^^ Farmer-To-Consumer Direct Marketing in Six States

/ /;^^ Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing

In Six States Peter L. Henderson Harold R. Linstrom

>\D

United States Economics, Agriculture Department of Statistics, and Information Agriculture Cooperatives Bulletin Service No^-se FARMER-TO-GONSUMER DIRECT MARKETING IN SIX STATES, by Peter L. Henderson and Harold R. Linstrom. National Economics Division; Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 436.

ABSTRACT

Nearly 62,000 farmers in Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania sold about $260 million worth of farm products directly to consumers in 1978. Direct sales represented 2 percent of total farm income in the six States. Leading in sales value were floral and nursery products, apples, berries, peaches, sweet corn, tomatoes, and melons. Direct sales from the farmhouse was the most frequently used direct marketing method, followed by roadside stands. Other types of direct marketing outlets are pick-your-own operations, farmers' markets, house-to- house delivery and farm stores.

Keywords: Direct sales, Roadside stands. Pick-your-own, Farmers* markets. Dairy products, Vegetables, Fruits.

Copies of this report can be ordered from:

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

Telephone: (202) 447-7255

Washington, D.C. July 1980 PREFACE

The increased interest by consumers and fanners 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 from farmers to consumers on an economically sustainable basis. Promoting direct marketing has been a joint effort by two agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture— the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and the Science and Education Administration- Extension (SEA-Extension). AMS works with the State departments of agriculture on technical assistance programs; SEA-Extension works with the State extension services on educational assistance.

In its implementation of the act, USDA developed stringent guidelines to which States must adhere in submitting their proposals for State projects to encourage and promote direct marketing. Those guidelines include a detailed justification and rationale for the proposal, what the project is intended to achieve, the methodology for achieving the objectives, and an evaluation of the project's cost effectiveness. Priority in the selection process was given to those proposals that especially suggested innovative approaches to direct marketing, to States with available staff to provide project leadership, and to proposals that had a built-in evaluation. For fiscal years 1977 and 1978, $2 million was allocated among 23 States and Puerto Rico.

The act also directs the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Economic Research Service (now Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service—ESCS), to conduct continuous surveys in each State 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. The act further re- quires the Secretary to make annual reports to the Committees on Agriculture of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate with respect to the activities conducted under the provisions of the act.

Funds for carrying out the surveys specified in the act were provided in a supplemental appropriation of $500,000 in September 1978. The annual cost of surveying all 50 States annually was estimated at about $3 million. Because of the large amount of funds required to conduct the surveys, the amount authorized proved too low, and an alternative research approach was suggested to Congress through the appropriate committees. The approach consisted of three parts: (1) Statewide surveys of farmers marketing directly to consumers in 6 to 10 States annually (different States each year) to determine the number of direct marketers in each State, methods employed, volume of business conducted, commodities marketed, percentage of total sales represented by direct sales, and location with respect to population centers; (2) periodic surveys of farmer cooperative marketing associations to document volume, value, and commodities sold directly to consumers; and (3) through cooperative research agreements with State experiment stations, supplemental case studies of representative direct-marketing methods employed by farmers and consumers patronizing these outlets to document impacts to cost and financial returns to farmers and benefits to consumers. These studies are also designed to develop information that will: (1) provide a basis for estimating potential impacts on farmers' financial returns under stated conditions and estimating the potential of direct marketing for improving the economic viability of small farmers; (2) improve existing direct marketing for the benefit of both farmers and consumers; and (3) aid State departments of agriculture and extension services in designing more effective programs. Information obtained from this research can be used:

—In the Secretary's annual report to the Committee on Agriculture of the U.S House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate.

—By State departments of agriculture and State extension services in planning and conducting direct marketing projects.

—By farmers in planning and conducting their direct-marketing activities to satisfy their customers better.

—By consumers to obtain a better understanding of what is involved in buying directly from farmers, to appraise the benefits obtained, and to appraise additional costs incurred by extra travel or other efforts in purchasing directly from growers.

CONTENTS

SUMMARY iii

INTRODUCTION 1

DIRECT-MARKETING METHODS 2

COMPARISON OF DIRECT-MARKETING METHODS. . . 4 Products Sold by Direct-Marketing Method 5 s Added and Avoided Cost Associated with Direct-Marketing Methods . 6 Location of Direct-Marketing Farms 6 Use of Advertising 7

CHARACTERISTICS OF DIRECT-MARKETING FARMERS 8 Full-Time and Part-Time Farming . 9 Products Marketed ...... 9 Reasons for Selling Directly to Consumers 10

IMPLICATIONS 10

TABLES , 12

ii SUMMARY

About 15 percent of all farmers in Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania sold almost $260 million worth of farm products directly to consumers in 1978,

The leading products sold, by dollar value, were floral and nursery products (including bedding plants), apples, strawberries, other berries (blueberries, blackberries, and raspberries), peaches, sweet corn, tomatoes, melons (watermelons and cantaloups), white potatoes, green beans, and livestock and poultry products. Dairy products were important in Pennsylvania, the only State with a significant volume of dairy product sales.

The most popular method of direct selling among the nearly 62,000 farmers was from the farmhouse or another farm building, used by 59 percent of the direct-selling farmers in the six States. The next most popular methods were from a roadside stand (used by 12.5 percent) and house-to-house delivery (12 percent). Trailing those three methods were pick-your-own operations (9 percent), farm store (8 percent), and farmers* market (6 percent).

Most direct-selling farms (74 percent) were within 20 miles of the nearest city; 40 percent were within 10 miles. Distance to the nearest city was less critical for pick-your-own operations and sales from the farmhouse than for other methods. For both those methods, 35 percent were more than 20 miles from a city; only 12 percent of the other direct-selling farms were that far away. Most direct-selling farms (74 percent) were closest to cities with populations of less than 50,000. Only 13 percent of direct-selling farms were closest to cities with more than 100,000 residents; 44 percent of roadside stands, however, were closest to cities of that size.

Seventy percent of direct-marketing farmers in the six States were part-time farmers who had sources of income other than farming. Seventy-six percent of all direct-selling farmers had gross farm sales (direct and through other outlets) of less than $20,000 in 1978. Those farmers accounted for only 24 percent of total direct sales made to consumers. The remaining 24 percent of farmers selling direct in the six States had total farm sales above $20,000 and accounted for 76 percent of total direct sales.

Many direct-selling farmers believe that they can receive higher prices by selling directly to consumers rather than selling to normal marketing channels. Many farmers also indicate that their volume of production is too small to meet the requirements of conventional wholesale buyers. Another factor affecting income is that many direct-selling farmers can avoid costs for such items as shipping containers, packinghouse labor, transportation, sales commissions, and storage. Other direct marketers, however, incur some costs that they would not otherwise, such as advertising, insurance, labor for sales personnel, and parking lots.

iii Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing in Six States

Peter L. Henderson and Harold R. Linstrom

Agricultural economists

INTRODUCTION

Direct farm marketing is any method by which farmers sell their products directly to consumers. A 1978 survey of direct marketing in Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania disclosed that direct-marketing endeavors fell into six major forms ranging from roadside stands to house-to-house delivery. Appro- ximately 61,700 farmers in the six States (about 15 percent of all farmers in those States) sold almost $260 million worth of farm products directly to consumers in 1978. When asked to indicate their plans for direct marketing over the next 5 years, about half of the respondents indicated that they would continue at the same level of direct marketing as in 1978 (table 1—tables start on p. 12). About one in five said they would increase or decrease their direct marketings over the next 5 years. Nearly half the New Jersey respondents planned to cut back on their direct marketing activities while North Carolina led in the proportion of growers who planned to do more direct marketing over the next 5 years. Farmers operating roadside stands and those engaged in house-to-house delivery of produce were more likely to plan no change or a decrease in their direct-marketing activities. Farmers operating farm stores, pick-your-own operations, and farmers* markets tended to report planned increases in direct marketing over the next 5 years. This survey was conducted under the provisions of the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976 and was completed during December 1978 and January 1979, This report presents the results of the survey, the first systematic attempt by the Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service to monitor the extent of direct marketing. Earlier reports were prepared, as required by the act, but they were based on less quantitative data._l/ The States surveyed were selected because of the availability of sampling lists, the importance of direct marketing to their agricultural economies, and their geo- graphical distribution. A sample of 1,000 to 1,500 agricultural producers was selected per State from a list of farmers with direct-marketing potential*2^/ The initial sample was then screened by telephone to identify those operations selling directly to consumers. This procedure identified approximately 500 farmers per State who were interviewed for detailed information on their direct-marketing activities. ll See Preface for description of the act. The earlier reports included "Farmer-to- Consumer Marketing," ESCS-01, by H. R. Linstrom, Economics, Statistics, and Cooper- atives Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 1978, and annual reports to Congress in November of 1978 and 1979. 2/ For example, vegetable growers, fruit growers, and nurseries. In addition to those persons contacted from the above lists, an area sampling frame was used in each State to identify direct-marketing farmers who were not on the lists.V Area samples consisted of an average of 85 segments per State selected from economic area frames, varying from 37 in New Jersey to 120 in Ohio. These segments were screened to locate all resident farm operators; those who marketed directly were then interviewed to obtain data to estimate direct marketing activities for those farmers not included on the lists of potential direct marketers.

The survey showed that the leading products sold, by dollar value, were floral and nursery products (including bedding plants), apples, strawberries, other berries (blueberries, blackberries, and raspberries), peaches, sweet corn, tomatoes, melons (watermelons and cantaloups), white potatoes, green beans, and livestock and poultry products. Dairy products were important in Pennsylvania, the only State with a significant volume of dairy product sales (table 2).

The farmers selling directly to consumers sold almost 30 percent of their total production in that manner. The percentage sold direct varied among product categories, from about one-third for fruits and vegetables to about one-fourth for nursery and floral goods, livestock and poultry, and processed fruit products. The percentage of total production of all direct-marketing farmers for specific products varied from 5 percent for grapes to almost 90 percent for cucumbers (table 3). Fifty percent or more of the direct-marketing farmers' total production of the following products were sold direct in all States: strawberries and other berries, green beans, cucumbers, apple cider, and other processed fruit products. The percentage of production that was sold direct in each State was associated with the size of operations and availability of conventional market outlets which, in turn, depend on the volume of commercial production. For example, direct-marketing farmers in Michigan, a leading cherry-producing State, sold only 10 percent of their cherry production direct. Other States sold from 80 to 100 percent of their cherry production direct. Similar variations in the percentage of direct marketing among States for specific products can be observed in table 2.

DIRECT-MARKETING METHODS » Farmers may sell their products directly to consumers by several means. The commonly used methods in the six States surveyed were sales from the farmhouse or another farm building (referred to in this report as farmhouse), 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 farm stores.

In the pick-your-own (PYO) method, consumers go to the farm, harvest the produce they want to purchase, often furnish their own containers, and transport the produce to their home. The farmer usually provides parking space and toilets, supervises harvesting, weighs or measures the produce, and completes the sales transaction. Parking space varies from shoulders of roadways or open space around the farmyard to a formalized parking area with a check-in and check-out station. Toilet facilities are usually portable toilets rented from a local agency. Farmers often provide picking containers when a specialized container is desirable. Farmers usually do not provide containers to transport products from the farms, although they sometimes offer such containers for sale. Specialized picking containers are desirable for fruits like strawberries, tree fruits, and field-ripened tomatoes to protect the fruit from

_3/ The area sampling frame represents all land in States in which surveys are conducted. The frame is stratified into land use strata and expansion factors are derived by dividing the sample size (acres) in each stratum by total land (acres) in the stratum. damage during harvest. The PYO method offers the greatest potential savings to direct-marketing farmers, but it does have disadvantages. Much of the cost associated with harvesting and marketing is borne directly by the consumer, but most consumers are not experienced in harvesting agricultural products and require close super- vision to protect them while on the farmer's property, to protect the unharvested portion of the crop and surrounding crops, and to ensure that the customers pay for all the produce they harvest. In order to protect produce to be harvested and crops in surrounding fields, most farmers establish relatively rigid rules pertaining to minimum volumes, parking of vehicles, inspection of containers, and minimum age for children accompanying adults into fields. Some farmers have adopted one or more of the following: check-in stations, designated parking areas, checkout area between fields and vehicles, supervised play areas for children, and transportation from check-in or parking area to fields.

PYO prices to consumers are usually lower than those of any other method; consumers also benefit in being able to select those fruits that are, in their judgment, the freshest and of the best quality available in the fields. Consumers do have to consider their added cost and the inconvenience involved in this method.

Some products do not lend themselves to the PYO method. Sweet corn and water- melon for example require a fair amount of expertise to determine when they reach the stage of maturity that maximizes consumer satisfaction.

The roadside stand and the farm store are essentially retail outlets for fresh produce similar to the greengrocers of earlier years. Both the roadside stand and the farm store require some facilities to display the farm produce and to offer the produce some protection from the weather. The roadside stand is located adjacent to a public road (one accessible to the general public). The farm store is located on the farm but not adjacent to a public road and is accessible by a private road or a driveway. Facilities for both can vary from a shaded table to those found in a small convenience store or supermarket. Those with permanent buildings generally remain open to the public over a longer season, with regular hours of operation each day, and offer a wide array of fresh farm products. These markets frequently carry an assortment of nonperishable products for the convenience of their customers. The farmer does all the harvesting, prepares products for market, displays merchandise, and consummates sales. Some of the costs associated with conventional marketing (the assembler, wholesaler, retailer configuration) are eliminated or materially reduced, which permits farmers to charge lower prices. Transportation from the farm to shipping points,shipping containers, and handling charges of assemblers and wholesalers are eliminated. In addition, since the time from harvest to final consumption is materially reduced, produce can be harvested at the stage of maturity that yields highest eating quality. For example, vine-ripe tomatoes and tree-ripe fruit generally have better flavor and higher eating quality than those harvested at a less mature stage. The ripe fruit, however, are usually too mature to withstand the rigors of the conventional marketing system and still have an acceptable shelf life in retail foods tores.

Operators of retail farm outlets (stands and stores) do have some additional operating costs that are not incurred by farmers selling to conventional wholesale buyers. Such costs include labor for operating the stand or store, facilities (stands, stores, parking, utilities, insurance, and taxes), packaging materials, and other items to satisfy the demands of customers. The extent of such additional cost items is closely related to the ornateness and elaborateness of the facilities, customer traffic, and sales volume. These operators, like other direct-marketing farmers, must also advertise their existence and tlie products they have for sale to generate customer traffic, activities that are not necessary when selling to wholesale buyers. Farmers selling through public farmers' markets harvest and prepare products for sale, transport them to market, and offer their products for sale at a facility in which a number of other farmers offer their products as well. The facilities may be cooperatively owned and maintained by the farmers themselves, or owned and maintained by local or State governments. Regardless of ownership, farmers utilizing such facilities pay for the space occupied and for advertising the market's existence. Such markets may be open each day of the week, but most are open only on designated days. This method of direct marketing is most advantageous to small farmers, and those who do not have access to heavily traveled public highways or are located 10 miles or more from cities. Prices for products at farmers' markets are generally lower than prices for similar items in conventional foodstores; consumers also have a wider array of products from which to choose since a number of farmers offer their goods for sale in a centralized location. This concentration of farmer marketers and the close proximity to large numbers of urban consumers also tends to generate large numbers of customers, which is advantageous to the farmers. Regular visits to a farmers' market permit customers and farmers to become acquainted and may draw some customers to their farms to buy large quantities for home canning and freezing.

Some farmers sell directly from the farmhouse or from some other available farm building (sheds, packinghouses, barns). This method of sale is similar to the farm store except that the facilities are less formal and are used primarily for other purposes; in addition, the personnel serving customers usually perform other duties between customer visits. Many large specialized operations that sell most of their production through conventional outlets frequently use this method of direct marketing to sell that part of their production that does not meet the requirements of conventional outlets. Such products include undersized and oversized fruit, and fruit too ripe to withstand time and other requirements of the conventional marketing system.

House-to-house delivery is the most expensive method of direct marketing for the farmer. The farmer must perform all the marketing services performed by the conventional marketing system plus deliver the items to the customer's door. A farmer utilizing this method, however, generally minimizes many cost elements associated with the conventional system. For example, a farmer will often use field crates to transport products to the customer's door; such crates serve a large number of customers on each delivery route and can be reused several times. Customers receive maximum service with this method of direct marketing and prices are frequently comparable to those found in supermarkets.*

Another method of direct marketing is direct purchases by consumer buying clubs from farmers as well as from wholesalers. These clubs are usually informal groups which assemble the orders of club members and then designate members to make purchases from farmers or wholesale outlets in large quantities. They pick up the order from the farm or wholesale outlet, transport it to a central location, and parcel it out to fill the members' orders. Orders may be delivered to or picked up by the members. Information was not obtained in this survey on the volume of produce sold to such clubs.

COMPARISON OF DIRECT-MARKETING METHODS

Marketing through the farmhouse was the leading method in all six States, used by 59 percent of all farmers (table 4). That method was followed by roadside stands (13 percent), house-to-house delivery (12.5 percent), pick-your-own (9 percent), farm store (8 percent), and public farmers' markets (6 percent). Sales at the farmhouse was the leading method used in each State, but the relative importance of other methods varied considerably among States. For example, the percentage of farmers using the house-to-house delivery method, third in importance overall, was used by less than 1 percent of farmers in New Jersey and Ohio. Farm stores was the second leading method in New Jersey, while pick-your-own ranked second in North Carolina.

Products Sold by Direct-Marketing Method

The relative importance of various direct-marketing methods in each State for selected products, as indicated by the percentage of sales volume made through each method, is shown in tables 5 through 10, Between 60 and 90 percent of strawberries and between 45 and 75 percent of other berries were sold by the pick-your-own method in all State-s except Pennsylvania, where 35 percent of strawberries and 15 percent of other berries were sold by this method. A significant percentage of the sales of other fruits was sold through the pick-your-own method. Pick-your-own vegetable outlets, however, were important only in Indiana and North Carolina.

Roadside stands were important outlets for all kinds of fruits and vegetables in all States, accounting for about 25 percent (ranging from 15 to 40 percent among States) of direct-marketing fruit sales and about 40 percent from (16 to 70 percent among States) of direct-marketing vegetable sales. Excluding North Carolina, from 3 to 10 percent of products other than fruits and vegetables of each State were sold through roadside stands. Twenty-one percent of the directly sold North Carolina products in the "other products*' category were from roadside stands. (Most of those "other products" were bedding plants and floral and nursery products.)

Public farmers' markets were important direct outlets for fruits and vegetables but less important for the "other product" category. About 15 percent of all fruits sold directly to consumers were sold through farmers* markets in Indiana, and Michigan, but 5 percent or less in the other four States. These outlets accounted for between 20 and 30 percent of direct vegetable sales in Indiana, Michigan, and New Jersey and from 10 to 15 percent in the other three States. Only Michigan and New Jersey had a significant volume of sales in the "other product" category through farmers' markets— 7.5 and 5.1 percent, respectively.

Sales of farm products made from the farmhouse varied from about 11 percent in New Jersey to 36 percent in Michigan of all products sold directly to consumers. Except for New Jersey, 20 to 45 percent of products in the "other product" category were sold by this method. In New Jersey, 15.5 percent of "other products" were sold from the farmhouse. About 25 percent of fruits in Indiana, 49 percent of vegetables in Michigan, and 32 percent of vegetables in North Carolina sold directly to consumers were from the farmhouse. Less than 10 percent of fruits and vegetables were sold by this method in other States.

The house-to-house delivery method accounted for 10 percent of all products sold directly to consumers in Indiana and 7.4 percent in Ohio but less than 5 percent in the other States. Most of the products sold by this method were primarily in the "other product" category except in Pennsylvania, which also had about 10 percent of its direct sales of vegetables by this method. Leading products in the "other products" category sold by this method included eggs, Christmas trees and firewood, honey and syrups, and, in some States, floral and nursery products.

Sales through farm stores, which include the sales room of greenhouses and nurseries, were an important method of selling directly to consumers in each State. The percentage of total direct sales made to consumers through farm stores varied from 28 to 56 percent among the States. This was the leading method for products included in the "other'* category in all States, accounting for 40 to 60 percent of the total sales of such products. It was also an important sales method for all product categories in Pennsylvania, accounting for 39 percent of fruit sales, 22 percent of vegetable sales, and 56 percent of "other product" sales. Except for vegetables in Indiana (21 percent of sales), and fruits in New Jersey and Ohio (30 and 19 percent of total sales, respectively), farm store sales accounted for 10 percent or less of fruit and vegetable sales«

Added and Avoided Cost Associated with Direct-Marketing Methods

The various methods of marketing have inherent costs associated with them. In choosing a method of marketing, a farmer must consider all costs associated with each method in relation to the expected returns and the volume of sales for each method. The direct-marketing farmers surveyed were asked to identify the added costs they Incurred and the costs they avoided for the direct-marketing methods they employed, as compared with the costs for selling through conventional marketing outlets (table 11). The variations in the responses for specific cost items among the marketing methods were generally logical. For example, one would expect roadside stand and farm store operators generally to have additional maintenance costs compared with farmers utilizing other methods. One would expect farmers selling at public farmers* markets to have additional costs for stall rent and farmers utilizing the house-to-house delivery method to have additional transportation costs. It is also logical to expect that farmers who use the pick-your-own method will avoid labor, transportation, and container costs. Overall, the pick-your-own direct marketers generally reported fewer added costs and avoided more costs than farmers using other methods.

Labor was reported as both an added and an avoided cost and for some methods the percentages may appear to be inconsistent. For example, among pick-your-own marketers, 17 percent reported labor as an added cost item and 95 percent as an avoided cost item; similarly 51 percent of farm store marketers reported added labor cost, while almost 54 percent listed labor as an avoided cost. In both instances the sum of the percentages exceeds 100. This discrepancy can be explained by the basis on which the percentages were calculated—the number of farmers replying to each question. More- over, there are instances when direct-marketing farmers could have added costs for specific kinds of labor, such as supervisory and sales personnel, and avoided other types of labor such as that used in harvesting and packinghouse operations.

The container cost avoided was largely packing crates or shipping containers. Added container cost represented consumer packages used in the retail operation.

A major added cost item to all methods of direct marketing was advertising. Over 90 percent of pick-your-own and farm store marketers listed advertising as an added cost and it was also listed by about 25 to 35 percent of farmers using other methods.

Location of Direct-Marketing Farms

The location of a direct-marketing enterprise affects its feasibility and potential profitability. We asked farmers about the size and nearness of the closest cities and towns with and without public farmers' markets (tables 12 to 25) and the types of roads accessible to their farms (table 26).

The potential number 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 maximum number of potential customers. But the inconvenience connect- ed with travel (distance and road type) limits the potential number of customers to the farmers* direct market outlets. Proximity of a farm to limited access highways or highways with median dividers may not be as conducive to direct marketing outlets as other major paved roads, unless the location is near a point of access such as an interchange or crossing. The population of the city nearest to almost two-thirds (64 percent) of direct marketing farmers was between 10,000 and 50,000 (table 12). Except for roadside stand marketers, the nearest city for 80 to over 90 percent was less than 100,000 population. For about 44 percent of roadside stand marketers, the population of the nearest city was above 100,000. Only among those delivering house-to-house was a significant number (6 percent) found in which the nearest city had a population of 500,000 or more. -^.__^^^ Among cities with public farmers* markets, more fariners (about 40 percent) were closer to cities with 10,000-49,999 population than to cities of any other size. Of farmers selling through farmers' markets, three-fourths lived closest to cities of that same size, but only two-thirds reported a farmers' market in that city. Some farmers, therefore, had to travel beyond the nearest city in order to sell through a farmers* market. The farms of about 74 percent of direct-marketing farmers in the six ..'tates were located less than 20 miles from the nearest city (table 19). Forty percent were less than 10 miles from the nearest city and about 60 percent were over 10 miles. Nearness to population centers appeared to be more important to operators of roadside stands and farm stores, with 51 percent and 66 percent, respectively, located within 5 miles of the nearest city. The majority of farmers marketing through public farmers' markets were also relatively close to urban areas: 18 percent were within 5 miles and 47.7 percent were from 5 to 9,9 miles of the nearest city. In contrast, the majority of farmers using pick-your-own, farmhouse, and house-to-house delivery were located 10 miles or more from the nearest city. Almost one-fourth of pick-your- own marketers were between 10 and 20 miles, over one-third were over 20 miles from the nearest city, and about 60 percent over 10 miles. About 70 percent selling at the farmhouse were 10 miles or more from the nearest city, and over one-third of the farmers (35 percent) were 20 miles or more from the nearest city. Sixty percent of those using the house-to-house delivery method were located between 10 and 20 miles of the nearest city and an additional 15 percent were 20 or more miles from the nearest city.

The impact of distance from potential customers is further illustrated in table 19 which provides the percentage distribution of farmers' locations for each marketing method relative to distance from the nearest city with a public farmers' market. Over 60 percent of those using a public farmers' market were located within 10 miles of a city with such markets. In contrast over 50 percent of farmers using pick-your-own, roadside stands, and farmhouse or farm building methods were 20 miles or more from cities with farmers' markets; and 40 percent of farmers selling house-to- house were 20 miles or more from public farmers' markets.

Access to roads is an important asset for most direct-marketing operations. Most direct-marketing operations (61 percent) had access to State highways and paved county roads (table 26). Only 17 percent were on unpaved county roads. About 17 percent of farmers utilizing farmers' markets were within 1 mile of an interstate highway interchange and another 16 percent of these farmers were located on a divided highway. The only other type of direct marketer with a significant percentage located on or near these types of roads were roadside stands, with about 9 percent near interstate highway interchanges and about 4 percent on divided highways. High-speed multi- lane highways do not appear to be conducive to most methods of direct marketing, per- haps because customers must exit and enter a fast flowing stream of traffic.

Use of Advertising

As pointed out earlier, advertising was one of the leading added cost items incurred by direct-marketing farmers compared with selling to wholesale buyers in the the conventional marketing system. About 44 percent of the direct-marketing farmers used some form of advertising, varying from 23 percent in New Jersey to 54 percent in North Carolina (table 27).

Pick-your-own, roadside stand, and farm store direct marketers used advertising to a greater extent than did farmers using other methods of direct marketing. The leading media used were newspapers, road signs, and radio. Pick-your-own and farm store operators placed greatest emphasis on newspapers while roadside stand operators used road signs to the greatest extent•

Farmers selling from the farmhouse and those selling house-to-house relied on word-of-raouth advertising by customers to a greater extent than did farmers using other methods of direct sales. Word-of-mouth advertising is not advertising in the strictest sense but is commonly understood to mean favorable verbal endorsement of a firm or business by its customers to their friends and acquaintances. However, some of these direct-marketing farmers also used newspaper advertisements and road signs to attract customers.

Farmers using farmers* markets to sell directly to consumers were least likely to advertise. These direct-marketing farmers have less need to advertise individual- ly, since most public markets advertise and publicize themselves. In fact, 12 percent of the farmers using this method reported that they paid an assessment to support the advertising cost of the farmers* market where they sold their produce.

CHARACTERISTIGS OF DIRECT-MARKETING FARMERS

Most direct-marketing operations (about 76 percent) were small farms—total sales of less than $20,000 (table 28).4-/ But that percentage is only slightly greater than the percentage of all farms in the United States with sales under $20,000—about 70 percent. The small direct-marketing farmers accounted for only about one-fourth of total direct-marketing dollar sales. Conversely, 24 percent of the farmers surveyed had gross farm sales of over $20,000 per farm and accounted for about three-fourths of all direct sales to consumers. It is interesting to note that although less than 2 percent of the direct-marketing farmers in the six States had total value of production over $200,000 per farm, those operations accounted for almost one-third of total sales made directly to consumers. These figures indicate that the size characteristics of direct-marketing farmers in the six States are similar to the size characteristics of all farmers in the united States. In making that observation, however, we are not implying that direct marketing does not offer opportunities for small farmers (those with annual sales less than $20,000) to maintain economically viable production units.

Reclassifying farms according to the new (1975) definition (a farming operation with at least $1,000 annual sales) reduced the number of direct-marketing farms in the six States from 61,721 to 43,467 (table 29). The value of direct sales by the farmers was reduced from $259.7 million to $254.3 million. That is, almost 30 percent of the 61,721 farmers in the six States who sold directly to consumers had total annual sales less than $1,000 and accounted for only $5.4 million or 2.1 percent of total direct sales by the original 61,721 direct-marketing farmers. These tabulations were made to facilitate comparison with future surveys using the new definition of a farm.

4/ The percentages and total numbers of farms are based on the old definition of farm: a farming operation with 10 or more acres, or an operation with less than 10 acres and farm sales of $250 or more. The new definition of a farm, which will be used in subsequent surveys of direct-marketing farmers, includes only farms with annual sales of at least $1,000. Full-Time and Part-Time Farming

Seventy percent of the direct-marketing farmers in the six States were part- time farmers (had off-farm income) and 30 percent were full-time farmers (table 30). The only significant deviations from the overall average percentage of full-time and part-time farmers among the direct-marketing methods utilized were for the house-to- house delivery and farm store operators. Only 21 percent of farmers who sold house- to-house were full-time farmers, while 51 percent of the farm store operators were full-time farmers. It appears from the data that direct marketing was important to both full-time and part-time farmers as a means of supplementing their incomes. Some form of direct marketing may be the primary market outlet for part-time farmers, especially those who produce only small quantities of products and do not have access to conventional outlets; small full-time farmers may use direct marketing for the same reason. Large-scale, full-time farmers may also use direct marketing outlets to dispose of products that do not meet the requirements of their conventional outlets.

Products Marketed

About half of the farmers in all States except New Jersey produced field crops (corn, cotton, soybeans, grain, tobacco, hay, etc.); only 30 percent produced such products in New Jersey. Since these products are inputs for other products or require further processing for human consumption, all farmers producing field crops also produced other types of products for their direct-marketing activities. Forty-three percent of the farmers produced livestock, the second leading category in percentage of farmers producing. While some livestock is still slaughtered on the farm, the meat from such slaughter is intended largely for the farm family. This is due to health and other regulations governing the slaughter and processing of livestock and livestock products sold to consumers. Thus, direct sale of livestock products is largely limited to areas where custom slaughtering and processing facilities are available, such as local slaughter plants or freezer locker plants with slaughter facilities. We surmised, therefore, that most farmers producing livestock sold the majority of their output through conventional channels and produced other products for direct sale to consumers. Sale of dairy products is also highly regulated from the standpoint of health and sanitary requirements; most States, for example, require pasteurization of milk. Pennsylvania, as was shown earlier, was the only State with a significant volume of dairy products sold directly to customers. It is interesting to note that, although dairy products led in terms of value of direct sales in Pennsylvania, only 3.5 percent of the State's direct marketers were dairy producers (table 31). Direct sales of dairy products in Pennsylvania are related to the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Act of 1937 as amended and now somewhat of a tradition. Pennsylvania dairy farmers, however, must meet State health and sanitation requirements for those products offered directly to consumers.V

"^5/ The Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Act of 1937 (Act 105) as amended in 1941, 1959, and 1968 established the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board and Regulations of Whole- saling and Retailing of Milk. Exempted from pricing provisions of the act are farmers who sell directly to consumers, but sales to an individual consumer cannot exceed 2 gallons per day. The retail price established by the Milk Board was sufficiently high to encourage farmers to sell directly to consumers at prices lower than established. This accounts for Pennsylvania's tradition of direct sales of fluid milk and other dairy products through "milk juggers." These indepedent producer-retailers market their State-inspected products at their own retail outlets. Over 250 such operations were licensed to do business in Pennsylvania as of January 1980. Health and sanitation requirements for selling dressed eviscerated poultry meat to consumers are similar to those for red meats in most States. However, some consumers do buy live birds and slaughter and dress them at-home. In addition, regula- tory requirements for selling eggs directly to consumers are less stringent than for meats and dairy products. About 20 percent of the direct-marketing farmers in the six States produced poultry and poultry products for sale.

Fresh fruits, nuts, melons, and vegetables require only removal of spray residues and sorting to remove damaged or decayed products before selling to consumers. About 20 percent of the direct-marketing farmers sold fruits and nuts, and 30 percent sold vegetables (including melons).

As shown in table 31, the sum of percentages of farmers producing specific products was greater than 100 percent in each State. While some farmers produced products in only one category, the average produced more than two product categories per farm, varying from 1.6 categories in New Jersey to 2.4 in Indiana. Thus, some direct-marketing farmers specialize in producing a narrow range of products while others produce and market several products.

Reasons for Selling Directly to Consumers

When questioned on why they sold products directly to consumers most farmers gave more than one reason (table 32). Although the wording varied somewhat among individual answers, the reasons could be grouped into four major categories:

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

The higher prices and income category included these items per se as well as such statements as, "cutting out middleman," "capturing middleman's profit," and "reducing marketing cost." Replies in the market access category 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 cus tomers," "opportunity to social- ize," "enjoy meeting people and talking with custome rs ," and "tradition." Labor-related reasons were about evenly divided between opportunity to employ family labor gain- fully, and unavailability of harvest labor. The lat te r was given most frequently by farmers utilizing the pick-your-own method of direct rketing. Almost 2 percent of those interviewed gave a number of miscellaneous reas Ons such as "to meet competition" and "customers just come to the farm."

The reasons given indicate that the direct-marketing farmers tended to maximize their welfare from the standpoint of both enjoyment a nd economic returns.

IMPLICATIONS

Direct marketing is the oldest form of exchange l!)etween producers and consumers. It will not, by itself, however, solve farmers' and consumers' economic problems related to the marketing of farm products. ! The volume of farm products that can or will be iftarketed directly from farmers to consumers faces certain limits for a number of reasons. Products like wheat and other grains, cotton, wool, and livestock are not generally consumed in their natural form, and economies of scale are involved in processing and distributing the consumer products that are derived from the raw agricultural products. In addition, process-

10 ing and distribution of those products must also conform to specified health, sanitation, and safety regulations. Moreover, the fixed costs associated with complying with many of these regulations preclude most small-scale facilities.

Few regulations govern the processing and preserving of foods for one's own consumption. During periods of recession, depression, and high inflation, therefore, consumers tend to purchase directly from farmers for immediate consumption and home processing as a means of reducing their food expenditures. Fanners also tend to provide more marketing services by selling directly to consumers as a means of enhancing their income. That is, during such periods, the economic returns to consumers and farmers tend to be greater than the returns in the normal marketing channels.

Production of most agricultural products is seasonal for specific areas. Most products also tend to be produced in areas that offer competitive advantages. How- ever, production and harvest seasons vary from the south to the north which pro- longs the length of time that fresh products are available through conventional outlets. The availability can also be prolonged for some products through specialized storage and improved processing. As a result, consumers throughout the country, by having products available in conventional retail outlets throughout most of the year, have become conditioned to expect a continuous supply and a wide range of choices of foods. Direct-marketing farmers can extend the availability of most of their items only by staggering planting and harvesting dates between the last frost date of the spring and the first frost date of the fall and by selecting varieties with varying periods of maturation.

Despite these obstacles, direct farmer-to-consumer marketing does offer some advantages in satisfying the needs and requirements of many consumers and farmers. Since less time is involved between harvest and final consumption, products can be harvested when they are at their peak eating quality. Also, because of the short time between harvest and consumption, direct-marketing farmers can select varieties of produce with better eating qualities than those that have been developed to meet the physical rigors of mechanical harvesting and the conventional marketing system. Thus, consumers who appreciate the flavor of products like tree-ripe fruits, vine-ripe tomatoes, freshly harvested sweet corn, and similar freshly harvested items can satisfy their desires by purchasing directly from farmers. Many consumers who have the time and inclination for that can frequently buy at lower prices than are usually found in conventional foods tores while at the same time realizing the benefits of superior eating quality.

Farmers selling directly to consumers usually receive higher prices than those paid by conventional market buyers, but lower than those found in retail outlets. In addition, direct-marketing farmers may be able to reduce their production and marketing costs through eliminating or reducing items like packing crates, shipping containers, and transportation charges, further enhancing their income.

Small and part-time farmers who cannot meet the volume and other requirements of conventional wholesale buyers are likely to benefit the most from direct marketing. Large commercial growers who sell through conventional channels may also market direct to dispose of that portion of a product that does not meet the requirements of conventional outlets, but are of good, or even superior, quality for immediate consumption. Such products include tree-ripe peaches, vine-ripe tomatoes, and products that do not meet the size and color requirements or have slight blemishes.

Direct marketing will continue, but probably at a slightly higher level than existed about 5 years ago. The expected increase is due to the recent publicity given this form of marketing and the knowledge gained by new customers attracted by the publicity of the superior eating quality of freshly harvested farm products and the potentially lower prices of such products.

11 Table l~Change in direct-marketing operations anticipated by farmers through 1983 by State and marketing method

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

Percent- State: Indiana : 20.4 55.7 15.2 8.7 100.0 Michigan : 19.1 49.2 21.3 10.4 100.0 New Jersey : 17.6 30.6 44.9 6.9 100.0 North Carolina : 24.5 43.6 19.7 12.2 100.0 Ohio : 15.5 35.2 26.2 23.1 100.0 Pennsylvania : 19.6 72.4 5.3 2.8 100.0 Weighted average 19.8 48.4 21.0 10.8 100.0 Marketing method: Pick-your-own : 30.4 49.3 8.2 12.2 100.0 Roadside stand : 15.0 48.2 27.5 9.3 100.0 Farmers * market : 28.4 52.6 15.6 3.4 100.0 Farmhouse : 21.5 38.9 25.0 14.7 100.0 House-to-house : delivery : 16.6 55.4 17.0 11.0 100.0 Farm store : 36.6 22.6 37.5 3.3 100.0 Weighted : average : 19.8 48.4 21.0 10.8 100.0

l_l Sum of percent :ages may exceed 100 percent due to rounding

12 Table 2.-Value of products sold directly to consumers, by product and State, 1978

New North Six- State Unit! Indiana Michigan Jersey Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania Item total \ :

Fruits and nuts: 27,391,081 Apples Dol.: 3,717,221 10,599,829 2,750,352 967,061 3,481,390 5,875,228 Strawberries Dol.: 600,075 4,231,317 1,484,894 1,853,968 2,853,946 2,312,720 13,336,920 3,678,804 Other berries Dol.: 728,306 1,470,645 513,765 341,019 446,767 178,302 Peaches and nectarines : Dol. : 1,102,395 1,674,927 1,412,003 994,102 410,819 2,376,903 7,971,149 1,054,297 Cherries Dol.: 6,922 669,407 16,382 0 44,743 316,843 955,462 Pears Dol.: 98,060 384,702 53,788 0 113,438 305,474 834,524 Grapes Dol. : 49,683 162,272 30,855 267,743 191,504 132,467 385,598 Plums Dol.: 67,421 213,222 0 0 15,623 89,332 462 24,131 98,873 Other Dol.: 0 36,236 5,716 32,328

Total fruit and 55,706,708 nuts sales Dol. : 6,370,083 19,442,557 6,267,755 4,456,221 7,558,692 11,611,400 Average fruits sales : 4,387 per farmer Dol.: 5,408 3,058 9,018 1,559 11,116 12,499 Farmers selling 12,698 fruits and nuts No. 1,178 6,358 695 2,858 680 929

Vegetables and melons: 9,442,319 Sweet corn Dol. 1,251,606 2,190,521 1,850,032 202,913 1,680,010 2,267,237 679,614 3,978,152 Tomatoes :DO1. 571,989 596,098 1,484,985 265,236 380,230 407,814 2,131,544 Melons :DO1. : 567,609 191,598 178,177 259,798 526,548 731,572 1,972,432 Potatoes :DO1. : 195,984 545,482 122,000 0 377,394 170,136 1,525,262 Green beans :DO1. : 505,823 293,852 179,938 281,665 93,848 Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussels 1,272,422 sprouts :DO1. : 354,293 403,962 142,247 105,886 71,567 194,467 812,720 Squash :DO1. : 225,204 223,944 158,272 36,806 52,360 116,134 624,060 Peppers :DO1. : 169,504 57,260 111,307 0 158,878 127,111 568,478 Cucumber :DO1. : 104,750 108,475 104,306 52,462 34,718 163,767 455,025 Pumpkins :DO1. : 209,861 37,874 28,975 0 43,150 135,165 0 587,835 Green peas :DO1. 136,510 47,563 0 403,762 0 381,724 Asparagus :DO1. : 112,994 209,484 17,308 0 0 41,938 0 148,921 Sweet potatoes :DO1. : 0 0 26,114 122,807 0 5,198,320 Other :DO1. 900,184 3,612,448 276,414 249,796 51,625 107,853

Total vegetable sales :DO1. : 5,306,311 8,518,561 4,680,075 1,981,131 3,470,328 5,142,808 29,099,214 Average vegetable sales 1,578 ner farmer :DO1. : 2,364 1,247 4,575 350 7,594 2,313 Farmers selling vegetables :NO. : 2,245 6,831 1,023 5,665 457 2,223 18,444 Continued- See footnote at end of table* Table 2—Value of products sold directly to consumers, by product and State, 1978—Continued

New North Six- Item : Unit : Indiana Michigan Jersey Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania State total Other products: Floral and nursery : Dol. : 11,046,526 22,288,047 12,453,862 11,782,373 17,105,506 11,788,885 Livestock, poultry, and live- 86,468,199 stock and poultry products : Dol. : 303,954 1,111,717 1,262,155 50,480 1,343,403 8,775,168 Processed fruit products 12,846,877 (cider, jelly, jam, etc.) : Dol. : 194,681 1,926,863 652,864 0 305,670 117,027 Christmas trees and 3,197,114 forest products : Dol. : 475,218 683,496 423,822 448,775 870,709 351,866 3,253,886 Honey and syrups : Dol. : 189,119 599,323 71,510 109,554 366,530 238,947 1,574,983 Dairy products : Dol. 0 0 0 0 0 27,042,620 27,042,620 Other : Dol. 8,845,924 21,400,682 1,860,693 1,161,301 3,672,516 3,537,312 40,478,428 Total other product sales Dol. 21,058,422 48,010,128 16,724,906 13,552,483 23,664,343 51,851,825 Average sales of other 174,862,107 products Dol. 4,305 3,565 4,828 2,940 3,807 13,282 Farmers selling other 4,784 products No. 4,892 13,466 3,464 4,609 6,216 3,904 36,551 Total direct sales : Dol. 32,734,816 75,971,246 27,672,736 19,989,835 34,693,363 68,606,033 259,668,029 Farmers selling direct : No. : 6,919 23,525 5,203 11,716 7,037 7,293 Average sales per farmer : 61,693 selling direct ; Dol. : 4,731 3,229 5,319 1,706 4,930 9,407 4,209 Total of farmers in State : No. : 90,000 65,000 7,600 100,000 98,000 61,000 421,600 Farms selling direct No. : 6,919 23,525 5,203 11,716 7,037 7,293 61,693 Percent cash receipts derived : Pet. : 7.7 36.2 68.5 11.7 7.2 12.0 14.6 from direct marketing : do. : 1.0 3.7 7.7 .6 1.1 3.2 2.0

1/ The commodities in the other categories included those where 50 percent or more of the estimate was realized from 10 or fewer products. Because of the rarity of reported sales, the value represented by expanded sales of these items may overrepresent or underrepresent the actual income from the sales of these specific items sold directly to the consumer. However, the total value of all direct sales to consumers are aggregated across all commodities, which reduces the effect of the individual commodity variability and results in a reliable total. Table 3—Percentage of direct sales to total production of diract-marketing farmers, by product and State, 1978

New North Pennsyl- Weighted Product Indiana Michigan Jersey Carolina Ohio vania average

Percent

Fruits: Apples 42 24 43 18 24 31 29 Strawberries 85 46 87 100 96 94 71 Other berries 98 71 73 86 89 99 82 Peaches and nectarines 76 53 32 64 89 42 47 Cherries 100 10 100 1/ 94 83 15 Pears 100 80 53 1/ 73 62 72 Grapes 33 1 88 51 35 25 5 Plums 100 13 1/ NA 82 39 20 Other NA 35 40 55 100 97 24

Weighted average 33 23 46 46 39 40 33

Vegetables and melons: Sweet corn 81 45 80 26 37 62 53 Tomatoes 14 61 66 20 41 75 38 Melons 3 40 79 38 53 65 10 Potatoes 6 39 13 77 23 55 23 Green beans 99 96 72 51 96 62 77 Cabbage 2/ 88 63 49 44 3 55 26 Squash 99 32 88 71 6 74 37 Peppers 100 14 72 1/ 57 78 53 Cucumbers 100 99 100 50 71 89 Pumpkins 43 99 87 100 75 43 49 Green peas 100 100 4 78 NA 100 84 Asparagus 33 13 100 NA 99 100 19 Sweet potatoes 1/ NÄ 85 6 NA 1/ 7 Other 86 100 80 40 4 52 41 Weighted average 17 40 65 29 28 63 33 Other products Floral and nursery 91 61 93 34 94 52 63 Livestock, poultry, and products 19 8 68 8 22 11 17 Christmas trees and forest products 26 11 5 69 59 19 17 Honey and syrups 78 31 32 12 48 53 35 Processed fruit 00 96 42 NA 83 44 73 Dairy NA NA NA NA NA 78 NA Other 21 8 46 11 72 30 12

Weighted average 36 15 46 29 74 34 27

Weighted average, all products 32 18 48 29 54 36 29

NA = Not applicable or none reported, 1/ Less than 0.05 percent. 2/ Also includes broccoli, brussels sprouts, and cauliflower.

15 Table 4—Direct-marketing farmers, by marketing method, number of methods used, and State, 1978

New North Total or Item iunit . Indiana Michigan Jersey Carolina Ohio Pennsyl- weighted vania average

Marketing method: Pick-your-own :No. : 337 1,686 745 2,051 381 188 5,388 :Pct. : 4.9 7.2 14.3 17.5 5.4 2.6 8.7

Roadside stand ;No. : 1,138 3,353 904 1,477 575 505 7,952 :Pct. : 16.4 14.3 17.4 12.6 8.2 6.9 12.9

Farmers * market :No. : 628 882 274 1,759 183 201 3,927 :Pct. : 9.1 3.7 5.3 15.0 2.6 2.8 6.4

Farmhouse :No, : 3,583 14,141 2,171 6,154 5,004 5,261 36,314 :Pct. : 51.8 60.1 41.7 52.4 71.0 72.1 58.8

House-to-house delivery :No. : 1,623 3,191 .7 1,950 56 914 7,741 :Pct. : 23.5 13.6 .1 16.6 .8 12.5 12.5

Farm store 'No. : 278 877 1,775 513 1,126 441 5,010 Pet. 4.0 3.7 34.1 4.4 16.0 6.0 8.1

Other i^ No. Pet.

Total -^ : No. 6,919 23,525 5,203 11,738 7,043 7,293 61,721 Pet.

Methods used: : One : No. : 6,256 22,970 4,551 9,603 6,768 7,095 57,243 Pet.: 90.4 97.6 87.5 81.8 96.1 97.3 92.7

Two : No. : 660 506 631 2,111 268 179 4,355 Pet.: 9.5 2.2 12.1 18.0 3.8 2.5 7.1 Three : No. : 4 49 21 15 7 19 115 Pet. : .1 .2 .4 .1 .1 .3 .2

Four or more : No. : 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 Pet.: .1

Total^/ ; No. : 6,919 23,525 5,203 11,738 7,043 7,293 61,721 Pet.: 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0- 100.0 100.0 100.0

y Includes catalogue and mail order sales and methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagon or truck tailgate on roadside or parking lot. 2/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers or 100 percent because some farmers use more than one direct sales method. y Less than 0.05 percent.

16 Table 5—Indiana: Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product and marketing method, 1978

Pick- Road- Farmers' i Farm- House-to- Farm Other, Total. Product \ your- side market house house store 1/ 2/ own stand delivery

Percent

Fruits : : Apples Î 8.9 48.0 7.9 20.9 0 14.4 0 100.0 Strawberries : 75.3 16.8 2.7 0 0 .9 4.3 100.0 Other berries : 44.0 2.0 53.5 .5 0 0 0 100.0 Peaches and nectarines : 1.8 15.5 10.7 71.0 0 1.0 0 100.0 Cherries : 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 100.0 Grapes : 12.1 55.4 20.3 10.6 0 1.5 0 100.0 Pears i .7 28.4 70.9 0 0 0 0 100.0 Plums : 0 6.9 0 35.9 0 57.2 0 100.0 Other : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total fruits : 18.0 33.8 13.5 25.3 0 9.0 .4 100.0

Vegetables: : 100.0 Sweet corn " 4.3 26.5 11.7 1.2 .5 55.8 0 100.0 Melons 3/ 4.0 67.5 2.4 23.2 0 2.8 0 Cabbage 4/ 5.3 5.7 88.8 .2 0 .1 0 100.0 Tomatoes 24.5 35.5 11.7 6.1 9.9 12.3 0 100.0 Green beans 77.3 9.0 3.7 .5 7.2 2.3 0 100.0 Peppers 93.1 .6 3.1 21.3 0 3.2 0 100.0 Potatoes 0 34.4 44.3 .1 0 0 0 100.0 Pumpkins 63.7 19.9 2.4 2.1 0 13.9 0 100.0 Squash : 0 75.0 7.4 74.5 0 15.5 0 100.0 Cucumbers : 9.2 .3 16.0 35.5 0 0 0 100.0 Asparagus : .3 64.2 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 Sweet potatoes : 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 100.0 Green peas : 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 Other : .4 .1 99.5 0 .0 0 0 100.0

Total vegetables : 19.6 22.5 30.0 4.7 1.6 20.7 0 100.0

Other products: Floral and nursery : 2.0 2.2 2.1 4.7 9.4 78.9 .9 100.0 Livestock, poultry, and products : 0 1.3 .2 74.2 24.3 0 0 100.0 Christmas trees and forest products : 81.4 6.2 0 11.3 0 1.1 0 100.0 Honey and syrups : 0 8.5 1.0 89.2 1.3 0 0 100.0 Processed fruits : 0 88.2 0 0 0 11.8 0 100.0 Dairy : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 Other : 45.3 0 8.4 0 0 46.3 0 100.0

Total other products : 2.9 3.0 1.2 36.4 14.5 41.5 0 100.0 .5 100.0 Total : 7.8 11.4 7.0 30.6 10.1 32.7

1/ Includes catalogue and mail order sales and methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wa^on or truck tailgate on roadside or parking lots. 2/ Percentage may not add exactly to 100.0 due to rounding. ~3/ Melons include watermelons and cantaloups, 4/ Includes broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, and cauliflower.

17 Table 6-—Michigan: Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product and marketing method, 1978

Pick- Road- Farmers * Farm- House-to- Farm Other Total Product your side market house house store 1/ 2/ stand delivery

Percent

Fruits: Apples 31.2 18.4 20. 11.8 0 18.1 0 100.0 Strawberries 91.7 .8 1. 4.1 0 1.9 0 100.0 Other berries 76.2 19.8 3.8 0 0 0 100.0 Peaches and nectarines 37.2 23.6 29 2.5 0 7.3 0 100.0 Cherries 46.6 19.3 21 9.8 0 2.4 0 100.0 Grapes 61.6 1.1 33 3.6 0 0 0 100.0 Pears 21.2 15.5 16.2 8.1 0 39.0 0 100.0 Plums 1.6 8.6 34.0 .8 42.6 12.4 0 100.0 Other 0 96.0 0 4.0 0 0 0 100.0 Total fruits 49.1 15.0 15.6 8.4 11.7 100.0 Vegetables: Sweet corn 4.8 18.2 63.0 5.1 0 8.9 0 100.0 Melons _3/ 17.5 76.1 4.4 0 1.9 .1 100.0 Cabbage M .3 77.2 4.5 18.0 0 0 0 100.0 Tomatoes 19.6 36.0 16.6 7.9 3.2 11.8 0 100.0 Green beans 48.8 .4 45.5 4.9 5/ .5 0 100.0 Peppers 2.8 86.1 11.1 0 0 0 0 100.0 Potatoes 5/ 4.6 5,% 89.5 0 .1 0 100.0 Pumpkins 53.1 2.9 41.1 0 0 2.9 0 100.0 Squash 43.0 21.1 16.0 19.9 0 0 0 100.0 Cucumbers 4.2 10.5 18.3 64.5 ,1 2.5 0 100.0 Asparagus 12.2 31.6 6.3 31.0 0 19.0 0 100.0 Sweet potatoes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 Green peas .6 96.7 2.7 0 0 0 0 100.0 Other 0 37.5 57.3 5.2 0 0 0 100.0

Total vegetables 5.2 15.6 25.5 49.2 3.9 5/ 100.0 Other products: Floral and nursery 0.2 5.5 5.4 2.9 0.8 83.3 1.9 100.0 Livestock, poultry, and products 0 1.3 4.6 90.1 3.0 5/ 0 100.0 Christmas trees and forest products 9.1 5.8 0 62.9 13.4 8.8 0 100.0 Honey and syrups 3.8 12.4 2.0 67.8 7.0 .1 6.9 100.0 Processed fruits 0 3.5 64.6 5.4 0 26.0 ,5 100.0 Dairy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 30.4 58.9 10.7 •0 0 0 100.0

Total other products .7 3.7 7.5 44.4 2.5 40.2 1.0 100.0

Total 3.4 7.8 11.4 35.9 1.7 29.2 .6 100,0

\J Includes catalogue and mail order sales and methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagon or truck tailgate on roadside or parking lots. 2,/ Percentage may not add exactly to 100.0 due to rounding. V Melons include watermelons and cantaloups. kj Includes broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, and cauliflower. V Less than 0.05 percent.

18 Table f—New Jersey: Distribution of direct-marketing sales, by product and marketing method, 1978

Pick- Road- Farmers * Farm- House-to- Farm Other Total Product your- side markets house house store 1/ 1/ own stand delivery

Percent

Fruits: Apples 15.4 26.6 0.7 4.8 0 52.4 0 100.0 Strawberries 58.0 31.7 3.0 3.4 0 3.9 0 100. 0 Other berries 49.0 5.4 45.1 .4 0 .1 0 100.0 Peaches and nectarines 10.2 51.1 1.3 11.8 0 25.5 0 100.0 Cherries 87.6 11.7 0 .6 0 0 0 100.0 Grapes 2.0 27.8 59.6 10.5 0 0 0 100.0 Pears 0 92.1 2.5 3.0 0 2.4 0 100.0 Plums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0

Total fruits 27.1 31,9 5.3 5.7 0 30.0 0 100.0

Vegetables: Sweet corn 1.0 56.2 33.5 2.9 0.2 6.3 0 100.0 Melons V 5.8 76.7 9.0 1.6 .2 6.4 0.4 100.0 Cabbage h_l .3 47.6 14.4 9.5 .1 28.1 0 100.0 Tomatoes : 0 13.4 5.8 16.0 .4 64.5 0 100.0 Green beans 3.3 51.9 38.0 .4 0 6.3 0 100.0 Peppers 3.2 49.5 31.8 15.4 0 0 0 100.0 Potatoes 0 77.2 .3 21.6 .9 0 0 100.0 Pumpkins : 16.2 64.9 1.4 1.3 .6 15.1 .5 100.0 Squash 68.4 24.9 0 6.7 0 0 0 100.0 Cucumbers : 2.4 92.6 .6 4.2 0 .3 0 100.0 Asparagus , 15.5 12.1 0 72.4 0 0 0 100.0 Sweet potatoes , 18.5 0 76.2 3.4 1.9 0 0 100.0 Green peas 0 44.7 0 48.0 0 7.Z 0 100.0 Other . 8.7 73.8 0 5.2 2.4 10.0 0 100.0 0 Total vegetables 3.4 63.8 20.5 .2 .2 8.2 .2 100.0

Other products : Floral and nursery 0 10.0 5.7 8.1 0 76.3 0 100.0 Livestock, poultry , and products 0 1.4 4.0 40.2 27.4 27.0 0 100.0 Christmas trees and forest products 31.4 7.3 0 59.1 0 2.2 0 100.0 Honey and syrups 0 4.9 0 59.8 33.5 1.8 0 0 Processed fruits 0 6.2 0 5.9 0 86.8 0 Dairy 0 0 ■0 0 0 0 0 Other .0 0 45.6 54.5 0 0 0 100.0

Total other products ■ .8 8.2 5.1 15.5 5.2 65.2 0 100.0

Total 7.2 22.0 7.5 11.5 3.3 48.5 0 100.0

ll Includes catalogue and mail order sales and methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagon or truck tailgate on roadside or parking lots. 2j Percentage may not add exactly to 100.0 due to rounding. 3_/ Melons include watermelons and cantaloups. 4^/ Includes broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, and cauliflower.

19 Table 8—North Carolina: Distribution of direct marketing sales, by product and marketing method, 1978

Pick- ' Road- Farmers * Farm- House-to- Farm Other Total Product your- * side markets house house store 1/ 2/ own ' stand delivery

Percent Fruits: Apples 63.2 29.1 0 6.7 1.0 0 100.0 Strawberries 0 77.6 16.4 0.6 4.6 0 0.7 100.0 Other berries 0 60.3 0 0 31.1 0 8.5 100.0 Peaches and nectarines 0 11.5 75.8 0 12.7 0 0 0 100.0 Cherries 100.0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 100.0 Grapes 90.3 1.3 0 8.4 0 0 0 100.0 Pears 0 0 60.0 0 40.0 0 0 100.0 Plums 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 1.5 98.5 0 0 0 100.0 Total fruits 58.7 30.2 9.8 .1 1.0 100.0 Vegetables : Sweet corn 12.1 21.5 7.4 57.9 1.0 Melons _3/ 0 0 100.0 5.1 43.5 23.3 26.6 1.4 .1 100.0 Cabbage 4/ 0 0 2.8 .3 95.4 .5 1.0 0 100.0 Tomatoes 1.1 44.7 7.4 26.2 19.6 1.0 Green beans 0 45.9 6.5 1.0 46.0 .4 .2 0 100.0 Peppers 0 0 0 100.0 0 0 100.0 Potatoes 0 8.6 .0 0 91.4 0 0 100.0 Pumpkins 0 0 91.0 0 9.0 0 0 100.0 Squash 0 0 0 37.0 63.0 0 0 100.0 Cucumbers 0 0 53.9 37.0 8.2 0 0 100.0 Asparagus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sweet potatoes 0 1.6 9.2 89.2 0 0 100.0 Green peas 0 76.8 8,4 8.0 4.0 1.9 0 100.0 Other 0 73.6 9.6 8.2 5.0 1.4 2.2 0 100.0

Total vegetables 36.9 17.8 8.4 32.4 3.7 1.0 100.0 Other products: Floral and nursery 2.0 24.4 0.6 25.3 0.1 46.4 1.3 Livestock, poultry, 100.0 and products 0 0 68.0 32.0 0 Christmas trees 0 100.0 and forest products 13.0 3.5 0 62.2 11.1 10.2 Honey and syrups 0 100.0 0 1.0 26.1 39.8 31.6 1.5 0 100.0 Processed fruits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dairy 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 Other 0 0 0 .,6 98.0 0 1.4 100.0 Total other products 2.1 21.4 38.9 5,1 40.7 1.1 100.0 Total 17.9 23.1 1.3 24.9 3.8 28.3 .8 100.0

1/ Includes catalogue and mail order sales and methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagon or truck tailgate on roadside or parking lots. TJ Percentage may not add exactly to 100.0 due to rounding. V Melons include watermelons and cantaloups. 4/ Includes broccoli, brussels. sprouts, Cabbage, and cauliflower.

20 Table 9-Ohio : Distribution of direct marketing sales, by product and marketing method, 1978

Other Pick- Road- Farmers' Farm- House-to- Farm Product your- side market house house store 1/ own stand delivery

Percent

Fruits : 13.5 48.1 2.5 12.2 0 23.6 0.2 100.0 Apples 100.0 Strawberries 78.5 8.8 .6 .1 0 12.0 0 100.0 Other berries 75.0 5.0 0 6.0 0 13.9 0 100.0 Peaches and nectarines 11.5 54.2 .2 24.6 0 9.5 0 100,0 Cherries 49.7 45.0 .3 5.1 0 0 0 38.7 58.8 .4 2.0 0.1 0 0 100.0 Grapes 100.0 Pears 37.9 7.4 17 ,7 37.0 0 0 0 53.9 0 100.0 Plums 6.8 35.4 0 3.9 0 0 100.0 Other 0 0 0 100.0 0 0 100.0 Total fruits 42.9 30.6 1.6 0 17.0

Vegetables: 100.0 Sweet corn 1.7 80.8 3.9 2.4 0 11.2 0 3.3 70.9 14.6 1.6 0 9.6 0 100.0 Melons _3/ 100.0 Cabbage W .7 53.5 1.1 5.7 0 39.0 0 10.6 60.2 24.2 2.5 0 2.5 0 100.0 Tomatoes 100.0 Green beans 17.3 44.7 0 1.0 2 36.8 0 71.6 1.7 16.4 10.3 0 0 0 100.0 Peppers 100.0 Potatoes 0 8.6 27.5 63.9 0 0 0 38.4 59.9 5.6 0 0 6.1 0 100.0 Pumpkins 0 100.0 Squash 0 70.5 2.8 0 0 26.7 .5 0 100.0 Cucumbers 0 88.9 0 10.6 0 0 0 100.0 Asparagus 0 97.4 0 2.6 0 0 0 0 Sweet potatoes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green peas 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0 Other 0 4.1 18.7 1.7 0 75,5 100.0 Total vegetables 3.3 70.9 14.6 1.6 9.6

Other products: 100.0 Floral and nursery 6.8 7.7 0.1 4,7 14.7 65.6 0.4 Livestock, poultry, 0 100.0 and products 0 18.7 0 86.0 .3 0 Christmas trees 42.2 1.1 39.1 1.4 2.2 0 100.0 and forest products 14.1 0 0 13.2 16.3 66.5 1.4 2.7 100.0 Honey and syrups 0 100.0 Processed fruits 0 5.8 3.7 20.4 .1 70.0 0 0 0 Dairy 0 0 0 0 0 1,2 100.0 Others .1 15.5 0 82.4 .6 .2 100.0 Total other products 5.4 11.3 .4 23.3 10.8 48.5 .3 Total 13.6 20.4 1.7 18.7 7.4 38.0 .2 100.0

1/ Includes catalogue and mail order sales and methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wag^on or truck tailgate on roadside or parking lots. 2/ Percentage may not add exactly to 100.0 due to rounding. 3^/ Melons include watermelons and cantaloups. ^1 Includes broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, and cauliflower.

21 Table 10—Pennsylvania: Distribution of direct marketing sales, by product and marketing method, 1978

; Pick- Road- Farmer s * Farm- House-to- Farm Other Total Product \ your- side market house house store \ 1/ 2/ \ own stand delivery

Percent

Fruits: Apples : 3.7 46,2 5.3 4.8 0.2 39.8 0 100.0 Strawberries : 35.3 15.7 4.8 5.6 .2 38.4 0 100.0 Other berries : 18.9 75.9 0 .3 0 4.9 0 100.0 Peaches and nectarines : 9.8 39.8 2.9 1.7 .2 45.6 0 100.0 Cherries : 74.5 19.3 .2 5.5 0 .4 0 100.0 Grapes : 34,0 54.4 2.1 .4 0 19.1 0 100.0 Pears : 0 77.6 4.2 15.6 1.4 1,2 0 100.0 Plums : 0 97.8 .6 1.6 0 0 0 100.0 Other 0 4.5 3 63.4 0 32.1 0 100.0

Total fruits : 13.0 38.8 4.5 4.4 .2 39.1 0 100.0

Vegetables: Sweet corn ! .3 48.4 11.4 4.0 18.0 17.9 0 100.0 Melons 3/ 0 37.4 15.1 11.4 0 36.1 0 100.0 Cabbage kj : 0 40.8 42.8 10.1 4.5 1.9 0 100.0 Tomatoes 7.7 39.6 21.9 3.7 1.4 25.7 0 100.0 Green beans .6 35.9 11.6 46.1 4.3 1.6 0 100.0 Peppers 0 19.3 73.9 6.8 0 0 0 100.0 Potatoes 0 57.9 7.3 .2 1.6 39.9 0 100.0 Pumpkins 48.3 33.6 0 3.4 0 0 0 100.0 Squash 0 98.5 0 1.5 0 0 0 100.0 Cucumbers 0 12.6 .4 87.0 0 0 0 100.0 Asparagus 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 100.0 Sweet potatoes 0 100 0 0 0 Û 0 100.0 Green peas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other : 4.3 88.5 3.0 .5 0 3.7 0 100.0

Total vegetables : 2.2 46.2 13.7 5.1 10.4 22.4 0 100.0

Other products: : Floral and nursery : 0.7 26.1 2.2 27.8 0.7 42.3 0.2 100.0 Livestock, poultry, : and products : 0 2.2 7.2 46.1 21.9 22.6 0 100.0 Christmas tree ; and forest products ; 17.9 18.1 0 62.7 0 1.3 0 100.0 Honey and syrups : 0 8.8 .1 91.1 0 0 0 100.0 Processed fruits : 0 64.2 27.2 5.3 0 3.3 0 100.0 Dairy ; 0 3.6 0 4.5 0 91.9 0 100.0 Other : 0 2.1 0 97.5 0 .4 0 100.0

Total other products ] .3 8.6 2.2 20.9 5.2 62.8 0 100.0

Total ; 2.5 15.9 3.3 17.2 4.7 56.4 0 100.0

Xl Includes catalogue and mail order sales and methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wagon or truck tailgate on roadside or parking lots. Ij Percentage may not add exactly to 100.0 due to rounding. 3^/ Melons include watermelons and cantaloups. 4/ Includes broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, and cauliflower.

22 Table 11-Percentage of farmers with added cost or less cost as a result of direct selling, by type of cost and marketing method, six States, 1978

Pick- Road- Farmers* Farm- House-to- Farm - Total or Item Unit your- side market house house store weighted stand delivery average

61,721 Farmers 1^/ No. 5,388 7,952 3,927 36,314 7,741 5,019 2,538 25,343 Replies Ij No. 2,848 6,008 1,733 8,375 3,841 Pet. 52.9 75.6 44.1 23.1 49.6 50.6 41.1

Added cost: Advertising Pet. 91.9 37.3 28.4 29.1 23.2 91.1 43.4 Insurance Pet. 36.0 20.2 20.5 7.8 1.4 44.2 17.5 Labor Pet, 16.9 30.3 25.3 33.3 2.4 51.0 27.3 Maintenance Pet, 5.1 78.5 6.9 10.7 .9 39.0 27.2 UGilities Pet, 2.7 29.8 7.3 11.5 12.2 40.2 17.5 Rent(stall rent) Pet. 0 .7 71.7 0 0 1.6 5.2 Parking lot Pet. 1.6 .2 "0 .2 0 .8 .3 Transportation Pet. 0 0 12.5 0 75.0 1.5 12.4 Containers Pet, 4.5 4,0 9.6 29.3 27.7 3.0 16.3 Miscellaneous Pet. 1.5 .2 1.3 .2 .6 2.0 .7

Replies No. 4,670 6,608 858 17,933 2,670 2,624 35,363 Pet, 86.7 83.1 21.8 49.4 34.5 52.3 57.3 Avoided Cost: Containers Pet, 89.7 81.9 85.8 31.0 74.9 64.9 55.4 Labor Pet, 95.1 24.1 20.5 42.1 30.6 53.5 45.2 Transportation Pet 97.3 99.1 23.7 88.3 31.8 98.4 86.4 Broker and commission agents* fees Pet 9.5 3.2 6.2 18.5 24.7 6.0 12.7 Storage' Pet 1.7 .4 .6 .3 21.0 1.2 2.2 Workers compensation Pet .5 0 0 .4 .9 .2 Equipment Pet .2 .1 0 0 1.0 .1

y Includes catalogue and mail order sales and methods not elsewhere classified, such as off wag^on or truck tailgate on roadside 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.

23 Table 12—Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, six States, 1978

Pick- House-to- ' Total or Item your- • Roadside Farmers * Farm- house Farm • weighted own • stand market house delivery store ' average

Number

Farmers 1/ 5,388 7,952 3,927 36,314 7,741 5,010 66,332

Percent

Population of nearest city: Under 10,000 8.3 3.6 2 .0 14.8 6.3 2.8 10.3 10,000-49,999 65.2 48.9 76 .3 63.4 82.0 50.7 63.7 50,000-99,999 17.4 4.6 4 .9 14.1 5.1 39.3 13.5 100,000-499,999 8.1 42.9 16 .2 6.3 .6 6.0 10.7 500,000 and over 0.8 .8 .6 1.4 6.0 1.2 1.8 Do not know 0.2 .2 .0 2/ 0 0 2/

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest city : with farmers * ' market : î Under 10,000 : 24 .1 8.9 3.9 17.6 29.1 15.4 17.4 10,000-49,999 : 24 .3 22.9 68.2 42.7 56.1 23.2 40.4 50,000-99,999 : 18 .7 10.4 5.0 16.5 5.0 4.8 13.1 100,000-499,999: 25 4 18.6 17.6 12.8 9.0 42.8 16.7 500,000 and : over : 6 0 37.5 4.6 8.6 .5 12.9 11.0 Do not know : 1. 5 1.7 .7 1.8 .3 .9 1.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used more than one direct sales method. 2^/ Less than 0.05 percent.

24 Table 13—Indiana: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest city and nearest city with public farmers* market and by marketing method, 1978

Pick- ■ Road- House-to- Total or Item * your- side- Farmers' Farm- house Farm weighted own stand market house delivery store average

Number

Farmers Ij 338 1,138 628 3,583 1,624 276 7,587

Percent

Population of nearest city: Under 10,000 3.0 2.4 3.7 .7 0 2.9 1.2 10,000-49,999 66.4 14.4 89.3 72.2 70.8 71.6 64.2 50,000-99,999 4.7 2.8 2.9 12.6 .4 7.3 7.2 100,000-499,999 23.7 79.0 4.2 1.8 1.5 9.1 14.8 500,000 and over 4.2 1.4 0 12.9 27.3 9.1 12.7 Do not know 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest city with farmers' market : Under 10,000 1.8 1.8 4.9 14.9 57.7 51.1 20.4 10,000-49,999 43.5 11.1 86.1 23.1 .5 54.0 23.7 50,000-99,999 : 0.9 2,9 1.4 .3 0 5.8 .9 100,000-499,999 34.9 80.8 5.6 19.8 40.9 13.0 22.1 500,000 and over 18.9 3.3 1.9 41.9 .9 22.1 22.3 Do not know 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ij Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used more than on direct sales method.

25 Table 14—Michigan: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest city and nearest city with public farmers* market and by marketing method, 1978,

; Pick- Road- House-to- Total or Item \ your- side Farmers V Farm- house Farm weighted [ own stand market house delivery store average

Number

Farmers Ij : 1,687 3,352 884 14,142 3,192 877 24,134 Percent

Population of nearest city: Under 10,000 : 5.4 1.3 .6 14.0 14.3 5.0 10.8 10,000-49,999 : 76.8 28.1 33.5 55.7 85.1 84.9 57.5 50,000-99,999 7.6 3.4 6.7 19.1 .6 3.3 12.7 100,000-499,999 9.9 67.1 58.1 11.2 0 6.7 18.9 500,000 and over 0.3 .1 1.1 .1 0 0 .1 Do not know

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Population of : nearest city : with farmers* : market : : Under 10,000 : 8.2 .9 .6 10.5 14.3 1.7 8.8 10,000-49,999 : 18.9 5.7 18.2 50.2 84.8 75.4 46.1 50,000-99,999 : 11.6 5.2 8.7 19.8 .6 4.4 13.7 100,000-499,999 : 55.2 5.3 58.8 15.1 .3 14.0 16.2 500,000 and : over : 6.0 82.9 13.7 4.2 0 4.4 15.1 Do not know : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

\J Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers because some farmers used than one direct sales method.

26 Table 15—New Jersey: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest city and nearest city with public farmers^ market and by marketing method, 1978

; Pick- Road- House-to- Total or Item your- side Farmers * Farm- house Farm weighted own stand market house delivery store average

Number

Farmers 1/ 746 905 274 2,171 7 1,776 5,879

Percent

Population of nearest city: Under 10,000 32.3 8.5 2.9 51.5 71.4 .7 24.9 10,000-49,999 65.6 84.6 86.1 37.3 0 3.3 40.1 50,000-99,999 2.1 4.0 6.9 11.0 28.6 95.8 34.3 100,000-499,999 0 1.9 4.0 .1 0 .1 .6 500,000 and over 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Do not know 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Population of nearest city with farmers' market : Under 10,000 84.4 53.4 8.1 21.1 100 .0 1.5 27.7 10,000-49,999 5.8 28.1 73.9 34.2 0 1.4 21.9 50,000-99,999 8.4 7.5 9.2 42.5 0 1.2 18.3 100,000-499,999 4.8 9.0 5.1 1.6 0 94.9 0 500,000 and over 2.4 1.2 3.7 .6 0 0 100.0 Do not know 0 0.8 0 .1 0 0 .1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 .0 100.0 100.0

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

27 Table 16—North Carolina; Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1978

Pick- Road- Farmers' : Farm- House-to- Farm Total or Item ; your- side market : house house store weighted average own stand delivery

Numt)er

Farmers \J ; 2,051 1,479 1,749 6,154 1,950 514 13,907

Percent

Population of \ nearest city: Under 10,000 ; 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 2/ 10,000-49,999 58.6 91.8 96.4 86.7 82.0 58.9 82.7 50,000-99,999 ; 35.5 2.6 1.0 4.8 17.4 19.8 10.9 100,000-499,999 ¡ 5.5 5.1 2.6 8.4 .6 21.2 6.3 500,000 and over 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Do not know ¡ 0.4 ,6 0 0 0 0 .1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest city with farmers' market: Under 10,000 21.4 2.6 1.6 13.8 .8 26.6 10.9 10,000-49,999 33.3 63.1 94.8 70.1 81.0 28,4 67.0 50,000-99,999 35.9 26.8 1.0 5.3 17.4 15.2 13.6 100,000-499,999 ; 9.1 6.3 2.6 10.5 .8 29.8 8.2 500,000 and over 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Do not know ; 0.4 1.2 0 .2 0 0 .3

Total Î 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

\J 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.

28 Table 17—Ohio: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1978

House-to- Pick- Road- Farmers* : Farm- Farm i Total or house Item your- side market : house store ^weighted average stand delivery

Number

Farmers 1/ 379 574 184 5,003 57 1,124 ,7,321

Percent

Population of nearest city; Under 10,000 10,3 8.2 7.6 41.7 21.1 .7 30.2 10,000-49,999 66.2 55.9 56.0 51.8 49.1 89.1 58.7 50,000-99,999 6.9 9.1 25.5 3.6 0 1.8 4.4 100,000-499,999 14.2 21.8 7.1 2.0 0 6.4 5.0 500,000 and over 2.4 5.1 3.8 .9 29.8 2.0 1.8 Do not know 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Population of nearest city with farmers* market: Under 10,000 8.2 8.6 14.4 40.6 .0 42.7 35.8 10.000-49,999 12.9 16.9 16.6 2.0 21.1 2.3 4.2 50,000-99,999 4.6 8.4 17.7 13.1 0 .8 10.4 100,000-499,999 20.3 25.0 23.2 21.8 0 6.0 19.4 500,000 and over 35.1 22.2 12.2 19.6 35.1 44.9 24.4 Do not know 18.7 19.0 16.0 2.8 43.9 4.3 5.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

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

29 Table 18—Pennsylvania: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by population of nearest city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1978

Pick- Road- House-to- Farmers' Farm- Farm Item your- side house Total or market house store own stand delivery weighted average

Number

Farmers 1/ 186 503 199 5,261 916 443 7,508 Percent- Population of nearest city; Under 10,000 36,6 18.9 15.1 3.1 1.7 15.6 5.9 10,000-49,999 31.7 52.5 52.3 72.6 93.9 52.6 71.1 50,000-99,999 11.8 17.5 16.1 23.5 2.9 21.9 20.0 100,000-499,999 12.9 8.9 12.6 .6 .9 7.7 2.3 500,000 and over 7.0 2.2 4.0 .2 .5 2.3 .7 Do not know 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Population of nearest city with farmers * market : Under 10,000 30.5 17.9 21.3 19.1 91.3 2.18 28.3 10,000-49^999 25.7 43.7 37.9 46.0 4.3 37.6 39.6 50,000-99,999 10.2 20.6 17.7 24.4 3.0 17.6 20.6 100,000-499,999 20.9 13.1 16.2 .6 .9 14.0 3.2 500,000 and over 12.8 4.8 7.1 .9 .5 9.0 2.0 Do not know 0 0 0 9.0 0 0 6.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

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

30 Table 19—Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance to nearest city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, six states, 1978

Pick- Road- House-to- Farmers * Farm- Farm Total or Item ] your- side house market house store weighted own stand delivery average

Number

Farmers J[/ : 5,388 7,952 3,927 36,314 7,741 5,010 62,332

Percent

Distance to nearest; city (miles) : Under 5 : 17.4 51.2 18.0 12,6 1.1 66,4 20.7 5-9.9 23.9 16.1 46.6 16.2 23.7 16.7 19.5 10-19.9 : 24.4 25.5 17.4 36.3 60.3 9.0 33.6 20 and over : 34.3 7.2 18.0 34.9 14.9 7.9 26.2

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Distance to nearest city with farmers' market (miles) : Under 5 : 11.0 10.2 16.2 10.0 6.4 18.9 10.7 5-9.9 : 14.1 16.9 44.5 7.8 16.8 38.6 14.9 10-19.9 : 18.8 19.9 15.1 30.1 36.0 18.1 26.9 20 and over ; 56.1 53.0 14.2 52.1 40.8 24.4 47.5

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

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

31 Table 20—Indiana: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance to nearest city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1978

Pick- Road- Farmers* : Farm- House-to- Farm Total or Item ; your- side house market : house store weighted own stand delivery average

Number

Farmers l_l 338 1,138 628 3,583 1,624 276 7,587

Percent Distance to nearest, city (miles): Under 5 22.3 43.7 11.3 3.4 .7 45.1 11.9 5-9.9 22.3 42.5 12,5 31.4 32.0 16.0 30.6 10-19.9 ► 23.4 7.3 9.7 32.8 66.2 25.8 33.6 20 and over : 32.0 6.5 66.5 32.4 1,1 13.1 23.9

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest city with farmers' market (miles): Under 5 \ 10.4 41.4 9.2 1.7 26.8 31.5 15.1 5-9.9 : 19.5 40.7 11.5 2.0 .4 15.2 9.5 10-19.9 : 19.2 5.0 8.9 19.1 1.4 16.3 12.3 20 and over : 50.9 1.29 70.4 77.1 71.4 36.0 63.1

Total \ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

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

32 Table 21—Michigan: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance to nearest city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1978

Pick- Road- House-to- Total or weighted Item your- side Farmers * Farm- house Farm stand market house delivery store average

Number

877 24,134 Farmers 1/ 1,687 3,352 884 14,142 3,192

Percent

Distance to.nearest city (miles) 76.9 22.0 Under 5 4.0 82.0 58.3 9.2 .3 6.6 13.8 5-9.9 45.8 3,7 7.1 12.7 15.8 6.2 40.8 10-19.9 25.8 8.8 21.0 43.8 83.8 10.4 23.4 20 and over 24.4 5.5 13.6 34.3 .2 100.0 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest city with farmers^ market (miles): 9.8 Under 5 : 2.0 .7 55.6 8.8 0 68,8 2.8 8.2 5-9.9 : 6.7 2.6 2.7 8.7 15.9 35,8 10-19.9 : 14.6 6.0 11.2 37.6 83.8 11.8 46,1 20 and over : 76.6 90.6 30.5 44,9 .3 16.5 100.0 Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0

1/ Sum may exceed total number o£ farmers selling directly to consumers since some farmers used more than one direct sales method.

33 Table 22—New Jersey: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance to nearest city and nearest city with public farmers* market and by marketing method, 1978

; Pick- Road- House-to- Total or Item . your- side Farmers' Farm- house Farm weighted \ own stand market house delivery store average

Number

Farmers 1/ 746 905 274 2,171 7 1,776 5,879

Percent

Distance to nearest city (miles) Under 5 33.1 16.1 12.0 32.7 100.0 98.0 49.0 5-9.9 7.9 31.7 10.6 17.5 0 1.2 13.2 10-19.9 57.2 51.0 70.1 48.1 0 .8 36.4 20 and over 1.7 1.1 7.3 1.8 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest city with farmers^' market (miles): Under 5 2.3 3.5 .7 2.4 37.5 1.2 2.2 5-9.9 52.1 61.5 4.8 16,4 37.5 95.6 51.3 10-19.9 38.7 22.5 81.3 51.0 0 1.6 31.5 20 and over : 6.8 12.5 13.2 30.1 25.0 1.6 15.0

Total . : 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0

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

34 Table 23—North Carolina: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance to nearest city and nearest city with public farmers* market and marketing method, 1978

Pick- Road- House-to- Total or Item your- side Farmers * Farm house Farm weighted own stand market house delivery store average

: Number

Farmers \j 2,051 1,479 1,759 6,154 1,950 514 13,907

Percent

Distance to nearest city (miles) Under 5 21.1 29.3 1.2 3.1 .8 17.5 8.5 5-9.9 9.4 6.8 89.4 15.6 40.0 17.3 26.6 10-19.9 9.0 54.8 4.7 5.1 2.2 22.6 11.2 20 and over ' 60.8 9.1 4.7 76.1 57.0 42.6 53.7

Total 100.0 100,0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest city with farmers^ market (miles): Under 5 : 19.6 4.1 1.2 2.0 .8 8.9 4.8 5-9.9 : 7.3 5.2 89.4 14.5 39.4 8.0 25.2 10-19.9 : 10.1 56.3 4.7 4.1 2.2 16.3 10.8 20 and over : 63.0 34.3 4.7 79.4 57.6 66.7 59.2

Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1/ Sum may exceed total number of farmers selling directly to consumers since some farmers used mo^è than one direct sales method.

35 Table 24--Ohio: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance to nearest city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1978

Pick- Road- House-to- Total or Item your- side Farmers' Farm- house Farm weighted own stand market house delivery store averap;e

Number

Farmers 1/ 379 574 184 5,003 57 1,124 7,321

Percent Distance to nearest city (miles) Under 5 19 .0 24.4 17.9 13,4 40.4 44.9 19.7 5-9.9 37 7 27.7 20.7 27.2 40.4 44.8 30.4 10-19.9 31 4 35.0 36.4 45.4 19.3 8.2 37.7 20 and over 11 9 12.9 25.0 14.0 0 2.0 12.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 )istance to ; nearest city : with farmers' : market (miles): : Under 5 24 3 23 7 23.2 12.8 43.9 5.5 13.6 5-9.9 2 4 10 8 17.7 1.1 10.5 .2 2.2 10-19.9 : 29 9 17 6 13.8 44.4 21.1 46.4 40.9 20 and over : 44 3 47, 8 45.3 41.7 24.5 48.0 43.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0

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

36 Table 25—Pennsylvania: Distribution of direct-marketing farmers, by distance to nearest city and nearest city with public farmers' market and by marketing method, 1978

Pick- Road- House-to- Total or Farm weighted Item your- side Farmers * Farm- house stand market house delivery store average

Number 443 7,508 Farmers 1/ 186 503 199 5,261 916

Percent

Distance to nearest city (miles) 26.4 Under 5 22.6 21.9 16.6 30.2 1.4 43.8 26.9 8.0 5-9.9 24.2 24.7 23.6 4.9 1.2 23.3 46.3 10-19.9 37.6 34.6 47.7 41.1 95.2 6.1 19.3 20 and over 15.6 18.9 12.1 23.8 2.2 100.0 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Distance to nearest city with farmers * market (miles): 28.7 23.6 Under 5 5.9 16.9 11.1 28.8 1.4 28.5 7.0 5-9.9 17.1 20.0 16.2 4.2 1.2 25.3 10-19.9 51.9 37.5 53.5 25.6 4.3 28.5 44.1 20 and over 25.1 25.6 19.2 41.4 93.1 14.3 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

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

37 Table 26-Distribution of direct-marketing farmers with access to various types of roads, by State, marketing method, and type of road, 1978

' Inter- U.S. or Secondary Item state ] Divided State paved Unpaved City Total [ highway highway1 highway road road street 1/

Number Farmers : 5,388 7,592 3,927 36,314 7,741 5,010 61,721 Percent State: Indiana : 8.9 1.6 19.1 64.1 Michigan 14.8 .5 109.0 : 7.7 6,8 10.5 57.9 27.6 12.8 New Jersey : .7 123.3 5.1 26.4 68.6 1.0 0 101.8 North Carolina 3.8 .7 28.6 62.7 11.7 .4 107.9 Ohio 1.4 .9 44.7 49.8 2.6 2.0 101.4 Pennsylvania 1.8 2.0 10.9 70.9 20.2 1.0 106.8 Weighted : average : 5.1 3.7 20.2 61.0 17.2 5.4 112.6 Marketing method: : Pick-your-own : 2.0 1.5 18.0 73.6 Roadside stand : 7.9 .5 103.5 8.8 3.8 37.6 57.8 Farmers' market : 1.8 .6 110.4 16.8 15.8 21.3 59.1 Farmhouse : 11.4 4.3 128.7 4.3 1.9 17.6 62.5 House-to-house : 20.1 5.1 111.5 delivery : .1 6.6 .8 48.6 29.5 14.7 100.3 Farm store : 3.0 2.0 29.5 63.6 2.2 2.4 102.7 Weighted : average : 5.1 3.7 20.2 61.0 17.2 5.4 112.6 hÀLlTJ"^^ r"^*^ ''"'"^!'' °^ ^^'^''^ ^^^^^"8 directly to consumers or 100 percent because some farmers used more than one direct sales method. percent

38 Table 27—Distribution of direct-marketing farmers using various types of advertising, by State, marketing method, and type of advertising, 1978

Road Word of No adver- Total Item Newspaper sign Radio mouth Other tising 1/

Number

Farmers 6,916 23,525 5,203 11,738 7,043 7,293 61,721 Percent

ate: î Indiana 9.9 31.0 3.5 14.1 1.4 52.5 47.5 Michigan 12.9 15.0 4.7 22.6 4.5 58.0 42.0 New^ Jersey 11.1 22.9 1.5 6.9 2.7 76.6 23.4 North Carolina 15.9 27.4 12.6 22.9 1.1 46.4 53.6 Ohio 25.3 39.9 9.5 22.5 2.0 54.5 45.5 Pennsylvania : 22.6 10.3 4.2 16.0 2.9 59.6 40.4

Weighted average : 15.6 22.1 6.3 18.9 2.7 56.6 43.5

Marketing method: Pick-your-own 49.6 39.5 11.2 8.1 8.1 35.0 65.0 Roadside stand 23.7 41.2 20.4 3.6 2.4 44.3 55.7 Farmers * market 21.4 8.2 4.7 2.3 14.0 76.0 24.0 Farmhouse 5.3 17.1 .8 21.3 .6 61.2 38.8 House-to-house delivery 11.4 10.5 .2 30.9 .4 57.9 42.1 Farm store 39.8 35.9 29.4 15.6 9.0 44.1 55.9

Weighted average 15.6 22.1 6.3 18.9 2.7 56,5 43.5

11 Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers or 100 percent bec^ause some farmers used more than one direct sales method or form of advertising.

39 Table 2a.-.Distrlbution of di re et-marke ting fanners, by direct sales, and gross value of total production, by Siîate, 1918

;- — -"—' —^„_ : Weighted , Indiana : Michigan : New Jersey : North Carolina Ohio Gross value of : Pennsylvania : average : Direct total farm sales :Direct ¡Direct rDirect: iDirect. rDirect. :Direct 1/ Farmers : sales : Farmers : sales: Farmers : sales : Farmer s: sales: Farmers : sales : Farmers : sales: Farmers : fíales

Percent Under $2,500 : 26.3 2.5 56.4 5.5 32.5 3.3 35.4 7.9 33.9 $2,500-$9,999 3.3 56.5 4.0 44.5 4.4 : 21.9 12.7 21.1 20.1 46.3 30.6 21.1 10.7 18.4 15.5 $10,000-$19,999 : 2.4 25.8 3.7 23.6 14.6 2.6 5.8 5.8 9.1 2.7 9.4 8.9 23.1 10.6 Subtotal : 50.6 2.9 2.5 8.1 5.1 4>. 17.8 83.4 31.4 87.9 36.6 65.9 27.5 75.4 O 29.4 85.2 10.2 76.2 24.1 $20,000-$39,999 18.7 24.1 6.8 11.1 2.4 6.0 2.0 17.3 3.1 6.9 2.5 4.2 5.9 10.3 $40,000-$99,999 27.4 13.6 6.1 28.5 2.8 12.9 17.3 37.8 19.1 18.7 6.0 14.7 11.8 20.7 $100,000-$199,999 1.6 10.5 .9 8.5 5.9 19.2 14.3 7.4 1.6 14.7 3.3 16.0 4.3 12.6 $200,000-$499,999 1.1 21.2 2.4 14.5 .8 15.5 .5 10.1 .7 18.4 1.6 27.2 1.5 19.0 $500,000 and over : .4 12.8 .3 6.0 .3 9.8 0 0 .2 11.8 1.2 27.7 .3 13.3 Subtotal : 49.2 82.2 16.5 68.6 12.2 63.4 34.1 72.6 24.7 70.5 14.6 89.8 23.8 75.9 Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total farms and : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 million dollars ; 6,919 32.7 23,525 76.0 5,203 27.7 11,738 20.0 7,043 34.7 7,293 68.6 61,721 259.7

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 _withln each size classification, and percentage of direct sales based on dollar value of direct sales by farmers m each size classification. Table 29—Distribution of dir act-marke ting farmers, by direct sales, and gross value of total production, by State^» 1978 (Based on 1975 farm definition—saxes of $1,000 or more)

Weighted Pennsylvania average Indiana Michigan New Jei "sey North Carolina Ohio Gross value of Direct Direct Direct Direct .Direct ¡Direct :Direct total farm sales : sales : Farmers : sales Farmers: sales Farmers : sales Farmers sales : Farmers ; sales ' Farmers : sales Farmers 1/ : i„ Percent 1.8 28.6 2.9 21.2 2.4 Under $2,500 11.0 1.7 33.4 2.4 13.7 2.3 9.8 3.0 14.6 15.8 42.5 3.7 33.5 14.9 $2,500-$9,999 26.5 12.8 32.3 20.7 59.2 30.9 29.5 11.2 23.8 10.8 4.8 2.5 11.5 5,2 $10,000-$19,999 3.0 3.7 9.1 6.0 11.6 2.7 13.2 9.4 29.7 75.9 9.1 66.2 22.5 Subtotal : 40.5 17.2 14.8 39.1 84.5 35.9 52.5 23.6 68.1 28.4 4.2 8.4 10.5 : 22.6 24.2 10.4 11.4 3.0 6.1 2.8 18.2 4.0 7.0 4.1 $29,999-$39,999 14.9 16.7 21.1 : 33.2 13.7 9.3 29.5 3.6 13.0 24.1 39.8 24.6 19.0 9.9 $40,000-$99,999 5.5 16.3 6.1 12.9 $100,000-$199,999 : 2.0 10.6 1.4 8.8 7.6 19.4 19.9 7.8 2.1 15.0 18.7 2.7 27.5 2.1 19.4 $200,000-$499,999 : 1.3 21.4 3.7 15.0 .9 15.7 .7 10.6 .9 11.9 1.9 28.1 .5 13.6 $500,000 and over ' .4 12.9 .5 6.2 .4 9.9 0 0 .3 71.6 24.1 90.0 33.8 77.5 Subtotal : 59.5 82.8 25.3 70.9 15.5 64.1 47.5 76.4 31.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total : 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total farms and 4,424 67.8 43,467 254.3 million dollars : 5,725 32.5 15,368 73.5 4,073 27.4 8,415 19.9 5,462 34.1

classification. rabie 30-—Distribut ion of direct-marketing farmers, by State, farming status, and marketing method, 1978

State and farming : Pick- your-own Roadside stand Farmers * market Farmhouse House-to-house : Farm store Total farms status delivery 1/

: No. Pet. No. Pet. No. Pet. No. Pet. No. Pet. No. Pet. No. Pet. Indiana: Full time : 143 42.6 138 12.1 66 10.5 1,784 49.8 1,162 Part time 71.6 156 56.2 2,842 41.1 ' 194 57.4 1,000 87.9 562 89.5 1,799 50.2 461 28.4 122 43.8 4,077 58.9 Total ' 337 100.0 1,138 100.0 628 100.0 3,583 100.0 1,623 100.0 278 100.0 6,919 100.0 Michigan: Full time ' 586 34.8 361 10.8 709 80.4 3,287 23.2 9 1.3 789 90.0 5,359 22.8 Part time ' 1,100 65.2 2,992 89.2 173 19.6 10,854 76.8 3,182 99.7 88 10.0 18.166 77.2 Total ; 1,686 100.0 3,353 100.0 882 100.0 14,141 100.0 3,191 100.0 877 100.0 25,525 100.0 New Jersey; Full time ' 119 16.0 254 28.1 68 24.7 695 32.0 2 Part time 31.6 70 3.9 1,078 20.7 • 626 84.0 650 71.9 206 75.3 ¡5 Total 1,476 68,0 5 68.4 1,705 96.1 4,125 79.3 ; 745 100.0 904 100.0 274 100.0 2,171 100.0 7 100.0 1,775 100.0 5,203 100.0 North Carolina: Full time • 534 26.0 1,291 87.4 64 3.7 2,681 43.6 Part time 337 17.3 144 28.1 4,613 39.3 ' 1,517 74.0 186 12.6 1,695 96.3 3,473 Total 56.4 1,613 82.7 369 71.9 7,125 60.7 2,051 100.0 1,477 100.0 1,759 100.0 6,154 100.0 1,950 100.0 513 100.0 11,738 100.0 Ohio : Full time 149 39.1 256 44.6 65 35.3 1,832 Part time : 36.6 19 34.7 1,033 91.7 3,205 45.5 232 60.9 319 55.4 118 64.7 3,172 Total : 63.4 37 65.3 93 8.3 3,838 54.5 381 100.0 575 100.0 183 100.0 5,004 100.0 56 100.0 1,126 100.0 7,043 100.0 Pennsylvania : : Full time : 126 67.3 344 68.1 153 76.1 Part time : 384 7.3 63 6.9 346 78.5 1,230 16.9 62 32.7 161 31.9 48 23.9 4,877 Total : 92.7 851 93.1 95 21.5 6,063 83.1 188 100.0 505 100.0 201 100.0 5,261 100.0 914 100.0 441 100.0 7,293 100.0 Six States: : Full time : 1,657 30.8 2,644 33.2 1,125 28.6 10,663 29.4 1,592 20.6 2,538 50.7 18,327 29.7 Part time : 3,731 69.2 5,308 66.8 2,802 Total : 71.4 25,651 70.6 6,149 79.4 2,472 49.3 43,394 70.3 5,388 100.0 7,952 100.0 3,927 100.0 36,314 100.0 7,741 100.0 5,010 100.0 61,721 100.0

1/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers or 100 percent because some farmers used more than one direct sales method Table 31—Distribution of direct-marketing farmers by product category and State, 1978

New North Pennsylvania Total Item : Indiana Michigan Jersey Carolina Ohio

Number

61,721 Farmers : 6,919 23,525 5,203 11,738 7,043 7,293

Percent

Product: 50.6 Field cropg 47.9 50.3 30.4 61.7 50.1 51.6 29.9 Vegetables 32.4 29.0 19.8 48.3 6.5 30.5 20.6 Fruits and nuts 17.0 27.0 13.4 24.4 9.6 12.7 43.4 Livestock : 55.9 40.7 27.0 49.1 33.0 52.9 21.1 Poultry : 39.6 20.8 11.5 14.0 29.9 14.2 4.6 Dairy , : 22.8 .4 4.2 1/ 9.1 3.5 31.1 Other-' : 27.1 27.5 56.2 34.0 40.8 14.4 201.3 Total^^ : 242.7 195.7 162.5 231.5 179.0 179.8

11 Less than 0.05 percent, 2/ Includes such items as nursery, greenhouse products, forest products, honey, syrup, jams, jelly, and cider. 3/ Sum may exceed number of farmers selling directly to consumers or 100 percent because some farmers produce products in more than one category.

43 Table 32- -Reasons given by farmers for selling directly to consumers, by State and marketing method, 1978

Higher Less Access Miscella- No Total Item income labor to Social neous reply 1/ costs market

Number Farmers 5,388 7,952 3,924 36,314 7,741 5,010 61,721

Percent State: Indiana 55.3 1.6 31.5 39.6 .1 .9 Michigan 33.0 128.9 1.1 33.9 46.2 .1 7.3 121.6 New Jersey 67.3 2.3 21.8 21.5 0 .4 North Carolina 51.1 113.3 5.5 58.2 33.1 0 9.9 Ohio 51.5 157.8 3.1 32.3 52.0 .2 1.4 Pennsylvania 42.0 140.5 ,5 12.4 41.0 13 .7 .9 110.5 Weighted average 45,0 2.2 34.4 40.9 1.7 5.1 129.3 Marketing method: Pick-your-own 63.0 18.2 40.7 31.2 Roadside stand .4 2.0 128.9 50.3 2.6 64.7 15.7 Farmers* market 1.3 1.4 121.6 48.7 2.5 69.1 40.5 .6 1.2 Farmhouse 37.3 113.3 .3 21.8 33.8 10.6 20.1 House-to-house 157.8 delivery 39.3 .6 31.2 43,5 .2 3.5 140.5 Farm store 85.5 1.2 11.2 22.6 1.1 1.4 110.5 Weighted average 45.0 2.2 34.4 40,9 1.7 5.1 129.3 failerrused morrihr"" A", ''""""f "''""" ''"'""^ '° consumers or 100 percent because some tarmers used more than one direct sales method or gave more than one reason.

*U,S. GOVERNMENT PRINTÍNG OFFICE : 1980 0-510*9it5/ESCS-190

44 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE POSTAGE AND FEES PAID WASHINGTON, DC. 20250 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGR 101 THIRD CLASS

H Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service The Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service (ESCS) collects data and carries out research projects related to food and nutrition, cooperatives, natural resources, and rural development. The Economics unit of ESCS researches and analyzes production and marketing of major commodities; foreign agriculture and trade; economic use, conservation, and development of natural resources; rural population, employment, and housing trends, and economic adjustment problems; and performance of the agricultural industry. The ESCS Statistics unit collects data on crops, livestock, prices, and labor, and publishes official I'SDA State and national estimates through the Crop Reporting Board. The ESCS Cooperatives unit provides research and technical and educational assistance to help farmer cooperatives operate efficiently, ihrough its information program, ESCS provides objective and timely economic and statistical information for farmers, government policymakers, consumers, agribusiness firms, cooperatives, rural residents, and other interested citizens.