• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Historic note
 The problem and research proce...
 Alternative markets in the...
 Cooperative assembly
 A concluding concern
 Literature cited






Title: Vegetable marketing and production in Columbia, Suwannee, Hamilton and Madison counties
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072241/00001
 Material Information
Title: Vegetable marketing and production in Columbia, Suwannee, Hamilton and Madison counties
Physical Description: p. 111-115 : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Fuller, Albert
Andrew, Chris O
University of Florida -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Publisher: University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1976
 Subjects
Subject: Vegetables -- Marketing -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: United States -- Florida
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p.115).
Statement of Responsibility: by Albert Fuller and Chris O. Andrew.
General Note: Reprinted from: Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society, v.89, p.111-115, (1976).
General Note: "Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations Journal Series, no. 265."
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00072241
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 76881535

Table of Contents
    Historic note
        Page 110
    The problem and research procedure
        Page 111
    Alternative markets in the area
        Page 112
        Page 113
    Cooperative assembly
        Page 114
    A concluding concern
        Page 114
    Literature cited
        Page 115
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


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

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida













































Reprinted from Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 89:111-115, 1976.

VEGETABLE MARKETING AND PRODUCTION IN COLUMBIA,
SUWANNEE, HAMILTON AND MADISON COUNTIES


ALBERT FULLER AND CHRIs O. ANDREW
IFAS Food and Resource Economics Department,
University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL 32611

Abstract. Vegetables presently produced in Columbia,
Suwannee, Hamilton and Madison counties in North Florida
are not economically competitive with supplies from other
areas. Farmers can produce enough vegetables during the
present growing periods for the area to be self sufficient,
yet most of the vegetables sold in the area come from ex-
ternal supplies. Local farmers transport their vegetables out
of the area to terminal and farmers markets. Some of these
vegetables are in turn purchased by external suppliers and
flow back into the four county area for final consumption.
Without local assembly vegetable growers must look
primarily to outside markets. In these markets numerous and
varied growing areas are represented causing intense price
competition coupled with higher marketing costs due to
location. These conditions reduce the economic viability of
commercial vegetable production in the four county area.

Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations Journal Series No. 265.
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 89: 1976.


The feasibility of increasing production of vegetables in
North Florida is dependent upon both production costs and
the ability to encourage a more efficient fresh vegetable
market system for the area from the farmers standpoint.
Cooperative packing and marketing may be one alternative
to improving vegetable marketing in the area. Detailed feasi-
bility research would be necessary to determine the neces-
sary scale conditions to make such a venture viable.

The Problem and Research Procedure
The areas of North and West Florida are generally less
well developed economically than the rest of the state.
Tourist business tends to by-pass these areas in favor of
South Florida. Major industrial areas are too far from the
study area (Columbia, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison and
Suwannee counties) to provide residents with industrial em-
ployment.
Income levels are of particular concern. According to
the Bureau of Census definition of poverty, 13% of the
families in Florida are below poverty level compared to 27 %
in the study area (5). Nearly 75% of the population in the
five county area is rural with a heavy economic dependence
on agriculture. In general, there has been a decline in agri-
111






cultural production in the target area, yielding substantially
lower revenues when compared to the rest of the state. Be-
tween 1960 and 1970 the cropland harvested in Florida in-
creased by 19% while it decreased in the target area by 29%
(5).
Tobacco is grown in large quantities in all of the five
counties. Many tobacco producers are decreasing tobacco
acreage and some are halting all production. This is pri-
marily due to unfavorable market and price conditions, re-
source availability and increasing resource costs. The quality
and availability of labor has declined sharply to aggravate
the cost situation. Many growers have considered mechanical
croppers as an alternative to cope with the labor problem,
however, the high costs of mechanization have further dis-
couraged growers and contributed to production declines
(1, 3, 4, 6, 7).
Intensive vegetable production has been proposed as a
means of improving rural employment and supplementing
farm income. Yet, according to the county agents for the
five counties, the decline in vegetable acreage is due to un-
certain marketing conditions and the indefinite growing
schedules available to farmers.
The results given in this paper are preliminary and based
on surveys administered through personal interviews with
area farmers, and retail store managers. For the farm survey
a random sample of 50 farmers was taken from a population
of approximately 150 vegetable farmers who grow one acre
or more of vegetables. The total population of 38 retail
stores selling significant quantities of vegetables was sur-
veyed. Both surveys were stratified by county and the re-
tailers were further divided into sub-strata according to
outlet type. Information was also gathered from interviews
with county agents and various market participants.
The market feasibility for expanded vegetable produc-
tion in the area was the principle objective of this research.
The vegetables studied are: 1. Beans (snap, pole, butter),
2. Southern peas, 3. Okra, 4. Eggplant, 5. Greens (collards,
mustard, turnip), 6. Cabbage, 6. Bell peppers, 8. Tomatoes,
9. Cucumbers, 10. Squash (yellow), 11. Potatoes (Sweet,
Irish) and 12. Onions.
Vegetable production is a relatively insignificant portion
of total agricultural production in the area. Even vegetable
farmers usually do not rely on vegetables as a major income
source. Of the 150 farmers in the five counties producing
vegetables on plots of one acre or more, less than 20% have
more than 10 acres and less than 5% exceed 50 acres. Vege-
tables usually represent a small income supplement and less
than 15% of the farms interviewed rely on vegetables as a
major source of income.

Alternative Markets in the Area
The more common area markets for locally grown vege-
tables are: neighborhood independent grocers, larger inde-
pendents, coop chains, local farmers' curb markets and
grocery chains. To a lesser extent a small quantity of vege-
tables are sold through peddling, roadside and home vege-
table stands, "pick your own" and wholesalers. Non-local
sales usually involve transport to state farmers markets in
Thomasville, Atlanta, Macon, and Valdosta, Georgia and
Jacksonville and Tampa, Florida.

Neighborhood Independent Grocers
For growers of fresh vegetables, neighborhood inde-
pendent grocers are usually accessible with more ease than
other outlets because their structure enhances direct market
coordination. These stores are not part of a rigid manage-
ment and supply structure. One level of management domi-
nates with the owner-manager free to make independent
112


decisions relative to vegetable purchases. This flexibility
provides an opportunity to purchase from either local or
non-local sources where price, quality and quantity best
meet the independent needs.
Locally grown produce is generally perceived to be fresh.
Seventy percent of the independent store owners felt their
customers prefer locally grown produce while only 7 % said
wholesale vegetables were preferred (23 % thought they were
equally preferred, see Table 1). A few independent store
owners accept poor quality at normal prices because local
suppliers are often regular store customers. Some trading is
also by barter and by credit arrangements.


Table 1. Desirability of
according to retailers.


farm vs. wholesale fresh vegetable supplies


Measure or Level of Desirability
Desirability Local Equal Wholesale

---... .. --- percent ..-..... ...-- ---
Shelf Life 40 55 5
Freshness 86 14 0
Maturity 67 29 4
Cleanliness 24 52 24
Uniformity of Shape
or Size 19 38 43
Overall Appearance 33 62 5
Overall Quality 52 43 5
Consumer Preference 70 23 7
Average of all Measures 49 40 11

Even though fresh vegetables from local farms might be
most desirable, no stores rely solely on farmers for their
vegetable supplies. At present the farmers are unable to
offer a constant supply and complete variety of produce on
a year round basis. For this reason approximately 90% of
the smaller independent stores purchase more than 80% of
their produce from wholesale distributors on a regular basis.
Most of the independents try to buy as much as they can
from local farmers without destroying relations with their
wholesaler. Some stores, however, buy all the good quality
produce they can handle from farmers and fill in with direct
purchases from a state farmers market which can be more
costly and time consuming.
Some independent stores are also serviced by cooperative
grocers. These stores tend to rely as heavily upon the coop
as possible and buy only the more perishable items from
farmers such as greens and peas, as well as items to cover
shortages between orders.

Rural Independent Grocers
Rural independent stores usually do not sell fresh vege-
tables except for those vegetables not grown in the area.
Because most rural residents have home gardens, commercial
demand for vegetables is limited in rural areas. Those who
do not garden obtain most of their vegetables from neigh-
bors, usually without charge. Excess rural supplies of vege-
tables are carried into slack periods through canning and
freezer storage. All of the 36 rural stores in the area were
contacted and only one sold a significant quantity of vege-
tables.

Large Independent Grocers
Larger independent stores are similar in many ways to
the neighborhood independent stores. Two levels or more
of management predominate but the produce manager is
generally free to make purchases at his discretion. Produce
managers are, however, accountable for buying mistakes so
they generally purchase from established and reliable farm-
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 89: 1976.






ers. Farmers who deliver good quality on a regular basis
during the season are desired. Individual farm sales to large
independents usually are neither so closely linked on a
regular basis nor given as much personal consideration as
with smaller independents.
Large independents must also deal with a wholesale
supplier because farmers can not offer the quantity necessary
in a constant supply and complete variety. However, unlike
the smaller store, they are able to buy a larger portion of
their total supply from farmers because of their size. This
size characteristic permits large independents to maintain
good relations with the wholesale distributor while also
purchasing larger quantities locally.

Cooperative Chain Grocery Stores
The coop chains behave almost identically to the smaller
independents who buy through cooperative wholesale gro-
cery outlets. They try to use the services rendered by the
coop to the fullest extent possible because the members
benefit from the cooperative profits. Discounts for volume
per delivery are an advantage to further encourage par-
ticipation in cooperatives. The larger coop chain stores,
because of their volume, take advantage of direct price con-
cessions that are given to individual stores for surpassing a
set minimum order for any particular delivery.
Cooperatives also differ from the small independents in
that they have more than one level of management and per-
sonnel are accountable for bad purchase practices. They also
differ in that purchases from farmers are in larger volume
because of store size.

Grocery Chains
The grocery chain retailers are somewhat similar to the
cooperative chains but display the most rigid structure of
all. Because they are owned by the chain stores they are
compelled to use all of the resources of the chain before
buying from farmers. Chains are able to take advantage of
economies of volume in buying and thus commit their stores
to selling the amount ordered in advance. Even when a
store can buy local produce at a substantial savings but fails
to use the amount the chain purchased for that store, the
chain incurs a net loss. The grocery chains are also similar
to the coop chains in that they primarily buy the highly
perishable and specialty items that their warehouse does
not supply. They are important to local vegetable produc-
tion because their size permits them to buy those items on
a larger scale than the small independents.

Farmers' Curb Markets
Curb markets for local farm produce are very different
from other vegetable retail outlets. The curb market con-
sists of a group of farmers individually selling directly to
consumers. The selling units (the individual farmers) are
supposed to be independent or competitive. However, the
market manager, in some cases, reduces internal price com-
petition by setting price at a level that he thinks will make
the market as a whole competitive with other local outlets.
Curb markets have also been helpful to some of the
larger gardeners by enabling them to sell their home surplus.
But the market generally does not draw sufficient consumer
clientel to attract large vegetable farmers who are concerned
with the risk of loss due to high volume perishability prob-
lems. A vicious circle emerges wherein larger numbers of
consumers are not attracted to curb markets because the
market lacks volume and variety.
Many of the retailers have expressed strong discontent
with farmers for participating in curb markets. They dislike
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 89: 1976.


the idea of buying from the farmer who also sells to retail
customers at approximately the same price.

Outlet Comparisons
In comparing the common outlets for locally grown fresh
vegetables, the larger independent grocers are probably the
most ideal. The average large independent purchases at
least 23% of his vegetables from farmers during the vege-
table season and represents the largest volume outlet for
farmers. The structure of large independents enhances their
ability to buy large volumes from farmers. Size and volume
enable large independents to seek a smaller profit margin
than is possible for smaller independents. This enables
large independents to sell at reduced prices to stimulate
higher volume sales.
However ideal, no one particular type of retail outlet
can handle a volume large enough for total local produc-
tion. Farmers must look to all of the available outlets for
ways of increasing quantities sold. This will require the
competitive position of local vegetables be increased rela-
tive to non-local supplies.
The primary factors (identified in the survey of re-
tailers) necessary to encourage some shift in buying to local
farmers are: uniform quality (i.e. grading), constant supply,
greater variety, and preprocessing. The first two factors were
of greatest importance to the respondents (Fig. 1). There
was concern for the farmers' ability to achieve the first three
performance criteria and still maintain prices competitive
with those of wholesalers. Approximately 14% of the re-
spondents said they already bought local vegetables over
non-local supplies.


12


10
c
0
8

CO

a,.
4

2


37%


28%


F7


16%


16%

\3%


Fig. 1. Retailers evaluation of the importance of factors affecting the
competitive position of local vegetables with respect to wholesale sup-
plies.


I


' '






Cooperative Assembly
Through extending and staggering the present growing
periods along with cooperative local assembly and handling,
the vegetable producers in the area might achieve many of
the necessary changes to become competitive with non-local
supplies. Local assembly would not necessarily compete
with present retail outlets but rather compete with non-
local supplies in an effort to encourage the use of local vege-
tables. Through cooperative action local farmers might
achieve scale economies in vegetable handling. Due to the
elimination of dual transportation costs to and from the
outside markets and other costs associated with additional
handling in outside markets, local farmers would be better
prepared to compete on a price basis with non-local sup-
plies.
Local cooperatively owned packing sheds might ac-
complish the majority of the conditions necessary to achieve
a better competitive position for local vegetables. The pack-
ing shed could be a central assembly point where member
farmers could assemble vegetables for sale to local clientel.
Storage and pre-processing facilities could be provided if
membership and volume prove sufficient to provide the
necessary scale economies. The assembly effort might not
compete with present sellers but could permit them to pur-
chase local vegetables. Interest in cooperative fresh vegetable
marketing was assessed in the farm survey. Of the farmers
interviewed, 68% expressed an interest in cooperating and
would contribute money to support a workable assembly
effort. The majority of the other 32% expressed serious
doubts in the ability of local farmers to cooperate in such
an effort.
There is one example of a relatively successful small
scale assembly and packing operation within the area. Three
farmers and their families are participating in the effort.
They have a washing, grading and packing operation and
are also considering storage facilities. They currently handle;
squash (butternut and straight neck), bell pepper, eggplant
and sweet potatoes. These farmers are staggering their grow-
ing schedules to provide a more stable flow of vegetables
and allow the operation to accommodate each growers pro-
duce.
This assembly effort could cope with other factors neces-
sary to sell to local stores if they were interested in selling
locally. They are more interested in selling in larger vol-
umes to the surrounding farmers markets in Thomasville,
Jacksonville and Tampa. They have however, contracted
with one of the local chain stores to sell at least one third
of their total 40 acre sweet potato crop. Another buyer has
agreed to buy most of the remainder. The group also co-
operates in hauling and is considering processing and pack-
ing neighboring farmers vegetables at a modest fee.
This cooperative effort could possibly be the optimum
size and type of operation required for success. It is small
enough to not require rigid coordination yet the farmers
can afford the necessary facilities for operation. Further
research, however, in cooperative local assembly is needed


since there are few examples to base scale and total feasibil-
ity upon.
A problem could emerge with a cooperative effort be-
cause it would require carefully trained leadership and a
strong willingness to cooperate by numerous growers. At
present vegetables are a relatively unimportant portion of
county income in the target area. Thus, given the heavy
emphasis on other commodities, the necessary technical as-
sistance might not be available for such an effort within
these counties.

A Concluding Concern
Given the optimistic idea of an organized assembly ef-
fort with good patronage from the local sellers, the popula-
tion of the area still is not large enough to consume the
quantity of vegetables that are produced in the area. For
this reason it seems premature to consider increasing vege-
table production based solely upon the local market. In-
ternal consumption of vegetables necessarily must be sup-
plemented by outside sales as a stimulus to local production.
A study currently underway at the University of Florida,
IFAS determines the feasibility of increasing the produc-
tion of vegetables in this target area based on sales to farm-
ers markets external to the area (2). These farmers markets
already absorb a larger portion of the total production from
the target area than the local markets (Table 2 and 3).
Marketing increased production to both local and non-local
markets appears to be more feasible than relying solely upon
the local market.

Table 2. Relative number of farms and shares of target area produc-
tion devoted to each outlet.

Sales of
Target target area
Markets area farms vegetables"

Thomasville 14 42
Valdosta 2 2
Atlanta 1 0
Jacksonville 11 19
Tampa 2 3
Total Farmers Markets
(non-local) 30 66
- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - --- - - -
Local Curb Sales 14 7
Local Retailer Sales 11 14
Local Peddling 15 6
Local Other 8 7
Total Local 38 34

'Percentages based on acreages harvested for sale in each outlet.

Finally, if favorable marketing conditions can be de-
veloped and implemented, vegetable production might be-
come a readily available alternative to tobacco production
which has suffered economic reverses. A tobacco operation
can fairly easily be converted into a vegetable operation be-


Table 3. Fresh vegetable acreage and local and non-local market shares for the target area.

Average Sales
Number of Farms Selling vegetable Percent Percent
Counties Locally Non-local Both Total acres acreage/farm local non-local

Columbia 13 2 5 73 3.65 79 21
Hamilton 7 2 2 175 15.90 26 74
Madison 1 4 4 101 11.22 8 92
Suwannee 5 2 5 181 18.1 30 70

114 Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 89: 1976.






Cooperative Assembly
Through extending and staggering the present growing
periods along with cooperative local assembly and handling,
the vegetable producers in the area might achieve many of
the necessary changes to become competitive with non-local
supplies. Local assembly would not necessarily compete
with present retail outlets but rather compete with non-
local supplies in an effort to encourage the use of local vege-
tables. Through cooperative action local farmers might
achieve scale economies in vegetable handling. Due to the
elimination of dual transportation costs to and from the
outside markets and other costs associated with additional
handling in outside markets, local farmers would be better
prepared to compete on a price basis with non-local sup-
plies.
Local cooperatively owned packing sheds might ac-
complish the majority of the conditions necessary to achieve
a better competitive position for local vegetables. The pack-
ing shed could be a central assembly point where member
farmers could assemble vegetables for sale to local clientel.
Storage and pre-processing facilities could be provided if
membership and volume prove sufficient to provide the
necessary scale economies. The assembly effort might not
compete with present sellers but could permit them to pur-
chase local vegetables. Interest in cooperative fresh vegetable
marketing was assessed in the farm survey. Of the farmers
interviewed, 68% expressed an interest in cooperating and
would contribute money to support a workable assembly
effort. The majority of the other 32% expressed serious
doubts in the ability of local farmers to cooperate in such
an effort.
There is one example of a relatively successful small
scale assembly and packing operation within the area. Three
farmers and their families are participating in the effort.
They have a washing, grading and packing operation and
are also considering storage facilities. They currently handle;
squash (butternut and straight neck), bell pepper, eggplant
and sweet potatoes. These farmers are staggering their grow-
ing schedules to provide a more stable flow of vegetables
and allow the operation to accommodate each growers pro-
duce.
This assembly effort could cope with other factors neces-
sary to sell to local stores if they were interested in selling
locally. They are more interested in selling in larger vol-
umes to the surrounding farmers markets in Thomasville,
Jacksonville and Tampa. They have however, contracted
with one of the local chain stores to sell at least one third
of their total 40 acre sweet potato crop. Another buyer has
agreed to buy most of the remainder. The group also co-
operates in hauling and is considering processing and pack-
ing neighboring farmers vegetables at a modest fee.
This cooperative effort could possibly be the optimum
size and type of operation required for success. It is small
enough to not require rigid coordination yet the farmers
can afford the necessary facilities for operation. Further
research, however, in cooperative local assembly is needed


since there are few examples to base scale and total feasibil-
ity upon.
A problem could emerge with a cooperative effort be-
cause it would require carefully trained leadership and a
strong willingness to cooperate by numerous growers. At
present vegetables are a relatively unimportant portion of
county income in the target area. Thus, given the heavy
emphasis on other commodities, the necessary technical as-
sistance might not be available for such an effort within
these counties.

A Concluding Concern
Given the optimistic idea of an organized assembly ef-
fort with good patronage from the local sellers, the popula-
tion of the area still is not large enough to consume the
quantity of vegetables that are produced in the area. For
this reason it seems premature to consider increasing vege-
table production based solely upon the local market. In-
ternal consumption of vegetables necessarily must be sup-
plemented by outside sales as a stimulus to local production.
A study currently underway at the University of Florida,
IFAS determines the feasibility of increasing the produc-
tion of vegetables in this target area based on sales to farm-
ers markets external to the area (2). These farmers markets
already absorb a larger portion of the total production from
the target area than the local markets (Table 2 and 3).
Marketing increased production to both local and non-local
markets appears to be more feasible than relying solely upon
the local market.

Table 2. Relative number of farms and shares of target area produc-
tion devoted to each outlet.

Sales of
Target target area
Markets area farms vegetables"

Thomasville 14 42
Valdosta 2 2
Atlanta 1 0
Jacksonville 11 19
Tampa 2 3
Total Farmers Markets
(non-local) 30 66
- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - --- - - -
Local Curb Sales 14 7
Local Retailer Sales 11 14
Local Peddling 15 6
Local Other 8 7
Total Local 38 34

'Percentages based on acreages harvested for sale in each outlet.

Finally, if favorable marketing conditions can be de-
veloped and implemented, vegetable production might be-
come a readily available alternative to tobacco production
which has suffered economic reverses. A tobacco operation
can fairly easily be converted into a vegetable operation be-


Table 3. Fresh vegetable acreage and local and non-local market shares for the target area.

Average Sales
Number of Farms Selling vegetable Percent Percent
Counties Locally Non-local Both Total acres acreage/farm local non-local

Columbia 13 2 5 73 3.65 79 21
Hamilton 7 2 2 175 15.90 26 74
Madison 1 4 4 101 11.22 8 92
Suwannee 5 2 5 181 18.1 30 70

114 Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 89: 1976.







cause of the similarity in inputs and intensive management
practices used in each. Vegetables are presently being grown
adjacent to tobacco on many farms. In the absence of an
adequate marketing system however, increased vegetable
production may not be economically feasible.

Literature Cited
1. Andrews, Rance. March 1974. Hamilton County's Long Range
Agricultural Program. University of Florida. IFAS Mimeographed
copy.
2. Arias, Edgar A. 1977. Wholesale Market Potentialities for Vegetables
Grown in North Florida. University of Florida, IFAS Food and


Resource Economics Department, Unpublished Masters Thesis.
3. Dukes, Neil (and other extension personnel). February 1974. Co-
lumbia County's Long Range Agricultural Plans. University of
Florida IFAS Mimeographed copy.
4. Hamrick, Rudy. March 1974. Madison County's Long Range Agri-
cultural Plans. University of Florida IFAS Mimeographed copy.
5. McCloskey, E., Long and Coppedge. 1975. Summary of Census,
Socio-Economic Data for Florida by Planning District and County.
University of Florida. Economic Information Report 21.
6. Morris, James B. III. March 1974. Lafayette County's Long Range
Agricultural Plans. University of Florida IFAS Mimeographed copy.
7. Smith, W. C. Jr. and Jowers, H. E. March 1974. Suwannee County's
Long Range Plans, University of Florida Mimeographed copy.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs