Brooker, John R.

Eastwood, David B.

Epperson, James E.

Estes, Edmund A.

Hall, Charles R.

Stegelin, Forrest E.

Woods, Timothy A.

English

Research Papers in Economics

228   
Produce Growers and Market Development: A Four-State 
Comparison
David Eastwood, Charlie Hall, John Brooker, Edmund Estes, Timothy Woods, 
James Epperson, and Forrest Stegelin
States have pursued various types of produce-market 
development and have achieved different degrees 
of success. Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, 
and Tennessee provide an excellent opportunity 
to conduct a comparative study of produce-market 
development has been present in because of the 
prevalence of small farms, comparable growing 
seasons, and reliance on tobacco as a cash crop. 
Georgia and North Carolina have experienced ex-
pansion of their produce industries and the creation 
of marketing channels. The Kentucky and Tennes-
see produce industries and marketing channels have 
experienced much slower growth. One component 
of a project funded by the USDA/AMS/IFAFS to 
examine the interstate differences entailed a sur-
vey of produce growers in each state. The objec-
tive was to learn about their current situations and 
perceptions of market opportunities. A 34-question 
survey focusing on decisions about what to plant, 
post-harvest handling, current marketing activity, 
and anticipated changes in the produce industry 
was administered to samples of growers in each 
state. This Update will focus on an overview of 
the responses for Kentucky and Tennessee versus 
Georgia and North Carolina. 
Several farm characteristics have been found 
that are common to Kentucky and Tennessee 
versus Georgia and North Carolina. Kentucky and 
Tennessee produce farms have smaller average size 
and, consequently, typically lower produce sales 
and farm income than those in Georgia and North 
Carolina. The former pair also has a higher concen-
tration of older operators, but there is a tendency 
for growers in Kentucky and Tennessee to have 
relatively more operators with less than three years 
of experience. This may be a reﬂ  ection of growers 
seeking alternatives to tobacco production.
When deciding what produce crops to grow, 
Georgia’s and North Carolina’s samples were more 
likely to have considered experience, production 
equipment, labor timing/availability, and proﬁ  t 
potential. These could also reﬂ  ect less experience 
in the Kentucky and Tennessee samples. Post-har-
vest factors associated with considering a new crop 
that were more likely to be part of Georgia’s and 
North Carolina’s decision making were contracting, 
broker/packer fees, grading, cooling, and volume 
requirements. This is consistent with these states 
tending to have larger farms, more revenue, and, as a 
result, greater awareness of the importance of these 
factors in the commercial distribution system.
Further evidence of a greater marketing focus in 
Georgia and North Carolina is the greater tendency 
to use post-harvest equipment. Sorting tables, siz-
ers, precoolers, quick cooling, and branding involve 
higher costs, which are more likely to be spread over 
larger volumes in these two states versus Kentucky 
and Tennessee. Georgia and North Carolina growers 
also are more likely to be engaged in wholesale/
broker marketing and value-added activities.
Eastwood, Hall, and Brooker are professors, University of 
Tennessee; Estes is a professor, North Carolina State University; 
Woods is an associate professor, University of Kentucky; and 
Epperson is a professor and Stegelin is an associate professor, 
University of Georgia.

Produce Growers and Market Development: A Four-State Comparison

Produce Growers and Market Development: A Four-State Comparison

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics