Progress 09/15/00 to 09/30/04
Outputs
In order to evaluate the perceptions, attitudes, and roles played by various stakeholders in the produce distribution system, five separate surveys were developed and used to obtain information in each of the four states participating in the project (Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee). Results indicate that today's commercial distribution system for produce requires growers to offer value-added services and product traits in sufficient volumes and over longer periods demanded by buyers. These requirements have adverse impacts on small and mid-sized operations. Extension in all four states implemented similar staffing strategies. In those counties where there is sufficient activity, there are horticultural agents. The simultaneity encountered was that fewer and smaller operations led to lower demand for Extension staff and production expertise and post-harvest handling and marketing support programs. North Carolina and Georgia growers have created
critical masses in terms of volumes and interest in marketing. The lower frequencies of larger growers in Kentucky and Tennessee decreased the likelihood that smaller growers had the opportunity to work with marketing agents. In addition, the two less successful states had no public outlets for produce marketing other than retail, whereas the two successful states have created facilities that encompass a range of marketing activities. Kentucky and Tennessee Departments of Agriculture operated with limited funds, so they were unable to provide a range of support services, people, marketing help, or promotional assistance. Just building facilities is insufficient, as critical masses of buyers and sellers need to come together with products in sufficient volumes over time. Support for production, for post-harvest handling, and market facilities that cater to alternative outlets in close proximity are also required.
Impacts
Officials in state departments of agriculture, extension services, USDA, and various grower/handler organizations can use the results of this project to evaluate the level of investment in services and facilities provided for fruit and vegetable growers and handlers in individual states and the likely impacts of those facilities and services on the development of viable markets for smaller scale growers.
Publications
- Eastwood, D., Hall, C., Brooker, J., Estes, E., Woods, T. and Stegelin, F. 2004. Public Markets and the Development of the Fresh Produce Industry. Journal of Food Distribution Research. 35:1:2004:191. Abstract.
- Eastwood, D., Brooker, J., Hall, C., Estes, E., Woods, T., Epperson, J. and Stegelin, F. 2004. A Marketing Systems Approach to Removing Distribution Barriers Confronting Small-Volume Fruit and Vegetable Growers. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin. August. 403:2004.
- Eastwood, D., Brooker, J., Smith, J. 2004. Developing Marketing Strategies for Green Grocers: An Application of SERVQUAL. Agribusiness, An International Journal. 21:1:2005.
- McPherson, P.D., Epperson, J.E. and Stegelin, F.E. 2004. Overcoming Barriers to the National Produce Market: The Georgia Case. Journal of Food Distribution Research. 36:1:2005. Abstract.
- Eastwood, D., Hall, C., Brooker, J., Estes, E., Woods, T., Epperson, J. and Stegelin, F. 2004. Produce Growers and Market Development: A Four State Comparison. Journal of Food Distribution Research. 36:1:2005. Abstract.
- Brooker, J., Eastwood, D., Hall, C., Estes, E., Woods, T., Epperson, J. and Stegelin, F. 2004. State Departments of Agriculture Participation in Fresh Produce Marketing in Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Journal of Food Distribution Research. 36:1:2005. Abstract.
- Hall, C., Eastwood, D., Brooker, J., Estes, E., Woods, T., Epperson, J. and Stegelin, F. 2004. Removing Distribution Barriers Confronting Small-Volume Fruit and Vegetable Growers: Results from the Tennessee Extension Service Survey. Journal of Food Distribution Research. 36:1:2005. Abstract.
- Eastwood, D., Brooker, J., Hall, C. and Rhea, A. 2004. Small Produce Growers' Marketing Behaviors: A Case Study of Tennessee. Journal of Food Distribution Research. March. 35:1:2004:57-64.
|
Progress 01/01/03 to 12/31/03
Outputs
Analyses of all five surveys, conducted in previous years, were completed for each of the four states involved with the project. Three professional paper presentations were given (Southern Agricultural Economics Association, Food Distribution Research Society, and Southern Nurserymen's Association), and one of the papers was also accepted for publication in the Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. Eight poster presentations dealing with various components of the project were developed for annual meetings of the FDRS, Southern Nurserymen, Tennessee Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, and National Association of County Extension Agents. The major document/output of the project is The Guidelines for Development. Drafts of all but one of the chapters have been completed and are under review by the co-PI's and subcontractors.
Impacts
Differences are being identified regarding the breadth and variety of produce programs in GA, KY, NC, and TN. Notable differences in the produce distribution channels between the successful states (Georgia and North Carolina) versus the less successful states (Kentucky and Tennessee) have been identified. This is the only study of the interactions within the market channel encompassing the roles of the public sector. Critical masses in all components of the distribution channel have to be present for market development to occur. Public produce markets need to provide the complete range of marketing activities in order to attract sufficient numbers of stakeholders to build adequate supply and demand for the sector to expand. A sufficient number of larger-sized growers is needed to attract buyers. Extension and state Departments of Agriculture need to have the personnel and programs in place to assist in produce marketing decision making and in bringing buyers and
sellers at the wholesale and retail levels together.
Publications
- Eastwood, D.B., Brooker, J.R., Rhea, A. and Hall, C. 2003. Tennessee Produce Growers: Production and Post-Harvest Handling Activities. Department Research Series, January 2003, 01-03.
- Eastwood, D. (presenter), Brooker, J., Hall, C., Rhea, A., Estes, E. (NCSU), Woods, T. (UKY), and Stegelin, F. (UGA). 2003. Changing Produce Marketing Barriers: A Comparison Among Three Southern States. J. Agric. and Applied Econ. 35:2 (August, 2003): 297-304.
|
Progress 01/01/02 to 12/31/02
Outputs
Questionnaires and sampling designs for five surveys were developed: fresh produce growers, Extension agents, public market managers, marketing agents, and state Departments of Agriculture. Data were collected from all five groups. The grower survey was coded and analyzed. Several tests of independence were conducted to look for systematic patterns of decision making on the basis of whether the respondent wanted to expand and on the basis of whether the respondent was a grower-shipper. Results were presented at the Annual Meeting of the Food Distribution Research Society and a draft Research Series monograph has been prepared. Work on combining and analyzing the Tennessee results with similar surveys in Kentucky and North Carolina in terms of international marketing implications was begun. A variety of produce commodities was grown. The largest acreage was in the production of snap beans followed by tomatoes, pumpkins, and apples. Other fruit and vegetables with
notable acreage were sweet corn, cantaloupes, peaches, strawberries, sweet potatoes, watermelon, cabbage, and winter squash. Approximately half the respondents were interested in expansion. Limiting factors of expansion were harvest labor availability, market outlets, prices received, labor management, and credit availability. Extension and other growers were the most frequently cited sources of information about the production of a new crop. Extension agents were found to be the most useful source of information for respondents about produce production. Decisions about what to grow were based primarily on experience, followed by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture. Seventy percent did not use a broker/wholesaler. Few post-harvest handling practices were followed. Factors that grower-shippers versus other growers tended to find limiting were prices received and market outlets. Other growers versus grower-shippers tended to indicate harvest labor and disease control were limiting.
Grower-shippers who are interested in expansion are more likely to attend trade shows and to try new varieties.
Impacts
Three-quarters of the growers sold at least part of their production through direct outlets, and about a third sold directly to retail stores. Over one-third of the respondents were grower-shippers, about 25 percent expected to increase direct marketing, and a few expected increases in on-farm cooling and selling to wholesalers/brokers. Results of the survey will provide a basis to identify gaps in the marketing strategies that small produce growers use to sell their output, and current marketing strategies will be compared to the requirements of the commercial distribution system to generate production and post-harvest handling procedures that are consistent. .
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
Progress 01/01/01 to 12/31/01
Outputs
The project focuses on an analysis of the produce market channel development for small growers in four states (Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee). Two states (Georgia and North Carolina) have been relatively successful, and two states (Kentucky and Tennessee) have experienced little expansion. During the initial year work occurred in three areas. First, five survey instruments were created for the groups of stakeholders in the produce marketing channel: 1) growers, 2) Extension agents, 3) public market managers, 4) marketing agents, and 5) state Departments of Agriculture. This involved the construction of relevant sets of questions to obtain information about respondents; perceptions of produce market development in the respective state. Second, sampling strategies were developed. Each of the five stakeholder groups has to have its own sampling design for each of the four states, making a total of 20 to be generated. Sixteen of them entailed the
identification of people for whom personal interviews wold occur. Plans were implemented to include growers two ways. County Extension agents provided lists of produce growers in the respective counties. Preparations were made to mail questionnaires to these growers in the winter of 2002, and some growers were selected to have personal interviews. Third, most of the personal interviews with Extension agents, public market managers, marketing agents, and state Departments of Agriculture were completed during the summer, fall, and early winter.
Impacts
Information gathered from the survey and interviews will provide a benchmark for identification of distributional barriers confronting small-volume growers for a variety of produce commodities. Because all of the elements of the distribution systems are involved, this will be the first time that simultaneity problems can be addressed. The nature of the database will also permit an evaluation of the importance of coordination among sites and agencies involved in fruit and vegetable marketing. The goal is to pool the information obtained from each state for each of the stakeholder groups. Similarities and differences among the states will be noted. Results will be used to develop a Guidelines for Development document that can be used as a blueprint for creating viable market outlets for small fruit and vegetable growers. The document can be used by fresh produce stakeholder groups for market development in any state.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
|