Increasing Growers' Quality of life through Direct Marketing: The Role of Farmers' Markets and Consumer Supported Agriculture

The results from this study are compiled from several different data sets. Over the two-year period (2000-2002) data were collected from farmers, consumers at the farmers market (farmers market shopper sample) and those consumers away from the farmers markets (community sample), CSA farmers and their shareholders.

Results from the Farmers Market study: Results indicated that people shop at farmers markets for a variety of reasons. Of the farmers market shopper sample, 88% said they came because the produce is fresh and 64% came to buy local products. (Participants could select more than one reason for shopping at the market.) Only 16% came to buy inexpensive food, suggesting that financial savings are not an important factor in the decision to shop at the market. Indeed, the modal amount that people in our sample spent at the market was $16-20 per trip, much more than the $6 per trip reported by Lloyd et al. (1987).

Farmers market shoppers were asked to rank the items they purchase most (fruit, vegetables, flowers, bedding plants or other). The combined first and second choices listed by regular visitors were vegetables (91%), fruit (76%), bedding plants (20%), flowers (17%), and other items such as goat cheese, ostrich meat, herbs, honey and bread (8%). It is clear from their responses that most consumers visited the PTFM to buy fresh vegetables and fruit. (This survey was conducted during the height of the vegetable and fruit season, and different results might have been obtained at other times of year.)

Furthermore, when participants were asked how much they would be willing to spend at the market to buy a food item costing $1 in a supermarket, 80% said they would pay the same amount or more and only 4% expected to buy it for 50 cents or less. Nor was convenience a significant factor: 86% traveled six miles or more to reach the market and, of those, 15% traveled over 20 miles. Despite the distance they traveled to reach the market, most people shopped there regularly. During the summer (May – August), 34% came every Saturday, and another 22% came at least twice a month. Although participants came to the market primarily to buy fresh, local food, the atmosphere of the market, the opportunity to meet the farmer who grew the food, and a desire to support the local economy were also mentioned as reasons.

The majority of farmers market shoppers interviewed did not engage in “one-stop” shopping by purchasing from a single farmer. Approximately 89% bought from 3-5 vendors, and 38% bought from more than five vendors. The opportunity to visit with a number of farmers appeared to be part of the market’s attraction.

Farmers market shoppers were asked to list the things that they disliked or considered a disadvantage of the PTFM. The disadvantages listed either first or second by regular visitors were distance traveled to get to the market (23%), the seasonal variation in food availability (14%), the hours of the market when farmers were present (12%), and lack of locally grown food (10%). The cost of food ranked near the bottom of their dissatisfaction list (3%). However, 33% had no complaints about the market, answering why, out of 463 consumers interviewed, 56% keep returning on a weekly or bi-weekly basis.

As well as answering our questions, some consumers provided additional qualitative data, including both positive (n=215) and negative (n=167) comments. Among the positive comments, 29% indicated that consumers did not think about the price when buying food at the market. Others (15%) commented that coming to the market was like an outing; it was something fun to do on a Saturday morning. In fact, several couples said their weekly Saturday marketing experience began with eating breakfast out prior to coming to the market. Others commented that the market was pleasant and a nice place to visit (23%) or that they enjoyed the relationship they had buying from local farmers (10%). There were others who said they liked coming because of the quality of the products and selection of items, while others came primarily for special items or special events.

Although there were fewer negative (n=167) than positive comments, a few people had suggestions that might be beneficial to farmers selling at the market. Some people expressed concerns about the freshness and “localness” of the food sold at the PTFM. Farmers market shoppers making these remarks wanted to see signs and permits at the food stands confirming that the food sold in Farm Areas 1 and 2 was grown locally. These shoppers wanted to make sure that they were purchasing the freshest produce from local farmers, especially if they were driving a long distance to buy local and support the local farming community (20%). Others wanted more variety in the foods available (15%), not necessarily at each booth, but in the market as a whole. A few comments were made about the way the market is advertised, and 3% thought more could be done to promote local agriculture and the PTFM. Other negative comments included complaints that too many of the vendors were selling bedding plants, possibly displacing local produce farmers, concerns about hygiene (such as dirty floors, smoking by vendors selling food, dogs, and food stored without refrigeration), and suggestions for improving traffic flow.

Community Sample. The community sample, obtained from eleven counties and interviewed at YMCAs, YWCAs, health clubs, libraries, university settings, included a number of people (36%) who also shopped at PTFM regularly (more than twice per month) and another 43% who bought fresh produce from other local sources rather than supermarkets. The community sample reported that when they do visit a farmers market, the median distance they travel was 10 miles. This sample also reported little interest in buying cheap food at a farmers market, with 69% saying they would be willing to pay a 50% premium for fresh, local produce.

Taken together, these data strongly suggest that North Carolina consumers are willing to go out of their way to patronize a local farmers market on a regular basis and that most of them do so not to save money, but to buy fresh, local food in a setting that connects them with the person who grew it. Clearly, farmers markets are a successful way to bring the consumer in contact with the farmer, and our data suggest that farmers can expect to sell their produce at reasonable prices in such venues without losing customers.

Farmers sample. Several different data sets contribute to the farmers’ perspective of direct marketing and support for local agriculture. One-to-one interviews conducted with an open-ended questionnaire and focus groups provided us with the baseline information. Another questionnaire was mailed to farmers at the end of the second year (2002), providing an opportunity to be open, for their identity was not recorded on the survey. In addition, PIs and enumerators made regular visits to farmers markets over the course of the two years providing the context in which the data fit. Participant and casual observation on-farm and at farmers markets were central to adding depth to our research (Bernard 1995).

Results from Interviews and Focus Groups with Farmers. All of the farmers interviewed for this study earned more than $10,000 but less than $100,000, and self-identify as small farmers. The small farmers grow and sell fresh vegetables, fruit, herbs, and flowers from March though December. The diversity of crops they grow allows them to plant and harvest continuously through three growing periods (spring/summer, summer and fall/winter). Those cultivating earlier and longer rely on greenhouses to extend their productivity and marketing seasons. Most produce 20-40 different items in relatively small quantities, a pattern of production that is effective for bringing a diversity of products directly to customers through direct marketing.

From the interviews, data were obtained on the diversity in farming, as well as the creative marketing approaches farmers use and about the differences in marketing conditions between county- and state-operated farmers markets. Additional information on these topics was gained from the focus group discussions. All the farmers interviewed on-farm sold weekly at farmers markets from March through the end of November or mid-December. All enjoyed working with the public at farmers markets and many of the farmers generated a large percentage of their farm income in this way.

Both younger and older farmers described farming as a way of life as well as a business. In North Carolina the average age of a farmer is 55.2 years (USDA 1999); in this study the average age was 56 years, ranging from 22 to 80. Farmers view working for themselves as important to their quality of life. In fact, during the focus groups, thirty-two comments made reference to “independence,” “being one’s own boss,” “not doing the same thing everyday is a blessing,” and “freedom.” One farmer stated, “it’s a wonderful way to pass through life.” Nevertheless, farmers did not romanticize farming. It was frequently mentioned that “farming is a lot of hard work,” and “you really got to love it to do it.” Another farmer said “the real boss is the consumer, the ones we are selling to.” At the end of the day, it was important for farmers to earn an income to stay in farming and to provide for their families.

Farming was associated not only with a way of life or earning an income, but also with being stewards of the earth. While walking through fields or sitting around a table, farmers commented that they “enjoyed working outdoors in fresh air” and “feeling connected with nature,” “taking care of and improving the land, especially in areas that are prone to erosion.” In both the on-farm interviews and the focus group discussions it was clear that farmers like to make some of their own farming decisions by responding to market demands, creating marketing niches, adjusting farming practices to the weather, soil quality and water availability.

Small farmers must market at numerous locations during the week to make a living. For example, some farmers with perishable products, such as berries or flowers, make weekly deliveries to eight or more locations. One farmer, who sold the majority of his harvest to restaurants, made over twenty-five deliveries and drove over 400 miles a week during his growing season. Another farmer has a CSA for her flowers – she delivers flower arrangements weekly to restaurants and homeowners who prepay in January for the season’s deliveries. She has two subscription arrangements – a 13-week summer subscription and an 11-week summer/fall subscription – that require her to drive more than 150 miles a week. Others who produce unique artisan products such as goat cheese or ostrich meat sell to more than a dozen restaurants and specialty food stores to supplement their sales at farmers markets. On average the farmers interviewed traveled approximately 200 miles a week to sell their products. In aggregate, they use ten different venues to sell their products on a weekly basis, and 63% sell at four or more places weekly. Farmers benefit from these mid-week outlets, for it helps to constantly harvest and move produce or products before they perish. As one farmer reminded us, “you can’t tell a tomato to wait until Saturday before it is ready for market.”

These farmers all see farmers markets in general as good places for them to sell their product, both because they could get a better price than elsewhere and because they valued the interaction with consumers. Comments from the focus groups included: “The market is an opportunity to show off your product.” “It is a market where you can sell most of your product.” “There is a good product mix for sale; there is variety, choice of selection.” “A customer can pick out the best quality and compare with other farmers’ products.” “Direct marketing provides better and higher prices.” Farmers in the focus groups also enjoyed the interactions with consumers afforded by selling at the market as well as the opportunity for educating consumers, especially children, about farms, farming, and the food they sell. The farmers also considered the PTFM itself to be a nice facility. They were not on a roadside, or in a field, but under a roof selling at a facility that had restrooms, electricity and running water. Water was helpful for those who needed to water plants or sprinkle on harvest to keep it looking fresh.

Although the farmers spoke favorably about the market, they also had a number of negative comments when responding to listing the negative aspects of selling at PTFM. For example, some farmers have stopped selling at the PTFM because they could not be guaranteed a place to sell on Saturday or because they could not get a space where the consumer traffic-flow is better. Farmers commented that it was not worth their time to get up at 3:00 am to be at the market before 5:00 am to sell only $60.00 worth of produce. Overall, these farmers said they had to spend too much time at the market during the week to hold on to a space for Saturday. Several farmers contacted for this study had stopped selling at PTFM for a variety of reasons. For example, of the 102 who were asked to participate in a focus group, 22% no longer sold at the PTFM, and of these, 12 % had stopped because of dissatisfaction with the market.

The farmers in one-on-one interviews and in the focus groups commented on their concern with the misrepresentation of the products sold at the market. There are farmers selling at the market who re-sell each others products, or who go up and buy in Virginia, South Carolina or Georgia and bring it to the PTFM to resell. A further concern mentioned was with reference to what is sold. According to management, 51% of what is sold needs to be produced on-farm by the farmer whose farm is being represented by the products. However, the farmer does not have to identify what is his or hers and what was purchased.

Summary: From the initial interviews and focus groups positive and negative aspects involved in direct marketing at a state operated farmers market were revealed. In addition, not germane to this study, positive and negative aspects of other markets that farmers sell at on a weekly basis were also obtained. Farmers are appreciative of the volume of traffic that comes through the PTFM market on Saturdays between May and September; traffic counter records over 10,000 people visit each week during the height of the growing season. Nevertheless, there were a number of problems that were revealed at this particular state-operated farmers market having to do with consistency in implementing the rules to all farmers throughout the growing season. Although a seven-day a week market, farmers also commented in the mailed questionnaire of wanting a better mid-week market.

Among the farmers responding to the mailed questionnaire (n=110), the average age is 56, ranging from 18 to 97. Ten percent of the respondents reported they were retired too, hence they are not farming. The median acreage farmed is 39 acres, ranging .33 to 806 acres; however, forty-five percent own less than thirty-nine acres. Of the lands they owned farmers reported they farmed on average 12 acres; forty percent farmed less than 12 acres. The average number of years farming for these farmers is 27, ranging from just starting out to 81 years. On average these farmers sell at three different farmers markets a week. However others sell to over seventeen different locations (not all farmers markets) and travel on average 170 miles a week to make their deliveries. Larger farmers reported traveling 1000 miles per week for their distribution.

For local farmers there are other outlets other than farmers markets, where buyers are interested in fresh local farm products. Fifteen percent reported they sell to restaurants, averaging six restaurants a week. Among those who are interested or able to wholesale, 15% wholesale on average three times a week.

Among the farmers responding to this mailed questionnaire, 56% stated they could not make it with only farming, a spouse or partner had to be in public work to help make ends meet.

CSA Data (2001-2002)
For these past two summers a prolonged dry spell affected many farmers in North Carolina. Farmers lost crops, culled animals prematurely and many had their wells and ponds dry up as they tried to feed their families. Like many other farmers in North Carolina, everyone suffered with the drought. The farmers reported on here were able to selectively irrigate some crops sufficiently to provide their CSA shareholders with fresh farm produce. There were several occasions when the Thursday-pick-up-shareholders and the Saturday-pick-up-shareholders had to forgo their share completely. As a result, shareholders helped to share the burden of the drought with the farmers, a sense of community they value. However, even with the drought the farmers hoped that these past two years experience had been good ones and that shareholders/members will encourage others to work with local farmers in supporting a local agriculture-food system.

Farmers with a CSA have provided data on their farm since 1998. Data analyzed here are from the last two years 2001 and 2002. In 2001 the farmers provided CSA bags to 29 households for 20 weeks (a full share) and 7 other households for a four-week Fall share. In 2002 they were up to 33 shareholders. Retaining their shareholders from year to year as well as expanding in the number of shareholders as quickly as they have is from the diversity of crops they grow. These farmers produce over forty different items and one hundred different varieties in a growing season. Their household income comes from their two acres under production (they own eight acres and lease forty-five).

At the end of each harvest season a survey is sent to each shareholder. There is high response rate to the survey, 79% in 2001 and 78% in 2002. The results from the end-of-year surveys are valuable and help with planning for the following year.

Shareholders were asked to list the five most important reasons for joining a CSA (See Table 1). Because each shareholder could pick up to five responses each variable will add up to 100 percent.

Shareholders commented on their expectations of being a member of the CSA. In 2001 74% of the shareholders’ CSA expectations had been met, and in 2002 89% of the shareholders’ expectations had been met. In 2001 35% of the shareholders contend their CSA shares exceeded their expectations, similarly for 2002 31% of the shareholders stated their CSA shares exceeded their expectations. In both seasons there were some dissatisfied shareholders where they felt their CSA share fell short of their expectations (9% 2001 and 8% in 2002).
Table 1. Reasons for Joining a CSA 2001 and 2002
Reasons for Joining a CSA 2001 n=23 Percent Reasons for Joining a CSA 2002 =26 Percent
Locally grown 91 Support local farmer 81
Organic 83 Fresh produce 65
Fresh produce 74 Organic 65
Support a local farmer 74 Locally grown 62
Support small farmers 43 Eating in Season 34
Caring for the environment 43 Support small farmers 31
Eating in Season 35 Caring for the environment 27
Knowing where your food comes from 26 Knowing where your food comes from 23
Having a sense of community 17 Trying new foods 23
Land Stewardship 17 Health and Diet 15
Trying new foods 13 Reduce Packaging 8
Reduce packaging 4 Educate Family 8
Convenience 4 Opportunity to work on Farm 8

Shareholders were asked how much of their fresh produce needs were met by the weekly CSA share. In 2001 47% of the shareholders felt that between 50-74% of their weekly vegetable needs were met with their CSA shares, while it was 35% in 2002 (See Table 2). In 2002, the year of the drought, 54% of the shareholders felt that between 25-49% of their weekly vegetable needs were met with their CSA shares. However, it is interesting to find that 58% of the shareholders in 2002 felt their shares provided excess food that they gave away (42%) composted (15%), or did something else with it (15%). Therefore, there may be an imbalance with quantity, variety or something for the shareholders.

Table 2. Percentage of Vegetables provided in the CSA weekly shares
CSA share met weekly household needs Percent
2001 n=23 Percent
2002 n=26
75-99% 35 0
50-74% 47 35
25-49% 9 54
Less than 25% 9 11
Total 100.0

In 2001 the majority of the CSA shareholders are very satisfied with the quantity they received (78%), the quality of the produce (87%), the freshness of the produce (61%), the variety (70%), the distribution site (78%) and distribution time (82%) (See Table 3). In 2002, the majority of the CSA shareholders are very satisfied with the freshness of the produce (92%), the quality of the produce (88%), and the quantity they received (56%) (See Table 3).

Table 3. Level of Satisfaction for Various Share Criteria (frequency)
2001=n23
2002=n26 Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied
2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002
Quantity 1 4 11 18 14
Quality 3 3 20 22
Freshness 1 3 5 2 14 23
Variety 1 5 6 13 16 6
Distribution Site 5 7 18 16
Distribution Time 1 2 1 2 3 18 19
Social 2 1 5 2 1 5 11 16

2001 Shareholders responded somewhat positively to the level of social activity with the CSA this past year (55%). Interesting to note however, 65% participated or assisted in the various farm activities held throughout the growing season, suggesting some shareholders would like to do more with their CSA. Some of the comments from the shareholders also reflect this interest.

2002 Shareholders responded positively to the level of social activity with the CSA this past year (64% were very satisfied). Some of the shareholders participated in the on-farm work days that were followed by the potluck dinners. Others came out to the farm to work at other times. Several shareholders were helpful in providing recipes. Nevertheless, four shareholders claimed there were no activities available, which is surprising when there were two organized farm-work days followed by potluck dinners. There are many other ways to create more of the social/community element within CSA, which can evolve from core members interested in doing more with and for their CSA. Suggestions include: helping with harvesting and distribution, a newsletter, a cookbook, and a recipe exchange with shareholders.

We asked shareholders how many will be renewing their CSA membership. For 2001 65% reported they would be renewing the following year. Those who said no or who were unsure about renewing (35%) did not comment on why they would not be renewing. For 2002 73% said they would renew next year. Those who said no or who are unsure about renewing (27%) did not comment on why they would not be renewing. The farmers have reported they will be taking up to forty shareholders for the 2003 season, and as of March 2003 they have met their quota.