
4,020,237
661,132
13,342,710
229,256
367,804
192,200
385,920
598,493
237,234
4,755,452
140,184


36,029,323


5,700

1,183


41,716
225,004
989,753
67,896
22,721


8,207


See footnote at end of table.


7,176

5,021


3,103,279
2,229,360
1,959,206
1,361,461
816,498


441,243


continued--









Table 33--Value of products sold directly to consumers, by product and State, 1980--continued


SNorthern :: Seven-State
Item : Unit : California : Illinois : Missouri : New England : Texas : total
S1/ : : (or average)
: : :


Squash
Peppers
Cucumbers
Pumpkins
Sweetpotatoes
Lettuce
Onions
Other

Total vegetable sales
Average vegetable
sales per farmer
Farmers selling
vegetables


:Dol.
:Dol.
:Dol.
:Dol.
:Dol.
:Dol.
:Dol.
:Dol.

Dol.

Dol.

No.


Floral and nursery:
Total floral and nursery : Dol.
Average floral and
nursery sales per farmer: Dol.
Farmers selling floral


and nursery


Other products:
Livestock, poultry
Processed fruit products
Dried fruits
Christmas trees and
forest products
Honey and syrups
Dairy products
Wine
Other


: No. :


Dol.
:Dol.
Dol.

Dol.
Dol.
:Dol.
:Dol.
Dol.


113,114
35,693
72,838
144,366
0
9,718
29,160
142,013


1,986,530

5,809

342


7,013,526

44,110

159


1,746,397
144,944
328,701

3,211,547
39,040
1,242,354
1,232,467
323,427


178,491
401,177
151,253
359,392
16,911
7,572
37,600
207,839

4,342,304

14,621

297


13,312,351

52,001

256


8,356,722
814,025
0

1,261,233
275,762
70,849
0
60,067


8,814
7,161
7,626
10,986
3,503
993
500
137,765

374,037

5,343

70


3,774,144

27,152

139


2,690,571
144,068
0

62,592
52,059
58,501
0
367,036


416,415
44,283
352,572
232,561
0
629,297
112,805
573,591

6,298,888

6,596

955


7,898,270

6,844

1,154


6,274,051
342,284
0

900,607
2,269,940
1,235,874
0
82,205


24,207
9,011
28,857
2,003
167,748
696
5,890
113,774


1,708,477

3,417

500


3,654,381

8,382

436


5,031,018
748
0

80,721
321,586
74,946
0
224,412


742,041
497,325
613,140
749,308
188,162
648,276
185,955
1,174,982

14,710,236

6,798

2,164


35,652,672

16,629

2,144


24,098,759
1,446,069
328,701

5,516,700
2,958,387
2,682,524
1,232,467
1,057,147


See footnote at end of table.


Ln
__41


continued--
















Table 33--Value of products sold directly to consumers, by product and State, 1980--continued


Northern :Seven-State
Item :Unit :California : Illinois : Missouri : New England : Texas : total
1/ : : (or average)


Total other product
sales :Dol. :8,268,877 10,838,658 3 374,827 11,104,961 5,733,431 39,320,754
Average sales of
other products :Dol. 10,259 1,595 1,435 4,856 2,618 2,756
Farmers selling other
products :No. 806 6,791 2,351 2,287 2,190 14,431

Total direct sales :Dol. :21,806.446 43,522,799 9,785.337 32,758,738 17,839,665 125,712,985
Farmers selling direct :No. 2,880 7,683 2,643 4,003 3,577 20,786
Average sales per farmer
selling direct :Dol. : 7,593 5,668 3,712 8,938 5,004 6.150
Total of farmers in State :No. 60,000 105,000 117,000 17,500 159,000 458,500
Farmers selling direct :No. 2,880 7,683 2,643 4,003 3,577 20,786
Farmers selling direct Pet. :4.8 7.3 2.3 22.9 2.2 4.5
Percent cash receipts
derived from direct
marketing Pet. :.2 .6 .2 3.7 .2 .4


1/ Maine. New Hampshire,
sample size.


and Vermont. Treated as one State for reporting purposes because of small number of farms and









Table 34--Changes in direct-marketing anticipated by farmers
by States and marketing methods, 1980
(To compare with 1979 survey, see table 2)


through 1985


Item :Farmers : Increase : No change : Decrease : Undecided : Total


Number --------------------------Percent--------------------------

State:
California : 2,880 17.2 68.5 10.7 3.6 100.0
Illinois : 7,683 4.6 65.6 10.8 19.0 100.0
Missouri 2,643 6.4 70.5 20.3 2.8 100.0
Northern New
England 1/ 4,003 33.9 27.0 14.6 24.5 10C
Texas : 3,577 24.6 43.9 16.5 15.0 100

Total and weighted :
average : 20,786 15.7 55.4 13.7 15.2 100

Marketing method:
Pick-your-own 1,451 41.2 34.4 16.8 7.6 100.
Roadside stand : 1,956 48.9 30.8 13.4 6.9 100.
Farmers' market 1,695 36.9 36.9 20.7 5.9 100.
Farm building 15,921 11.5 59.2 14.6 14.7 100.
Other 4,021 18.0 47.2 18.9 15.9 100.

Total and weighted :
average 2/ : 25,044 18.8 52.1 15.8 13.3 100.0


1/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. States were combined because of the small number of
farmers in sample in some States.
2/ Total for methods exceeds total number of direct-marketing farmers since some farmers use
more than one direct-marketing method. Hence, average may also differ from the average over
all States, which is based on the actual number of farmers.







Table 35--Percentage of direct sales to total production of direct-marketing
farmers, by product and State, 1980
(To compare with 1979 survey, see table 3)


Product


Fruits:
Apples
Apricots
Strawberries
Other berries
Peaches and nectarines
Cherries
Pears
Plums
Oranges
Other citrus
Nuts
Other fruits

Weighted average

Vegetables:
Sweet corn
Tomatoes
Melons
Potatoes
Green beans
Cabbage, broccoli,
cauliflower, and
brussels sprouts
Squash
Peppers
Cucumbers
Pumpkins
Sweetpotatoes
Lettuce
Onions
Other vegetables

Weighted average

Floral and nursery

Other products:
Livestock, poultry,
and products
Christmas trees and
forest products
Honey and syrups
Processed fruits
Dried fruits
Dairy
Wine
Other

Weighted average

Weighted average, all
products


: :Northern :: Weighted
Illinois : Missouri : New : Texas : average
: :England 1/:


Percent


:California:







18
8
18
26
8
43
7
12
31
14
: 13 .
13


10


62
3
20
77
91


2/
52
20
3
81
NA
2/
NA
9

9

29


11


34
40
52
11
: 1
26
10

5


9


36
NA
100
99
92
NA
100
100
NA
NA
NA
100

64


45
72
58
1
69


20
86
94
27
59
100
100
100
64

40

55


95


81
44
88
NA
1/
NA
12

23


41


27
NA
97
70
27
NA
100
100
NA
NA
NA
21

31


70
87
76
100
99


2
92
100
100
53
50
10
NA
84

36

35


92


91
18
95
NA
47
NA
40

75


41


16
8
44
55
93
100
79
77
NA
NA
NA
100

17


55
79
62
11
28


12
73
69
75
83
NA
84
NA
80

30

17


18


17
43
49
NA
17
NA
47

21


20


100
100
100
96
62
NA
91
93
26
10
32
NA

32


94
60
41
65
24


2/
10
88
13
NA
41
NA
76
56

41

99


11


97
13
35
NA
1/
NA
18


3


8


9


17


NA = Not applicable or none reported.
1/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
2/ Less than 0.05 percent.


60


21
9
44
48
41
44
9
19
28
12
30
2

29


50
13
38
8
68


8
55
62
16
66
43
6
83
39

25

32


24


35
25
69
11
3
26
20








Table 36--Direct marketing farmers, by marketing method,
number of methods used, and State, 1980
(To compare with 1979 survey, see table 4)


Item : Unit


Marketing method:
Pick-your-own


Roadside stand


Farmers' market


Farm building


Other 2/


Total 3/


Number of methods
used:
One


Two


Three


Four or more


Total


: No.
: Pet.

: No.
: Pet.

: No.
: Pet.

:No.
: Pt.

:No.
:Pet.

:No.
Pet.



:No.


No.
: Pet.
Pct.

:No.
: Pet.

:No.
:Pet.

:No.
:Pet.


:California:




S 225
S 7.8

S 160
S 5.6

S 210
S 7.3

S 2,351
S 81.6

S 331
S 11.5

S NA
S 113.8



S 2,537
S 88.1

S 297
S 10.3

S 37
S 1.3

S 9
.3

: 2,880
: 100.0


: : Northern : : Total and
Illinois : Missouri : New : Texas : weighted
: England : : average
*: 1/


297
3.9

275
3.6

155
2.0

6,827
88.9

1,164
15.2

NA
113.6



6,686
87.0

964
12.5

29
.4

4
.1

7,683
100.0


135
5.1

95
3.6

512
19.4

1,949
73.8

590
22.3

NA
124.2



2,031
76.8

590
22.3

20
.8

2
.1

2,643
100.0


430
10.7

997
24.9

271
6.8

2,486
62.1

1,119
28.0

NA
132.5



2,796
69.9

1,132
28.3

58
1.4

17
.4

4,003
100.0


364
10.2

428
12.0

548
15.3

2,308
64.5

817
22.8

NA
124.8



2,844
79.5

579
16.2

154
4.3


0
0


3,577
100.0


1,451
7.0

1,955
9.4

1,696
8.2

15,921
76.6

4,021
19.3

NA
120.5



16,894
81.3

3,562
17.1

298
1.4


32
.2


20,786
100.0


1/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
2/ Other includes house-to house delivery, catalogue and mail order
elsewhere classified, such as off wagon or truck tailgate on roadside


sales, and methods not
or parking lots.


3/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers or 100 percent because
some farmers used more than one direct sales method.


61







Table 37--California: Distribution of direct-marketing sales
by product and marketing method, 1980


: Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other :Total
Product : your- : side : market : building : 1/
: own : stand
:: ::


Percent


Fruits and nuts:
Apples
Strawberries
Other berries
Peaches and nectarir
Cherries
Pears
Grapes


ies


Plums
Apricots
Oranges
Other citrus
Nuts
Other fruits and nuts

Total fruits and nuts

Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn
Tomatoes
Melons
Potatoes (white)
Green beans
Cabbage, broccoli,
cauliflower, and
brussels sprouts
Squash
Peppers
Cucumbers
Pumpkins
Green peas
Asparagus
Sweetpotatoes
Lettuce
Okra
Onions
Other vegetables

Total vegetables

Floral, nursery, and
bedding plants

Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
products
Processed fruits
Dried fruits
Christmas trees and
forest products
Honey and syrup
Dairy products
Wine
Other products

Total other products

Total, all products


5.2
12.7
61.5
14.3
38.1
35.3
13.8
14.5
27.5
2.1
2.1
1.0
1.2

15.4


.1
16.2
.4
6.6
87.4


3.2
.5
5.0
.3
42.9
0
0
0
0
12.5
0
37.2

19.1


0



0
0
0

62.8
0
0
0
.3

24.4

14.0


28.2
29.2
.9
30.1
33.0
22.8
20.6
33.2
26.0
58.6
39.9
18.3
35.5

29.0


71.5
62.0
50.7
0
6.4


18.0
55.7
53.4
29.8
24.7
0
0
0
59.2
83.7
82.3
.8

51.1


2.8



0
35.4
47.2

8.8
7.0
3.1
22.3
54.9

11.9

15.2


16.2
.3
2.5
11.9
15.5
7.1
19.7
11.8
13.0
20.9
4.9
11.6
22.9

11.3


22.7
13.5
23.7
80.8
5.8


57.6
27.2
26.9
42.1
3.4
0
100.0
0
2.6
2.8
10.2
50.7

17.9


2.3



3.2
.4
1.4

0
7.6
0
0
.2


.8 33.6

4.7 45.9


50.3
57.8
35.1
31.1
13.4
28.7
45.9
26.8
33.3
7.8
52.9
53.7
32.0

39.2


5.7
8.3
25.5
12.6
.4


1.8
13.5
14.7
27.8
27.3
0
0
0
6.0
1.0
7.5
11.3

11.5


71.8



70.4
64.2
9.8

23.3
85.4
1.0
44.6
36.7


.1
0
0
12.6
0
6.1
0
13.7
.1
10.6
.2
15.4
8.4

5.1


0
0
.3
0
0


19.4
3.1
0
0
1.7
0
0
0
22.2
0
0
0


.4 100.0


23.1



26.4
0
41.6

5.6
0
95.9
33.1
7.9

29.3

20.2


100.0



100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0

100.0


1/ Includes catalogue, mail
such as off wagons and trucks


order, house-to-house delivery, and methods not elsewhere classified,
in parking lots or on roadsides.


62


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0
100.0
0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0








Table 38--Illinois: Distribution of direct-marketing sales by products
and marketing method, 1980


S Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other Total
Product your- : side : market : building : 1/
Sown : stand


Percent


Fruits:
Apples
Strawberries
Other berries
Peaches and nectarines
Cherries
Pears
Grapes
Plums
Nuts
Other fruits and nuts

Total fruits and nuts

Vegetables:
Sweet corn
Tomatoes
Melons
Potatoes
Green beans
Cabbage, broccoli,
cauliflower, and
brussels sprouts
Squash
Peppers
Cucumbers
Green peas
Asparagus
Sweetpotatoes
Lettuce
Okra
Onions
Other vegetables

Total vegetables

Floral, nursery, and
bedding plants

Other products:
Livestock, poultry,
and products
Processed fruits
Christmas trees
and forest products
Honey and syrup
Dairy
Other products

Total other products

Total, all products


33.7
93.7
95.6
.6
0
30.4
0
9.3
0
0

16.5


1.4
16.6
0
0
14.1
0


0
38.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44.1

10.9


2/



0
0

44.6
0
0
2.2

5.1

8.0


45.6
4.4
2.0
6.1
0
22.1
94.2
79.2
0
0

17.0


81.6
72.2
91.4
57.2
35.5
65.8


47.3
54.9
54.7
0
99.4
36.4
0
0
100.0
51.2

74.4


67.6



.1
75.3

2.1
7.9
0
3.3

6.1

34.5


1.3
.3
0
.1
0
10.3
2.7
8.4
0
0


19.4
1.5
2.3
93.2
0
37.2
1.4
3.1
0
100.0


.4 66.1


14.4
8.9
4.4
0
45.4
19.0


52.0
6.7
33.8
100.0
0
63.6
100.0
100.0
0
.8

11.7


0.6


2.1
1.8
4.1
42.8
4.3
15.2


.7
0
5.7
0
.6
0
0
0
0
3.9

2.5


13.6


0 93.8
1.2 22.7


0
12.2
0
5.8

.5

1.4


23.0
68.8
100.0
85.0

79.8

48.2


0
.1
.1
0
0
0
1.7
0
0
0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0
100.0


2/ 100.0


.5
.5
.1
0
.7
0


0
0
5.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


.5 100.0


18.2



6.1
.8

30.3
11.1
0
3.7

8.5

7.9


100.0



100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0

100.0


I/ Includes catalogue, mail
such as off wagons and trucks
2/ Less than 0.05 percent.


order, house-to-house delivery,
in parking lots or on roadsides.


and methods not elsewhere


63


classified,


-- --








Table 39--Missouri: Distribution of direct-marketing sales
by product and method of sale, 1980


Product


Pick-
your-
own


Road-
side
stand


Farmers' :
market


Farm
building :


Other : Total
1/


Percent


Fruits and nuts:
Apples
Strawberries
Other berries
Peaches and nectarines
Cherries
Pears
Grapes
Plums
Nuts
Other fruits and nuts

Total fruits and nuts


Vegetables:
Sweet corn
Tomatoes
Melons
Potatoes
Green beans
Cabbage, broccoli,
cauliflower, and
brussels sprouts
Squash
Peppers
Cucumbers
Green peas
Asparagus
Sweetpotatoes
Lettuce
Okra
Onions
Other vegetables

Total vegetables

Floral, nursery, and
bedding plants


Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
products
Processed fruit
Christmas trees and
forest products
Honey and syrup
Dairy
Other products

Total other products

Total, all products


39.8
92.6
100.0
35.1
0
31.7
0
0
13.3
0

46.2


0
.2
.3
0
12.9


49.5
0
0
0
.4
0
0
0
0
0
0


36.7
5.9
0
56.1
0
4.9
15.2
8.3
0
0

34.6


56.3
49.3
24.1
0
57.2


0
95.0
0
100.0
0
0
56.3
0
0
0
0


.6 25.0


0


0
0

.2
0
0
0


2/

10.6


28.3




90.8

16.4
3.8
0
.3

4.4

21.3


0.3
0
0
1.3
0
0
8.0
0
0
0

.5


16.8
11.6
.2
0
28.1


0
0
100.0
0
90.9
0
16.8
0
100.0
0
3.1

14.2


20.8
1.0
0
7.4
0
52.8
76.8
91.7
79.8
0

17.0


22.4
37.0
75.1
0
1.8


0
5.0
0
0
8.7
0
22.4
100.0
0
0
96.5

59.2


0.1 63.4


13.5
0

0
0
0
0

10.8


77.1
9.2

6.1
94.0
100.0
28.1


68.2


4.3 54.4


9.3 100.0
0 100.0


64


2.4
.5
0
.1
0
10.6
0
0
.9
0

1.7


4.5
1.9
.3
0
0


50.5
0
0
0
0
0
4.5
0
0
0
.4

1.0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0

100.0


100.0
100.0
100.0
0
100.0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0
100.0

100.0


100.0


8.2


77.3
2.2
0
71.6

16.6

9.4


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0

100.0


1/ Includes catalogue, mail order, house-to-house delivery, and methods not elsewhere
classified, such as off wagons and trucks in parking lots or on roadsides.
2/ Less than 0.05 percent.


---








Table 40--Northern New England: 1/ Distribution of direct-marketing
sales by product and method of sale, 1980


Pick-
your-
own


Road-
side
stand


Farmers' : Farm
market : building


Other
2/


Total


Percent


Fruits and nuts:
Apples
Strawberries
Other berries
Peaches and nectarines
Cherries
Pears
Grapes
Plums
Nuts
Other fruits

Total fruits and nuts

Vegetables:
Sweet corn
Tomatoes
Melons
Potatoes (white)
Green beans
Cabbage, broccoli,
cauliflower, and
brussels sprouts
Squash
Peppers
Cucumbers
Green peas
Asparagus
Sweetpotatoes
Lettuce
Okra
Onions
Other vegetables

Total vegetables

Floral, nursery, and
bedding plants

Other products:
Livestock, poultry,
and products
Processed fruits
Christmas trees and
forest products
Honey and syrup
Dairy
Other products

Total other products

Total, all products


21.7
50.4
77.0
0
100.0
.6
0
41.7
0
0

31.4


.4
0
0
0
0


0
0
0
.8
3.6
0
0
0
0
0
0


39.4
42.7
17.6
98.9
0
68.6
100.0
24.6
0
0

40.9


82.5
64.0
86.6
74.8
98.8


84.8
51.7
9.8
46.3
96.3
0
0
90.6
0
0
3.2


.2 74.9


2.0



0
0

20.8
0
0
0

1.7

8.7


20.6



1.0
56.0

19.0
19.7
0
13.1

8.0

28.5


0.6
.2
2.6
0
0
1.7
0
2.5
0
0


36.2
6.7
2.8
1.1
0
29.1
0
31.2
0
0


.5 25.8


6.6
33.4
0
.1
1.1


14.6
1.3
90.2
34.4
0
0
0
4.7
0
0
0


10.5
2.6
13.4
22.8
.1


.1
47.0
0
18.5
.1
100.0
0
4.7
0
0
96.8


8.5 15.8


0.5


32.9


3/ 37.7
.6 43.4


0
.7
0
0


25.6
71.6
12.7
80.3


.1 41.4


1.5


31.9


2.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0
0


1.4 100.0


0
0
0
2.3
0


.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0
100.0
0
0
100.0


.6 100.0


44.0



61.3
0

34.6
8.0
87.3
6.6

48.8

29.4


100.0



100.0
100.0

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

100.0

100.0


65


Product


1/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
2/ Includes catalogue, mail order, house-to-house delivery, and methods not elsewhere
classified, such as off wagons and trucks in parking lots or on roadsides.
3/ Less than 0.05 percent.







Table 41--Texas: Distribution of direct-marketing sales by
product and marketing method, 1980


Pick- : Road- :Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total
Product your- : side : market :building : I/
own : stand


Percent

Fruits and nuts:
Apples : 5.0 10.4 21.5 60.2 2.9 100.0
Strawberries : 39.6 60.4 0 0 0 100.0
Other berries : 60.3 18.6 1.1 20.0 0 100.0
Peaches and nectarines : 16.0 43.7 29.8 10.4 .1 100.0
Cherries : 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pears 0 22.4 0 77.6 0 100.0
Grapes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plums : .7 60.7 15.0 23.6 0 100.0
Apricots : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Oranges 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0
Other citrus : 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0
Nuts 0 19.8 .1 72.6 7.5 100.0
Other fruits : 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total fruits and nuts : 4.5 31.3 8.2 51.0 5.0 100.0

Vegetables:
Sweet corn : 23.3 35.9 .6 21.1 19.1 100.0
Tomatoes : .8 46.6 29.0 13.2 10.4 100.0
Melons 0 58.4 34.8 6.5 .3 100.0
Potatoes (white) : 6.0 5.7 53.8 33.1 1.4 100.0
Green beans : 64.5 11.0 6.4 18.1 0 100.0
Cabbage, broccoli,
cauliflower, and
brussels sprouts : 14.3 0 0 85.7 0 100.0
Squash .2 32.1 58.3 9.4 0 100.0
Peppers 0 .8 99.2 0 0 100.0
Cucumbers : 38.0 5.3 27.7 29.0 0 100.0
Pumpkins : 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green peas : 0 5.1 0 61.0 33.9 100.0
Asparagus : 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sweetpotatoes : 0 26.7 29.2 44.1 0 100.0
Lettuce 0 0 0 0 0 0
Okra 1.7 24.2 40.9 19.6 13.6 100.0
Onions 0 46.9 15.5 37.6 0 100.0
Other vegetables : 51.5 4.8 17.6 9.6 16.5 100.0

Total vegetables : 4.3 46.6 33.1 13.2 2.8 100.0

Floral and nursery : 0 0.4 1.2 68.2 30.2 100.0

Other products:
Livestock, poultry,
and products : 0 1.9 0 48.0 50.1 100.0
Processed fruits : 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0
Christmas trees and
forest products : 0 0 0 98.5 1.5 100.0
Honey and syrup : 0 .3 0 94.0 5.7 100.0
Dairy products : 0 0 0 99.1 .9 100.0
Other products : 0 0 0 96.6 3.4 100.0

Total other products 0 1.7 0 53.8 44.5 100.0

Total, all products : 2.1 16.7 6.3 52.1 22.8 100.0


66


1/ Includes catalogue, mail order, house-to-house delivery, and methods not elsewhere
classified, such as off wagons and trucks in parking lots or on roadsides.








Table 42--Percentage of farmers with added cost or less cost as a result of direct
selling by type of cost and marketing method, 1980
(To compare with 1979 survey, see table 11)


: Pick- :Road- : Farmers': Farm : Other : Total
Item : Unit : your- : side : market : building: I/ :
: : own : stand :


Farmers 2/ : No. 1,451 1,956 1,696 15,921 4,021 20,786

Added cost replies : No. : 937 1,629 953 10,768 2,585 13,306
Pet. : 64.6 83.3 56.2 67.6 64.3 64.0

Added cost: 3/
Advertising : Pt. : 64.4 65.7 22.4 28.4 12.0 34.7
Insurance :Pct. : 46.5 32.0 18.0 21.3 18.3 26.4
Labor : Pct. : 32.2 42.8 27.4 30.4 17.6 35.1
Maintenance : Pet. : 23.8 22.6 3.0 16.1 5.3 18.2
Utilities : Pet. : 8.9 42.8 16.9 13.2 22.1 21.5
Rent (stall rent) : Pot. : 2.1 3.1 91.5 10.8 8.0 16.1
Transportation Pet. : 6.2 17.6 70.8 22.4 60.9 37.0
Containers : Pet. : 21.4 44.3 24.7 33.1 34.0 37.5
Parking lot : Pct. : 2.9 .8 0 .1 .1 .4
Miscellaneous : Pct. : 6.3 2.8 1.8 .5 3.4 2.0

Avoided cost replies 2/ : No. :1,198 1,669 1,500 13,943 2,953 17,474
: Pct. : 82.6 85.3 88.5 87.6 73.5 84.1

Avoided cost: 3/
Containers : Pt. : 51.4 42.6 46.2 20.3 23.8 25.9
Labor :Pet. : 75.8 31.1 59.0 26.1 16.5 33.3
Transportation : Pt. : 88.5 79.6 21.5 76.0 35.1 76.4
Broker and commission :
agents' fees 3/ Pet. : 65.4 87.5 98.6 57.7 88.5 68.9
Storage : Pt. : 42.7 42.0 67.1 23.4 54.6 32.7
Workers' compensation : Pet. : .8 .9 .3 .1 .3 .3
Equipment :Pet. : 24.0 50.6 76.6 33.2 43.4 38.9


1/ Includes catalogue,
classified.


mail order, house-to-house delivery, and methods not elsewhere


2/ Sum may exceed total number of farmers selling directly to consumer (100 percent)
because some farmers use more than one direct sales method.
3/ Percentages based on the number of farmers indicating they had added cost or avoided cost
for each direct method of sale and total number of farmers indicating added or avoided cost.


67








Table 43--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest city and nearest
city with public farmers' market, by marketing method, seven States, 1980
(To compare with 1979 survey, see table 12)


: Pick- :Road- : Farmers' : Farm :Other : Total and
Item : your- : side : market : building : 1/ : weighted
: own : stand :: :: average 2/


Number

Farmers : 1,451 1,955 1,696 15,921 4,021 20,786

Percent

Population of nearest
city:
Under 10,000 36.4 37.2 46.1 67.4 77.5 63.5
10,000-49,999 : 30.1 27.9 10.1 24.8 8.3 21.7
50,000-99,999 9.7 13.5 6.2 1.2 1.6 3.0
100,000-499,999 : 15.0 5.1 12.2 4.1 10.2 6.4
500,000 and over : 8.8 16.3 25.4 2.5 2.4 5.4

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest
city with farmers'
market:
Under 10,000 : 10.5 7.4 44.3 26.7 12.6 23.2
10,000-49,999 : 45.8 49.4 10.5 32.4 42.6 34.7
50,000-99,999 : 13.2 17.0 7.2 10.4 23.0 12.8
100,000-499,999 : 16.4 14.2 31.2 7.7 18.3 12.0
500,000 and over : 13.7 11.8 6.6 22.8 3.5 17.2
Do not know .4 .2 .2 0 0 .1

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Other methods include house-to-house delivery, catalogue and mail order sales, and
methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagons and trucks in parking lots or on
roadsides.
2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers
use more than one direct sales method; weighted average based on number of farmers selling
by each method and sum of farmers selling by each method.





Table 44--California: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest
city with public farmers' market, by marketing method, 1980


: Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total and
Item : your- : side : market : building : 1/ : weighted
: own : stand : : : : average 2/


Number

Farmers : 225 160 210 2,351 331 2,880

Percent

Population of nearest
city:
Under 10,000 : 16.8 12.5 6.6 16.6 7.9 14.9
10,000-49,999 : 25.1 17.5 30.8 65.4 11.5 52.6
50,000-99,999 : 13.2 10.0 22.3 2.9 4.8 5.4
100,000-499,999 : 24.2 35.0 24.2 11.6 67.0 20.0
500,000 and over : 20.7 25.0 16.1 3.5 8.8 7.1

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest
city with farmers'
market:
Under 10,000 2.6 3.8 4.7 .9 1.2 1.4
10,000-49,999 : 24.7 20.6 32.7 13.6 13.9 16.0
50,000-99,999 : 22.9 8.1 23.7 4.0 5.5 6.9
100,000-499,999 : 22.9 38.1 24.2 21.7 67.3 27.4
500,000 and over : 25.6 28.8 13.7 59.8 11.5 48.1
Do not know : 1.3 .6 1.0 0 .6 .2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Other methods include house-to-house delivery, catalogue and mail order sales, and
methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagons or trucks in parking lots or on
roadsides.
2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers
used more than one direct sales method; weighted average based on number of farmers selling
by each method and sum of farmers selling by each method.








Table 45--Illinois: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest city
and nearest city with a public farmers' market, by marketing method, 1980


: Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total and
Item : your- : side : market : building : 1/ : weighted
: own :stand : : : average 2/


Number

Farmers 297 275 155 6,827 1,164 7,683

Percent

Population of nearest
city:
Under 10,000 36.4 29.7 12.3 86.2 93.0 82.3
10,000-49,999 : 32.0 38.0 41.9 12.5 3.7 13.3
50,000-99,999 12.8 13.8 32.2 .6 1.8 2.1
100,000-499,999 : 1.3 2.9 5.2 .3 .9 .6
500,000 and over 17.5 15.6 8.4 .4 .6 1.7

Total 1 00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest
city with farmers'
market:
Under 10,000 16.4 9.1 9.7 36.7 30.8 33.9
10,000-49,999 : 34.6 33.0 37.4 40.9 33.3 39.4
50,000-99,999 27.2 34.0 38.1 16.2 32.8 19.7
100,000-499,999 : 7.0 8.3 7.1 .5 1.4 1.2
500,000 and over : 14.8 15.6 7.7 5.7 1.7 5.8
Do not know 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1 00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Other methods include house-to-house delivery, catalogue and mail order sales, and methods
not elsewhere classified, such as off wagons or trucks in parking lots or on roadsides.
2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used
more than one direct sales method; weighted average based on number of farmers selling by each
method and sum of farmers selling by each method.





Table 46--Missouri; Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest city
and nearest city with a public farmers' market, by marketing method, 1980


: Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total and
Item : your- : side : market : building : 1/ : weighted
: own : stand : : : : average 2/


Number

Farmers 135 95 512 1,949 590 2,643

Percent

Population of nearest
city:
Under 10,000 : 59.6 47.9 97.4 68.8 89.6 76.0
10,000-49,999 : 19.1 17.0 .6 27.9 3.9 18.7
50,000-99,999 : 5.9 2.1 0 .3 1.2 .7
100,000-499,999 : 8.1 12.8 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.9
500,000 and over : 7.3 20.2 1.0 1.6 4.1 2.7

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest
city with farmers'
market:
Under 10,000 : 16.9 4.2 96.5 2.2 1.5 17.5
10,000-49,999 : 31.6 27.7 1.5 28.8 88.5 35.5
50,000-99,999 0 2.1 0 0 0 .1
100,000-499,999 : 16.2 20.2 1.0 2.3 2.4 3.3
500,000 and over : 33.8 44.7 1.0 66.1 7.6 43.5
Do not know : 1.5 1.1 0 0 0 .1

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Other methods include house-to-house delivery, catalogue and mail order sales, and
methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagons or trucks in parking lots or on
roadsides.
2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers
used more than one direct sales method; weighted average based on number of farmers selling
by each method and sum of farmers selling by each method.








Table 47--Northern New England 1/: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population
of nearest city and nearest city with a public farmers' market, by marketing method, 1980


: Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total and
Item : your- : side : market : building : 2/ : weighted
: own : stand : : : average 3/


Number

Farmers 430 997 271 2,486 1,119 4,003

Percent

Population of nearest
city:
Under 10,000 63.5 55.9 86.8 78.5 89.3 75.7
10,000-49,999 : 24.8 23.1 12.5 18.8 7.7 17.4
50,000-99,999 : 11.0 19.8 .7 1.1 1.4 5.5
100,000-499,999 : .7 .3 0 0 0 .1
500,000 and over 0 .9 0 1.6 1.6 1.3

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest
city with farmers'
market:
Under 10,000 15.1 10.3 82.3 45.0 11.4 30.9
10,000-49,999 : 73.0 66.6 15.1 44.7 66.0 54.1
50,000-99,999 11.0 22.0 2.2 9.9 21.6 14.3
100,000-499,999 : .7 .3 0 0 0 .1
500,000 and over 0 .6 0 .4 1.0 .5
Do not know .2 .2 .4 0 0 .1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
2/ Other methods include house-to-house delivery, catalogue and mail order sales, and
methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagons or trucks in parking lots or on
roadsides.
3/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers
used more than one direct sales method; weighted average based on number of farmers selling
by each method and sum of farmers selling by each method.





Table 48--Texas: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest city
and population of nearest city with a public farmers' market, by marketing method, 1980


:Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total and
Item : your- : side : market : building : I/ : weighted
:own :stand : : : :average 2/


Number

Farmers : 364 428 548 2,308 817 3,577

Percent

Population of nearest
city:
Under 10,000 : 8.0 5.2 2.4 50.7 58.7 38.5
10,000-49,999 : 42.0 39.1 .7 23.9 17.6 22.8
50,000-99,999 4.7 2.1 1.3 1.8 .5 1.8
100,000-499,999 : 40.1 4.9 26.1 14.6 21.0 18.3
500,000 and over : 5.2 48.7 69.5 9.0 2.2 18.6

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest
city with public
farmers' market:
Under 10,000 : 2.8 1.6 1.6 24.5 1.1 13.4
10,000-49,999 : 41.4 35.2 .4 16.3 2.5 15.7
50,000-99,999 : 3.0 1.0 1.3 8.8 34.5 11.4
100,000-499,999 : 38.7 40.4 84.6 27.3 59.1 42.3
500,000 and over : 14.1 21.8 12.1 23.1 2.8 17.2
Do not know : 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Other methods include house-to-house delivery, catalogue and mail order sales, and
methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagons or trucks in parking lots or on
roadsides.
2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used
more than one direct sales method; weighted average based on number of farmers selling by
each method and sum of farmers selling by each method.








Table 49--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance to nearest city and nearest
city with public farmers' market, by marketing method, seven States, 1980
(To compare with 1979 survey, see table 19)


: Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total and
Item : your- : side : market : building : 1/ : weighted
: own :stand : : : : average 2/


Number

Farmers 1,451 1,955 1,696 15,921 4,021 20,786

Percent

Distance to nearest city
(miles):
Under 5 32.2 33.3 21.1 31.5 31.3 30.9
5-9.9 15.1 20.6 4.6 35.4 46.6 32.8
10-19.9 : 23.9 16.7 7.8 18.6 6.3 16.1
20 and over 28.8 29.4 66.5 14.5 15.8 20.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest city
with farmers' market
(miles):
Under 5 7.4 12.2 18.1 6.7 3.8 7.5
5-9.9 20.2 14.6 4.0 13.7 1.7 11.6
10-19.9 : 23.3 20.5 9.0 20.0 34.3 21.7
20 and over 48.7 52.5 68.7 59.6 60.2 59.1
Do not know .4 .2 .2 0 0 .1

Total 1 00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Other methods include house-to-house delivery, catalogue and mail order sales, and
methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagons or trucks in parking lots or on
roadsides.
2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers
used more than one direct sales method; weighted average based on number of farmers selling
by each method and sum of farmers selling by each method.






Table 50--California: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by distance to
and nearest city with farmer's market, by marketing method, 1980


Item


Pick-
your-
own


Road-
side
stand


Farmers' : Farm
market : building


Other
1/


nearest city


Total and
weighted
average 2/


Number


Farmers



Distance to nearest city
(miles):
Under 5
5-9.9
10-19.9
20 and over
Total
Total


Distance to nearest city
with farmers' market
(miles):
Under 5
5-9.9
10-19.9
20 and over
Do not know


Total


: 225


160


210


2,357


331


2,880


Percent


22.0
15.0
16.7
46.3


S 100.0


6.2
9.2
16.3
67.0
1.3


S 100.0


26.9
15.0
13.8
44.3

100.0




14.4
9.4
15.0
60.6
.6

100.0


17.5
12.8
28.9
40.8

100.0




10.4
10.9
34.1
43.6
1.0

100.0


70.4
3.5
7.2
18.9


100.0




1.6
2.5
8.9
87.0
0

100.0


12.7
6.4
7.3
73.6

100.0




1.8
3.0
8.2
86.4
.6

100.0


55.7
5.7
9.6
29.0

100.0




3.1
3.9
11.3
81.5
.2

100.0


1/ Other methods include house-to-house delivery, catalogue and mail order sales, and
methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagons or trucks in parking lots or on
roadsides.
2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers
used more than one direct sales method; weighted average based on number of farmers selling
by each method and sum of farmers selling by each method.








Table 51--Illinois: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by distance to nearest city
and nearest city with farmers' market, by marketing method, 1980


: Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total and
Item : your- : side : market : building : 1/ : weighted
: own : stand : : : : average 2/


Number

Farmers 297 275 155 6,827 1,164 7,683

Percent

Distance to nearest city
(miles):
Under 5 28.6 51.4 36.1 23.0 7.1 22.2
5-9.9 22.2 17.8 18.7 46.8 90.9 50.4
10-19.9 : 21.6 13.4 21.3 19.0 1.7 16.7
20 and over 27.6 17.4 23.9 11.2 .3 10.7

Total 1 00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest city
with farmers' market
(miles):
Under 5 6.4 16.7 22.6 1.0 3.4 2.4
5-9.9 16.1 17.7 18.7 25.9 .5 21.8
10-19.9 : 21.1 21.0 25.2 24.4 2.4 21.2
20 and over 56.4 44.6 33.5 48.7 93.7 54.6
Do not know 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Other methods include house-to-house delivery, catalogue and mail order sales, and
methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagons or trucks in parking lots or on
roadsides.
2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers
used more than one direct sales method; weighted average based on number of farmers selling
by each method and sum of farmers selling by each method.






Table 52--Missouri: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by distance to nearest city
and nearest city with farmers' market, by marketing method, 1980


: Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total and
Item : your- : side : market : building : 1/ : weighted
: own : stand : : : :average 2/


Number

Farmers 135 95 512 1,949 590 2,643

Percent

Distance to nearest city
(miles):
Under 5 36.8 23.4 2.3 6.1 5.4 7.1
5-9.9 30.9 34.1 1.0 70.3 86.8 59.8
10-19.9 : 13.9 20.2 1.0 20.9 4.9 14.6
20 and over 18.4 22.3 95.7 2.7 2.9 18.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest city
with farmers' market
(miles):
Under 5 10.3 6.4 2.0 2.2 2.7 2.8
5-9.9 6.6 2.1 .4 1.0 2.0 1.3
10-19.9 : 4.4 10.6 1.0 27.0 85.4 32.0
20 and over : 77.2 79.8 96.6 69.8 9.9 63.8
Do not know 1.5 1.1 0 0 0 .1

Total 1 00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Other methods include house-to-house delivery, catalogue and mail order sales, and
methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagons or trucks in parking lots or on
roadsides.
2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers
used more than one direct sales method; weighted average based on number of farmers selling
by each method and sum of farmers selling by each method.








Table 53--Northern New England 1/: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by distance to
nearest city and nearest city with farmers' market, by marketing method, 1980


: Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total and
Item : your- : side : market : building : 2/ : weighted
: own : stand : : : average 3/


Number

Farmers 430 997 271 2,486 1,119 4,003

Percent

Distance to nearest city
(miles):
Under 5 62.8 42.8 84.2 54.4 82.9 60.4
5-9.9 14.5 28.2 3.7 15.2 9.9 15.9
10-19.9 : 14.8 23.8 9.2 23.8 3.7 18.1
20 and over 7.9 5.2 2.9 6.6 3.5 5.6

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest city
with farmers' market
(miles):
Under 5 : 13.5 15.4 79.0 35.9 6.8 26.3
5-9.9 49.8 22.0 5.2 3.8 3.6 11.0
10-19.9 : 19.3 30.2 11.4 11.8 60.6 26.1
20 and over 17.2 32.2 4.0 48.5 29.0 36.5
Do not know .2 .2 .4 0 0 .1

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
2/ Other methods include house-to-house delivery, catalogue and mail order sales, and
methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagons or trucks in parking lots or on
roadsides.
3/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers
used more than one direct sales method; weighted average based on number of farmers selling
by each method and sum of farmers selling by each method.






Table 54--Texas: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by distance to nearest city and
nearest city with farmers' market, by marketing method, 1980


: Pick- :Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total and
Item : your- : side : market : building : 1/ : weighted
: own :stand : : : average 2/


Number

Farmers 364 428 548 2,308 817 3,577

Percent

Distance to nearest city
(miles):
Under 5 3.9 3.8 4.4 13.6 21.3 12.2
5-9.9 4.1 4.0 1.3 26.8 21.2 18.6
10-19.9 : 44.8 2.6 1.5 21.6 17.0 18.4
20 and over 47.2 89.6 92.8 38.0 40.5 50.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest city
with farmers' market
(miles):
Under 5 .6 2.1 4.4 1.1 1.6 1.6
5-9.9 .6 0 0 10.7 0 5.6
10-19.9 : 41.4 1.4 1.1 21.0 17.4 17.7
20 and over 57.4 96.5 94.5 67.2 81.0 75.1
Do not know 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


I/ Other methods include house-to-house delivery, catalogue and mail order sales, and
methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagons or trucks in parking lots or on
roadsides.
2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers
used more than one direct sales method; weighted average based on number of farmers selling
by each method and sum of farmers selling by each method.










Table 55--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers with access to various types of
roads, by State, marketing method and type of road, 1980
(To compare with 1979 survey, see table 26)


Item


: Inter-
Farmers : state
: highway


:Number

State:
California 2,880
Illinois : 7,683
Missouri 2,643
Northern New
England 4,003
Texas 3,577

Total and
weighted
average : 20,786

Marketing method::
Pick-your-own :1,451
Roadside stand : 1,955
Farmers' market: 1,696
Farm building : 15,921
Other :4,021


Total and
weighted
average


: 25,051 2/


Divided :
highway :


U.S. or
State
highway


:Secondary: Unpaved : City
: paved road : street
: road


-------------------------------Percent-----------------------------


3.6
13.8
.7

5.7
9.1



8.4


4.1
2.6
3.6
8.4
7.7


7.3


3.4
.6
1.1

8.7
15.5



5.2


5.5
25.7
21.5
2.3
2.0


5.6


2.9
2.8
2.9

26.6
16.3



9.7


22.3
34.3
16.1
6.9
6.3


10.4


84.0
33.5
69.2

27.8
35.7



44.3


40.3
24.9
33.0
46.1
37.3


41.8


4.1
47.0
4.2

9.4
26.8



24.9


23.0
1.7
.7
29.4
9.8


21.8


1/ Total may exceed 100
2/ Sum of farmers using


percent since some operations have access to more
various marketing methods exceeds total number of


than one road type.
farmers selling


directly since some farmers used more than one method.


00
0


:Total
: 1/


5.9
12.7
23.7

21.8
10.4



14.5


4.8
10.8
25.1
6.9
36.9


13.1


103.9
110.4
101.8

100.0
113.8



107.0


100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0


100.0







Table 56--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers using various types of advertising
by State, marketing method, and type of advertising, 1980
(To compare with 1979 survey, see table 27)


: News- : Road : :Word : : No
Item :Farmers : paper : sign : Radio : of : Other : adver- : Total
::: mouth : : tising : 1/


Number -------------------------------Percent-------------------------------

State:
California :2,880 23.5 21.2 3.2 86.6 21.8 5.0 95.0
Illinois : 7,683 25.1 24.2 16.0 93.7 2.2 6.2 93.8
Missouri :2,643 10.6 33.2 4.8 77.7 1.9 20.3 79.7
Northern New
England 2/ : 4,003 28.6 24.6 5.1 88.7 5.6 26.2 73.8
Texas :3,577 26.0 24.7 9.9 82.9 9.3 5.6 94.4

Total and
weighted
average : 20,786 23.9 25.1 9.7 87.9 6.8 11.6 88.4

Marketing method::
Pick-your-own :1,451 53.4 35.1 17.4 75.3 14.1 16.9 83.1
Roadside stand : 1,955 66.2 58.4 20.1 92.9 12.4 1.5 98.5
Farmers' market: 1,696 8.8 15.0 3.1 85.4 3.2 11.6 88.4
Farm building : 15,921 16.3 21.3 6.0 84.6 4.2 10.9 89.1
Other : 4,021 17.2 13.2 12.6 60.9 10.3 18.7 81.3

Total and
weighted
average : 25,044 23.9 25.1 9.7 87.9 6.8 11.6 88.4


1/ Sum of farmers using various marketing methods and percentages using individual media may
exceed total percentage of farmers advertising since some farmers used more than one marketing
method and more than one medium.
2/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.













Table 57--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by direct sales, and gross value of total
production by States, 1980
(Based on 1976 farm definition--sales of $1,000 or more. To compare with 1979 survey, see table 28.)


Gross value
of total
farm sales 1/


: California : Illinois

: : Direct: : Direct:


Missouri : Northern New
England 2/ :
: Direct: : Direct:


:Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales .Farmers: sales


Texas


: Direct:


: Weighted


average
: Direct


:Farmers. sales .Farmers: sales


Percent


Under $2,500
$2,500-$9,999
$10,000-$19,999
Subtotal

$20,000-$39,999
$40,000-$99,999
$100,000-$199,999
$200,000 and over
Subtotal


:100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Total farms and
million dollars :2,880


$21.8 7,683 $43.5 2,643 $9.8 4,003 $32.8 3,577 $17.8 20,786 $125.8


1/ Value of total farm products produced and sold by farmers who operated at least 10 acres or had total sales
of $250 or more. Percentage of farmers based on number within each size classification, and percentage of direct
sales based on dollar value of direct sales by farmers in each size classification.
2/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.


6.6
64.0
3.4
74.0

7.2
8.4
6.8
3.6
26.0


1.2
7.8
4.6
13.6

7.1
15.3
19.9
44.1
86.4


10.9
20.9
15.0
46.8

10.2
23.5
18.4
1.1
53.2


1.2
7.8
2.5
11.5

2.8
17.8
37.9
30.0
88.5


20.6
22.3
2.1
45.0

48.4
3.8
2.2
.6
55.0


Total


5.9
6.6
3.6
16.1

28.2
17.0
28.9
9.8
83.9


30.8
25.9
10.1
66.8

11.2
10.7
3.7
7.6
33.2


4.7
7.8
6.6
19.1

10.6
14.1
14.0
42.2
80.9


35.2
33.3
10.4
78.9

6.7
1.7
7. 1
5.6
21.1


7.9
17.8
3.0
28.7

12.9
4.7
29.8
23.9
71.3


19.6
30.1
10.0
59.7

14.2
12.7
10.0
3.4
40.3


3.4
9.1
4.1
16.6

9.0
14.5
26.7
33.2
83.4







Table 58--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by State, farming status, and
(To compare with 1979 survey, see table 29)


marketing method, 1980


State and farming: Pick-your-own :Roadside stand : Farmers' market : Farm building : Other : Total farms 1/
status
.


: No. Pet.


California:
Full-time
Part-time
Total

Illinois:
Full-time
Part-time
Total


Missouri:
Full-time
Part-time
Total


Northern New
England 2/:
Full-time
Part-time
Total

Texas:
Full-time
Part-time
Total

Seven States:
Full-time
Part-time
Total


87
138
225


133
164
297


67
68
135



166
264
430


47
317
364


500
951
1,451


38.7
61.3
100.0


44.8
55.2
100.0


49.6
50.4
100.0



38.6
61.4
100.0


12.9
87.1
100.0


34.5
65.5
100.0


No. Pet.


104 64.6
57 35.4
161 100.0


176 64.0
99 36.0
275 100.0


63
32
95


66.3
33.7
100.0


404 40.6
592 59.4
996 100.0


58 13.6
370 86.4
428 100.0


805
1,150
1,955


41.2
58.8
100.0


No. Pet.


106 50.5
104 49.5
210 100.0


69 44.5
86 55.5
155 100.0


11 2.2
501 97.8
512 100.0



43 15.9
228 84.1
271 100.0


55 10.0
493 90.0
548 100.0


283
1,412
1,695


16.7
83.3
100.0


No. Pet.


534
1,817
2,351


4,588
2,239
6,827


140
1,809
1,949



702
1,784
2,486


430
1,878
2,308


6,394
9,527
15,921


22.7
77.3
100.0


67.2
32.8
100.0


7.2
92.8
100.0



28.2
71.8
100.0


18.6
81.4
100.0


40.2
59.8
100.0


No. Pet.


71 21.5
260 78.5
331 100.0


757
408
1,164


65.0
35.0
100.0


44 7.6
545 92.4
590 100.0


412
707
1,119


36.8
63.2
100.0


180 22.0
637 78.0
817 100.0


1,464
2,557
4,021


36.4
63.6
100.0


No. Pet.


746
2,134
2,880


4,851
2,832
7,683


246
2,397
2,643



1,189
2,814
4,003


687
2,890
3,577


7,719
13,067
20,786


25.9
74.1
100.0


63.1
36.9
100.0


9.3
90.7
100.0



29.7
70.3
100.0


19.2
80.8
100.0


37.1
62.9
100.0


I/ Sum of farmers by methods exceed total
2/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.


number of farmers since some farmers used more than one method.


















Table 59--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by product and
(To compare with 1979 survey, see table 30)


State, 1980


California


Illinois


Northern
Missouri : New England
1/


Texas


: Total and
: weighted average


Number


: 2,880


7,683


2,643


4,003


3,577


20,786


Percent


oo Product:
C Field crops
Vegetables
Fruits and vegetables
Livestock
Poultry
Dairy
Floral and nursery
Others 2/

Total 3/


Item


Farmers


8.8
12.2
70.8
15.5
5.6
.3
5.6
11.8

130.6


63.3
4.1
8.8
59.7
18.2
22.4
3.3
22.4

202.2


69.0
2.8
7.5
74.7
46.2
.6
5.3
35.6

241.7


1.9
26.3
30.1
35.0
3.5
2.3
31.7
22.3

153.1


20.9
22.3
33.6
58.1
24.2
1.8
12.3
6.1

179.3


37.9
12.3
25.5
50.7
18.5
9.3
10.6
19.9

184.7


1/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
2/ Includes such items as cider, Christmas trees, forest products, honey, syrup, jams, and jellies.
3/ Exceeds 100 percent because some farmers produce products in more than one category.






Table 60--Reasons given by farmers for selling directly to consumers by
State and marketing method, 1980
(To compare with 1979 survey, see table 31)


: Higher : Labor : Access :: Miscel- :
Item :Farmers : income : related : to : Social : laneous : Total
:: : market : : :


:Number Percent

State:
California 2,880 52.6 12.3 24.2 87.4 3.5 180.0
Illinois : 7,683 98.2 54.8 45.4 100.0 .2 208.6
Missouri 2,643 86.7 54.1 76.9 100.0 .3 318.0
Northern New
England 2/ :4,003 90.6 41.7 47.3 76.4 .7 256.7
Texas :3,577 96.1 60.5 74.1 100.0 3/ 330.7

0o Total and
U weighted
average :20,786 88.6 47.3 51.8 93.7 .8 282.2

Marketing method:
Pick-your-own 1,451 100.0 77.9 67.7 100.0 1.7 347.3
Roadside stand :1,955 100.0 62.7 81.5 87.9 1.2 333.3
Farmers' market :1,696 69.3 58.7 100.0 79.1 .4 307.5
Farm building : 15,921 85.6 48.1 44.7 100.0 .8 279.2
Other : 4,021 100.0 39.5 51.9 100.0 2.6 294.0

Total and
weighted
average 4/ : 25,044 88.7 50.3 53.8 97.6 1.1 291.5


1/ Total exceeds 100 percent since some farmers gave more than one reason for selling
directly to consumers.
2/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
3/ Less than 0.05 percent.
4/ Sum of farmers for methods exceeds total number of farmers selling directly to
consumers since some farmers used more than one direct method of sales.









Table 61--Reasons given by farmers for not selling directly to consumers,
by State and products produced, 1980
(To compare with 1979 survey, see table 32)


Item : Farmers : Commodity : Too much : Volume too : Other : Total 1/
: produced :trouble : large


Number -----------------------------Percent--------------------------

State:
California :48,905 53.2 33.9 4.8 12.8 104.7
Illinois : 86,418 83.0 16.9 .2 .3 100.4
Missouri 85,625 18.3 81.6 .1 .1 100.1
Northern New
England 2/ : 10,705 5.9 68.9 23.2 4.6 102.6
Texas : 114,020 40.0 64.0 .7 2.2 106.9

Total and
weighted
average : 345,673 46.2 52.5 1.7 2.8 103.2

Products produced: :
Field crops : 159,851 81.2 21.9 .4 .9 104.4
Vegetables 4,379 33.4 30.8 14.6 34.9 113.7
Fruits and nuts : 22,904 50.3 23.0 8.9 24.2 106.4
Livestock : 224,478 35.5 64.9 .3 .7 101.4
Poultry : 9,935 19.8 81.0 .9 .6 102.3
Dairy 27,220 23.2 67.6 8.0 4.4 103.2
Floral and
nursery 2,096 83.9 16.1 4.0 29.3 133.3
Other 29,778 60.0 55.5 1.4 1.2 118.1

Total and
weighted
average 3/ :480,641 55.8 48.0 1.4 2.6 107.8


1/ Totals for reasons exceed 100 percent because some farmers gave more than one reason.
2/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
3/ Sum of farmers (total) producing various products exceeds total number of farmers selling
directly because some farmers produced products in two or more product categories.


2-













'I
0
0
H








Table 18--Wisconsin: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by population of nearest
city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1979


Pick- : Road- Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total or
Item : your- : side : market : building : : weighted
: own : stand : : : : average


Number

Farmers 1/ 1,154 1,027 1,517 9,534 3,941 15,103

Percent

Population of nearest
city:
Under 10,000 : 54.8 76.7 49.6 77.7 77.4 73.6
10,000-49,999 : 7.4 19.8 24.2 12.2 16.4 14.4
50,000-99,999 : 5.0 2.8 1.2 3.9 5.0 3.9
100,000-499,999 : 17.8 .5 13.4 2.2 .8 3.8
500,000 and over : 15.0 .2 11.6 4.0 .4 4.3

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest
city with farmers'
market:
Under 10,000 36.2 23.1 38.0 27.4 29.2 29.1
10,000-49,999 : 20.3 24.1 24.6 39.2 38.2 35.5
50,000-99,999 : 5.8 18.1 12.1 4.8 14.3 8.5
100,000-499,999 : 20.6 32.7 13.7 22.4 16.7 20.8
500,000 and over : 17.1 1.7 11.6 6.2 1.6 6.1

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Sum may exceed number of farmers
more than one direct sales method.


selling directly to consumers because some farmers used









Table 19--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance to nearest city
city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, nine States,
(To compare with 1980 survey, see table 49)


and nearest
1979


: Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm :Other : Total or
Item : your- : side : market : building : : weighted
: own :stand : : : : average


S Number

Farmers 1/ : 3,706 6,674 3,744 25,833 11,747 43,999

Percent

Distance to nearest
city (miles):
Under 5 : 41.6 48.2 24.5 44.6 44.3 43.3
5-9.9 21.4 21.9 44.2 31.7 34.5 31.3
10-19.9 : 14.2 11.9 6.4 16.0 14.2 14.2
20 and over 22.8 18.0 24.9 7.7 7.0 11.2

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest
city with farmers
market (miles):
Under 5 13.1 6.0 9.7 7.3 5.8 7.4
5-9.9 22.9 15.8 39.1 19.9 17.1 20.3
10-19.9 : 27.5 21.3 20.1 29.2 30.9 27.8
20 and over : 36.5 56.9 31.1 43.6 46.2 44.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Sum may exceed number of farmers
more than one direct sales method.


selling directly to consumers because some farmers used










Table 20--Colorado: Distribution of
city and nearest city with public


direct-marketing farmers, by distance to niarcsi
farmers' market and by marketing ,crthod, 1979


: Farmers' : Farm Other io
:market : building : : i
S: : : ave


Number


Farmers 1/


: 132


134


221


1,765


67 1,978


Percent


Distance to nearest
city (miles):
Under 5
5-9.9
10-19.9
20 and over


Total


Distance to nearest
city with farmers'
market (miles):
Under 5
5-9.9
10-19.9
20 and over


Total


1/ Sum may exceed total number of farmers selling
used more than one direct sales method.


directly to consumers because some farmers


Item


Pick-
your-
own


Road -
side
stand


rght,
rage


23.5
34.9
18.9
22.7


: 100.0


10.8
32.3
30.0
26.9


: 100.0


23.1
32.1
32.1
12.7

100.0





14.3
29.3
36.1
20.3

100.0


76.7
5.8
10.3
7.2

100.0




8.1
7.7
76.1
8.1

100.0


30.6
36.2
13.3
1.9.9

100.0





5.1
13.1
39.4
42.4

100.0


35.8
32.8
22.4
9.0

100.0





16.7
37.9
16.6
28.8

100.0


34.3
32.9
14.7
18.1

100.0





6.6
15.3
41.5
36.6

100.0










Table 21--Maryland and Delaware: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance to
nearest city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1979


Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total or
Item : your- : side : market : building : : weighted
own : stand :: :: average


Number

Farmers 1/ : 563 616 210 3,021 1,604 4,677

Percent

Distance to nearest
city (miles):
Under 5 : 54.4 51.8 6.6 52.7 10.2 39.7
S5-9.9 : 8.3 29.7 39.4 31.5 81.7 42.8
10-19.9 : 6.1 4.8 16.0 10.2 7.4 8.8
20 and over : 31.4 13.7 38.0 5.6 .7 8.7

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest
city with farmers'
market (miles):
Under 5 .8 2.9 4.2 11.3 1.4 6.5
5-9.9 : 8.0 28.0 39.4 18.3 44.1 26.0
10-19.9 : 14.3 9.9 17.0 44.6 52.0 39.3
20 and over 76.9 59.2 39.4 25.8 2.5 28.2

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


I/ Sum may exceed total number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers
used more than one direct sales method.










Table 22--New York: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance to nearest
city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1979


Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total or
Item : your- : side : market : building : : weighted
: own :stand : : : : average


Number

Farmers 1/ 592 2,265 1,280 5,157 3,080 10,153

Percent

Distance to nearest
city (miles):
Under : 33.9 44.7 26.8 42.2 47.7 42.0
5-9.9 22.3 7.0 35.1 29.3 25.2 24.5
10-19.9 : 26.7 25.5 9.8 25.3 16.7 21.7
20 and over 17.1 22.8 28.3 3.2 10.4 11.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest
city with farmers'
market (miles):
Under 5 : 3.4 6.9 21.8 2.8 4.1 5.9
5-9.9 11.0 15.7 32.6 27.9 5.7 19.8
10-19.9 : 37.4 14.3 13.6 21.9 28.0 21.9
20 and over : 48.2 63.1 32.0 47.4 62.2 52.4

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


L-
Lnr


1/ Sum may exceed total number of farmers selling
used more than one direct sales method.


directly to consumers because some farmers










Table 23--Southern New England: 1/ Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance
to nearest city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1979


Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total or
Item : your- : side : market : building : : weighted
own : stand : : : : average


Number

Farmers 2/ 716 1,418 223 1,363 2,331 5,084

Percent

Distance to nearest
city (miles):
Under 5 : 70.9 74.4 74.7 63.2 61.6 66.5
5-9.9 : 16.9 14.9 10.2 20.0 21.5 18.7
10-19.9 : 8.2 7.0 12.0 5.0 5.8 6.4
20 and over : 4.0 3.7 2.6 11.8 11.1 8.4

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest
city with farmers'
market (miles):
Under 5 : 27.3 13.0 15.6 14.3 5.4 12.1
5-9.9 : 16.6 15.8 10.3 29.9 26.3 22.9
10-19.9 : 36.1 40.8 67.0 25.6 29.9 33.6
20 and over 20.0 30.4 30.4 7.1 30.2 38.4

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
2/ Sum may exceed total number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers
used more than one direct sales method.











Table 24--Tennessee: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance to nearest
city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1979


Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total or
Item : your- : side : market : building : : weighted
: own : stand : : : average


Number

Farmers 1/ 542 1,213 285 4,775 507 5,084

Percent

Distance to nearest
city (miles):
Under 5 : 44.5 18.5 1.0 53.8 46.5 44.7
5-9.9 3.1 39.6 .7 25.1 2.2 23.3
10-19.9 : 5.9 .7 4.2 19.5 49.9 16.9
20 and over 46.5 41.2 94.1 1.6 1.4 15.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest
city with farmers'
market (miles):
Under 5 40.9 .5 1.0 15.1 2.2 13.2
5-9.9 1.6 19.9 .7 14.4 43.3 15.8
10-19.9 : 4.8 1.0 3.9 12.2 3.5 8.9
20 and over 52.7 78.6 94.4 58.3 51.0 62.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Sum may exceed total number of farmers selling
used more than one direct sales method.


directly to consumers because some farmers










Table 25--Wisconsin: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance to nearest city
and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1979


Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total or
Item : your- : side : market : building : : weighted
own : stand : : : : average


Number
Farmers 1/ 1,154 1,027 1,517 9,534 3,941* 15,103


Percent
Distance to nearest
city (miles):
Under 5 : 21.9 56.5 14.4 37.3 42.0 36.5
5-9.9 : 37.4 37.5 71.4 37.9 36.4 40.5
10-19.9 : 18.6 3.3 1.2 13.5 16.2 12.7
20 and over 22.1 2.7 13.0 11.3 5.4 10.3

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest
city with farmers'
market (miles):
Under 5 2.6 2.0 1.2 4.1 9.7 4.9
5-9.9 : 49.1 2.1 60.5 19.2 6.8 21.0
10-19.9 : 33.7 38.3 14.1 33.7 25.1 30.3
20 and over : 14.6 57.6 24.2 43.0 58.4 43.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1/ Sum may exceed total number of farmers selling
used more than one direct sales method.


directly to consumers because some farmers






Table 26--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, with access to various types of
roads, by State, marketing method and type of road, 1979
(To compare with 1980 survey, see table 55)

: Inter- :: U.S.
:state : Divided : and :Secondary : Unpaved : City :Total
Item : highway : highway : major :paved road: road : street
: inter- : :State
: change 1/: : highway ::_

Number

Farmers 1,166 3,498 8,162 32,773 4,708 1,385 51,692 2/

Percent

State:
Colorado : 3.3 10.7 18.6 37.8 26.1 3.5 100.0
Maryland and
Delaware : 4.0 11.3 17.5 62.5 4.7 0 100.0
New York : 4.2 5.4 15.0 62.7 8.2 4.5 100.0
Southern New
England 3/ : 4.6 7.5 10.3 57.7 10.7 9.2 100.0
Tennessee .5 7.1 28.7 55.9 7.7 .1 100.0
Wisconsin : .2 5.7 12.2 72.1 9.8 0 100.0

Weighted
average : 2.3 6.8 15.8 63.4 9.1 2.7 100.0

Marketing method: :
Pick-your-own .9 6.8 17.3 66.6 8.3 .1 100.0
Roadside stand : 4.4 9.5 32.0 52.5 1.1 .5 100.0
Farmers' market : 9.2 18.7 28.5 26.2 5.6 11.8 100.0
Farm building : 1.0 4.9 11.7 69.1 12.5 .8 100.0
Other : 2.1 5.6 11.0 67.8 7.6 5.9 100.0

Weighted
average : 2.3 6.8 15.8 63.4 9.1 2.7 100.0


1/ Located within 1 mile of interchange.
2/ Exceeds number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers have access
to more than one type of road and use more than one direct sales method.
3/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.









Table 27--Distribution


of direct-marketing farmers using various types of advertising by State,
marketing method, and type of advertising, 1979
(To compare with 1980 survey, see table 56)


Item : Farmers : Replies : News- : Road : Radio : Direct : Word of : Other : No
1: / : papers : signs : :mail : mouth : reply


Number


: 43,999 36,919


9,644 9,956


2,475


4,293 34,637


State:
Colorado
Maryland and Delaware
New York
Southern New England 2/
Tennessee
Wisconsin

Total and weighted
average

Marketing method:
Pick-your-own
Roadside stand
Farmers' market
Farm building
Other

Total and weighted
average


:Number


S1,978
S4,677
:10,153
S5,084
S6,784
:15,103


-----------------------------Percent-


81.7
'77.2
85.6
86.4
80.6
85.0


: 43,779 83.6


S3,699
S6,673
S3,736
:25,615
:11,530


:43,779


90.7
83.3
61.4
85.4
86.2


83.6


28.0
21.2
26.2
35.5
11.6
17.4


21.9


48.1
29.0
10.0
16.9
22.4


21.4


28.4
17.2
36.8
36.3
22.0
10.0


22.6


41.0
53.7
9.3
15.2
15.6


21.7


Farmers


Ln
0


1,276


7,080


3.6
4.8
9.2
4.0
1.0
5.0


5.6


6.6
10.2
6.8
4.8
2.2


5.2


3.6
7.4
17.9
12.2
.4
8.6


9.8


17.6
16.7
7.5
8.1
8.5


9.9


84.2
80.9
73.9
77.9
75.7
81.9


78.7


73.1
64.9
52.9
80.2
77.5


75.1


33.7
3.2
.3
3.1
3.7
.1


2.9


1.3
1.8
.1
2.9
4.2


2.7


18.3
22.8
14.4
13.6
19.4
15.0


16.4


9.3
16.7
38.6
14.6
13.8


16.4


1/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers or 100 percent because some farmers used more
than one direct sales method or form of advertising.
2/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.









Table 28--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by direct sales and gross value of production, by State, 1979
(Based on 1976 farm definition--sales of $1,000 or more. To compare with 1980 survey, see table 57.)


Gross value
of
total farm
sales
1/


: Colorado


:Farmers:


: Maryland
: and


: Southern
: New


: Delaware : Englan
Direct: : Direct:
sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers:


d 2/


: New York : Tennessee : Wisconsin : Weighted
: : : : average


Direct:
sales :Farmers:


Direct:


: Direct:


: Direct:


sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales


: 31.8

: 5.4


Under $2,500
$2,500-
$9,999
$10,000-
$19,999


Subtotal : 48.2


$20,000-
$39,999
$40,000-
$99,999
$100,000-
$199,999
$200,000-
$499,999
$500,000
and over


Percent

3.9 48.2 7.8 51.5 3.7 45.5 2.7 38.6 7.3 35.2 4.9 41.0 4.2


1.4 20.6 9.1 21.5


7.1 24.6 8.9 34.3 28.7 16.8 9.6 21.7 8.8


: 11.0 2.0 15.4 20.3 5.0 4.9 6.1 6.9 15.4 10.2 12.6 5.4 10.8 7.1


7.3 84.2 37.2 78.0 15.7 76.2 18.5 88.3 46.2 64.6 19.9 73.5 20.1


35.9 3.5 5.1 6.4 9.3 7.0 7.6 7.4 19.1 15.1 16.0 10.2 12.3


26.3

:12.5

: 11.1


7.9 2.9 11.7 6.2 19.3 9.1 34.4

7.8 7.8 17.7 6.3 21.1 4.9 16.1


.7 11.0 16.0 22.0 9.3 23.3


.3 11.1


2.6 8.3 4.2 14.7


: .6 9.4 1.2 22.0 2.3 21.2 1.8 4.9 3.3 8.9 1.4 4.8


: 1.3 31.7


.4 6.3


.8 13.4 1.0 18.5


3/


3.7


.3 29.0


1.8 10.5

1.0 19.1


Subtotal : 51.8


Total


92.7 15.8 62.8 22.0 84.3 23.8 81.5 11.7 53.8 35.4 80.1 26.5 79.9


:100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Total farms
and million :
dollars :1,978 $20.5 4,677 $24.0 5,084 $58.1 10,153 $86.4 6,784 $9.7 15,103 $61.1 43,779 $259.8


1/ Value of total farm products produced and sold by farmers who had total sales of $1,000 or more.


based on number within each size classification and
farmers in each size classification.
2/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
3/ Less than 0.05 percent.


Percentage of farmers


percentage of direct sales based on dollar value of direct sales by


: Direct


-~---------


------








Table 29--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by State,
and marketing method, 1979
(To compare with 1980 survey, see table 58)


farming status,


State and : Unit :Pick-your-: Roadside : Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total
farming status :own : stand : market : building :


Colorado:
Farmers : No. : 132 134 221 1,765 67 1,979
Full-time : Pet. : 47.7 55.2 76.9 56.8 43.3 55.5
Part-time : Pet. : 52.3 44.8 23.1 43.2 56.7 44.5

Maryland and
Delaware:
Farmers : No. 563 616 210 3,021 1,604 4,677
Full-time : Pet. : 15.6 12.8 12.9 12.6 10.7 13.6
Part-time : Pet. 84.4 87.2 87.1 87.4 89.3 86.4

New York:
Farmers : No. : 592 2,265 1,280 5,157 3,080 10,153
Full-time : Pet. : 45.1 35.7 37.0 30.9 18.4 27.1
Part-time :Pet. : 54.9 64.3 63.0 64.1 81.6 72.9

Southern New
England 1/:
Farmers : No. 716 1,418 223 1,363 2,331 5,084
Full-time : Pet. : 26.0 45.2 23.3 36.5 39.9 38.9
Part-time : Pet. : 74.0 54.8 76.7 63.5 60.1 61.1

Tennessee:
Farmers :No. 542 1,213 285 4,776 506 6,784
Full-time : Pet. : 51.1 23.2 8.1 31.7 50.0 34.1
Part-time : Pet. : 48.9 76.8 91.9 68.3 40.0 65.9

Wisconsin:
Farmers : No. 1,154 1,027 1,517 9,534 3,941 15,103
Full-time : Pet. : 26.9 39.0 16.0 46.9 42.6 40.9
Part-time :Pet. : 73.1 61.0 84.0 53.1 57.4 59.1

Total, nine States::
Farmers : No. : 3,699 6,673 3,736 25,616 11,529 43,780
Full-time : Pet. : 32.2 34.2 26.5 36.9 31.6 34.2
Part-time :Pet. : 67.8 65.8 73.5 63.1 68.4 65.8


1/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.


52












Table 30--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by product and State, 1979
(To compare with 1980 survey, see table 59)


: Maryland : : Southern : : Total
Item :Colorado : and : New York : New :Tennessee :Wisconsin : and
: Delaware : :England 1/: : average


Number

Farmers 1,979 4,677 10,153 5,084 6,784 15,103 43,780

Percent

Product category:
Field crops : 25.4 48.0 34.1 10.1 48.5 37.5 35.7
Vegetables : 17.9 20.9 30.2 22.8 30.8 22.0 24.9
Fruits and nuts : 22.9 11.0 12.5 24.9 16.3 17.7 16.5
Livestock 41.5 54.0 31.5 18.1 41.7 64.0 45.6
Poultry 12.1 21.0 27.3 11.7 32.2 27.4 24.8
Dairy 1.2 5.8 11.1 1.4 .3 32.7 14.8
Floral, nursery,:
and bedding
plants : 19.2 12.7 17.4 28.2 16.9 8.4 15.4
Other 9.6 14.9 19.4 33.6 13.7 17.3 18.4

Total 2/ : 149.8 188.3 183.5 150.8 200.4 227.0 196.1


1/ Connecticut, Massachusetts,
2/ Total percentage is greater
one category.


and Rhode Island.
than 100 because some farmers produce products in more than




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