Citation
Farmer-to-consumer direct marketing

Material Information

Title:
Farmer-to-consumer direct marketing selected states, 1979-80
Series Title:
Statistical bulletin
Creator:
Henderson, Peter Louis, 1918-
Linstrom, Harold Richard, 1933-
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Economic Research Service
Place of Publication:
Washington D.C
Publisher:
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
iv, 86 p. : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Farm produce -- Marketing -- United States ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
federal government publication ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
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.
Statement of Responsibility:
Peter L. Henderson, Harold R. Linstrom.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services (UFDC@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
000392294 ( ALEPH )
08310504 ( OCLC )
ACD7234 ( NOTIS )
82601545 ( LCCN )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
# United States
Department of ae t Csumer
Agriculture FarmertoConsumer
Economic Research
Service Direct Marketing
Statistical Bulletin
Nume 6Selected States, 1979-80
Number 681
Peter L. Henderson Harold R. Linstrom
/
UJ




FARMER-TO-CONSUMER DIRECT MARKETING, Selected States, 1979-80, by Peter L. Henderson and Harold R. Linstrom. National Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Statistical Bulletin No. 681.
ABSTRACT 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, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. The chief products sold in both years were floral and nursery products, 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




PREFACE The increased interest by consumers and farmers in the midseventies 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 determine 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 marketing 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 represents 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 Wisconsin) 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 farmerto-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 similar 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.




The most popular method of direct selling was also the same for the two groups of States: Selling from a farm building (salesroom 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 population 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 consumers 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."




CONTENTS Page
SU14M4RY........................ ..
INTRODUCTION................... .. . ... .. .. .. .....
DIRECT-MARKETING METHODS .. .............. . 4
THE 1979 SURVEY .......................7
Comparison of Direct-Marketing Methods .. ..........8
Products Sold ......................8
Added and Avoided Costs .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .
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. .. ....... . .. .. .. .. .. ...
Thel1979 Survey (Tables 1-32)o........ ........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. Results contained in this report are based on surveys of approximately 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 extent of direct marketing as required by the act.
There are both economic advantages and disadvantages in farmerto-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. Specifically, 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.




Disadvantages to consumers include the time and expenses involved 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-marketing 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 directly (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 specific 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 relatively 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 wIdch 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-consumer 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 livestock 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 livestock 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 farmerowned 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 farmerto-consumer sales. 4/ The Texas study also analyzed the operation of eight nonf arm 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 represented 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 agricultural 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 Farmers sell their products directly to consumers by several
METHODS 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 potential 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-Marketing Act to be direct farmer-to-consumer marketings. 5/ These organizations usually assemble, grade, pack or process, ship, and sell in wholesale lots to wholesale buyers and distributors. 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 cooperative 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 associated 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 associations 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 Marketing 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 stations, designated parking areas, checkout area between field and vehicles, a supervised play area for children, and transportation from check-in or parking areas to fields. Such measures add to farmers? cost of operations and must be recovered 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. Consumers 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 temporary shelter and minimum facilities for storing and displaying produce.
Some roadside markets have elaborate facilities, including refrigerated 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 enhancing their own income. The costs for transportation from the farm to shipping points, shipping containers, and handling charges of assemblers and wholesalers are eliminated. Additional 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 facilities (such as interest, taxes, depreciation, repairs, parking lots, utilities, and insurance), labor for operating the stand, consumer packaging materials, advertising, and other items required to satisfy the demand of consumers. The extent of such additional cost items is closely related to the size and elaborateness 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 associations 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 th number of farmers' markets. Part of the growth has resulted from activities conducted under section 5 of the DirectMarketing Act of 1976, while others have been established by municipal governments, Chambers of Commerce, and similar organizations 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, strawberries, 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 responding 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 consumers 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 raspberries). 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 depends 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, specialized 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 magnitude 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




through direct-market outlets. Similar variations in the percentage of production of specific products sold direct to consumers can be observed in table 3.
Comparison of Eighty-five percent of direct-marketing farmers used only one
Direct-Marketing method to sell direct to consumers, 1 percent used two methods,
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, catalogue 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).
Products Sold 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-yourown method, ranging from 7 percent in Colorado to over 50 percent in Wisconsin. The pick-your-own method was less important 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, vegetables, and melons in all States, accounting for about 50 percent of direct-marketed fruits and nuts (ranging from 17 to 65 percent 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 nursery 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 adjacent 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




Sales through other methods of direct marketing (house-tohouse 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 selling, and the degree of integration in some of the farming operations. For example, in some floral and nursery operations, 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.
Added and Avoided Each method of marketing has its own inherent costs. In choosCosts 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 incurred 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 inconsistencies 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 supervision, crowd control, and sales. Container costs avoided were largely packing crates or shipping containers, but additional 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 advertising 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-marketing 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 direct-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 associated 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




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 especially 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.
Use of Advertising 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 customers to attract potential customers. While "word of mouth" information conveyed by satisfied customers does not meet the classical definition of advertising (using public media--newspapers, 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 probably would not incur any direct advertising costs.
11




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 directmarketers 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 pickyour-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-marketing methods.
Characteristics of Almost three-fourths of the direct-marketing farmers in the
Direct-Marketing nine States surveyed in 1979 had total farm sales of less than
Farmers $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 directmarketing farmers in the nine States are similar to the size characteristics of all farmers in the United States.
Full-Time and Part- Almost two-thirds of the direct-marketing farmers in the nine Time Farming States were part-time farmers with off-farm sources of income
(table 29). The ratio of full-time and part-time direct-marketing 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 variation in the overall (nine-State total) ratios of full- and part-time farmers among direct-marketing methods; the percentage 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 associated with selling to conventional shipping points and wholesale buyers exceed prices paid by such buyers.
Products Produced 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 poultry 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 produced 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 nonf arm sources. For example, field crops are inputs for other products or require further processing for human consumption; 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 livestock, 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 livestock 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 consumers. Live poultry sales are also limited by the availability 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 classified 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 distributors. Therefore, due to capital requirements for facilities and equipment, and economies of scale associated with processing 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-marketing 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, approximately $41 million each (table 1).
13




Reasons for Selling When questioned why they sold products directly to consumers Directly to most farmers gave more than one reason (table 31). Although
Consumers 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 pickyour-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."
Reasons for Not Farmers surveyed in the nine States who did not sell directly
Selling Directly to consumers were asked to give their reasons for not doing
To Consumers so. The number of farmers and the distribution of reasons
given are summarized in table 32. T e leading reason given for not selling directly (almost 75 percent of those responding) 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 fruitsvegetables, 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
114




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, strawberries, peaches, sweet corn, tomatoes, melons, potatoes, livestock 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 considerably 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 considered 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 in-dTvidual 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 contrast, a significantly higher percentage of Missouri's directmarketing farmers intended to reduce direct selling than was found for other States. Similar variations in planning directmarketing 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 building 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 consumers 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 selling 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 directmarketing 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




farmers' markets were relatively more important as an outlet for vegetables than for other product categories. A significant volume of floral and nursery sales were made through other methods (primarily direct delivery and mail order).
Added and Avoided Farmers selling directly to consumers incur some added cost for
Costs 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 conventional 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 advertising, insurance, supervisory and clerk labor, utilities, transportation, 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.
Location of Farms 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 population 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). overall, 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 secondary 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).
Use of Advertising As in earlier surveys, word of mouth was the most frequently mentioned method farmers used for promoting their direct-marketing operations, but they also used newspapers, radio, television, and direct mail advertising to attract customers. Roadside stand operators led in the use of newspaper advertising and signs along the road or highway. Overall, about 12
17




percent of the growers reported using no advertising or promotional efforts in their direct marketi:i g (table 56).
Characteristics of About 60 percent of direct-marketing farmers in the seven Direct-Marketing States surveyed in 1980 had total farm sales (direct and conFarmers 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 percentage 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 consumers 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.
Full-Time and Part- Sixty-three percent of direct-marketing farmers in the seven Time Farming 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.
Products Produced Direct-marketing farmers generally produce products in more
than one product category--field crops, fruits and nuts, vegetables, 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 The farmers surveyed in 1980 cited the same reasons for selling Directly to directly to consumers as farmers in the previous surveys:
Consumers 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 "opportunity to socialize" in addition to the economic reasons.
Reasons for Not The major reasons for not selling directly to consumers were
Selling Directly the same as in 1979--"commodity produced," "too much trouble,"
to Consumers 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.
PROBABLE TRENDS IN The volume of farm products sold directly by farmers to conFARMER-TO-CONSUMER sumers tends to be limited for a number of reasons: DIRECT MARKETING
" Some farm products are not consumed in their natural form and economies of scale are involved in the processing 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 inflationary forces. At the same time, inflationary forces and consumer resistance have depressed the farm prices of agricultural 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 services 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 community 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 farmerto-consumer transactions. Moreover, they encourage large volume transactions and potentially greater savings to consumers 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 underutilized 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 State, 1979 1/ (To compare with 1980 survey, see table 33)
Maryland Southern Nine-State
Item Unit :Colorado and :New York New Tennessee Wisconsin total
Delaware : England (or aver2/ 3/ :age)
Fruits and nuts:
Apples Dol. : 211,159 1,254,018 8,825,632 9,286,830 925,801 3,766,115 24,269,555
Strawberries Dol. :4,254 1,488,781 2,452,125 1,911,374 569,125 1,618,691 8,044,287
Other berries :Dol. 266 26,000 873,429 535,614 12,851 901,085 2,349,245
Peaches and nectarines :Dol. : 301,494 1,528,605 575,800 1,172,548 253,439 0 3,831,886
Cherries :Dol. 113,513 22,991 120,049 23,450 0 224,190 504,193
Pears :Dol. 119,016 76,318 226,919 392,592 0 21,290 836,135
Grapes Dol. 1,276 23,005 231,657 57,662 0 20,774 334,374
Plums :Dol. 16,727 14,704 110,853 157,659 0 907 300,850
Other :Dol. 31,408 5,119 0 4,548 2,237 18,520 61,832
Total fruit and7
nut sales,: Doi. 799,113 4,439,478 13,416,464 13,542,277 1,763,453 6,571,572 40,532,357
Average fruit sales
per farmer :Dol. :1,800 8,808 12,434 11,370 1,702 2,518 5,905
Farmers selling fruits
and nuts :No. :444 504 1,079 1,191 1,036 2,610 6,864
Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn :Dol. 112,084 970,261 5,833,660 3,473,709 60,978 544,619 10,995,311
Tomatoes : Dol. : 152,754 335,843 2,307,173 1,696,940 2,127,437 283,003 6,903,150
Melons : Dol. 176,320 148,024 .999,906 163,705 139,911 178,489 1,806,355
Potatoes : Dol. : 135,572 252,356 6,365,121 363,193 24,904 238,265 7,379,411
Green beans : Dol. : 17,967 97,570 770,227 360,205 71,268 206,619 1,523,856
Cabbage, broccoli,
cauliflower, brussels
sprouts :Dol. 9,317 51,266 1,159,569 314,574 1,245 134,958 1,670,929
Squash :Dol. : 13,947 66,712 834,127 540,357 1,807 159,998 1,616,948
Peppers :Dol. : 42,317 4,326 308,446 321,374 0 6,499 682,962
Cucumber :Dol. : 27,328 30,973 984,850 329,991 14,297 133,084 1,520,523
Pumpkins :Dol. 7,156 243,710 4,806,830 502,439 0 57,159 5,617,294
Green peas : Dol. :1,067 7,994 37,980 36,761 1,603 0 85,405
Asparagus : Dol. : 13,543 349,592 33,542 1,589 0 31,792 430,058
Sweetpotatoes : Dol. :0 8,261 0 0 48,929 0 28,825
Other : Dol. : 34,385 130,152 164,786 375,208 44,333 117,489 866,353
See footnotes at end of table. continued-




Table 1--Value of products sold directly to consumer, by product and State, 1979 11--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. 743,757 2,697,040 24,606,217 8,480,045 2,536,612 2,091,974 41,155,645
Average vegetable
sales per farmer :Dol. 2,143 938 8,716 7,910 1,460 763 3,550
Farmers selling
vegetables :No. 347 2,875 2,823 1,072 1,738 2,740 11,595
Floral and nursery:
Total floral and
nursery :Dol. 12,128,940 5,962,277 12,417,404 23,218,761 3,217,193 32,763,028 89,707,603
Average sales per farmer :Dol. 32,344 13,250 7,471 17,225 3,015 32,471 15,176
Farmers selling floral and
nursery products :No. .375 450 1,662 1,348 1,067 1,009 5,911
Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
livestock and poultry
products :Dol. : 1,653,835 6,496,328 18,881,556 7,244,150 397,753 17,007,819 5.1,681,441
Processed fruit products
(cider, jelly, jam, etc.) Dol. 2,222 123,886 782,083 957,015 0 115,598 1,980,804
Christmas trees and forest:
products :Dol. 7,579 2,985,569 342,555 2,062,011 1,253,371 1,380,156 8,031,241
Honey and syrups :Dol. 165,956 52,132 2,913,573 482,471 60,485 1,096,081 4,770,698
Dairy products *Dol. 5,011,453 15,560 8,168,064 1,180,614 5,714 10,085 14,391,490
Other Dol. 2,903 1,249,721 4,825,369 910,638 489,941 56,606 7,535,178
Total other product
sales :Dol. 6,843,948 10,923,196 35,913,200 12,836,899 2,207,264 19,666,345 88,390,852
Average sales of other :
products :Dol. 9,324 3,130 5,392 3,807 678 1,935 3,194
Farmers selling other
products :No. :734 3,490 6,660 3,372 3,257 10,163 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
Maryland :Southern ..Nine-State
Item Unit Colorado and :New York New Tennessee Wisconsin total
Delaware : England ..(or aver2/ ___ 3/ -- ..age)
Total direct sales :Dol. 20,515,758 24,021,991 86,353,285 58,077,982 9,724,522 61,092,919 259,786,457
Farmers selling direct :No. 1,978 4,677 10,153 5,084 6,784 15,103 43,779
Average sales per farmer
selling direct Dol. 10,372 5,136 8,505 11,424 1,433 4,045 5,934
Total number of farmers
in State No. 26,300 19,200 45,000 9,390 94,000 95,000 288,890
Farmers selling direct No. 1,978 4,677 10,153 5,084 6,784 15,103 43,779
Pct. 7.5 24.2 22.6 54.1 7.2 15.9 15.2
Percent of cash receipts
derived from direct
marketing Pct. .6 1.9 3.9 10.7 .5 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
41Wisconsin :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)
S:Maryland Southern : NineProduct 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 i00 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 : NineProduct Colorado and New York : New : Tennessee Wisconsin : State
: Delaware : England I/ : : 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 1 100 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 1 100 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
NA = Not applicable.
I/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
2/ Also includes broccoli, brussels sprouts, and cauliflower.
3/ Less than 0.05 percent.




Table 4--Direct-marketing farmers, by marketing method, number of methods used, and State, 1979 (To compare with 1980 survey, see table 36)
: 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
:Pct. : 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
:Pct. 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
Pct. : 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
Pct. 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
Pct. : 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
Pct. : 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
Pct. : 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
Pct. 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
:Pct. : 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
:Pct. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
I/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers or 100 percent because some farmers use more than one direct sales method.
3/ Includes catalogue and mail order, house-to-house delivery, and methods not elsewhere classified, such as truck tailgates on roadsides or parking lots.




Table 5--Colorado: Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product
and marketing method, 1979
Pick- :Road- Farmers' Farm Other :Total
Item your- side :market :building
own stand :
Percent
Fruits and nuts:
Apples : 2.4 16.4 7.2 68.9 4.8 100.0
Strawberries : 79.4 0 0 20.6 0 100.0
Other berries 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Peaches and nectarines : 8.7 66.5 3.8 17.6 3.4 100.0
Cherries : 10.5 51.8 0 37.7 0 100.0
Pears : 1.3 66.4 8.4 21.1 2.8 100.0
Grapes 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Plums : 12.9 11.6 5.0 70.5 0 100.0
Other : 18.2 10.3 16.1 50.1 5.3 100.0
Weighted average,
fruit and nut sales : 7.1 47.4 5.3 37.0 3.2 100.0
Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn : 2.0 22.6 7.5 65.1 2.8 100.0
Tomatoes : 21o.4 44.9 6.9 21.0 5.8 100.0
Melons 4.1 75.0 2.7 18.0 .2 100.0
Potatoes 0 11.5 .3 88.2 0 100.0
Green beans : 18.4 50.2 11.5 19.9 0 100.0
Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts : 2.6 5.3 5.7 86.4 0 100.0
Squash : 3.5 .7 6.4 89.4 0 100.0
Peppers : 35.2 28.8 6.0 29.9 0 100.0
Cucumbers .3 6.0 1.2 92.5 0 100.0
Pumpkins 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Green peas : 18.0 0 79.3 2.7 0 100.0
Asparagus 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Sweetpotatoes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other : 5.0 10.6 1.2 83.2 0 100.0
Weighted average,
total vegetable sales : 8.6 38.2 4.2 47.1 1.9 100.0
Floral and nursery : 0 .2 0 76.9 22.9 100.0
Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
livestock and poultry
products : 0 2.5 0 97.4 .1100.0
Processed fruit products :
(cider, jelly, jam, etc.): 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Christmas trees and
forest products : 0 99o2 0 .8 0 100.0
Honey and syrups : 0 9.4 11.7 66.2 11.6 100.0
Dairy products : 0 0 0 52.8 47.2 100.0
Other : 0 0 8.1 91.9 0 100.0
Weighted average,
other product sales : 0 .9 .3 63.9 34.9 100.0
Weighted average, total
direct sales, all products : .5 3.4 .4 70.1 25.6 100.0
28




Table 6--Maryland and Delaware: I/ Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product and marketing method, 1979
Pick- Road- :Farmers' :Farm Other Total
Item your side market building
own :stand
Percent
Fruits and nuts:
Apples : 19.3 56.3 1.2 20.1 3..1 100.0
Strawberries : 48.1 .8 .1 51.0 0 100.0
Other berries : 15.1 4.2 0 80.7 0 100.0
Peaches and nectarines : 23.6 32.2 21.5 21.8 .9 100.0
Cherries : 0 15.7 0 84.3 0 100.0
Pears : 0 74.1 0 25.9 0 100.0
Grapes : 84.4 0 0 15.6 0 100.0
Plums : 61.1 0 0 38.9 0 100.0
Other : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Weighted average,
fruit and nut sales : 30.5 28.9 7.9 31.5 1.2 100.0
Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn : .6 69.5 1.3 28.0 .6 100.0
Tomatoes : 7.2 41.4 5.2 46.0 .2 100.0
Melons : 0 59.6 0 40.4 0 100.0
Potatoes : 0 10.4 1.8 87.8 0 100.0
Green beans : 10.1 1.2 5.1 83.6 0 100.0
Cabbage, broccoli, cauli-:
flower, brussels sprouts : 62.9 2.4 15.1 18.9 .3 100.0
Squash : 0 .5 51.1 48.4 0 100.0
Peppers : 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cucumbers : 0 25.0 35.2 37.6 2.2 100.0
Pumpkins : 0 73.7 0 26.3 0 100.0
Green peas : 56.5 0 0 43.5 0 .100.0
Asparagus : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Sweetpotatoes : 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0
Other : 11.6 .9 4.2 83.3 0 100.0
Weighted average,
total vegetable sales : 2.7 44.5 1.9 50.6 .3 100.0
Floral and nursery : 1.7 11.5 .1 80.9 5.8 100.0
Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
livestock and poultry
products : 0 10.6 .5 55.5 33.4 100.0
Processed fruit products :
(cider, jelly, jam, etc.): 0 10.9 0 89.1 0 100.0
Christmas trees and
forest products : 13.2 .5 0 83.5 2.8 100.0
Honey and syrups : 0 5.7 6.4 80.7 7.2 100.0
Dairy products : 0 0 8.3 5.1 86.6 100.0
Other : 0 0 0 91.9 8.1 100.0
Weighted average,
other product sales : 3.6 6.6 .3 67.8 21.7 100.0
Weighted average, total
direct sales, all products : 8.0 15.8 1.9 62.6 11.7 100.0
1/ Treated as one State for reporting purposes because of small number of farms and sample size.
29




Table 7--New York: Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product
and marketing method, 1979
Pick- :Road- :Farmers' Farm :Other :Total
Item : your- :side :market :building
own :stand :
Percent
Fruits and-nuts:
Apples : 15.3 76.3 3.2 4.0 1.2 100.0
Strawberries : 78.1 15.2 1.0 5.4 .3 100.0
Other berries : 84.4 12.8 2.8 0 0 100.0
Peaches and nectarines : 7.6 82.1 1.7 8.5 .1 100.0
Cherries : 56.1 7.7 11.9 21.4 2.9 100.0
Pears : 8.3 85.3 4.8 1.5 .1 100.0
Grapes : 7.2 88.9 0 1.6 2.3 100.0
Plums : 15.5 84.5 0 0 0 100.0
Other NA NA NA NA NA NA
Weighted average,
fruit and nut sales : 31.0 61.1 2.7 4.3 .9 100.0
Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn : 16.6 66.9 5.5 9.9 1.1 100.0
Tomatoes : 12.2 73.6 5.7 8.0 .5 100.0
Melons 0 10.7 89.3 0 0 100.0
Potatoes .1 5.9 52.2 41.8 0 100.0
Green beans 0 86.1 13.9 0 0 100.0
Cabbage, broccoli, eauliflower, brussels sprouts : 4.1 71.9 9.0 10.7 4.3 100.0
Squash : 0 78.7 12.5 8.8 0 100.0
Peppers : 32.2 37.6 2.5 27.7 0 100.0
Cucumbers .3 56.2 20.8 22.7 0 100.0
Pumpkins : 0 98.2 .5 1.3 0 100.0
Green peas : 25.6 0 62.1 12.3 0 100.0
Asparagus 0 24.0 61.0 0 15.0 100.0
Sweetpotatoes : NA NA NA NA NA NA
Other 0 1.2 32.0 66.2 .6 100.0
Weighted average,
total vegetable sales : 6.5 54.4 20.3 18.4 .5 100.0
Floral and nursery : 1/ 30.3 1.7 24.7 43.3 100.0
Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
livestock and poultry
products : 0 0.2 0 48.3 51.5 100.0
Processed fruit products :
(cider, jelly, jam, etc.): 0 31.4 1.5 1.9 65.2 100.0
Christmas trees and
forest products : 9.1 3.7 5.5 59.2 22.5 100.0
Honey and syrups : 0 9.3 1.1 76.8 12.8 100.0
Dairy products : 0 0 0 1.7 98.3 100.0
Other 0 0 .4 98.7 .9 100.0
Weighted average,
other product sales : .1 1.3 .3 54.2 44.1 100.0
Weighted average, total
direct sales, all products : 6.7 28.5 5.7 29.2 29.9 100.0
NA = Not applicable.
I/ Less than 0.05 percent.
30




Table 8--Southern New England: I/ Distribution of direct-marketing sales,
by product and marketing method, 1979
Pick- Road- Farmers' Farm Other Total
Item : your- :side market :building
own stand
Percent
Fruits and nuts:
Apples : 9.2 71.8 5.5 10.8 2.7 100.0
Strawberries : 68.1 31.0 2/ .9 0 100.0
Other berries 59.7 35.2 3-.5 .4 1.2 100.0
Peaches and nectarines : 1.2 87.7 2.6 8.5 2/ 100.0
Cherries : 0 0 0 0 06 0
Pears : 7.3 58.7 19.9 13.9 .2 100.0
Grapes : 34.9 59.6 0 0 5.5 100.0
Plums : 0 72.0 13.8 14.2 0 .0.
Other : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Weighted average,
fruit and nut sales : 18.4 65.9 4.8 9.0 1.9 100.0
Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn : .1 91.9 1.6 4.7 1.7 100.0
Tomatoes : 12.4 81.6 1.5 4.5 0 100.0
Melons : 0 98.3 1.4 .3 0 100.0
Potatoes : 6.8 81.8 .5 4.7 6.2 100.0
Green beans : 1.8 93.7 4.5 0 0 100.0
Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts : 0 94.0 2.6 3.4 0 100.0
Squash : .2 69.7 2.4 16.8 10.9 100.0
Peppers : 1.7 90.7 .4 7.2 0 100.0
Cucumbers : 1.4 91.4 1.8 5.4 0 100.0
Pumpkins : .8 83.7 1.2 3.6 10.7 100.0
Green peas : 1.1 98.9 0 0 0 100.0
Asparagus : NA NA NA NA NA NA
Sweetpotatoes : NA NA NA NA NA NA
other 0 95.3 1.0 3.7 0 100.0
Weighted average,
total vegetable sales 3.6 87.7 1.6 5.0 2.1 100.0
Floral and nursery 1.1 34.7 .1 40.1 24.0 100.0
Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
livestock and poultry
products : 0 31.5 2.2 53.1 13.2 100.0
Processed fruit products :
(cider, jelly, jam, etc.). 0 85.4 .2 13.9 .5 100.0
Christmas trees and
forest products 10.0 9. 1 0 2.2 78.7 100.0
Honey and syrups : 0 37.5 1.0 48.4 13.1 100.0
Dairy products : 0 2/ 0 3.9 96.1 100.0
Other : 0 1.5 0 10.9 87.6 100.0
Weighted average,
other product sales : 1.6 27.1 1.3 34.4 35.6 100.0
Weighted average, total
direct sales, all products : 5.6 46.5 1.6 27.4 18.9 100.0
NA = Not applicable.
I/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
2Less than 0.05 percent.
31




Table 9--Tennessee Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product and
marketing method, 1979
Pick- :Road- :Farmers' :Farm :Other :Total
Item : your- :side market building
own :stand
Percent
Fruits and nuts:
Apples i,46.9 2.3 0.3 50.5 0 100.0
Strawberries : 54.8 36.2 .2 8.7 .1 100.0
Other berries 15.3 0 77.0 7.7 0 100.0
Peaches and nectarines : 39.5 28.0 0 32.5 0 100.0
Cherries : NA NA NA NA NA NA
Pears : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Grapes : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Plums : NA NA NA NA NA NA
Other 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Weighted average,
fruit and nut sales : 48.1 16.9 .8 34.2 1/ 100.0
Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn .2 0 5.4 90.5 3.9 100.0
Tomatoes : 8.7 71.6 18.7 1.0 1/ 100.0
Melons : 0 2.3 .8 95.3 1.6 100.0
Potatoes : 0 0 .7 92.0 7.3 100.0
Green beans .3 76.3 8.7 14.7 0 100.0
Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts : 71.9 0 0 28.1 0 100.0
Squash : 51.1 0 31.3 17.6 0 100.0
Peppers : NA NA NA NA NA NA
Cucumbers : 0 94.8 4.9 .3 0 100.0
Pumpkins : NA NA NA NA NA NA
Green peas : 0 0 0 52.5 47.5 100.0
Asparagus NA NA NA NA NA NA
Sweetpotatoes : 0 0 0 97.6 2.4 100.0
Other : 94.4 0 0 5.6 0 100.0
Weighted average,
total vegetable sales : 8.9 63.1 16.2 11.5 .3 100.0
Floral and nursery : 0 30.5 .1 49.9 19.5 100.0
Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
livestock and poultry
products : 0 0 0.2 98.6 1.2 100.0
Processed fruit products :
(cider, jelly, jam, etc.). NA NA NA NA NA NA
Christmas trees and
forest products : 3.0 0 0 2.9 94.1 100.0
Honey and syrups : 0 9.7 0 87.6 2.7 100.0
Dairy products : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Other : 0 20.8 0 79.2 0 100.0
Weighted average,
other product sales : 1.7 4.9 1/ 39.7 53.7 100.0
Weighted average, total
direct sales, all products : 11.4 30.7 4.4 34.7 18.8 100.0
NA = Not applicable.
1/ Less than 0.05 percent.
32




Table 10--Wisconsin: Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product and marketing method, 1979
Pick- Road- Farmers' Farm Other :Total
Item your- side :market building
own stand :
Percent
Fruits and nuts:
Apples :~25.4 34.3 5.4 33.4 1.5 100.0
Strawberries : 93.3 5.2 0 1.1 .4 100.0
Other berries 91.8 0 0 2.0 6.2 100.0
Peaches and nectarines : NA NA NA NA NA NA
Cherries : 86.5 12.6 0 0 .9 100.0
Pears : 2.7 17.7 0 79.0 .6 100.0
Grapes 99.8 0 0 .2 0 100.0
Plums 0 24.0 0 76.0 0 100.0
Other 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Weighted average,
fruit and nut sales : 53.4 21.4 3.1 20.3 1.8 100.0
Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn : 5.9 51.7 34.4 6.2 1.8 100.0
Tomatoes : 11.8 58.6 4.2 23.2 2.2 100.0
Melons : 7.5 91.7 .8 0 0 100.0
Potatoes : 11.3 3.0 68.0 17.7 0 100.0
Green beans : 0 0 100.0 0 1/ 100.0
Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts : 9.2 40.2 9.8 40.8 1/ 100.0
Squash : 0 8.7 54.6 36.7 1/ 100.0
Peppers NA NA NA NA N A NA
Cucumbers : 0 10.7 6.1 83.2 0 100.0
Pumpkins : 0 96.2 0 3.8 0 100.0
Green peas NA NA NA NA NA NA
Asparagus 27.8 0 0 72.2 0 100.0
Sweetpotatoes : NA NA NA NA NA NA
Other : 0 0 99.8 0 .2 100.0
Weighted average,
total vegetable sales : 6.4 37.1 38.8 16.8 .9 100.0
Floral and nursery : .1 1.9 0 25.6 72.4 100.0
Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
livestock and poultry
products : 0 1/.9 70.6 28.5 100.0
Processed fruit products :
(cider, jelly, jam, etc.). 0 38.1 0 50.2 11.7 100.0
Christmas trees and
forest products : 13.5 .4 1/ 23.3 62.8 100.0
Honey and syrups : 0 9.0 19.-3 45.0 26.7 100.0
Dairy products : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Other : 0 0 0 97.6 2.4 100.0
Weighted average,
other product sales : .9 .4 1.9 65.8 30.6 100.0
Weighted average, total
direct sales, all products : 6.3 4.6 2.1 37.8 49.2 100.0
NA = Not applicable.
1/ Less than 0.05 percent.
33




Table li--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: I/ :weighted
* : own :stand :*:average 2/
Farmers :No. :3,699 6,673 3,736 25,615 11,530 43,779
Added cost replies 2/ No. 2,329 4,210 3,530 10,128 6,492 26,719
Pct. : 63.0 63.1 94.5 .39.2 55.3 60.7
Added cost:
Advertising :Pct. 63.4 54.4 8.1 32.9 34.1 31.4
Insurance Pct. : 31.8 28.3 3.0 25.6 17.6 18.2
Labor :Pct. 7.4 24.6 12.1 18.9 23.3 17.5
Maintenance :Pct. : 21.0 27.1 .7 24.2 11.5 16.4
Utilities Pct. 3.3 24.7 .8 14.1 15.4 12.2
Rent (stall rent) :Pct. : 1.5 2.7 72.8 5.5 1.4 12.4
Transportation :Pct. : 11.2 13.8 78.6 19.6 51.6 33.1
Containers :Pct. 29.5 49.4 51.0 37.3 33.4 34.5
Miscellaneous :Pct. 1.3 2.1 5.7 5.0 4.9 4.2
Avoided cost replies 2/ : No. : 2,873 5,626 2,534 21,011 7,409 39,456
:Pct. : 77.7 84.3 67.8 81.3 63.1 89.7
Avoided cost:
Containers : Pct. : 64.1 46.4 38.6 28.0 33.3 31.3
Labor : Pct. : 79.3 36.6 37.1 34.0 31.2 33.5
Transportation : Pct. 89.0 84.4 34.9 81.0 50.0 67.8
Broker and commission :
agents fees : Pct. 67.7 57.3 72.0 61.0 61.9 54.2
Storage : Pct. 54.2 37.0 48.1 24.7 30.3 26.9
Packinghouse
facilities Pct. : 30.5 29.8 43.1 24.0 22.7 21.4
Miscellaneous :Pct. : .3 .4 .3 .1 0 .1
I/ 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




Table 12--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest city and
nearest city with farmers' market and by marketing method, nine States, 1979 (To compare with 1980 survey, see table 43)
Pick- : Road- : Farmers' : Farm : Other Total or
Item your- : side : market : building : weighted
own : stand : average I/
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
10,000-492999 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
I/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method.




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
* Pick- : Road- : Farmers' :Farm :Other Total or
Item your- :side :market :building ::weighted
* own :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 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
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
5 0, 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 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 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- :Farers' 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: 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
ltem your- : side : market building : weighted
own : stand average
Number
Farmers 1/ 592 2,265 1,280 5,157 3,080 10,153
Percent
Population of nearest
city:
Under 10,000 58.6 58.7 29.4 77.0 72.6 66.8
10,000-49,999 20.6 14.8 24.1 11.1 16.4 14.9
00 50,000-99, 999 3.8 1.8 1.8 5.9 .7 3.3
100,000-499,999 11.1 15.5 44.7 5.1 9.3 12.4
500,000 and over 5.9 9.2 0 .9 1.0 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 16.4 19.0 23.7 29.4 27.9 25.9
10,000-49,999 44.7 34.5 24.1 44.3 17.4 33.7
50,000-99,999 5.7 3.5 2.6 10.8 9.3 8.0
100,000-499,999 21.9 22.8 49.6 13.4 32.8 24.1
500,000 and over 11.3 20.2 0 2.1 12.6 8.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
I/ 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
I/ 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
* 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 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
500,00and over : 0 0 0 .1 0 .1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
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
I/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method.
2/ Less than 0.05 percent.




Table 18 --Wisconsin: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by population of nearest
city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 197,9
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 58.0 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 selling directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method.




Table 19--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance to nearest city and nearest
city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, nine States, 1979 (To compare with 1980 survey, see table 49)
Pick- : Road- :Farmers' :Farm :Other Total or
Item your- ; side : market : building : weighted
own :stand :average
- 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
1Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method.




Table 20--Colorado: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by di SL- e to izarcity and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, i979
Pick- : Road- : Farmers' Farm Other .Toal
Item your- : side : market building :
own : stand : : ave rage
Number
Farmers 1/ 132 134 221 1,765 67 1,978
Percent
Distance to nearest
city (miles):
Under 5 : 23.5 23.1 76.7 30.6 35.8 34.3
5-9.9 34.9 32.1 5.8 36.2 32.8 32.9
10-19.9 18.9 32.1 10.3 13.3 22.4 14.7
20 and over 22.7 12.7 7.2 19.9 9.0 18.1
Total 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Distance to nearest
city with farmers'
market (miles):
Under 5 10.8 14.3 8.1 5.1 16.7 6.6
5-9.9 32.3 29.3 7.7 13.1 37.9 15.3
10-19.9 30.0 36.1 76.1 39.4 16.6 41.5
20 and over : 26.9 20.3 8.1 42.4 28.8 36.6
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 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
5-9.9 : 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
1Sum 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
I/ Sum may exceed total number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method.




Table 23--Southern New England: I/ 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
I/ 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 directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method.




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 directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method.




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 21
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 31/ 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
Farmers 43,999 36,919 9,644 9,956 2,475 4,293 34,637 1,276 7,080
Number--------------------------------- Percent -------------------------------------State:
Colorado 1,978 81.7 28.0 28.4 3.6 3.6 84.2 33.7 18.3
Maryland and Delaware :4,677 77.2 21.2 17.2 4.8 7.4 80.9 3.2 22.8
New York :10,153 85.6 26.2 36.8 9.2 17.9 73.9 .3 14.4
U1 Southern New England 2/ : 5,084 86.4 35.5 36.3 4.0 12.2 77.9 3.1 13.6
0 Tennessee : 6,784 80.6 11.6 22.0 1.0 .4 75.7 3.7 19.4
Wisconsin : 15,103 85.0 17.4 10.0 5.0 8.6 81.9 .1 15.0
Total and weighted
average 43,779 83.6 21.9 22.6 5.6 9.8 78.7 2.9 16.4
Marketing method:
Pick-your-own 3,699 90.7 48.1 41.0 6.6 17.6 73.1 1.3 9.3
Roadside stand :6,673 83.3 29.0 53.7 10.2 16.7 64.9 1.8 16.7
Farmers' market :3,736 61.4 10.0 9.3 6.8 7.5 52.9 .1 38.6
Farm building :25,615 85.4 16.9 15.2 4.8 8.1 80.2 2.9 14.6
Other :11,530 86.2 22.4 15.6 2.2 8.5 77.5 4.2 13.8
Total and weighted
average :43,779 83.6 21.4 21.7 5.2 9.9 75.1 2.7 16.4
I/ Sum may exceed numberL 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 Mlaryland Southern
of : Colorado and New : New York Tennessee Wisconsin Weighted
total farm Delaware :England 2/ average
sales : Direct; : Direct: : Direct: :Direct: :Direct: Direct: : Direct
1/ :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales
Percent
Under $2,500 :31.8 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
$2,500$9,999 :5.4 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
$10,000$19,999 :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
Subtotal :48.2 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
$20,000$39,999 :26.3 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
$40,000$99,999 :12.5 7.9 2.9 11.7 6.2 19.3 9.1 34.4 .7 11.0 16.0 22.0 9.3 23.3
$100,000$199,999 :11.1 7.8 7.8 17.7 6.3 21.1 4.9 16.1 .3 11.1 2.6 8.3 4.2 14.7
$200,000$499,999 .6 9.4 1.2 22.0 2.3 21.2 1.8 4.9 3.3 8.9 1.4 4.8 1.8 10.5
$500,000
and over :1.3 31.7 .4 6.3 .8 13.4 1.0 18.5 3/ 3.7 .3 29.0 1.0 19.1
Subtotal :51.8 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
Total :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. 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/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
3Less than 0.05 percent.




Table 29--Distribution of direct-ma rketing farmers, by State, farming status, and marketing method, 1979
(To compare with 1980 survey, see table 58)
State and :Uni t :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 :Pct. : 47.7 55.2 76.9 56.8 43.3 55.5
Part-time :Pct. : 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 .Pct. : 15.6 12.8 12.9 12.6 10.7 13.6
Part-time .Pct. 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 .Pct. : 45.1 35.7 37.0 30.9 18.4 27.1
Part-time .Pct. : 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 .Pct. : 26.0 45.2 23.3 36.5 39.9 38.9
Part-time :Pct. : 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 .Pct. 51.1 23.2 8.1 31.7 50.0 34.1
Part-time .Pct. : 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 :Pct. 26.9 39.0 16.0 46.9 42.6 40.9
Part-time :Pct. : 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 :Pct. : 32.2 34.2 26.5 36.9 31.6 34.2
Part-time :Pct. 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, and Rhode Island.
2/ Total percentage is greater than 100 because some farmers produce products in more than one category.




Table 31--Reasons given by farmers for selling directly to consumers, by State and marketing method, 1979
(To compare with 1980 survey, see table 60)
Farmers : Higher : Labor Access Social Other Total I/
Item : income ; related to
market
Number-------------------------------- Percent-----------------------------State:
Colorado :1,978 58.0 51.5 61.8 80.0 0.4 251.7
Maryland and
Delaware : 4,677 75.8 69.7 75.8 92.0 .2 313.5
New York : 10,153 68.7 48.9 83.3 80.0 .2 281.1
Southern New
England 2/ :5,084 88.5 37.4 54.4 62.8 .7 243.8
LnTennessee :6,784 51.8 52.5 78.2 75.7 0 258.2
Wisconsin 15,103 74.7 22.8 67.4 96.5 0 261.4
Total and
weighted
average :43,780 70.9 41.5 71.9 84.3 .2 268.8
Marketing method:
Pick-your-own :3,699 75.7 68.9 77.7 75.4 .4 298.1
Roadside stand :6,673 81.8 61.7 75.7 76.8 .6 296.6
Farmers'market :3,736 88.9 44.3 83.0 74.6 .1 290.9
Farm building :25,616 66.8 41.6 76.7 90.4 .1 275.6
Other :11,529 69.2 37.7 58.8 78.8 .2 244.7
Total :43,780 70.9 41.5 71.9 84.3 .2 268.8
I/ Sum exceeds number of farmers selling directly to consumer or 100 percent because some farmers used more than one direct sales method and gave more than one reason.
2/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.




Table 32--Reasons given by farmers for not selling directly to consumers, by State and products produced, 1979
(To compare with 1980 survey, see table 61)
Item Farmers -.Commodity :Too much :Volume too: Other Total I/
:produced : trouble large
Number--------------------------- Percent-----------------------State:
Colorado : 16,085 72.3 29.2 21.1 3.2 125.8
Maryland and Delaware : 11,664 66.9 25.5 12.8 20.7 125.9
New York : 32,001 56.5 29.7 17.2 15.7 119.1
Southern New England 2/ : 4,682 53.3 33.4 .23.6 7.8 118.1
Tennessee : 93,870 86.4 17.3 5.5 3.3 112.5
Wisconsin : 75,736 69.5 40.2 15.0 4.7 129.4
Total and weighted
U-1
U1 average :234,038 74.3 .28.0 12.0 6.4 120.7
Products produced:
Field crops :136,631 79.5 26.8 11.7 4.6 122.6
Vegetables : 11,'442 43.8 31.5 23.0 21.4 119.7
Fruits and nuts : 4,251 30.3 31.2 36.5 15.8 113.8
Livestock :164,405 74.9 32.0 11.9 5.0 123.8
Poultry : 18,722 56.8 36.3 5.8 21.8 120.7
Dairy : 63,930 71.0 35.9 22.9 1.6 131.4
Nursery and greenhouse : 2,598 41.3 40.6 21.1 11.8 114.8
Other 3,680 55.1 28.7 12.7 17.0 113.5
Total and weighted
average :234,038 74.3 28.0 12.0 6.4 120.7
1/ Sum of farmers and percentage may exceed total number of farmers and 100 percent because some farmers produce more than one product and gave more than one reason for not selling directly to consumers.
2/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.




Table 33--Value of products sold directly to consumers by products and State, 1980 (To compare with 1979 survey, see table 1)
Northern :Seven-State
Item :Unit :California : Illinois Missouri :New England Texas : total
1/ (or average)
Fruits and nuts:
Apples :Dol. 993,058 4,166,142 1,076,358 4,789,171 73,972 11,098,701
Strawberries : Dol. : 578,045 896,501 390,366 2,131,688 23,637 4,020,237
Other berries : Dol. : 173,609 172,591 1,810 296,397 16,725 661,132
Peaches and nectarines : Dol. :1,058,251 9,764,808 627,389 119,746 1,772,516 13,342,710
Cherries : Dol. : 221,795 1,083 0 6,378 0 229,256
Pears : Dol. : 281,794 6,618 5,697 63,887 9,808 367,804
Plums : Dol. 112,242 14,342 18,386 13,215 34,015 192,200
Apricots : Dol. 322,048 2,190 0 35,440 26,242 385,920
Oranges :Dol. 254,361 0 0 0 344,132 598,493
Other citrus :Dol. : 147,510 0 0 0 89,724 237,234
Ul Nuts Dol. 287,176 0 117,611 0 4,350,665 4,755,452
Other fruit :Dol. : 107,624 5,211 24,712 697 1,940 140,184
Total fruit and
nut sales :Dol. 4,537,513 15,029,486 2,262,329 7,456,619 6,743,376 36,029,323
Average fruit and nut
sales per farmer : Dol. 2,391 23,391 11,542 6,766 5,700 7,176
Farmers selling fruits:
and nuts No. : 1,898 642 196 1,102 1,183 5,021
Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn :Dol. : 405,036 1,318,793 10,188 1,327,546 41,716 3,103,279
Tomatoes :Dol. : 388,344 881,766 93,881 640,365 225,004 2,229,360
Melons :Dol. 390,542 382,601 63,981 132,329 989,753 1,959,206
Potatoes :Dol. 2,143 24,556 680 1,266,186 67,896 1,361,461
Green beans :Doi. : 233,757 218,599 15,912 325,509 22,721 816,498
Cabbage, cauliflower, .
broccoli, brussels :
sprouts Dol. 19,806 155,754 12,047 245,429. 8,207 441,243
See footnote at end of table. 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)
Squash Dol. 113, 114 178,491 8,814 416,415 24,207 742,041
Peppers Dol. 35, 693 401,177 7,161 44,283 9,011 497,325
Cucumbers Dol. 72,838 151,253 7,626 352,572 28,857 613,140
Pumpkins Dol. 144,366 359,392 10,986 232,561 2,003 749,308
Sweetpotatoes :Dol. 0 16,911 3,503 0 167,748 188,162
Lettuce :Dol. 9,718 7,572 993 629,297 696 648,276
Onions : Dol. : 29,160 37,600 500 112,805 5,890 185,955
Other :Dol. 142,013 207,839 137,765 573,591 113,774 1,174,982
Total vegetable sales Dol. :1,986,530 4,342,304 374,037 6,298,888 1,708,477 14,710,236
Average vegetable
sales per farmer :Dol. 5,809 14,621 5,343 6,596 3,417 6,798
Ul Farmers selling
vegetables No. 342 297 70 955 500 2,164
Floral and nursery:
Total floral and nursery Dol. 7,013,526 13,312,351 3,774,144 7,898,270 3,654,381 35,652,672
Average floral and
nursery sales per farmer: Dol. : 44,110 52,001 27,152 6,844 8,382 16,629
Farmers selling floral
and nursery :No. :159 256 139 1,154 436 2,144
Other products:
Livestock, poultry :Dol. :1,746,397 8,356,722 2,690,571 6,274,051 5,031,018 24,098,759
Processed fruit products :Dol. 144,944 814,025 144,068 342,284 748 1,446,069
Dried fruits :Dol. 328,701 0 0 0 0 328,701
Christmas trees and
forest products :Dol. :3,211,547 1,261,233 62,592 900,607 80,721 5,516,700
honey and syrups :Dol. : 39,040 275,762 52,059 2,269,940 321,586 2,958,387
Dairy products :Dol. :1,242,354 70,849 58,501 1,235,874 74,946 2,682,524
Wine Dol. 1,232,467 0 0 0 0 1,232,467
Other :Dol. : 323,427 60,067 367,036 82,205 224,412 1,057,147
See footnote at end of table. 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
J/ .(or average)
Total other product
sales DDI. 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 Pct. 4.8 7.3 2.3 22.9 2.2 4.5
Percent cash receipts .
derived from direct.
marketing Pct. .2 .6 .2 3.7 .2 .4
1/ Maine. New Hampshire, and Vermont. Treated as one State for reporting purposes because of small number of farms and sample size.




Table 34--Changes in direct-marketing anticipated by farmers through 1985 by States and marketing methods, 1980
(To compare with 1979 survey, see table 2)
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
I/ 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)
* :Northern Weighted
Product :California: Illinois Missouri : New :Texas :average
* :England 1/:
Percent
Fruits:
Apples : 18 36 27 16 100 21
Apricots : 8 NA NA 8 100 9
Strawberries : 18 100 97 44 100 44
Other berries : 26 99 70 55 96 48
Peaches and nectarines 8 92 27 93 62 41
Cherries : 43 NA NA 100 NA 44
Pears : 7 100 100 79 91 9
Plums : 12 100 100 77 93 19
Oranges 31 NA NA NA 26 28
Other citrus : 14 NA NA NA 10 12
Nuts 13 NA NA NA 32 30
Other fruits : 1 100 21 100 NA 2
Weighted average 10 64 31 17 32 29
Vegetables:
Sweet corn : 62 45 70 55 94 50
Tomatoes : 3 72 87 79 60 13
Melons : 20 58 76 62 41 38
Potatoes : 77 1 100 11 65 8
Green beans : 91 69 99 28 24 68
Cabbage, broccoli,
cauliflower, and
brussels sprouts : 2/ 20 2 12 2/ 8
Squash S 2 86 92 73 To 55
Peppers : 20 94 100 69 88 62
Cucumbers 3 27 100 75 13 16
Pumpkins : 81 59 53 83 NA 66
Sweetpotatoes : NA 100 50 NA 41 43
Lettuce : 2/ 100 10 84 NA 6
Onions : NA 100 NA NA 76 83
Other vegetables : 9 64 84 80 56 39
Weighted average : 9 40 36 30 41 25
Floral and nursery : 29 55 35 17 99 32
Other products:
Livestock, poultry, : 11 95 92 18 11 24
and products
Christmas trees and
forest products : 34 81 91 17 97 35
Honey and syrups : 40 44 18 43 13 25
Processed fruits : 52 88 95 49 35 69
Dried fruits : 11 NA NA NA NA 11
Dairy 1 1/ 47 17 1/ 3
Wine : 26 NA NA NA 3A 26
Other : 10 12 40 47 18 20
Weighted average : 5 23 75 21 3 9
Weighted average, all
products : 9 41 41 20 8 17
NA =Not applicable or none reported.
I/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
2/ Less than 0.05 percent.
60




Table 36--Direct marketing farmers, by marketing method, number of methods used, and State, 1980 (To compare with 1979 survey, see table 4)
* .. .: Northern : Total and
Item :Unit :California: Illinois Missouri : New Texas :weighted
* ..: England : average
Marketing method:
Pick-your-own : No. : 225 297 135 430 364 1,451
: Pct. : 7.8 3.9 5.1 10.7 10.2 7.0
Roadside stand :No. : 160 275 95 997 428 1,955
* Pct. : 5.6 3.6 3.6 24.9 12.0 9.4
Farmers' market :No. 210 155 512 271 548 1,696
: Pct. : 7.3 2.0 19.4 6.8 15.3 8.2
Farm building :No. : 2,351 6,827 1,949 2,486 2,308 15,921
: Pct. : 81.6 88.9 73.8 62.1 64.5 76.6
Other 2/ No. : 331 1,164 590 1,119 817 4,021
*Pct. 11.5 15.2 22.3 28.0 22.8 19.3
Total 3/ :No. : NA NA NA NA NA NA
*Pct. 113.8 113.6 124.2 132.5 124.8 120.5
Number of methods
used:
One :No. : 2,537 6,686 2,031 2,796 2,844 16,894
: Pct. : 88.1 87.0 76.8 69.9 79.5 81.3
Two : No. : 297 964 590 1,132 579 3,562
-Pct. : 10.3 12.5 22.3 28.3 16.2 17.1
Three :No. : 37 29 20 58 154 298
*Pct. : 1.3 .4 .8 1.4 4.3 1.4
Four or more No. : 9 4 2 17 0 32
*Pct. : .3 .1 .1 .4 0 .2
Total :No. : 2,880 7,683 2,643 4,003 3,577 20,786
*Pct. :100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
2/1 Other includes house-to house delivery, catalogue and mail order sales, and methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagon or truck tailgate on roadside 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 I/
own stand .
Percent
Fruits and nuts:
Apples 5.2 28.2 16.2 50.3 .1 100.0
Strawberries : 12.7 29.2 .3 57.8 0 100.0
Other berries : 61.5 .9 2.5 35.1 0 100.0
Peaches and nectarines : 14.3 30.1 11.9 31.1 12.6 100.0
Cherries : 38.1 33.0 15.5 13.4 0 100.0
Pears 35,.3 22.8 7.1 28.7 6.1 100.0
Grapes 13.8 20.6 19.7 45.9 0 100.0
Plums 14.5 33.2 11.8 26.8 13.7 100.0
Apricots 27.5 26.0 13.0 33.3 .1 100.0
Oranges 2.1 58.6 20.9 7.8 10.6 100.0
Other citrus : 2.1 39.9 4.9 52.9 .2 100.0
Nuts 1.0 18.3 11.6 53.7 15.4 100.0
Other fruits and nuts 1.2 35.5 22.9 32.0 8.4 100.0
Total fruits and nuts : 15.4 29.0 11.3 39.2 5.1 100.0
Vegetables and melons:
Sweet corn .1 71.5 22.7 5.7 0 100.0
Tomatoes 16.2 62.0 13.5 8.3 0 100.0
Melons .4 50.7 23.7 25.5 .3 100.0
Potatoes (white) : 6.6 0 80.8 12.6 0 100.0
Green beans : 87.4 6.4 5.8 .4 0 100.0
Cabbage, broccoli,
cauliflower, and
brussels sprouts : 3.2 18.0 57.6 1.8 19.4 100.0
Squash .5 55.7 27.2 13.5 3.1 100.0
Peppers 5.0 53.4 26.9 14.7 0 100.0
Cucumbers : .3 29.8 42.1 27.8 0 100.0
Pumpkins 42.9 24.7 3.4 27.3 1.7 100.0
Green peas 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asparagus 0 0 100.0 0 0 100.0
Sweetpotatoes : 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lettuce 0 59.2 2.6 6.0 22.2 100.0
Okra 12.5 83.7 2.8 1.0 0 100.0
Onions 0 82.3 10.2 7.5 0 100.0
Other vegetables : 37.2 .8 50.7 11.3 0 100.0
Total vegetables : 19.1 51.1 17.9 11.5 .4 100.0
Floral, nursery, and
bedding plants : 0 2.8 2.3 71.8 23.1 100.0
Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
products : 0 0 3.2 70.4 26.4 100.0
Processed fruits : 0 35.4 .4 64.2 0 100.0
Dried fruits : 0 47.2 1.4 9.8 41.6 100.0
Christmas trees and
forest products : 62.8 8.8 0 23.3 5.6 100.0
Honey and syrup : 0 7.0 7.6 85.4 0 100.0
Dairy products : 0 3.1 0 1.0 95.9 100.0
Wine 0 22.3 0 44.6 33.1 100.0
other products : .3 54.9 .2 36.7 7.9 100.0
Total other products : 24.4 11.9 .8 33.6 29.3 100.0
Total, all products : 14.0 15.2 4.7 45.9 20.2 100.0
I/ 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.
62




Table 38--Illinois: Distribution of direct-marketing sales by products and marketing method, 1980
: Pick- : Road- Farmers' Farm : Other Total
Product your- side : market building : I/
* own : stand :
Percent
Fruits:
Apples 33.7 45.6 1.3 19.4 0 100.0
Strawberries : 93.7 4.4 .3 1.5 .1 100.0
Other berries : 95.6 2.0 0 2.3 .1 100.0
Peaches and nectarines : .6 6.1 .1 93.2 0 100.0
Cherries 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pears 30.4 22.1 10.3 37.2 0 100.0
Grapes : 0 94.2 2.7 1.4 1.7 100.0
Plums 9.3 79.2 8.4 3.1 0 100.0
Nuts : 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other fruits and nuts : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Total fruits and nuts : 16.5 17.0 .4 66.1 2/ 100.0
Vegetables:
Sweet corn 1.4 81.6 14.4 2.1 .5 100.0
Tomatoes 16.6 72.2 8.9 1.8 .5 100.0
Melons 0 91.4 4.4 4.1 .1 100.0
Potatoes 0 57.2 0 42.8 0 100.0
Green beans : 14.1 35.5 45.4 4.3 .7 100.0
Cabbage, broccoli, : 0 65.8 19.0 15.2 0 100.0
cauliflower, and brussels sprouts
Squash 0 47.3 52.0 .7 0 100.0
Peppers : 38.4 54.9 6.7 0 0 100.0
Cucumbers 0 54.7 33.8 5.7 5.8 100.0
Green peas 0 0 100.0 0 0 100.0
Asparagus 0 99.4 0 .6 0 100.0
Sweetpotatoes : 0 36.4 63.6 0 0 100.0
Lettuce 0 0 100.0 0 0 100.0
Okra 0 0 100.0 0 0 100.0
Onions 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0
Other vegetables 44.1 51.2 .8 3.9 0 100.0
Total vegetables : 10.9 74.4 11.7 2.5 .5 100.0
Floral, nursery, and
bedding plants : 2/ 67.6 0.6 13.6 18.2 100.0
Other products:
Livestock, poultry,
and products : 0 .1 0 93.8 6.1 100.0
Processed fruits : 0 75.3 1.2 22.7 .8 100.0
Christmas trees
and forest products : 44.6 2.1 0 23.0 30.3 100.0
Honey and syrup : 0 7.9 12.2 68.8 11.1 100.0
Dairy : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Other products : 2.2 3.3 5.8 85.0 3.7 100.0
Total other products : 5.1 6.1 .5 79.8 8.5 100.0
Total, all products : 8.0 34.5 1.4 48.2 7.9 100.0
I/ 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.
63




Table 39--Missouri: Distribution of direct-marketing sales by product and method of sale, 1980
Pick- : Road- :Farmers' Farm Other :Total
Product your- : side :market building I /
own : stand
Percent
Fruits and nuts:
Apples : 39.8 36.7 0.3 20.8 2.4 100.0
Strawberries 92.6 5.9 0 1.0 .5 100.0
Other berries :100.0 0 0 0 0 100.0
Peaches and nectarines : 35.1 56.1 1.3 7.4 .1 100.0
Cherries 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pears : 31.7 4.9 0 52.8 10.6 100.0
Grapes : 0 15.2 8.0 76.8 0 100.0
Plums : 0 8.3 0 91.7 0 100.0
Nuts : 13.3 0 0 79.8 .9 100.0
Other fruits and nuts : 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total fruits and nuts : 46.2 34.6 .5 17.0 1.7 100.0
Vegetables:
Sweet corn : 0 56.3 16.8 22.4 4.5 100.0
Tomatoes : .2 49.3 11.6 37.0 1.9 100.0
Melons : .3 24.1 .2 75.1 .3 100.0
Potatoes : 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green beans : 12.9 57.2 28.1 1.8 0 100.0
Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, and
brussels sprouts : 49.5 0 0 0 50.5 100.0
Squash : 0 95.0 0 5.0 0 100.0
Peppers : 0 0 100.0 0 0 100.0
Cucumbers : 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0
Green peas : .4 0 90.9 8.7 0 100.0
Asparagus : 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sweetpotatoes : 0 56.3 16.8 22.4 4.5 100.0
Lettuce : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Okra : 0 0 100.0 0 0 100.0
Onions : 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other vegetables : 0 0 3.1 96.5 .4 100.0
Total vegetables : .6 25.0 14.2 59.2 1.0 100.0
Floral, nursery, and
bedding plants : 0 28.3 0.1 63.4 8.2 100.0
Other products:
Livestock, poultry, and
products : 0 .,1 13.5 77.1 9.3 100.0
Processed fruit : 0 90.8 0 9.2 0 100.0
Christmas trees and
forest products : .2 16.4 0 6.1 77.3 100.0
Honey and syrup : 0 3.8 0 94.0 2.2 100.0
Dairy : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Other products : 0. .3 0 28.1 71.6 100.0
Total other products 2/ 4.4 10.8 68.2 16.6 100.0
Total, all products : 10.6 21.3 4.3 54.4 9.4 100.0
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.
64




Table 40--Northern New England: I/ Distribution of direct-marketing sales by product and method of sale, 1980
* Pick- Road- Farmers' Farm Other Total
Product : your- : side :market :building : 2/
* own : stand :
Percent
Fruits and nuts:
Apples 21.7 39.4 0.6 36.2 2.1 100.0
Strawberries : 50.4 42.7 .2 6.7 0 100.0
Other berries : 77.0 17.6 2.6 2.8 0 100.0
Peaches and nectarines 0 98.9 0 1.1 0 100.0
Cherries .100.0 0 0 0 0 100.0
Pears .6 68.6 1.7 29.1 0 100.0
Grapes 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0
Plums 41.7 24.6 2.5 31.2 0 100.0
Nuts 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other fruits : 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total fruits and nuts : 31.4 40.9 .5 25.8 1.4 100.0
Vegetables:
Sweet corn : .4 82.5 6.6 10.5 0 100.0
Tomatoes 0 64.0 33.4 2.6 0 100.0
Melons 0 86.6 0 13.4 0 100.0
Potatoes (white) : 0 74.8 .1 22.8 2.3 100.0
Green beans : 0 98.8 1.1 .1 0 100.0
Cabbage, broccoli,
cauliflower, and
brussels sprouts : 0 84.8 14.6 .1 .5 100.0
Squash 0 51.7 1.3 47.0 0 100.0
Peppers 0 9.8 90.2 0 0 100.0
Cucumbers .8 46.3 34.4 18.5 0 100.0
Green peas 3.6 96.3 0 .1 0 100.0
Asparagus 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0
Sweetpotatoes : 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lettuce 0 90.6 4.7 4.7 0 100.0
Okra 0 0 0 0 0 0
Onions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other vegetables 0 3.2 0 96.8 0 100.0
Total vegetables : .2 74.9 8.5 15.8 .6 100.0
Floral, nursery, and
bedding plants 2.0 20.6 0.5 32.9 44.0 100.0
Other products:
Livestock, poultry,
and products : 0 1.0 3/ 37.7 61.3 100.0
Processed fruits : 0 56.0 .6 43.4 0 100.0
Christmas trees and
forest products : 20.8 19.0 0 25.6 34.6 100.0
Honey and syrup : 0 19.7 .7 71.6 8.0 100.0
Dairy 0 0 0 12.7 87.3 100.0
Other products : 0 13.1 0 80.3 6.6 100.0
Total other products 1.7 8.0 .1 41.4 48.8 100.0
Total, all products : 8.7 28.5 1.5 31.9 29.4 100.0
1/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
f/ 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.
65




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 : 1/
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
I/ 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.
66




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
:Pct. : 64.6 83.3 56.2 67.6 64.3 64.0
Added cost: 3/
Advertising :Pct. : 64.4 65.7 22.4 28.4 12.0 34.7
Insurance PC Pt. : 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 :Pct. : 23.8 22.6 3.0 16.1 5.3 18.2
Utilities :Pct. : 8.9 42.8 16.9 13.2 22.1 21.5
Rent (stall rent) :Pct. : 2.1 3.1 91.5 10.8 8.0 16.1
Transportation Pct. : 6.2 17.6 70.8 22.4 60.9 37.0
Containers :Pct. : 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 :Pct. : 51.4 42.6 46.2 20.3 23.8 25.9
Labor :Pct. : 75.8 31.1 59.0 26.1 16.5 33.3
Transportation :Pct. : 88.5 79.6 21.5 76.0 35.1 76.4
Broker and commission
agents' fees 3/ Pct. : 65.4 87/.5 98.6 57.7 88.5 68.9
Storage :Pct. : 42.7 42.0 67.1 23.4 54.6 32.7
Workers' compensation :Pct. : .8 .9 .3 .1 .3 .3
Equipment :Pct. : 24.0 50.6 76.6 33.2 43.4 38.9
1/ Includes catalogue, mail order, house-to-house delivery, and methods not elsewhere classified.
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 neare -st 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 I / :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
Co500,000 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
I/ 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 roads ides.
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
a.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 andi 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
C500,000 and over 17.5 15.6 8.4 .4 .6 1.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Population of nearest
city with farmers'
market:
Under 10,000 16.4 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 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 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 :s tand :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 : 1/ : 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 roads ides.
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 21
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
_j10-19.9 23.9 16.7 7.8 18.6 6.3 16.1
4-20 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 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 50--California: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by distance to nearest city and nearest city with farmer's 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 : 225 160 210 2,357 331 2,880
Percent
Distance to nearest city
(miles):
Under 5 22.0 26.9 17.5 70.4 12.7 55.7
5-9.9 : 15.0 15.0 12.8 3.5 6.4 5.7
10-19.9 16.7 13.8 28.9 7.2 7.3 9.6
20 and over 46.3 44.3 40.8 18.9 73.6 29.0
Un
Total 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Distance to nearest city
with farmers' market
(miles):
Under 5 : 6.2 14.4 10.4 1.6 1.8 3.1
5-9.9 9.2 9.4 10.9 2.5 3.0 3.9
10-19.9 16.3 15.0 34.1 8.9 8.2 11.3
20 and over : 67.0 60.6 43.6 87.0 86.4 81.5.
Do not know 1.3 .6 1.0 0 .6 .2
Total 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
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 use-d 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 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
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 roads ides.
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 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 roads ides.
2/ Sum may exceed number Q~f 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
I/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
f/ 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 r oad sides.
I/ 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!I : 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
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 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)
*Inter- :Divided :U.S. or :Secondary: Unpaved :City : Total
Item Farmers : state : highway : State :paved :road :street : 1/
*: highway ::highway :road
Number---------------------------------- Percent---------------State.
California 2,880 3.6 3.4 2.9 84.0 4.1 5.9 103.9
Illinois 7,683 13.8 .6 2.8 33.5 47.0 12.7 110.4
Missouri 2,643 .7 1.1 2.9 69.2 4.2 23.7 101.8
Northern New
England 4,003 5.7 8.7 26.6 27.8 9.4 21.8 100.0
Texas 3,577 9.1 15.5 16.3 35.7 26.8 10.4 113.8
0
Total and
weighted
average :20,786 8.4 5.2 9.7 44.3 24.9 14.5 107.0
Marketing method::
Pick-your-own :1,451 4.1 5.5 22.3 40.3 23.0 4.8 100.0
Roadside stand :1,955 2.6 25.7 34.3 24.9 1.7 10.8 100.0
Farmers' market: 1,696 3.6 21.5 16.1 33.0 .7 25.1 100.0
Farm building :15,921 8.4 2.3 6.9 46.1 29.4 6.9 100.0
Other :4,021 7.7 2.0 6.3 37.3 9.8 36.9 100.0
Total and
weighted
average :25,051 2/ 7.3 5.6 10.4 41.8 21.8 13.1 100.0
1/ Total may exceed 100 percent since some operations have access to more than one road type. 2/ Sum of farmers using various marketing methods exceeds total number of farmers selling diectly since some farmers used more than one method.




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 2b.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 California Illinois Missouri :Northern New Texas : Weighted
of total _________ __England 2/ .average
farm sales 1/ Direct: Direct: Direct: : Direct: Direct: : Direct
:Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales ;Farmers: sales ;Farmers; sales .Farmers: sales
Percent
Under $2,500 :6.6 1.2 10.9 1.2 20.6 5.9 30.8 4.7 35.2 7.9 19.6 3.4
$2,500-$9,999 : 64.0 7.8 20.9 7.8 22.3 6.6 25.9 7.8 33.3 17.8 30.1 9.1
$10,000-$19,999 : 3.4 4.6 15.0 2.5 2.1 3.6 10.1 6.6 10.4 3.0 10.0 4.1
Subtotal : 74.0 13.6 46.8 11.5 45.0 16.1 66.8 19.1 78.9 28.7 59.7 16.6
N~$20,000-$39,999 :7.2 7.1 10.2 2.8 48.4 28.2 11.2 10.6 6.7 12.9 14.2 9.0
$40,000-$99,999 :8.4 15.3 23.5 17.8 3.8 17.0 10.7 14.1 1.7 4.7 12.7 14.5
$100,000-$199,999 : 6.8 19.9 18.4 37.9 2.2 28.9 3.7 14.0 7.1 29.8 10.0 26.7
$200,000 and over : 3.6 44.1 1.1 30.0 .6 9.8 7.6 42.2 5.6 23.9 3.4 33.2
Subtotal :26.0 86.4 53.2 88.5 55.0 83.9 33.2 80.9 21.1 71.3 40.3 83.4
Total :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.




Table 58--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by State, farming status, and marketing method, 1980 (To compare with 1979 survey, see table 29)
State and farming: Pick-your-own :Roadside stand Farmers' market :Farm building Other :Total farms 1/
status
No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct.
California:
Full-time 87 38.7 104 64.6 106 50.5 534 22.7 71 21.5 746 25.9
Part-time 138 61.3 57 35.4 104 49.5 1,817 77.3 260 78.5 2,134 74.1
Total : 225 100.0 161 100.0 210 100.0 2,351 100.0 331 100.0 2,880 100.0
Illinois:
Full-time : 133 44.8 176 64.0 69 44.5 4,588 67.2 757 65.0 4,851 63.1
Part-time : 164 55.2 99 36.0 86 55.5 2,239 32.8 408 35.0 2,832 36.9
Total : 297 100.0 275 100.0 155 100.0 6,827 100.0 1,164 100.0 7,683 100.0
Missouri:
00 Full-time : 67 49.6 63 66.3 11 2.2 140 7.2 44 7.6 246 9.3
Part-time : 68 50.4 32 33.7 501 97.8 1,809 92.8 545 92.4 2,397 90.7
Total : 135 100.0 95 100.0 512 100.0 1,949 100.0 590 100.0 2,643 100.0
Northern New
England 2/:
Full-time : 166 38.6 404 40.6 43 15.9 702 28.2 412 36.8 1,189 29.7
Part-time : 264 61.4 592 59.4 228 84.1 1,784 71.8 707 63.2 2,814 70.3
Total : 430 100.0 996 100.0 271 100.0 2,486 100.0 1,119 100.0 4,003 100.0
Texas:
Full-time : 47 12.9 58 13.6 55 10.0 430 18.6 180 22.0 687 19.2
Part-time : 317 87.1 370 86.4 493 90.0 1,878 81.4 637 78.0 2,890 80.8
Total : 364 100.0 428 100.0 548 100.0 2,308 100.0 817 100.0 3,577 100.0
Seven States:
Full-time : 500 34.5 805 41.2 283 16.7 6,394 40.2 1,464 36.4 7,719 37.1
Part-time : 951 65.5 1,150 58.8 1,412 83.3 9,527 59.8 2,557 63.6 13,067 62.9
Total :1,451 100.0 1,955 100.0 1,695 100.0 15,921 100.0 4,021 100.0 20,786 100.0
I/ Sum of farmers by methods exceed total number of farmers since some farmers used more than one method.
2Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.




Table 59--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by product and State, 1980 (To compare with 1979 survey, see table 30)
Northern Total and
Item California : Illinois : Missouri :New England Texas :weighted average
Number
Farmers : 2,880 7,683 2,643 4,003 3,577 20,786
Percent
00 Product:
.1 Field crops 8.8 63.3 69.0 1.9 20.9 37.9
Vegetables : 12.2 4.1 2.8 26.3 22.3 12.3
Fruits and vegetables 70.8 8.8 7.5 30.1 33.6 25.5
Livestock : 15.5 59.7 74.7 35.0 58.1 50.7
Poultry 5.6 18.2 46.2 3.5 24.2 18.5
Dairy ..3 22.4 .6 2.3 1.8 9.3
Floral and nursery : 5.6 3.3 5.3 31.7 12.3 10.6
Others 2/ : 11.8 22.4 35.6 22.3 6.1 19.9
Total 3/ 130.6 202.2 241.7 153.1 179.3 184.7
I/ 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 : 1
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
00 Total and
U't 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.
3Less than 0.05 percent.
4Sum 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 I/
: 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
00
ON 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
F 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
29 118.1
Other 778 60.0 55.5 1.4 1.2
Total and
weighted
average 3/ 480,641 55.8 48.0 1.4 2.6 107.8
I/ 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.




United States
Department of Agriculture POSTAGE AND EWS PAID
Washington, D.C. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
20250 AGR- 101
OFFICIAL BUSINESS THIRD LASSBULK RATE
Penalty for Private Use, $300
9872 HDF&REUOFA122 18045 0001!
HEAD DEPT FOOD & RESOURCE EC-.
ON UNIV OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE FL 32611
Economic Research Service
The Economic Research Service carries out research on the production and marketing of major agricultural
commodities; foreign agriculture and trade; economic use, conservation, and development of natural resources;
trends in rural population, employment, and housing; rural economi&cadjustment problems; and performance of the U.S. agricultural industry. ERS provides objective and timely economic information to farmers, farm organization members, farm suppliers, marketers, processors, consumers, and others who make production,
marketing, and purchasing decisions, and to legislators and other pu-blic Qfficialsat the Federal, State, and local
government levels.




Full Text

PAGE 1

FARMER-TO-CONSUMER DIRECT MARKETING, Selected States, 1979-80, by Peter L. Henderson and Harold R. Linstrom. National Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Statistical Bulletin No. 681. ABSTRACT 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, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. The chief products sold in both years were floral and nursery products, 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



PAGE 1

farmers' markets were relatively more important as an outlet for vegetables than for other product categories. A significant volume of floral and nursery sales were made through other methods (primarily direct delivery and mail order). Added and Avoided Farmers selling directly to consumers incur some added cost for Costs 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 conventional 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 advertising, insurance, supervisory and clerk labor, utilities, transportation, 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. Location of Farms 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 population 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). overall, 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 secondary 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). Use of Advertising As in earlier surveys, word of mouth was the most frequently mentioned method farmers used for promoting their direct-marketing operations, but they also used newspapers, radio, television, and direct mail advertising to attract customers. Roadside stand operators led in the use of newspaper advertising and signs along the road or highway. Overall, about 12 17



PAGE 1

Table 40--Northern New England: I/ Distribution of direct-marketing sales by product and method of sale, 1980 PickRoadFarmers' Farm Other Total Product : your: side :market :building : 2/ own : stand : Percent Fruits and nuts: Apples .21.7 39.4 0.6 36.2 2.1 100.0 Strawberries : 50.4 42.7 .2 6.7 0 100.0 Other berries : 77.0 17.6 2.6 2.8 0 100.0 Peaches and nectarines 0 98.9 0 1.1 0 100.0 Cherries .100.0 0 0 0 0 100.0 Pears ..6 68.6 1.7 29.1 0 100.0 Grapes .0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0 Plums .41.7 24.6 2.5 31.2 0 100.0 Nuts .0 0 0 0 0 0 Other fruits : 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total fruits and nuts : 31.4 40.9 .5 25.8 1.4 100.0 Vegetables: Sweet corn : .4 82.5 6.6 10.5 0 100.0 Tomatoes .0 64.0 33.4 2.6 0 100.0 Melons .0 86.6 0 13.4 0 100.0 Potatoes (white) : 0 74.8 .1 22.8 2.3 100.0 Green beans : 0 98.8 1.1 .1 0 100.0 Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, and brussels sprouts : 0 84.8 14.6 .1 .5 100.0 Squash .0 51.7 1.3 47.0 0 100.0 Peppers .0 9.8 90.2 0 0 100.0 Cucumbers ..8 46.3 34.4 18.5 0 100.0 Green peas .3.6 96.3 0 .1 0 100.0 Asparagus .0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Sweetpotatoes : 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lettuce .0 90.6 4.7 4.7 0 100.0 Okra .0 0 0 0 0 0 Onions .0 0 0 0 0 0 Other vegetables .0 3.2 0 96.8 0 100.0 Total vegetables : .2 74.9 8.5 15.8 .6 100.0 Floral, nursery, and bedding plants .2.0 20.6 0.5 32.9 44.0 100.0 Other products: Livestock, poultry, and products : 0 1.0 3/ 37.7 61.3 100.0 Processed fruits : 0 56.0 .6 43.4 0 100.0 Christmas trees and forest products : 20.8 19.0 0 25.6 34.6 100.0 Honey and syrup : 0 19.7 .7 71.6 8.0 100.0 Dairy .0 0 0 12.7 87.3 100.0 Other products : 0 13.1 0 80.3 6.6 100.0 Total other products 1.7 8.0 .1 41.4 48.8 100.0 Total, all products : 8.7 28.5 1.5 31.9 29.4 100.0 1/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. f/ 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. 65



PAGE 1

percent of the growers reported using no advertising or promotional efforts in their direct marketi:i g (table 56). Characteristics of About 60 percent of direct-marketing farmers in the seven Direct-Marketing States surveyed in 1980 had total farm sales (direct and conFarmers 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 percentage 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 consumers 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. Full-Time and PartSixty-three percent of direct-marketing farmers in the seven Time Farming 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. Products Produced Direct-marketing farmers generally produce products in more than one product category--field crops, fruits and nuts, vegetables, 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



PAGE 1

Table 36--Direct marketing farmers, by marketing method, number of methods used, and State, 1980 (To compare with 1979 survey, see table 4) .. .: Northern : Total and Item :Unit :California: Illinois Missouri : New Texas :weighted ..: England : average Marketing method: Pick-your-own : No. : 225 297 135 430 364 1,451 : Pct. : 7.8 3.9 5.1 10.7 10.2 7.0 Roadside stand :No. : 160 275 95 997 428 1,955 Pct. : 5.6 3.6 3.6 24.9 12.0 9.4 Farmers' market :No. 210 155 512 271 548 1,696 : Pct. : 7.3 2.0 19.4 6.8 15.3 8.2 Farm building :No. : 2,351 6,827 1,949 2,486 2,308 15,921 : Pct. : 81.6 88.9 73.8 62.1 64.5 76.6 Other 2/ No. : 331 1,164 590 1,119 817 4,021 *Pct. 11.5 15.2 22.3 28.0 22.8 19.3 Total 3/ :No. : NA NA NA NA NA NA *Pct. 113.8 113.6 124.2 132.5 124.8 120.5 Number of methods used: One :No. : 2,537 6,686 2,031 2,796 2,844 16,894 : Pct. : 88.1 87.0 76.8 69.9 79.5 81.3 Two : No. : 297 964 590 1,132 579 3,562 -Pct. : 10.3 12.5 22.3 28.3 16.2 17.1 Three :No. : 37 29 20 58 154 298 *Pct. : 1.3 .4 .8 1.4 4.3 1.4 Four or more No. : 9 4 2 17 0 32 *Pct. : .3 .1 .1 .4 0 .2 Total :No. : 2,880 7,683 2,643 4,003 3,577 20,786 *Pct. :100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. 2/1 Other includes house-to house delivery, catalogue and mail order sales, and methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagon or truck tailgate on roadside 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



PAGE 1

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, strawberries, peaches, sweet corn, tomatoes, melons, potatoes, livestock 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 considerably 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 considered 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 in-dTvidual State samples; Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont were treated as a single sampling unit in order to increase .the reliability of estimates. 15



PAGE 1

provide custom service to consumers for a fee, such as community 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 farmerto-consumer transactions. Moreover, they encourage large volume transactions and potentially greater savings to consumers 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 underutilized 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



PAGE 1

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 21 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 31/ 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.



PAGE 1

through direct-market outlets. Similar variations in the percentage of production of specific products sold direct to consumers can be observed in table 3. Comparison of Eighty-five percent of direct-marketing farmers used only one Direct-Marketing method to sell direct to consumers, 1 percent used two methods, 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, catalogue 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). Products Sold 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-yourown method, ranging from 7 percent in Colorado to over 50 percent in Wisconsin. The pick-your-own method was less important 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, vegetables, and melons in all States, accounting for about 50 percent of direct-marketed fruits and nuts (ranging from 17 to 65 percent 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 nursery 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 adjacent 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



PAGE 1

DIRECT-MARKETING Farmers sell their products directly to consumers by several METHODS 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 potential 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-Marketing Act to be direct farmer-to-consumer marketings. 5/ These organizations usually assemble, grade, pack or process, ship, and sell in wholesale lots to wholesale buyers and distributors. 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 cooperative 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 associated 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 associations 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 Marketing by Farm Cooperatives," National Food Review, Summer 1980, NFR-11, Econ. Stat. Coop. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr., p. 15. 4



PAGE 1

Reasons for Selling When questioned why they sold products directly to consumers Directly to most farmers gave more than one reason (table 31). Although Consumers 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 pickyour-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." Reasons for Not Farmers surveyed in the nine States who did not sell directly Selling Directly to consumers were asked to give their reasons for not doing To Consumers so. The number of farmers and the distribution of reasons given are summarized in table 32. T e leading reason given for not selling directly (almost 75 percent of those responding) 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 fruitsvegetables, 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 114



PAGE 1

Table 6--Maryland and Delaware: I/ Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product and marketing method, 1979 PickRoad:Farmers' :Farm Other Total Item your side market building own :stand Percent Fruits and nuts: Apples : 19.3 56.3 1.2 20.1 3..1 100.0 Strawberries : 48.1 .8 .1 51.0 0 100.0 Other berries : 15.1 4.2 0 80.7 0 100.0 Peaches and nectarines : 23.6 32.2 21.5 21.8 .9 100.0 Cherries : 0 15.7 0 84.3 0 100.0 Pears : 0 74.1 0 25.9 0 100.0 Grapes : 84.4 0 0 15.6 0 100.0 Plums : 61.1 0 0 38.9 0 100.0 Other : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Weighted average, fruit and nut sales : 30.5 28.9 7.9 31.5 1.2 100.0 Vegetables and melons: Sweet corn : .6 69.5 1.3 28.0 .6 100.0 Tomatoes : 7.2 41.4 5.2 46.0 .2 100.0 Melons : 0 59.6 0 40.4 0 100.0 Potatoes : 0 10.4 1.8 87.8 0 100.0 Green beans : 10.1 1.2 5.1 83.6 0 100.0 Cabbage, broccoli, cauli-: flower, brussels sprouts : 62.9 2.4 15.1 18.9 .3 100.0 Squash : 0 .5 51.1 48.4 0 100.0 Peppers : 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cucumbers : 0 25.0 35.2 37.6 2.2 100.0 Pumpkins : 0 73.7 0 26.3 0 100.0 Green peas : 56.5 0 0 43.5 0 .100.0 Asparagus : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Sweetpotatoes : 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0 Other : 11.6 .9 4.2 83.3 0 100.0 Weighted average, total vegetable sales : 2.7 44.5 1.9 50.6 .3 100.0 Floral and nursery : 1.7 11.5 .1 80.9 5.8 100.0 Other products: Livestock, poultry, and livestock and poultry products : 0 10.6 .5 55.5 33.4 100.0 Processed fruit products : (cider, jelly, jam, etc.): 0 10.9 0 89.1 0 100.0 Christmas trees and forest products : 13.2 .5 0 83.5 2.8 100.0 Honey and syrups : 0 5.7 6.4 80.7 7.2 100.0 Dairy products : 0 0 8.3 5.1 86.6 100.0 Other : 0 0 0 91.9 8.1 100.0 Weighted average, other product sales : 3.6 6.6 .3 67.8 21.7 100.0 Weighted average, total direct sales, all products : 8.0 15.8 1.9 62.6 11.7 100.0 1/ Treated as one State for reporting purposes because of small number of farms and sample size. 29



PAGE 1

Table 43--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest city and neare -st city with public farmers' market, by marketing method, seven States, 1980 (To compare with 1979 survey, see table 12) :PickRoad:Farmers' Farm Other :Total and Item : yourside, market : building I / :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 Co500,000 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 I/ 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 roads ides. 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.



PAGE 1

Table 1--Value of products sold directly to consumers, by product and State, 1979 1/ (To compare with 1980 survey, see table 33) Maryland Southern Nine-State Item Unit :Colorado and :New York New Tennessee Wisconsin total Delaware : England (or aver2/ 3/ :age) Fruits and nuts: Apples Dol. : 211,159 1,254,018 8,825,632 9,286,830 925,801 3,766,115 24,269,555 Strawberries Dol. :4,254 1,488,781 2,452,125 1,911,374 569,125 1,618,691 8,044,287 Other berries :Dol. 266 26,000 873,429 535,614 12,851 901,085 2,349,245 Peaches and nectarines :Dol. : 301,494 1,528,605 575,800 1,172,548 253,439 0 3,831,886 Cherries :Dol. 113,513 22,991 120,049 23,450 0 224,190 504,193 Pears :Dol. 119,016 76,318 226,919 392,592 0 21,290 836,135 Grapes Dol. 1,276 23,005 231,657 57,662 0 20,774 334,374 Plums :Dol. 16,727 14,704 110,853 157,659 0 907 300,850 Other :Dol. 31,408 5,119 0 4,548 2,237 18,520 61,832 Total fruit and7 nut sales,: Doi. 799,113 4,439,478 13,416,464 13,542,277 1,763,453 6,571,572 40,532,357 Average fruit sales per farmer :Dol. :1,800 8,808 12,434 11,370 1,702 2,518 5,905 Farmers selling fruits and nuts :No. :444 504 1,079 1,191 1,036 2,610 6,864 Vegetables and melons: Sweet corn :Dol. 112,084 970,261 5,833,660 3,473,709 60,978 544,619 10,995,311 Tomatoes : Dol. : 152,754 335,843 2,307,173 1,696,940 2,127,437 283,003 6,903,150 Melons : Dol. 176,320 148,024 .999,906 163,705 139,911 178,489 1,806,355 Potatoes : Dol. : 135,572 252,356 6,365,121 363,193 24,904 238,265 7,379,411 Green beans : Dol. : 17,967 97,570 770,227 360,205 71,268 206,619 1,523,856 Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts :Dol. 9,317 51,266 1,159,569 314,574 1,245 134,958 1,670,929 Squash :Dol. : 13,947 66,712 834,127 540,357 1,807 159,998 1,616,948 Peppers :Dol. : 42,317 4,326 308,446 321,374 0 6,499 682,962 Cucumber :Dol. : 27,328 30,973 984,850 329,991 14,297 133,084 1,520,523 Pumpkins :Dol. 7,156 243,710 4,806,830 502,439 0 57,159 5,617,294 Green peas : Dol. :1,067 7,994 37,980 36,761 1,603 0 85,405 Asparagus : Dol. : 13,543 349,592 33,542 1,589 0 31,792 430,058 Sweetpotatoes : Dol. :0 8,261 0 0 48,929 0 28,825 Other : Dol. : 34,385 130,152 164,786 375,208 44,333 117,489 866,353 See footnotes at end of table. continued-



PAGE 1

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 5-9.9 : 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 1Sum may exceed total number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method.



PAGE 1

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 :s tand :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.



PAGE 1

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 advertising 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-marketing 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 direct-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 associated 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



PAGE 1

However, evidence from case studies of direct farmer-to-consumer 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 livestock 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 livestock 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 farmerowned 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 farmerto-consumer sales. 4/ The Texas study also analyzed the operation of eight nonf arm 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 represented 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 agricultural 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



PAGE 1

Table 9--Tennessee Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product and marketing method, 1979 Pick:Road:Farmers' :Farm :Other :Total Item : your:side market building own :stand Percent Fruits and nuts: Apples i,46.9 2.3 0.3 50.5 0 100.0 Strawberries : 54.8 36.2 .2 8.7 .1 100.0 Other berries 15.3 0 77.0 7.7 0 100.0 Peaches and nectarines : 39.5 28.0 0 32.5 0 100.0 Cherries : NA NA NA NA NA NA Pears : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Grapes : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Plums : NA NA NA NA NA NA Other 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Weighted average, fruit and nut sales : 48.1 16.9 .8 34.2 1/ 100.0 Vegetables and melons: Sweet corn ..2 0 5.4 90.5 3.9 100.0 Tomatoes : 8.7 71.6 18.7 1.0 1/ 100.0 Melons : 0 2.3 .8 95.3 1.6 100.0 Potatoes : 0 0 .7 92.0 7.3 100.0 Green beans ..3 76.3 8.7 14.7 0 100.0 Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts : 71.9 0 0 28.1 0 100.0 Squash : 51.1 0 31.3 17.6 0 100.0 Peppers : NA NA NA NA NA NA Cucumbers : 0 94.8 4.9 .3 0 100.0 Pumpkins : NA NA NA NA NA NA Green peas : 0 0 0 52.5 47.5 100.0 Asparagus NA NA NA NA NA NA Sweetpotatoes : 0 0 0 97.6 2.4 100.0 Other : 94.4 0 0 5.6 0 100.0 Weighted average, total vegetable sales : 8.9 63.1 16.2 11.5 .3 100.0 Floral and nursery : 0 30.5 .1 49.9 19.5 100.0 Other products: Livestock, poultry, and livestock and poultry products : 0 0 0.2 98.6 1.2 100.0 Processed fruit products : (cider, jelly, jam, etc.). NA NA NA NA NA NA Christmas trees and forest products : 3.0 0 0 2.9 94.1 100.0 Honey and syrups : 0 9.7 0 87.6 2.7 100.0 Dairy products : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Other : 0 20.8 0 79.2 0 100.0 Weighted average, other product sales : 1.7 4.9 1/ 39.7 53.7 100.0 Weighted average, total direct sales, all products : 11.4 30.7 4.4 34.7 18.8 100.0 NA = Not applicable. 1/ Less than 0.05 percent. 32



PAGE 1

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 stations, designated parking areas, checkout area between field and vehicles, a supervised play area for children, and transportation from check-in or parking areas to fields. Such measures add to farmers? cost of operations and must be recovered 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. Consumers 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 temporary shelter and minimum facilities for storing and displaying produce. Some roadside markets have elaborate facilities, including refrigerated 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 enhancing their own income. The costs for transportation from the farm to shipping points, shipping containers, and handling charges of assemblers and wholesalers are eliminated. Additional 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



PAGE 1

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 facilities (such as interest, taxes, depreciation, repairs, parking lots, utilities, and insurance), labor for operating the stand, consumer packaging materials, advertising, and other items required to satisfy the demand of consumers. The extent of such additional cost items is closely related to the size and elaborateness 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 associations 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 th number of farmers' markets. Part of the growth has resulted from activities conducted under section 5 of the DirectMarketing Act of 1976, while others have been established by municipal governments, Chambers of Commerce, and similar organizations to meet the demands of consumers and small farmers. 6



PAGE 1

Table 10--Wisconsin: Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product and marketing method, 1979 PickRoadFarmers' Farm Other :Total Item yourside :market building own stand : Percent Fruits and nuts: Apples :~25.4 34.3 5.4 33.4 1.5 100.0 Strawberries : 93.3 5.2 0 1.1 .4 100.0 Other berries 91.8 0 0 2.0 6.2 100.0 Peaches and nectarines : NA NA NA NA NA NA Cherries : 86.5 12.6 0 0 .9 100.0 Pears : 2.7 17.7 0 79.0 .6 100.0 Grapes 99.8 0 0 .2 0 100.0 Plums 0 24.0 0 76.0 0 100.0 Other 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Weighted average, fruit and nut sales : 53.4 21.4 3.1 20.3 1.8 100.0 Vegetables and melons: Sweet corn : 5.9 51.7 34.4 6.2 1.8 100.0 Tomatoes : 11.8 58.6 4.2 23.2 2.2 100.0 Melons : 7.5 91.7 .8 0 0 100.0 Potatoes : 11.3 3.0 68.0 17.7 0 100.0 Green beans : 0 0 100.0 0 1/ 100.0 Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts : 9.2 40.2 9.8 40.8 1/ 100.0 Squash : 0 8.7 54.6 36.7 1/ 100.0 Peppers NA NA NA NA N A NA Cucumbers : 0 10.7 6.1 83.2 0 100.0 Pumpkins : 0 96.2 0 3.8 0 100.0 Green peas NA NA NA NA NA NA Asparagus 27.8 0 0 72.2 0 100.0 Sweetpotatoes : NA NA NA NA NA NA Other : 0 0 99.8 0 .2 100.0 Weighted average, total vegetable sales : 6.4 37.1 38.8 16.8 .9 100.0 Floral and nursery : .1 1.9 0 25.6 72.4 100.0 Other products: Livestock, poultry, and livestock and poultry products : 0 1/.9 70.6 28.5 100.0 Processed fruit products : (cider, jelly, jam, etc.). 0 38.1 0 50.2 11.7 100.0 Christmas trees and forest products : 13.5 .4 1/ 23.3 62.8 100.0 Honey and syrups : 0 9.0 19.-3 45.0 26.7 100.0 Dairy products : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Other : 0 0 0 97.6 2.4 100.0 Weighted average, other product sales : .9 .4 1.9 65.8 30.6 100.0 Weighted average, total direct sales, all products : 6.3 4.6 2.1 37.8 49.2 100.0 NA = Not applicable. 1/ Less than 0.05 percent. 33



PAGE 1

Table 39--Missouri: Distribution of direct-marketing sales by product and method of sale, 1980 Pick: Road:Farmers' Farm Other :Total Product your: side :market building I / own : stand Percent Fruits and nuts: Apples : 39.8 36.7 0.3 20.8 2.4 100.0 Strawberries 92.6 5.9 0 1.0 .5 100.0 Other berries :100.0 0 0 0 0 100.0 Peaches and nectarines : 35.1 56.1 1.3 7.4 .1 100.0 Cherries 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pears : 31.7 4.9 0 52.8 10.6 100.0 Grapes : 0 15.2 8.0 76.8 0 100.0 Plums : 0 8.3 0 91.7 0 100.0 Nuts : 13.3 0 0 79.8 .9 100.0 Other fruits and nuts : 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total fruits and nuts : 46.2 34.6 .5 17.0 1.7 100.0 Vegetables: Sweet corn : 0 56.3 16.8 22.4 4.5 100.0 Tomatoes : .2 49.3 11.6 37.0 1.9 100.0 Melons : .3 24.1 .2 75.1 .3 100.0 Potatoes : 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green beans : 12.9 57.2 28.1 1.8 0 100.0 Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, and brussels sprouts : 49.5 0 0 0 50.5 100.0 Squash : 0 95.0 0 5.0 0 100.0 Peppers : 0 0 100.0 0 0 100.0 Cucumbers : 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0 Green peas : .4 0 90.9 8.7 0 100.0 Asparagus : 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sweetpotatoes : 0 56.3 16.8 22.4 4.5 100.0 Lettuce : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Okra : 0 0 100.0 0 0 100.0 Onions : 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other vegetables : 0 0 3.1 96.5 .4 100.0 Total vegetables : .6 25.0 14.2 59.2 1.0 100.0 Floral, nursery, and bedding plants : 0 28.3 0.1 63.4 8.2 100.0 Other products: Livestock, poultry, and products : 0 .,1 13.5 77.1 9.3 100.0 Processed fruit : 0 90.8 0 9.2 0 100.0 Christmas trees and forest products : .2 16.4 0 6.1 77.3 100.0 Honey and syrup : 0 3.8 0 94.0 2.2 100.0 Dairy : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Other products : 0. .3 0 28.1 71.6 100.0 Total other products .2/ 4.4 10.8 68.2 16.6 100.0 Total, all products : 10.6 21.3 4.3 54.4 9.4 100.0 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. 64



PAGE 1

Table 18 --Wisconsin: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by population of nearest city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 197,9 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 58.0 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 selling directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method.



PAGE 1

Table 50--California: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by distance to nearest city and nearest city with farmer's 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 : 225 160 210 2,357 331 2,880 Percent Distance to nearest city (miles): Under 5 .22.0 26.9 17.5 70.4 12.7 55.7 5-9.9 : 15.0 15.0 12.8 3.5 6.4 5.7 10-19.9 .16.7 13.8 28.9 7.2 7.3 9.6 20 and over .46.3 44.3 40.8 18.9 73.6 29.0 Un Total 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Distance to nearest city with farmers' market (miles): Under 5 : 6.2 14.4 10.4 1.6 1.8 3.1 5-9.9 .9.2 9.4 10.9 2.5 3.0 3.9 10-19.9 .16.3 15.0 34.1 8.9 8.2 11.3 20 and over : 67.0 60.6 43.6 87.0 86.4 81.5. Do not know 1.3 .6 1.0 0 .6 .2 Total 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 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 use-d 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.



PAGE 1

PREFACE The increased interest by consumers and farmers in the midseventies 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 determine 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 marketing 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 represents 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 Wisconsin) 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 farmerto-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 similar 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.



PAGE 1

Table 58--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by State, farming status, and marketing method, 1980 (To compare with 1979 survey, see table 29) State and farming: Pick-your-own :Roadside stand Farmers' market :Farm building Other :Total farms 1/ status No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. California: Full-time 87 38.7 104 64.6 106 50.5 534 22.7 71 21.5 746 25.9 Part-time 138 61.3 57 35.4 104 49.5 1,817 77.3 260 78.5 2,134 74.1 Total : 225 100.0 161 100.0 210 100.0 2,351 100.0 331 100.0 2,880 100.0 Illinois: Full-time : 133 44.8 176 64.0 69 44.5 4,588 67.2 757 65.0 4,851 63.1 Part-time : 164 55.2 99 36.0 86 55.5 2,239 32.8 408 35.0 2,832 36.9 Total : 297 100.0 275 100.0 155 100.0 6,827 100.0 1,164 100.0 7,683 100.0 Missouri: 00 Full-time : 67 49.6 63 66.3 11 2.2 140 7.2 44 7.6 246 9.3 Part-time : 68 50.4 32 33.7 501 97.8 1,809 92.8 545 92.4 2,397 90.7 Total : 135 100.0 95 100.0 512 100.0 1,949 100.0 590 100.0 2,643 100.0 Northern New England 2/: Full-time : 166 38.6 404 40.6 43 15.9 702 28.2 412 36.8 1,189 29.7 Part-time : 264 61.4 592 59.4 228 84.1 1,784 71.8 707 63.2 2,814 70.3 Total : 430 100.0 996 100.0 271 100.0 2,486 100.0 1,119 100.0 4,003 100.0 Texas: Full-time : 47 12.9 58 13.6 55 10.0 430 18.6 180 22.0 687 19.2 Part-time : 317 87.1 370 86.4 493 90.0 1,878 81.4 637 78.0 2,890 80.8 Total : 364 100.0 428 100.0 548 100.0 2,308 100.0 817 100.0 3,577 100.0 Seven States: Full-time : 500 34.5 805 41.2 283 16.7 6,394 40.2 1,464 36.4 7,719 37.1 Part-time : 951 65.5 1,150 58.8 1,412 83.3 9,527 59.8 2,557 63.6 13,067 62.9 Total :1,451 100.0 1,955 100.0 1,695 100.0 15,921 100.0 4,021 100.0 20,786 100.0 I/ Sum of farmers by methods exceed total number of farmers since some farmers used more than one method. 2Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.



PAGE 1

Table 20--Colorado: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by di SLe to izarcity and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, i979 Pick: Road: Farmers' Farm Other .Toal Item your: side : market building : own : stand : : ave rage Number Farmers 1/ .132 134 221 1,765 67 1,978 Percent Distance to nearest city (miles): Under 5 : 23.5 23.1 76.7 30.6 35.8 34.3 5-9.9 .34.9 32.1 5.8 36.2 32.8 32.9 10-19.9 .18.9 32.1 10.3 13.3 22.4 14.7 20 and over .22.7 12.7 7.2 19.9 9.0 18.1 Total 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Distance to nearest city with farmers' market (miles): Under 5 .10.8 14.3 8.1 5.1 16.7 6.6 5-9.9 .32.3 29.3 7.7 13.1 37.9 15.3 10-19.9 30.0 36.1 76.1 39.4 16.6 41.5 20 and over : 26.9 20.3 8.1 42.4 28.8 36.6 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.



PAGE 1

Table 1--Value of products sold directly to consumer, by product and State, 1979 11--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. 743,757 2,697,040 24,606,217 8,480,045 2,536,612 2,091,974 41,155,645 Average vegetable sales per farmer :Dol. 2,143 938 8,716 7,910 1,460 763 3,550 Farmers selling vegetables :No. 347 2,875 2,823 1,072 1,738 2,740 11,595 Floral and nursery: Total floral and nursery :Dol. 12,128,940 5,962,277 12,417,404 23,218,761 3,217,193 32,763,028 89,707,603 Average sales per farmer :Dol. 32,344 13,250 7,471 17,225 3,015 32,471 15,176 Farmers selling floral and nursery products :No. .375 450 1,662 1,348 1,067 1,009 5,911 Other products: Livestock, poultry, and livestock and poultry products :Dol. : 1,653,835 6,496,328 18,881,556 7,244,150 397,753 17,007,819 5.1,681,441 Processed fruit products (cider, jelly, jam, etc.) Dol. 2,222 123,886 782,083 957,015 0 115,598 1,980,804 Christmas trees and forest: products :Dol. 7,579 2,985,569 342,555 2,062,011 1,253,371 1,380,156 8,031,241 Honey and syrups :Dol. 165,956 52,132 2,913,573 482,471 60,485 1,096,081 4,770,698 Dairy products *Dol. 5,011,453 15,560 8,168,064 1,180,614 5,714 10,085 14,391,490 Other Dol. 2,903 1,249,721 4,825,369 910,638 489,941 56,606 7,535,178 Total other product sales :Dol. 6,843,948 10,923,196 35,913,200 12,836,899 2,207,264 19,666,345 88,390,852 Average sales of other : products :Dol. 9,324 3,130 5,392 3,807 678 1,935 3,194 Farmers selling other products :No. :734 3,490 6,660 3,372 3,257 10,163 27,676 See footnotes at end of table. continued--



PAGE 1

Table 31--Reasons given by farmers for selling directly to consumers, by State and marketing method, 1979 (To compare with 1980 survey, see table 60) Farmers : Higher : Labor Access Social Other Total I/ Item : income ; related to market Number-------------------------------Percent-----------------------------State: Colorado :1,978 58.0 51.5 61.8 80.0 0.4 251.7 Maryland and Delaware : 4,677 75.8 69.7 75.8 92.0 .2 313.5 New York : 10,153 68.7 48.9 83.3 80.0 .2 281.1 Southern New England 2/ :5,084 88.5 37.4 54.4 62.8 .7 243.8 LnTennessee :6,784 51.8 52.5 78.2 75.7 0 258.2 Wisconsin 15,103 74.7 22.8 67.4 96.5 0 261.4 Total and weighted average :43,780 70.9 41.5 71.9 84.3 .2 268.8 Marketing method: Pick-your-own :3,699 75.7 68.9 77.7 75.4 .4 298.1 Roadside stand :6,673 81.8 61.7 75.7 76.8 .6 296.6 Farmers'market :3,736 88.9 44.3 83.0 74.6 .1 290.9 Farm building :25,616 66.8 41.6 76.7 90.4 .1 275.6 Other :11,529 69.2 37.7 58.8 78.8 .2 244.7 Total :43,780 70.9 41.5 71.9 84.3 .2 268.8 I/ Sum exceeds number of farmers selling directly to consumer or 100 percent because some farmers used more than one direct sales method and gave more than one reason. 2/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.



PAGE 1

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 J/ .(or average) Total other product sales DDI. 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 Pct. 4.8 7.3 2.3 22.9 2.2 4.5 Percent cash receipts derived from direct. marketing Pct. .2 .6 .2 3.7 .2 .4 1/ Maine. New Hampshire, and Vermont. Treated as one State for reporting purposes because of small number of farms and sample size.



PAGE 1

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 I/ 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.



PAGE 1

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 directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method.



PAGE 1

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



PAGE 1

Reasons for Selling The farmers surveyed in 1980 cited the same reasons for selling Directly to directly to consumers as farmers in the previous surveys: Consumers 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 "opportunity to socialize" in addition to the economic reasons. Reasons for Not The major reasons for not selling directly to consumers were Selling Directly the same as in 1979--"commodity produced," "too much trouble," to Consumers 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. PROBABLE TRENDS IN The volume of farm products sold directly by farmers to conFARMER-TO-CONSUMER sumers tends to be limited for a number of reasons: DIRECT MARKETING Some farm products are not consumed in their natural form and economies of scale are involved in the processing 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 inflationary forces. At the same time, inflationary forces and consumer resistance have depressed the farm prices of agricultural 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 services 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



PAGE 1

Table 3--Percentage of direct sales to total production of direct-marketing farmers, by product and State, 1979--continued Maryland : Southern : NineProduct Colorado and New York : New : Tennessee Wisconsin : State : Delaware : England I/ : : 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 1 100 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 1 100 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 NA = Not applicable. I/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. 2/ Also includes broccoli, brussels sprouts, and cauliflower. 3/ Less than 0.05 percent.



PAGE 1

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 Pick: Road: Farmers' :Farm :Other Total or Item .your:side :market :building ::weighted own :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 .100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 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 5 0, 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 .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.



PAGE 1

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 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 roads ides. 2/ Sum may exceed number Q~f 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.



PAGE 1

Table 12--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest city and nearest city with farmers' market and by marketing method, nine States, 1979 (To compare with 1980 survey, see table 43) Pick: Road: Farmers' : Farm : Other Total or Item your: side : market : building : weighted own : stand : average I/ 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 10,000-492999 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 I/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method.



PAGE 1

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 contrast, a significantly higher percentage of Missouri's directmarketing farmers intended to reduce direct selling than was found for other States. Similar variations in planning directmarketing 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 building 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 consumers 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 selling 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 directmarketing 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



PAGE 1

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.



PAGE 1

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 a.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.



PAGE 1

Table 45--Illinois: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest city andi 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 C500,000 and over .17.5 15.6 8.4 .4 .6 1.7 Total .100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Population of nearest city with farmers' market: Under 10,000 .16.4 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 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.



PAGE 1

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 directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method.



PAGE 1

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:Farers' 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.



PAGE 1

Table 5--Colorado: Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product and marketing method, 1979 Pick:RoadFarmers' Farm Other :Total Item yourside :market :building own stand : Percent Fruits and nuts: Apples : 2.4 16.4 7.2 68.9 4.8 100.0 Strawberries : 79.4 0 0 20.6 0 100.0 Other berries .0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Peaches and nectarines : 8.7 66.5 3.8 17.6 3.4 100.0 Cherries : 10.5 51.8 0 37.7 0 100.0 Pears : 1.3 66.4 8.4 21.1 2.8 100.0 Grapes .0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Plums : 12.9 11.6 5.0 70.5 0 100.0 Other : 18.2 10.3 16.1 50.1 5.3 100.0 Weighted average, fruit and nut sales : 7.1 47.4 5.3 37.0 3.2 100.0 Vegetables and melons: Sweet corn : 2.0 22.6 7.5 65.1 2.8 100.0 Tomatoes : 21o.4 44.9 6.9 21.0 5.8 100.0 Melons 4.1 75.0 2.7 18.0 .2 100.0 Potatoes .0 11.5 .3 88.2 0 100.0 Green beans : 18.4 50.2 11.5 19.9 0 100.0 Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts : 2.6 5.3 5.7 86.4 0 100.0 Squash : 3.5 .7 6.4 89.4 0 100.0 Peppers : 35.2 28.8 6.0 29.9 0 100.0 Cucumbers ..3 6.0 1.2 92.5 0 100.0 Pumpkins .0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Green peas : 18.0 0 79.3 2.7 0 100.0 Asparagus .0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Sweetpotatoes .0 0 0 0 0 0 Other : 5.0 10.6 1.2 83.2 0 100.0 Weighted average, total vegetable sales : 8.6 38.2 4.2 47.1 1.9 100.0 Floral and nursery : 0 .2 0 76.9 22.9 100.0 Other products: Livestock, poultry, and livestock and poultry products : 0 2.5 0 97.4 .1100.0 Processed fruit products : (cider, jelly, jam, etc.): 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Christmas trees and forest products : 0 99o2 0 .8 0 100.0 Honey and syrups : 0 9.4 11.7 66.2 11.6 100.0 Dairy products : 0 0 0 52.8 47.2 100.0 Other : 0 0 8.1 91.9 0 100.0 Weighted average, other product sales : 0 .9 .3 63.9 34.9 100.0 Weighted average, total direct sales, all products : .5 3.4 .4 70.1 25.6 100.0 28



PAGE 1

Disadvantages to consumers include the time and expenses involved 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-marketing 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 directly (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 specific 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 relatively 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 wIdch 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



PAGE 1

Table 29--Distribution of direct-ma rketing farmers, by State, farming status, and marketing method, 1979 (To compare with 1980 survey, see table 58) State and :Uni t :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 :Pct. : 47.7 55.2 76.9 56.8 43.3 55.5 Part-time :Pct. : 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 .Pct. : 15.6 12.8 12.9 12.6 10.7 13.6 Part-time .Pct. 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 .Pct. : 45.1 35.7 37.0 30.9 18.4 27.1 Part-time .Pct. : 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 .Pct. : 26.0 45.2 23.3 36.5 39.9 38.9 Part-time :Pct. : 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 .Pct. 51.1 23.2 8.1 31.7 50.0 34.1 Part-time .Pct. : 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 :Pct. 26.9 39.0 16.0 46.9 42.6 40.9 Part-time :Pct. : 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 :Pct. : 32.2 34.2 26.5 36.9 31.6 34.2 Part-time :Pct. 67.8 65.8 73.5 63.1 68.4 65.8 1/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. 52



PAGE 1

Table 34--Changes in direct-marketing anticipated by farmers through 1985 by States and marketing methods, 1980 (To compare with 1979 survey, see table 2) 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 I/ 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.



PAGE 1

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 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 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 roads ides. 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.



PAGE 1

CONTENTS Page SU14M4RY........................ .. INTRODUCTION................... .. ..... ... .. .. ..... DIRECT-MARKETING METHODS .. .............. ..4 THE 1979 SURVEY .......................7 Comparison of Direct-Marketing Methods .. ..........8 Products Sold ......................8 Added and Avoided Costs .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 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. .. ....... .... .. .. .. .. ... Thel1979 Survey (Tables 1-32)o........ ........21 The 1980 Survey (Tables 33-61) .. ..................56 iv



PAGE 1

Table 4--Direct-marketing farmers, by marketing method, number of methods used, and State, 1979 (To compare with 1980 survey, see table 36) : 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 :Pct. : 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 :Pct. 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 Pct. : 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 Pct. 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 Pct. : 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 Pct. : 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 Pct. : 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 Pct. 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 :Pct. : 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 :Pct. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 I/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. 2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers or 100 percent because some farmers use more than one direct sales method. 3/ Includes catalogue and mail order, house-to-house delivery, and methods not elsewhere classified, such as truck tailgates on roadsides or parking lots.



PAGE 1

Table 54--Texas: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by distance to nearest city and nearest city with farmers' market, by marketing method, 1980 : PickRoad:Farmers' : Farm : Other : Total and Item : your:side :market :building 1!I : 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 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.



PAGE 1

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 especially 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. Use of Advertising 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 customers to attract potential customers. While "word of mouth" information conveyed by satisfied customers does not meet the classical definition of advertising (using public media--newspapers, 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 probably would not incur any direct advertising costs. 11



PAGE 1

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 .Mlaryland Southern of : Colorado and .New : New York Tennessee Wisconsin Weighted total farm .Delaware :England 2/ average sales : Direct; : Direct: : Direct: :Direct: :Direct: Direct: : Direct 1/ :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales Percent Under $2,500 :31.8 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 $2,500$9,999 :5.4 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 $10,000$19,999 :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 Subtotal :48.2 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 $20,000$39,999 :26.3 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 $40,000$99,999 :12.5 7.9 2.9 11.7 6.2 19.3 9.1 34.4 .7 11.0 16.0 22.0 9.3 23.3 $100,000$199,999 :11.1 7.8 7.8 17.7 6.3 21.1 4.9 16.1 .3 11.1 2.6 8.3 4.2 14.7 $200,000$499,999 .6 9.4 1.2 22.0 2.3 21.2 1.8 4.9 3.3 8.9 1.4 4.8 1.8 10.5 $500,000 and over :1.3 31.7 .4 6.3 .8 13.4 1.0 18.5 3/ 3.7 .3 29.0 1.0 19.1 Subtotal :51.8 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 Total :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. 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/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. 3Less than 0.05 percent.



PAGE 1

Table li--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:RoadFarmers': Farm Other Total or Item Unit : your:side :market :building: I/ :weighted : own :stand :*:average 2/ Farmers :No. :3,699 6,673 3,736 25,615 11,530 43,779 Added cost replies 2/ No. 2,329 4,210 3,530 10,128 6,492 26,719 Pct. : 63.0 63.1 94.5 .39.2 55.3 60.7 Added cost: Advertising :Pct. .63.4 54.4 8.1 32.9 34.1 31.4 Insurance Pct. : 31.8 28.3 3.0 25.6 17.6 18.2 Labor :Pct. 7.4 24.6 12.1 18.9 23.3 17.5 Maintenance :Pct. : 21.0 27.1 .7 24.2 11.5 16.4 Utilities Pct. 3.3 24.7 .8 14.1 15.4 12.2 Rent (stall rent) :Pct. : 1.5 2.7 72.8 5.5 1.4 12.4 Transportation :Pct. : 11.2 13.8 78.6 19.6 51.6 33.1 Containers :Pct. 29.5 49.4 51.0 37.3 33.4 34.5 Miscellaneous :Pct. 1.3 2.1 5.7 5.0 4.9 4.2 Avoided cost replies 2/ : No. : 2,873 5,626 2,534 21,011 7,409 39,456 :Pct. : 77.7 84.3 67.8 81.3 63.1 89.7 Avoided cost: Containers : Pct. : 64.1 46.4 38.6 28.0 33.3 31.3 Labor : Pct. : 79.3 36.6 37.1 34.0 31.2 33.5 Transportation : Pct. 89.0 84.4 34.9 81.0 50.0 67.8 Broker and commission : agents fees : Pct. 67.7 57.3 72.0 61.0 61.9 54.2 Storage : Pct. 54.2 37.0 48.1 24.7 30.3 26.9 Packinghouse facilities Pct. : 30.5 29.8 43.1 24.0 22.7 21.4 Miscellaneous :Pct. : .3 .4 .3 .1 0 .1 I/ 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



PAGE 1

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 directmarketers 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 pickyour-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-marketing methods. Characteristics of Almost three-fourths of the direct-marketing farmers in the Direct-Marketing nine States surveyed in 1979 had total farm sales of less than Farmers $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 directmarketing farmers in the nine States are similar to the size characteristics of all farmers in the United States. Full-Time and PartAlmost two-thirds of the direct-marketing farmers in the nine Time Farming States were part-time farmers with off-farm sources of income (table 29). The ratio of full-time and part-time direct-marketing 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 variation in the overall (nine-State total) ratios of fulland part-time farmers among direct-marketing methods; the percentage 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 fulland part-time farmers varied significantly among marketing methods both between and within States. Direct marketing was thus important to both fulland 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 associated with selling to conventional shipping points and wholesale buyers exceed prices paid by such buyers. Products Produced 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 poultry and vegetables; 15 to 18 percent produced fruits and nuts, 12



PAGE 1

Table 8--Southern New England: I/ Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product and marketing method, 1979 PickRoadFarmers' Farm Other Total Item : your:side market :building own stand Percent Fruits and nuts: Apples : 9.2 71.8 5.5 10.8 2.7 100.0 Strawberries : 68.1 31.0 2/ .9 0 100.0 Other berries 59.7 35.2 3-.5 .4 1.2 100.0 Peaches and nectarines : 1.2 87.7 2.6 8.5 2/ 100.0 Cherries : 0 0 0 0 06 0 Pears : 7.3 58.7 19.9 13.9 .2 100.0 Grapes : 34.9 59.6 0 0 5.5 100.0 Plums : 0 72.0 13.8 14.2 0 .0. Other : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Weighted average, fruit and nut sales : 18.4 65.9 4.8 9.0 1.9 100.0 Vegetables and melons: Sweet corn : .1 91.9 1.6 4.7 1.7 100.0 Tomatoes : 12.4 81.6 1.5 4.5 0 100.0 Melons : 0 98.3 1.4 .3 0 100.0 Potatoes : 6.8 81.8 .5 4.7 6.2 100.0 Green beans : 1.8 93.7 4.5 0 0 100.0 Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts : 0 94.0 2.6 3.4 0 100.0 Squash : .2 69.7 2.4 16.8 10.9 100.0 Peppers : 1.7 90.7 .4 7.2 0 100.0 Cucumbers : 1.4 91.4 1.8 5.4 0 100.0 Pumpkins : .8 83.7 1.2 3.6 10.7 100.0 Green peas : 1.1 98.9 0 0 0 100.0 Asparagus : NA NA NA NA NA NA Sweetpotatoes : NA NA NA NA NA NA other 0 95.3 1.0 3.7 0 100.0 Weighted average, total vegetable sales 3.6 87.7 1.6 5.0 2.1 100.0 Floral and nursery 1.1 34.7 .1 40.1 24.0 100.0 Other products: Livestock, poultry, and livestock and poultry products : 0 31.5 2.2 53.1 13.2 100.0 Processed fruit products : (cider, jelly, jam, etc.). 0 85.4 .2 13.9 .5 100.0 Christmas trees and forest products 10.0 9. 1 0 2.2 78.7 100.0 Honey and syrups : 0 37.5 1.0 48.4 13.1 100.0 Dairy products : 0 2/ 0 3.9 96.1 100.0 Other : 0 1.5 0 10.9 87.6 100.0 Weighted average, other product sales : 1.6 27.1 1.3 34.4 35.6 100.0 Weighted average, total direct sales, all products : 5.6 46.5 1.6 27.4 18.9 100.0 NA = Not applicable. I/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. 2Less than 0.05 percent. 31



PAGE 1

# United States Department of ae t Csumer Agriculture FarmertoConsumer Economic Research Service Direct Marketing Statistical Bulletin Nume 6Selected States, 1979-80 Number 681 Peter L. Henderson Harold R. Linstrom / UJ



PAGE 1

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) Squash Dol. 113, 114 178,491 8,814 416,415 24,207 742,041 Peppers Dol. 35, 693 401,177 7,161 44,283 9,011 497,325 Cucumbers Dol. 72,838 151,253 7,626 352,572 28,857 613,140 Pumpkins Dol. 144,366 359,392 10,986 232,561 2,003 749,308 Sweetpotatoes :Dol. 0 16,911 3,503 0 167,748 188,162 Lettuce :Dol. 9,718 7,572 993 629,297 696 648,276 Onions : Dol. : 29,160 37,600 500 112,805 5,890 185,955 Other :Dol. 142,013 207,839 137,765 573,591 113,774 1,174,982 Total vegetable sales Dol. :1,986,530 4,342,304 374,037 6,298,888 1,708,477 14,710,236 Average vegetable sales per farmer :Dol. 5,809 14,621 5,343 6,596 3,417 6,798 Ul Farmers selling vegetables No. 342 297 70 955 500 2,164 Floral and nursery: Total floral and nursery Dol. 7,013,526 13,312,351 3,774,144 7,898,270 3,654,381 35,652,672 Average floral and nursery sales per farmer: Dol. : 44,110 52,001 27,152 6,844 8,382 16,629 Farmers selling floral and nursery :No. :159 256 139 1,154 436 2,144 Other products: Livestock, poultry :Dol. :1,746,397 8,356,722 2,690,571 6,274,051 5,031,018 24,098,759 Processed fruit products :Dol. 144,944 814,025 144,068 342,284 748 1,446,069 Dried fruits :Dol. 328,701 0 0 0 0 328,701 Christmas trees and forest products :Dol. :3,211,547 1,261,233 62,592 900,607 80,721 5,516,700 honey and syrups :Dol. : 39,040 275,762 52,059 2,269,940 321,586 2,958,387 Dairy products :Dol. :1,242,354 70,849 58,501 1,235,874 74,946 2,682,524 Wine Dol. 1,232,467 0 0 0 0 1,232,467 Other :Dol. : 323,427 60,067 367,036 82,205 224,412 1,057,147 See footnote at end of table. continued--



PAGE 1

Table 15--New York: 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 ltem your: side : market building : weighted own : stand average Number Farmers 1/ 592 2,265 1,280 5,157 3,080 10,153 Percent Population of nearest city: Under 10,000 58.6 58.7 29.4 77.0 72.6 66.8 10,000-49,999 20.6 14.8 24.1 11.1 16.4 14.9 00 50,000-99, 999 3.8 1.8 1.8 5.9 .7 3.3 100,000-499,999 11.1 15.5 44.7 5.1 9.3 12.4 500,000 and over 5.9 9.2 0 .9 1.0 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 16.4 19.0 23.7 29.4 27.9 25.9 10,000-49,999 44.7 34.5 24.1 44.3 17.4 33.7 50,000-99,999 5.7 3.5 2.6 10.8 9.3 8.0 100,000-499,999 21.9 22.8 49.6 13.4 32.8 24.1 500,000 and over 11.3 20.2 0 2.1 12.6 8.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 I/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method.



PAGE 1

Table 33--Value of products sold directly to consumers by products and State, 1980 (To compare with 1979 survey, see table 1) Northern :Seven-State Item :Unit :California : Illinois Missouri :New England Texas : total 1/ (or average) Fruits and nuts: Apples :Dol. 993,058 4,166,142 1,076,358 4,789,171 73,972 11,098,701 Strawberries : Dol. : 578,045 896,501 390,366 2,131,688 23,637 4,020,237 Other berries : Dol. : 173,609 172,591 1,810 296,397 16,725 661,132 Peaches and nectarines : Dol. :1,058,251 9,764,808 627,389 119,746 1,772,516 13,342,710 Cherries : Dol. : 221,795 1,083 0 6,378 0 229,256 Pears : Dol. : 281,794 6,618 5,697 63,887 9,808 367,804 Plums : Dol. 112,242 14,342 18,386 13,215 34,015 192,200 Apricots : Dol. 322,048 2,190 0 35,440 26,242 385,920 Oranges :Dol. 254,361 0 0 0 344,132 598,493 Other citrus :Dol. : 147,510 0 0 0 89,724 237,234 Ul Nuts Dol. 287,176 0 117,611 0 4,350,665 4,755,452 Other fruit :Dol. : 107,624 5,211 24,712 697 1,940 140,184 Total fruit and nut sales :Dol. 4,537,513 15,029,486 2,262,329 7,456,619 6,743,376 36,029,323 Average fruit and nut sales per farmer : Dol. 2,391 23,391 11,542 6,766 5,700 7,176 Farmers selling fruits: and nuts No. : 1,898 642 196 1,102 1,183 5,021 Vegetables and melons: Sweet corn :Dol. : 405,036 1,318,793 10,188 1,327,546 41,716 3,103,279 Tomatoes :Dol. : 388,344 881,766 93,881 640,365 225,004 2,229,360 Melons :Dol. 390,542 382,601 63,981 132,329 989,753 1,959,206 Potatoes :Dol. 2,143 24,556 680 1,266,186 67,896 1,361,461 Green beans :Doi. : 233,757 218,599 15,912 325,509 22,721 816,498 Cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, brussels : sprouts Dol. 19,806 155,754 12,047 245,429. 8,207 441,243 See footnote at end of table. continued--



PAGE 1

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 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 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 7.4 500,00and over : 0 0 0 .1 0 .1 Total .100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 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 I/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method. 2/ Less than 0.05 percent.



PAGE 1

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) *Inter:Divided :U.S. or :Secondary: Unpaved :City : Total Item Farmers : state : highway : State :paved :road :street : 1/ *: highway ::highway :road Number---------------------------------Percent---------------State. California 2,880 3.6 3.4 2.9 84.0 4.1 5.9 103.9 Illinois 7,683 13.8 .6 2.8 33.5 47.0 12.7 110.4 Missouri 2,643 .7 1.1 2.9 69.2 4.2 23.7 101.8 Northern New England 4,003 5.7 8.7 26.6 27.8 9.4 21.8 100.0 Texas 3,577 9.1 15.5 16.3 35.7 26.8 10.4 113.8 0 Total and weighted average :20,786 8.4 5.2 9.7 44.3 24.9 14.5 107.0 Marketing method:: Pick-your-own :1,451 4.1 5.5 22.3 40.3 23.0 4.8 100.0 Roadside stand :1,955 2.6 25.7 34.3 24.9 1.7 10.8 100.0 Farmers' market: 1,696 3.6 21.5 16.1 33.0 .7 25.1 100.0 Farm building :15,921 8.4 2.3 6.9 46.1 29.4 6.9 100.0 Other :4,021 7.7 2.0 6.3 37.3 9.8 36.9 100.0 Total and weighted average :25,051 2/ 7.3 5.6 10.4 41.8 21.8 13.1 100.0 1/ Total may exceed 100 percent since some operations have access to more than one road type. 2/ Sum of farmers using various marketing methods exceeds total number of farmers selling diectly since some farmers used more than one method.



PAGE 1

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 2b.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.



PAGE 1

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 I/ : 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 00 ON 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 F 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 29 118.1 Other 778 60.0 55.5 1.4 1.2 Total and weighted average 3/ 480,641 55.8 48.0 1.4 2.6 107.8 I/ 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.



PAGE 1

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 21 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 _j10-19.9 .23.9 16.7 7.8 18.6 6.3 16.1 4-20 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 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.



PAGE 1

Table 41--Texas: Distribution of direct-marketing sales by product and marketing method, 1980 Pick: RoadFarmers' : Farm Other :Total Product your: side market building : 1/ 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 I/ 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. 66



PAGE 1

Table 19--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance to nearest city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, nine States, 1979 (To compare with 1980 survey, see table 49) Pick: Road:Farmers' :Farm :Other Total or Item your; side : market : building : weighted own :stand :average -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 1Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method.



PAGE 1

Table 38--Illinois: Distribution of direct-marketing sales by products and marketing method, 1980 : Pick: RoadFarmers' Farm : Other Total Product yourside : market building : I/ own : stand : Percent Fruits: Apples .33.7 45.6 1.3 19.4 0 100.0 Strawberries : 93.7 4.4 .3 1.5 .1 100.0 Other berries : 95.6 2.0 0 2.3 .1 100.0 Peaches and nectarines : .6 6.1 .1 93.2 0 100.0 Cherries .0 0 0 0 0 0 Pears .30.4 22.1 10.3 37.2 0 100.0 Grapes : 0 94.2 2.7 1.4 1.7 100.0 Plums .9.3 79.2 8.4 3.1 0 100.0 Nuts : 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other fruits and nuts : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Total fruits and nuts : 16.5 17.0 .4 66.1 2/ 100.0 Vegetables: Sweet corn .1.4 81.6 14.4 2.1 .5 100.0 Tomatoes .16.6 72.2 8.9 1.8 .5 100.0 Melons .0 91.4 4.4 4.1 .1 100.0 Potatoes .0 57.2 0 42.8 0 100.0 Green beans : 14.1 35.5 45.4 4.3 .7 100.0 Cabbage, broccoli, : 0 65.8 19.0 15.2 0 100.0 cauliflower, and brussels sprouts Squash .0 47.3 52.0 .7 0 100.0 Peppers : 38.4 54.9 6.7 0 0 100.0 Cucumbers .0 54.7 33.8 5.7 5.8 100.0 Green peas .0 0 100.0 0 0 100.0 Asparagus .0 99.4 0 .6 0 100.0 Sweetpotatoes : 0 36.4 63.6 0 0 100.0 Lettuce .0 0 100.0 0 0 100.0 Okra .0 0 100.0 0 0 100.0 Onions .0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0 Other vegetables 44.1 51.2 .8 3.9 0 100.0 Total vegetables : 10.9 74.4 11.7 2.5 .5 100.0 Floral, nursery, and bedding plants : 2/ 67.6 0.6 13.6 18.2 100.0 Other products: Livestock, poultry, and products : 0 .1 0 93.8 6.1 100.0 Processed fruits : 0 75.3 1.2 22.7 .8 100.0 Christmas trees and forest products : 44.6 2.1 0 23.0 30.3 100.0 Honey and syrup : 0 7.9 12.2 68.8 11.1 100.0 Dairy : 0 0 0 100.0 0 100.0 Other products : 2.2 3.3 5.8 85.0 3.7 100.0 Total other products : 5.1 6.1 .5 79.8 8.5 100.0 Total, all products : 8.0 34.5 1.4 48.2 7.9 100.0 I/ 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. 63



PAGE 1

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 California Illinois Missouri :Northern New Texas : Weighted of total _________ __England 2/ .average farm sales 1/ Direct: Direct: Direct: : Direct: Direct: : Direct :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales :Farmers: sales ;Farmers: sales ;Farmers; sales .Farmers: sales Percent Under $2,500 :6.6 1.2 10.9 1.2 20.6 5.9 30.8 4.7 35.2 7.9 19.6 3.4 $2,500-$9,999 : 64.0 7.8 20.9 7.8 22.3 6.6 25.9 7.8 33.3 17.8 30.1 9.1 $10,000-$19,999 : 3.4 4.6 15.0 2.5 2.1 3.6 10.1 6.6 10.4 3.0 10.0 4.1 Subtotal : 74.0 13.6 46.8 11.5 45.0 16.1 66.8 19.1 78.9 28.7 59.7 16.6 N~$20,000-$39,999 :7.2 7.1 10.2 2.8 48.4 28.2 11.2 10.6 6.7 12.9 14.2 9.0 $40,000-$99,999 :8.4 15.3 23.5 17.8 3.8 17.0 10.7 14.1 1.7 4.7 12.7 14.5 $100,000-$199,999 : 6.8 19.9 18.4 37.9 2.2 28.9 3.7 14.0 7.1 29.8 10.0 26.7 $200,000 and over : 3.6 44.1 1.1 30.0 .6 9.8 7.6 42.2 5.6 23.9 3.4 33.2 Subtotal :26.0 86.4 53.2 88.5 55.0 83.9 33.2 80.9 21.1 71.3 40.3 83.4 Total :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.



PAGE 1

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) :Northern Weighted Product :California: Illinois Missouri : New :Texas :average :England 1/: Percent Fruits: Apples : 18 36 27 16 100 21 Apricots : 8 NA NA 8 100 9 Strawberries : 18 100 97 44 100 44 Other berries : 26 99 70 55 96 48 Peaches and nectarines 8 92 27 93 62 41 Cherries : 43 NA NA 100 NA 44 Pears : 7 100 100 79 91 9 Plums : 12 100 100 77 93 19 Oranges 31 NA NA NA 26 28 Other citrus : 14 NA NA NA 10 12 Nuts 13 NA NA NA 32 30 Other fruits : 1 100 21 100 NA 2 Weighted average 10 64 31 17 32 29 Vegetables: Sweet corn : 62 45 70 55 94 50 Tomatoes : 3 72 87 79 60 13 Melons : 20 58 76 62 41 38 Potatoes : 77 1 100 11 65 8 Green beans : 91 69 99 28 24 68 Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, and brussels sprouts : 2/ 20 2 12 2/ 8 Squash S 2 86 92 73 To 55 Peppers : 20 94 100 69 88 62 Cucumbers 3 27 100 75 13 16 Pumpkins : 81 59 53 83 NA 66 Sweetpotatoes : NA 100 50 NA 41 43 Lettuce : 2/ 100 10 84 NA 6 Onions : NA 100 NA NA 76 83 Other vegetables : 9 64 84 80 56 39 Weighted average : 9 40 36 30 41 25 Floral and nursery : 29 55 35 17 99 32 Other products: Livestock, poultry, : 11 95 92 18 11 24 and products Christmas trees and forest products : 34 81 91 17 97 35 Honey and syrups : 40 44 18 43 13 25 Processed fruits : 52 88 95 49 35 69 Dried fruits : 11 NA NA NA NA 11 Dairy 1 1/ 47 17 1/ 3 Wine : 26 NA NA NA 3A 26 Other : 10 12 40 47 18 20 Weighted average : 5 23 75 21 3 9 Weighted average, all products : 9 41 41 20 8 17 NA =Not applicable or none reported. I/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. 2/ Less than 0.05 percent. 60



PAGE 1

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) *PickRoadFarmers': 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 :Pct. : 64.6 83.3 56.2 67.6 64.3 64.0 Added cost: 3/ Advertising :Pct. : 64.4 65.7 22.4 28.4 12.0 34.7 Insurance PC Pt. : 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 :Pct. : 23.8 22.6 3.0 16.1 5.3 18.2 Utilities :Pct. : 8.9 42.8 16.9 13.2 22.1 21.5 Rent (stall rent) :Pct. : 2.1 3.1 91.5 10.8 8.0 16.1 Transportation Pct. : 6.2 17.6 70.8 22.4 60.9 37.0 Containers :Pct. : 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 :Pct. : 51.4 42.6 46.2 20.3 23.8 25.9 Labor :Pct. : 75.8 31.1 59.0 26.1 16.5 33.3 Transportation :Pct. : 88.5 79.6 21.5 76.0 35.1 76.4 Broker and commission agents' fees 3/ Pct. : 65.4 87/.5 98.6 57.7 88.5 68.9 Storage :Pct. : 42.7 42.0 67.1 23.4 54.6 32.7 Workers' compensation :Pct. : .8 .9 .3 .1 .3 .3 Equipment :Pct. : 24.0 50.6 76.6 33.2 43.4 38.9 1/ Includes catalogue, mail order, house-to-house delivery, and methods not elsewhere classified. 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



PAGE 1

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) S:Maryland Southern : NineProduct 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 i00 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--



PAGE 1

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, strawberries, 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 responding 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 consumers 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 raspberries). 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 depends 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, specialized 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 magnitude 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



PAGE 1

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 : 1 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 00 Total and U't 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. 3Less than 0.05 percent. 4Sum of farmers for methods exceeds total number of farmers selling directly to consumers since some farmers used more than one direct method of sales.



PAGE 1

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 produced 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 nonf arm sources. For example, field crops are inputs for other products or require further processing for human consumption; 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 livestock, 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 livestock 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 consumers. Live poultry sales are also limited by the availability 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 classified 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 distributors. Therefore, due to capital requirements for facilities and equipment, and economies of scale associated with processing 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-marketing 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, approximately $41 million each (table 1). 13



PAGE 1

United States Department of Agriculture POSTAGE AND EWS PAID Washington, D.C. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 20250 AGR101 OFFICIAL BUSINESS THIRD LASSBULK RATE Penalty for Private Use, $300 9872 HDF&REUOFA122 18045 0001! HEAD DEPT FOOD & RESOURCE EC-. ON UNIV OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE FL 32611 Economic Research Service The Economic Research Service carries out research on the production and marketing of major agricultural commodities; foreign agriculture and trade; economic use, conservation, and development of natural resources; trends in rural population, employment, and housing; rural economi&cadjustment problems; and performance of the U.S. agricultural industry. ERS provides objective and timely economic information to farmers, farm organization members, farm suppliers, marketers, processors, consumers, and others who make production, marketing, and purchasing decisions, and to legislators and other pu-blic Qfficialsat the Federal, State, and local government levels.



PAGE 1

Table 37--California: Distribution of direct-marketing sales by product and marketing method, 1980 Pick: Road:Farmers' Farm : Other Total Product yourside market building I/ own stand Percent Fruits and nuts: Apples .5.2 28.2 16.2 50.3 .1 100.0 Strawberries : 12.7 29.2 .3 57.8 0 100.0 Other berries : 61.5 .9 2.5 35.1 0 100.0 Peaches and nectarines : 14.3 30.1 11.9 31.1 12.6 100.0 Cherries : 38.1 33.0 15.5 13.4 0 100.0 Pears .35,.3 22.8 7.1 28.7 6.1 100.0 Grapes .13.8 20.6 19.7 45.9 0 100.0 Plums .14.5 33.2 11.8 26.8 13.7 100.0 Apricots .27.5 26.0 13.0 33.3 .1 100.0 Oranges .2.1 58.6 20.9 7.8 10.6 100.0 Other citrus : 2.1 39.9 4.9 52.9 .2 100.0 Nuts .1.0 18.3 11.6 53.7 15.4 100.0 Other fruits and nuts 1.2 35.5 22.9 32.0 8.4 100.0 Total fruits and nuts : 15.4 29.0 11.3 39.2 5.1 100.0 Vegetables and melons: Sweet corn ..1 71.5 22.7 5.7 0 100.0 Tomatoes .16.2 62.0 13.5 8.3 0 100.0 Melons ..4 50.7 23.7 25.5 .3 100.0 Potatoes (white) : 6.6 0 80.8 12.6 0 100.0 Green beans : 87.4 6.4 5.8 .4 0 100.0 Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, and brussels sprouts : 3.2 18.0 57.6 1.8 19.4 100.0 Squash ..5 55.7 27.2 13.5 3.1 100.0 Peppers .5.0 53.4 26.9 14.7 0 100.0 Cucumbers : .3 29.8 42.1 27.8 0 100.0 Pumpkins 42.9 24.7 3.4 27.3 1.7 100.0 Green peas .0 0 0 0 0 0 Asparagus .0 0 100.0 0 0 100.0 Sweetpotatoes : 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lettuce .0 59.2 2.6 6.0 22.2 100.0 Okra .12.5 83.7 2.8 1.0 0 100.0 Onions .0 82.3 10.2 7.5 0 100.0 Other vegetables : 37.2 .8 50.7 11.3 0 100.0 Total vegetables : 19.1 51.1 17.9 11.5 .4 100.0 Floral, nursery, and bedding plants : 0 2.8 2.3 71.8 23.1 100.0 Other products: Livestock, poultry, and products : 0 0 3.2 70.4 26.4 100.0 Processed fruits : 0 35.4 .4 64.2 0 100.0 Dried fruits : 0 47.2 1.4 9.8 41.6 100.0 Christmas trees and forest products : 62.8 8.8 0 23.3 5.6 100.0 Honey and syrup : 0 7.0 7.6 85.4 0 100.0 Dairy products : 0 3.1 0 1.0 95.9 100.0 Wine .0 22.3 0 44.6 33.1 100.0 other products : .3 54.9 .2 36.7 7.9 100.0 Total other products : 24.4 11.9 .8 33.6 29.3 100.0 Total, all products : 14.0 15.2 4.7 45.9 20.2 100.0 I/ 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. 62



PAGE 1

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: RoadFarmers? : 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 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 roads ides. 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.



PAGE 1

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 41Wisconsin :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.



PAGE 1

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 I/ Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. f/ 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 r oad sides. I/ 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.



PAGE 1

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. Results contained in this report are based on surveys of approximately 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 extent of direct marketing as required by the act. There are both economic advantages and disadvantages in farmerto-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. Specifically, 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.



PAGE 1

Sales through other methods of direct marketing (house-tohouse 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 selling, and the degree of integration in some of the farming operations. For example, in some floral and nursery operations, 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. Added and Avoided Each method of marketing has its own inherent costs. In choosCosts 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 incurred 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 inconsistencies 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 supervision, crowd control, and sales. Container costs avoided were largely packing crates or shipping containers, but additional 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



PAGE 1

Table 32--Reasons given by farmers for not selling directly to consumers, by State and products produced, 1979 (To compare with 1980 survey, see table 61) Item Farmers -.Commodity :Too much :Volume too: Other Total I/ :produced : trouble large Number--------------------------Percent-----------------------State: Colorado : 16,085 72.3 29.2 21.1 3.2 125.8 Maryland and Delaware : 11,664 66.9 25.5 12.8 20.7 125.9 New York : 32,001 56.5 29.7 17.2 15.7 119.1 Southern New England 2/ : 4,682 53.3 33.4 .23.6 7.8 118.1 Tennessee : 93,870 86.4 17.3 5.5 3.3 112.5 Wisconsin : 75,736 69.5 40.2 15.0 4.7 129.4 Total and weighted U-1 U1 average :234,038 74.3 .28.0 12.0 6.4 120.7 Products produced: Field crops :136,631 79.5 26.8 11.7 4.6 122.6 Vegetables : 11,'442 43.8 31.5 23.0 21.4 119.7 Fruits and nuts : 4,251 30.3 31.2 36.5 15.8 113.8 Livestock :164,405 74.9 32.0 11.9 5.0 123.8 Poultry : 18,722 56.8 36.3 5.8 21.8 120.7 Dairy : 63,930 71.0 35.9 22.9 1.6 131.4 Nursery and greenhouse : 2,598 41.3 40.6 21.1 11.8 114.8 Other 3,680 55.1 28.7 12.7 17.0 113.5 Total and weighted average :234,038 74.3 28.0 12.0 6.4 120.7 1/ Sum of farmers and percentage may exceed total number of farmers and 100 percent because some farmers produce more than one product and gave more than one reason for not selling directly to consumers. 2/ Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.



PAGE 1

Table 23--Southern New England: I/ 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 I/ 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.



PAGE 1

The most popular method of direct selling was also the same for the two groups of States: Selling from a farm building (salesroom 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 population 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 consumers 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."



PAGE 1

Table 1--Value of products sold directly to consumers, by product and State, 1979 1/--continued Maryland :Southern ..Nine-State Item Unit Colorado and :New York New Tennessee Wisconsin total Delaware : England ..(or aver2/ ___ 3/ -..age) Total direct sales :Dol. 20,515,758 24,021,991 86,353,285 58,077,982 9,724,522 61,092,919 259,786,457 Farmers selling direct :No. 1,978 4,677 10,153 5,084 6,784 15,103 43,779 Average sales per farmer selling direct Dol. 10,372 5,136 8,505 11,424 1,433 4,045 5,934 Total number of farmers in State No. 26,300 19,200 45,000 9,390 94,000 95,000 288,890 Farmers selling direct No. 1,978 4,677 10,153 5,084 6,784 15,103 43,779 Pct. 7.5 24.2 22.6 54.1 7.2 15.9 15.2 Percent of cash receipts derived from direct marketing Pct. .6 1.9 3.9 10.7 .5 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.



PAGE 1

Table 7--New York: Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product and marketing method, 1979 Pick:Road:Farmers' Farm :Other :Total Item : your:side :market :building own :stand : Percent Fruits and-nuts: Apples : 15.3 76.3 3.2 4.0 1.2 100.0 Strawberries : 78.1 15.2 1.0 5.4 .3 100.0 Other berries : 84.4 12.8 2.8 0 0 100.0 Peaches and nectarines : 7.6 82.1 1.7 8.5 .1 100.0 Cherries : 56.1 7.7 11.9 21.4 2.9 100.0 Pears : 8.3 85.3 4.8 1.5 .1 100.0 Grapes : 7.2 88.9 0 1.6 2.3 100.0 Plums : 15.5 84.5 0 0 0 100.0 Other .NA NA NA NA NA NA Weighted average, fruit and nut sales : 31.0 61.1 2.7 4.3 .9 100.0 Vegetables and melons: Sweet corn : 16.6 66.9 5.5 9.9 1.1 100.0 Tomatoes : 12.2 73.6 5.7 8.0 .5 100.0 Melons .0 10.7 89.3 0 0 100.0 Potatoes ..1 5.9 52.2 41.8 0 100.0 Green beans .0 86.1 13.9 0 0 100.0 Cabbage, broccoli, eauliflower, brussels sprouts : 4.1 71.9 9.0 10.7 4.3 100.0 Squash : 0 78.7 12.5 8.8 0 100.0 Peppers : 32.2 37.6 2.5 27.7 0 100.0 Cucumbers ..3 56.2 20.8 22.7 0 100.0 Pumpkins : 0 98.2 .5 1.3 0 100.0 Green peas : 25.6 0 62.1 12.3 0 100.0 Asparagus .0 24.0 61.0 0 15.0 100.0 Sweetpotatoes : NA NA NA NA NA NA Other .0 1.2 32.0 66.2 .6 100.0 Weighted average, total vegetable sales : 6.5 54.4 20.3 18.4 .5 100.0 Floral and nursery : 1/ 30.3 1.7 24.7 43.3 100.0 Other products: Livestock, poultry, and livestock and poultry products : 0 0.2 0 48.3 51.5 100.0 Processed fruit products : (cider, jelly, jam, etc.): 0 31.4 1.5 1.9 65.2 100.0 Christmas trees and forest products : 9.1 3.7 5.5 59.2 22.5 100.0 Honey and syrups : 0 9.3 1.1 76.8 12.8 100.0 Dairy products : 0 0 0 1.7 98.3 100.0 Other 0 0 .4 98.7 .9 100.0 Weighted average, other product sales : .1 1.3 .3 54.2 44.1 100.0 Weighted average, total direct sales, all products : 6.7 28.5 5.7 29.2 29.9 100.0 NA = Not applicable. I/ Less than 0.05 percent. 30



PAGE 1

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 Farmers 43,999 36,919 9,644 9,956 2,475 4,293 34,637 1,276 7,080 Number--------------------------------Percent -------------------------------------State: Colorado 1,978 81.7 28.0 28.4 3.6 3.6 84.2 33.7 18.3 Maryland and Delaware :4,677 77.2 21.2 17.2 4.8 7.4 80.9 3.2 22.8 New York :10,153 85.6 26.2 36.8 9.2 17.9 73.9 .3 14.4 U1 Southern New England 2/ : 5,084 86.4 35.5 36.3 4.0 12.2 77.9 3.1 13.6 0 Tennessee : 6,784 80.6 11.6 22.0 1.0 .4 75.7 3.7 19.4 Wisconsin : 15,103 85.0 17.4 10.0 5.0 8.6 81.9 .1 15.0 Total and weighted average 43,779 83.6 21.9 22.6 5.6 9.8 78.7 2.9 16.4 Marketing method: Pick-your-own 3,699 90.7 48.1 41.0 6.6 17.6 73.1 1.3 9.3 Roadside stand :6,673 83.3 29.0 53.7 10.2 16.7 64.9 1.8 16.7 Farmers' market :3,736 61.4 10.0 9.3 6.8 7.5 52.9 .1 38.6 Farm building :25,615 85.4 16.9 15.2 4.8 8.1 80.2 2.9 14.6 Other :11,530 86.2 22.4 15.6 2.2 8.5 77.5 4.2 13.8 Total and weighted average :43,779 83.6 21.4 21.7 5.2 9.9 75.1 2.7 16.4 I/ Sum may exceed numberL 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.



PAGE 1

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, and Rhode Island. 2/ Total percentage is greater than 100 because some farmers produce products in more than one category.



PAGE 1

Table 59--Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by product and State, 1980 (To compare with 1979 survey, see table 30) Northern .Total and Item California : Illinois : Missouri :New England Texas :weighted average Number Farmers : 2,880 7,683 2,643 4,003 3,577 20,786 Percent 00 Product: .1 Field crops 8.8 63.3 69.0 1.9 20.9 37.9 Vegetables : 12.2 4.1 2.8 26.3 22.3 12.3 Fruits and vegetables 70.8 8.8 7.5 30.1 33.6 25.5 Livestock : 15.5 59.7 74.7 35.0 58.1 50.7 Poultry 5.6 18.2 46.2 3.5 24.2 18.5 Dairy ..3 22.4 .6 2.3 1.8 9.3 Floral and nursery : 5.6 3.3 5.3 31.7 12.3 10.6 Others 2/ : 11.8 22.4 35.6 22.3 6.1 19.9 Total 3/ 130.6 202.2 241.7 153.1 179.3 184.7 I/ 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.