Farmer Direct Marketing Newsletter

The Internet is becoming an increasingly valuable method of disseminating and collecting information. This has been particularly true for the Agricultural Marketing Service. One only needs to consider the unprecedented number of individuals who submitted electronic comments in the National Organic Rulemaking process and the number of people who access AMS Market News reports on line to recognize that Internet technology can enhance the Federal Government's ability to quickly and efficiently meet a broad range of customer needs.

Over the past three years, we have endeavored to enhance and broaden our AMS Website to improve its utility. Most recently, we have established a Farmer Direct Marketing Website to exchange pertinent information on this important market. During the Farmer Direct Marketing Website's first few months, we have experienced a steady rise in the number of visitors which is indicative of its importance. While I have been very pleased by its preliminary success, I want to assure you that we will continue to strive to provide timely and relevant materials, augment the quality of information the Website provides, and broaden and strengthen its content.

Many of you have e-mailed comments, questions, and requests regarding the Website and USDA direct marketing activities in general. We greatly appreciate your feedback and will consider your recommendations. For example, at a recent farmer direct marketing focus group held at the North American Farmer Direct Marketing Association Conference, participants were given a demonstration of the Website. In turn, participants suggested that we compile and make available a list of the State or regional farmers market and direct marketing associations along with a brief description of their activities and membership benefits. This feature will be added in coming months.

The Farmer Direct Marketing Website fulfills one of the objectives of the Agricultural Marketing Service’s (AMS) recently adopted Farmer Direct Marketing Action Plan. More importantly, the Farmer Direct Marketing Website is one way by which AMS has responded to the policy goals outlined in The National Commission on Small Farm's 1998 Report "A Time to Act". AMS recognizes the importance of its role in protecting the vitality of America's small farms and affirms its commitment to the delivery of quality service to these producers. Although the Internet will not become our only mechanism to meet the needs of farmer direct marketers, we will continue to expand our use of this new and exciting technology to distribute timely, accurate, and interesting information to direct marketers throughout the U.S.

Back to Contents

Wholesale and Alternative Markets Activities:

USDA Hosts Farmer Direct Marketing Focus Groups at North American Farmers' Direct Marketing Association (NAFDMA) Annual Conference

Two farmer direct marketing focus groups were held in Grand Rapids, MI, on January 20 and 22, 1999, to coincide with the North American Farmers' Direct Marketing Association annual conference. Conducted in cooperation with Cornell University, these sessions are a continuation of the process of identifying direct marketing issues and opportunities for small farmers as outlined in the Agency's recently approved Farmer Direct Marketing (FDM) Action Plan. Input from regional direct marketing facilitators, service providers, and growers is important in understanding relevant geographical concerns associated with direct marketing. Soliciting public input through focus groups is one of several objectives in the FDM Action Plan which outlines a comprehensive strategy for greater agency and mission area involvement in farmer direct marketing.

The Grand Rapids direct marketing focus groups were the second and third sessions scheduled for this program initiative. The initial session, held in Sturbridge, MA, included direct marketing facilitators from State departments of agriculture, cooperative extension, farmers markets, and community-based nongovernmental organizations from the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions.

The marketers session elicited an array of comments and concerns from participants largely because of their perception and knowledge of USDA in their farming and business operations. Faced with regulatory requirements by various Federal agencies, the general perception among participants was that "Government intrusion" in their operations was excessive and, in some instances, enforcement was inconsistent. Since marketers have traditionally established working relationships with specialists from State Departments of Agriculture, cooperative extension, and other community-based organizations, most participants had limited knowledge of any USDA marketing programs. Their views concerning how USDA can support direct marketing were insightful and covered a wide range of new project initiatives for AMS.

Direct marketing facilitators expressed similar concerns about regulations affecting marketers; however, their comments reflected a growing frustration about their inability to provided timely information to their constituents. In addition to their need for more centralized databases, direct marketing facilitators are constantly required to provide "best practices" data and information on new technologies appropriate for new farming enterprises. Other suggestions discussed at the focus group included business and training models that are easily transportable for extension specialists, promotional materials and support for direct marketing enterprises, and greater collaboration among Federal, State, and nongovernmental organizations. The group expressed overwhelming support for the USDA's farmer direct marketing web page, declaring that this type of medium is essential to facilitators in accessing information about developments in the direct marketing industry.

The marketer focus group was extremely helpful in understanding specific on-farm issues that affect smaller producers engaged in direct marketing. This session also allowed organizers an opportunity to better understand communications and relationships between marketers and facilitators and how information should flow among those groups. Information gathered from the facilitators' session supports the convening of regional focus groups to identify different issues and perspectives unique to the size and scope of local farming enterprises. Two additional sessions are planned for the Southeast for marketers and facilitators in early Spring.

*** PHOTOS FROM THE FOCUS GROUP SESSIONS ***

(Photos can take up to 50 seconds to download using a 28.8 modem)

Eleven direct marketers from 10 States, primarily in the Midwest, were represented in the initial session. Ten representatives from State departments of agriculture, extension, academia, and community-based organizations participated in facilitators' session.

Marketers:
Jan Vala
Vala's Pumpkin Patch
Gretna, NE 68028

Larry Eckert
Eckert's Country Store & Farm
Belleville, IL 62220-4814

Ken Hall
Edwards Orchards
Poplar Grove, IL 61065

Ed Stritzke
Fir Point Farm
Aurora, OR 97002

Paul Peters
Peter's Orchard & Market
Waverly, MO 64096

John Blatter
Blatter's Truck Patch
West Jefferson, OH 43162-9701

Kent & Dawna Livesay
Livesay Orchards
Porter, OK 74454

Anne Holcomb
Apple Annie's Orchard
Willcox, AZ 85643-9605

John Ellis
Farmer Johns
Boulder, CO 80301

Bev Baedke
Community Orchards, Inc.
Fort Dodge IA 50501-8547

Facilitators:
Karen Armstrong-Cummings
Commodity Growers Cooperative
Lexington, KY 40508

Neil Hamilton
Drake University - Agriculture Law Center
Des Moines, IA 50311

John Cottingham
University of Wisconsin - Platteville
Platteville, WI 53818

Kevin Edberg
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
St. Paul, MN 55107

Rick Breeden
Wauconda Orchards
Wauconda, IL 60084

David Redhage
Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture
Poteau, OK 74953-0588

Tammy Bruckeroff
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Jefferson City, MO 65102

Cindy Martel
West Virginia Department of Agriculture
Fayetteville, WV 25840

Patrick O'Connor
Michigan Apple Institute
Dewitt, MI 48820

Vickie Parker-Clark
University of Idaho Extension
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815

For more information, please contact: Errol Bragg, Agricultural Marketing Specialist, Wholesale and Alternative Markets; phone: (202) 690-8317, fax: (202) 690-0031.

Back to Contents

Report on the North American Farmers' Direct Marketing Association Annual Conference

The North American Farmers' Direct Marketing Association's (NAFDMA) Annual Conference was held this year in Grand Rapids, MI, on January 20-22, 1999, in conjunction with the Great Lakes Vegetable Growers' Meeting. The NAFDMA conference allows direct marketers and those who work in the field of direct marketing to hear from a range of speakers as well as an opportunity to network among themselves. Many participants feel that the most interesting aspect of the conference is being able to meet with others to trade ideas and information.

This year's conference was divided into 7 basic tracks: Roadside, Farmers' Markets, Ag Tourism, Marketing Innovations,
Business Management, Greenhouse/Nursery Retail, and Livestock/Fish/Petting Farms. Over 2 days of meetings, participants could chose from 42 sessions! Topics ranged from "Trends in Farmers' Markets" to "Value Added" to "Nontraditional Animal Products". There was something for everyone, regardless of their occupation or operation.

Keynote Speaker Harold Lloyd of H. Lloyd & Associates of Virginia Beach, VA, entertained and educated the audience with his presentation, which was full of practical suggestions for direct marketers. Using slides of various scenes and products, Lloyd illustrated how the simplest mistake can result in a disastrous impression. He discussed such practical matters as lighting (Make sure you have the brightest parking lot around!), cleanliness, and displays. Lloyd even demonstrated how a simple "out of order" sign should be used to send a more positive message, such as "Sorry, temporarily out of order, to be back in service (indication of date)." Though the audience laughed their way through most of the presentation, clearly everyone learned something by observing other marketers' "mistakes."

As a result of information obtained at the sessions regarding Internet marketing and requests from Farmer Direct Marketing Website users, a short article using the Internet for direct marketing will appear in the next (March) Farmer Direct Marketing Website newsletter.

For more information about NAFDMA or how to order copies of proceedings (print form or audio cassette), please contact:

Charlie Touchette, Executive Director
62 White Loaf Road
Southampton, MA 01073
Phone: (413) 529-0386
Toll-Free: 1-888-884-9270
Fax: (413) 529-2471
E-mail: nafdma@map.com or visit their Website at http://www.nafdma.com

Back to Contents

USDA News Releases:

USDA Announces Direct Marketing Plan for Small Farmers

Release No. AMS-014-99

WASHINGTON, Jan. 21, 1999--The U.S. Department of Agriculture today announced a plan to help small farmers sell their agricultural products directly to consumers. The "Farmer Direct Marketing Action Plan" is available to the public.

"This action plan is a result of a report issued last year by The National Commission on Small Farms," said Michael V. Dunn, under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs. "It is designed to assist farms with less that $250,000 in annual gross receipts, or about 94 percent of all farms in the United States."

The "Farmer Direct Marketing Action Plan" will enable AMS to identify and promote the development of marketing opportunities for small farmers by conducting and supporting research and providing information on farmer direct marketing activities. Consumers will benefit as well by having access to a greater supply of a wide variety of farm-fresh products.

Within the next three years, AMS will create new direct marketing networks and a one-stop information clearinghouse, as well as developing training and information programs for farmers market managers and small farmers and conducting feasibility studies to expand the development of farmers market facilities. Increased participation by limited-resource, women-owned, and/or minority-owned farms is another goal of the plan.

"By supporting direct marketing opportunities for small farmers, we believe that we can also strengthen the relationship between growers and consumers and, thereby, promote a better understanding and the continued viability of this important part of our American heritage," said Dr. Enrique E. Figueroa, administrator of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service.

To obtain a printed copy of the "Farmer Direct Marketing Action Plan," contact Errol Bragg at (202) 720-8317. The plan can also be accessed via the Internet at http://www.ams.usda.gov/directmarketing/frmplan.htm.

Back to Contents

USDA to Sponsor Santa Fe Farmers Market Conference

Release No. AMS-006-99

WASHINGTON, Jan. 13, 1999 The U.S. Department of Agriculture today announced that it will join the Friends of the Santa Fe Farmers Market in hosting a workshop Feb. 4-6 in Santa Fe, N.M., to address the issue of attracting minority farmers and customers to farmers and public markets.

In cosponsoring the event, USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service will contribute funds through an existing agreement to develop a year-round public market and outdoor farmers market facility for Santa Fe.

"The idea for such a gathering came from feedback gained at a USDA farmers market symposium last July and the International Public Market Conference last September," said Dr. Enrique E. Figueroa, AMS administrator. "The meeting will focus on including minority customers and growers in the development of farmers markets."

The 3-day roundtable discussion will bring together farmers market managers from the south and southwest. These regions have large Hispanic populations, which traditionally shop or sell at farmers markets. The panel will focus on ways to maintain, enhance, and further develop satellite and permanent farmers markets and to strengthen and sustain small farm agriculture throughout these regions. It will deal with topics that contribute to greater participation by minority farmers and consumers.

"The challenge is to continue to make farmers markets equally accessible to everyone," said Figueroa. "Access to healthful fresh fruit and vegetables for the underserved consumer is a critical objective of AMS' work in farmer direct marketing."

Back to Contents

Features:

February’s Featured Academic/Extension Educator

"E-MAIL INTERVIEW"

Larry Lev, Associate Professor & Extension Marketing Economist, Oregon State University

Garry Stephenson, Associate Professor, Extension Small Farms Program, Oregon State University Extension Service

1. Can you explain why OSU Extension decided to devote more attention to farmer direct marketing? Also, why did you decide to focus initially on gathering information from consumers?

"Oregon has a growing number of small farms. While the small farm operators have many technical questions related to production practices, their number one priority (based on local focus group data) is finding out how to better market what they produce. Most small farmers in our state can't earn the returns that they need to stay in business by selling through the standard commodity channels. The shortening of the marketing chain opens all kinds of new possibilities for providing unique, higher valued products to consumers. And direct marketing helps small farmers form the types of close relationships with consumers that can lead to the identification of profitable new niches for the future. So based upon all of this we identified direct marketing as a key component of our small farm research and extension program.

As we developed our long-term action plan, we felt that in Oregon we knew more about the producer side of the market than we did about the consumer side. As we looked nationally, we didn't feel that the issue of consumer demand for products grown nearby had been adequately researched. So we set as our first priority developing a better understanding of consumer attitudes and actions related to locally produced agricultural products (which we defined as products produced within 50 miles of where they are sold)."

2. Can you detail what types of survey work you have done so far?

"In winter 1998 we conducted a random mail survey in two communities (Corvallis and Albany) in Western Oregon. Starting with a mailing list of 500 households (250 in each community) we were gratified to end up with 265 completed questionnaires or a 63% response rate once bad addresses were taken out. Because the demographics of the respondents match up well with census data, we feel comfortable in interpreting the results of this survey as representing the two communities rather than just the respondents.

Over the period June through September 1998 we turned our attention to the collection of information in three local farmers' markets in the same area that the mail survey covered. The work we did in these markets provided us with much more detailed information about the economic and social impacts of these markets. We had over 2700 consumers participate in this data collection effort or more than 10 times as many as participated in the mail survey."

3. In the mail survey you were comparing consumers in two different communities, Corvallis and Albany, Oregon. You wanted to know whether affluent, well-educated, socially liberal communities have a greater interest in and support of local food products than other communities. Could you further describe the differences between the two communities? What did the results of the survey show?

"A more complete discussion of these comparisons can be found in our paper at the OSU Small Farms Website: Common Support for Local Agriculture ( http://smallfarms.orst.edu/common_support_for_local_agricul.htm). Very briefly Corvallis is a town dominated by a university and high tech firms. Albany, only 10 miles away, is a blue-collar community with a higher percentage of employment in the manufacturing sector. The two towns differ greatly in education (49% in Corvallis have a Bachelor's degree or more versus 12% for Albany), median income level (about 15% higher in Corvallis) and average age (quite a bit older in Albany). We analyzed our survey results in a variety of ways. Looking at the whole sample, we identified about 40% of the population that moderately or strongly supported local food production. We also looked at the impact of demographic variables on support for local food products and found that the level of support was consistent across the income groups and education levels in these two communities. Interestingly the third demographic factor that we considered, age, had a greater influence with the younger adults being much less supportive. Stepping back we recognized that age does has a profound influence on food consumption habits. Younger adults (ages 20 to 29) may not put a lot emphasis on finding, buying, and preparing the types of products we were considering and these adults may feel fewer links to the community.

We also looked at community (where people live) as a potential influence on the demand and support for local agriculture. Through this variable, we examined the role that the community living environment plays in influencing the decisions taken by individuals. We found relatively few differences between the two communities. In fact, when we developed an index variable to summarize across a set of 17 variables the level of support a household demonstrated for local agricultural production, the individuals in the two communities came up with similar scores. There are certainly differences in the ways that local food production is supported but frequently they have offsetting effects. Corvallis, the more white-collar community, supports both a food cooperative that is committed to buying locally and a number of community supported agriculture farms. Albany, the blue-collar community, has maintained its longstanding ties to local agriculture through roadside stands and the purchase of locker meats."

4. Why did you choose to focus on farmers markets as a follow-up to the mail survey? What were your objectives?

"The mail survey gave us a broad brush of community attitudes and actions. It didn't provide the level of detail that we thought we needed to help local producers market more effectively or to help local community decision-makers in formulating more local agriculture-friendly policies. We decided to focus on farmers markets because that is where the consumers and producers could be reached the most easily and efficiently. To give an example of the difference between the mail survey and the farmers market work -- in our mail survey 13% of the respondents indicated that they shop regularly at farmers' markets. That represents only 34 respondents so you really can't do any more in-depth analysis on these people. As we mentioned earlier, we tallied responses from 2700 people from our farmers market work so we are much more comfortable with that data set. We set to work in the farmers markets with three major goals: (1) to better understand consumer behavior and the economic and social impacts of the three markets we selected; (2) to develop a practical method for collecting information in these circumstances; and (3) to develop a research method that added to rather than detracted from the market ambience."

5. Since two of your objectives focus on the method, please explain how the *DOT Approach* works and what advantages and disadvantages it has as compared to other data gathering approaches.

"Farmers markets are difficult places to collect information. They don't have doors and they don't have a single checkout where all of the transactions take place. So gathering information isn't nearly as easy as in a supermarket. Before developing anything new we considered using two more commonly used ways of gathering data. Face-to-face interviews were ruled out because we didn't have sufficient personnel to complete the number of interviews that would be necessary to have any confidence in the results. We also considered handing out mail-back surveys in the marketplace but didn't feel that this approach would give us the kind of response rate that we wanted (unlike a mail survey, there is no possibility of encouraging participation through reminders). So we decided to do something different. And to reiterate we wanted to develop something that would both provide reliable data from a representative sample and would add to rather than detract from the ambience in the markets.

Our approach imposes constraints on the type and number of questions that can be asked. These are not as severe as they seem at first glance and can be overcome. First, we made the commitment to do the research on multiple days in each market. By the end of the season, we had collected data on 5 days at two of the markets and on 3 days in the third market. By going back multiple times, we were able to ask certain key questions more than once and thereby gain more confidence in those responses. We were also able to rotate in a variety of other questions.

In terms of nuts and bolts this is what we did. We first carefully crafted the questions that we wanted to have answered and wrote them as close-ended questions on large flip charts with the answers defined in a scale across the bottom. In our experience, consumers are quite willing to answer as many as 4 questions (obviously only a fraction of the number of questions treated in a typical questionnaire). We found that by carefully phrasing the question you can sometimes get two questions answered at the same time. For example consider this question "Do you plan on doing additional shopping or eating downtown this morning? Select '0' for NO and estimate the dollar amount for YES". On a written questionnaire that would ordinarily be asked as two questions.

We took the four flip charts and set up them up at the market. We also cut up strips of dots (also know as color coding labels). In the market, we approached consumers and asked if they had a moment to answer the questions. If they agreed, we handed them a strip of dots with the instruction to place one on each poster "...where it makes the most sense." While in most instances the research was conducted self-service (that is, the consumers placed their own dots) we offered to place dots where instructed for those consumers who didn't have a spare hand because they were loaded down with purchases or kids. That is the method.

The response to this approach was overwhelmingly positive. On two occasions we kept very close track of the percentage of people who agreed to participate. On both instances 90% of those approached (and we approached EVERYONE) agreed. On another occasion we used one of our DOT posters to ask people how they compared this data collection approach to a written questionnaire. The overwhelming majority (94%) preferred DOTS. There are probably two key attributes that respondents like. First it is very fast. Most people answered all four questions in a minute or two. Second, because the respondents could see how others were answering, the whole process felt less extractive than other types of survey research (and the posters with all of their brightly colored dots also look cool in the market). The open display of the set of answers (the dots) raises questions because of the fear that individuals will be swayed by the responses that are already posted. Given the type of questions that we asked, however, we didn't feel that this was an issue with our respondents. So although it would make an interesting research topic, we don't see this as a big deal. Through the four months we were doing the research, we were very concerned about sharing the results of our research and made a point of distributing the results on a weekly basis to vendors. We also posted prior week results for consumers to examine.

An additional shortcoming that should be pointed out is that, unless the dot strips are given unique code numbers (we didn't do that here but have done with other applications of this approach), it is not possible to do any cross tabs with the results. That is you can't look at a set of responses for a given individual. So the analysis that can be conducted is restricted.

Data tabulation is quite simple. You haven't asked very many questions and the responses to each questions are all on one sheet of paper. So in 20 or 30 minutes you have a market data set tabulated."

6. How easily could other people replicate this method at their farmers markets?

"We were interested in developing something that others could use and feel that this approach is easily replicable. We ran all of this data collection as a self-funded effort by our university and supplemented our own time with the help of two student interns (both of whom found it to be a really valuable learning experience). The requirements are the following. In terms of materials you need a set of easels (or a wall) to hang the questions, poster paper and a box of dots. Because we faced an easel constraint for much of the season, we generally only asked three questions. It makes more sense to buy the additional easels and ask 4 questions per session. Time is the critical resource that is required. You need to take the time to develop the questions. This is not rocket science but it does take a bit of trial and error to get the questions right. We would be glad to help anyone who is interested in trying this out. You also need to have the people in the market to hand out the DOTS and encourage participation. Just leaving the DOTS and assuming people will answer the questions is not at all viable. It needs the human touch. Finally, you need to commit to doing this type of research three or more days in any given market."

7. Briefly, what were the results of this research?

"A more detailed version of the results is available at our web site:

Analysis of Three Farmers' Markets http://smallfarms.orst.edu/analyzing_three_farmers.htm.

Perhaps our most important results had nothing to do with the DOTS. At the same markets that we used the DOTS we also developed a sampling process to assess the number of people shopping. This is a very important number that most markets just estimate rather than collect. What we did was to count all adults who entered the markets for a 10-minute segment of each hour. This ten-minute estimate was then multiplied by six to get an hourly estimate and the set of hourly estimates was added together to get a market day estimate. The numbers collected show attendance levels 2 or 3 times greater than the market managers and vendors were estimating. The community participation in farmers' markets is really quite large. We would encourage farmers markets to collect this very vital attendance data.

Our research results allowed us to document with hard numbers the economic importance of farmers market sales and, for the two downtown markets, the value of sales generated by consumers attracted to the market who stayed downtown and did other shopping. The results showed that around 80% of the people at the markets had come specifically for the market and many were planning to further shopping. The sheer traffic generated by the markets that feeds into the shopping district is impressive. Other results confirmed that many shoppers are willing to pay a healthy premium for high quality locally produced products. Others are looking for bargains. The markets can thrive when they meet this broad range of demands. Another message that came through loud and clear is that the social atmosphere in the markets represents much of their attraction. We think that the results will help vendors think about ways of improving not just their own stands but the market as a whole. And they will show community leaders what a valuable asset these markets are."

8. Who have the results been given to and how are the results being used?

"One surprise that we discovered by following this very visible research approach is that it generates a lot of interest in the local media. So our results were getting out even before we had any reports written. We have also sent our reports around to community and business leaders and are waiting to see how they will respond. The hard numbers should help gain support for farmers markets in these communities. We are distributing the information to growers for their use and have been having conversations with elected officials. We will contact local chambers of commerce, visitor and convention bureaus, and other business and economic development groups to offer presentations."

9. What are your plans for the future? More survey work?

"Looking toward the future, we are planning to iterate back and work more on the producer/vendor side of these local market exchanges. More needs to be done to help vendors grow and thrive in the marketplace. Some of that is survey work but some of that is educational programming. We are also interested in working with people in the community who are focusing on making the changes at the local level that will move things forward."

In consideration of the number of users with slower modem speeds, pictures of Lev and Stephenson's survey work are not included in the newsletter. Pictures show their set up in the market and what their easels looked like. (The pictures below can take up to 50 seconds to download using a 28.8 modem.)

*** February 1999 Farmer Direct Marketing Newsletter Photos ***

Thanks to Garry Stephenson and Larry Lev for sharing their experience with the Farmer Direct Marketing Website Newsletter!

Contact information:

Garry Stephenson, Associate Professor,
Extension Small Farms Program
Oregon State University Extension Service
1849 N.W. 9th St.
Corvallis, OR 97330
Phone: (541) 757-6750
Fax: (541) 754-1603
E-mail: Garry.Stephenson@orst.edu

Larry Lev, Associate Professor & Extension Marketing Economist
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Ballard Extension Hall
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331-3601
Phone: (541) 737-1417
Fax: (541) 737-2563
E-mail: larry.s.lev@orst.edu

Also visit their Website at: http://smallfarms.orst.edu

Back to Contents

Research in Progress at Iowa State

The following abstract was received from Dr. Clare Hinrichs.

Retail Farmers' Markets and Rural Development: Entrepreneurship, Incubation and Job Creation

Project Summary

"Farmers' markets have multiplied in communities large and small throughout the United States,
but very little is known about their place in the livelihoods of individual vendors or their
contribution to community economic development. In response, the Department of Sociology at Iowa
State University is now conducting a research and outreach project to examine the role of farmers'
markets in Iowa, in order to enhance their social and economic outcomes. This action-research
initiative seeks to identify and augment the economic development possibilities of farmers'
markets in different regional settings by building on their potential as incubators of businesses
that can help sustain rural families and communities.

The research has several phases of coordinated investigation. The first is a telephone survey of
Iowa farmers' market masters, who will be interviewed about organizational and operating aspects
of their markets. To assure representation of the full range of farmers' markets in Iowa, this sample
will be stratified proportionally based on whether markets are located in more rural or more urban
areas. The second phase involves mail surveys of the vendors at a subset of the markets studied in
the first phase. Among other topics, the survey will ask about production and marketing practices
and strategies. The third phase consists of in-depth case studies of individual vendors with instructive
entrepreneurial practices and histories, and of innovative farmers' market programs fostering
entrepreneurship and job development.

The research in Iowa will be directed by Dr. Clare Hinrichs, Department of Sociology, Iowa State
University. The Iowa project involves close collaboration with the Farming Alternatives Program
at Cornell University and the University of California-Davis Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education Program which are conducting parallel investigations of farmers' markets in, respectively,
New York State and California. The projects in the three states are jointly supported by a
grant from the USDA's Fund for Rural America and will be conducted over a three
year period, starting in the spring of 1998.

Concerns, opportunities and barriers identified by farmers' market masters and participating market
vendors will have direct applicability for specific programs of action. To this end, the results of
the research will be widely disseminated to those working in small business development, planning,
education, agriculture and government, as well as to farmers' market organizations and vendors."

Contact: Dr. Clare Hinrichs
Department of Sociology
310 East Hall
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50011
phone: (515) 294-5154
email: hinrichs@iastate.edu

Back to Contents

Funding Sources
- Denis Ebodaghe, Ph.D., National Program Leader, Small Farms, USDA
(via the FAP-NE-AG-DEVEL-L List Server)

"A. The Rural Information Center at the National Agriculture Library,
Beltsville, Maryland publishes some guides that are very good in linking
individuals to funding sources.

1. " A Guide to Funding Resources" Compiled by Katherine St. John;
(Rural Information Center Publication Series #56)
A general guide to finding and applying for all kinds of funds.

2. "Federal Funding Sources for Rural Areas" Compiled by M. Louise
Reynnells (Rural information Center Publication Series #66) Specifics of
federal sources related to rural areas.

3. "Rural Health Services Funding: A Resource Guide" Compiled by Jenny F.
Harriman (Rural Health Information Center Publication Series #63)

4. Capital Assistance Funding: A Rural Health Resource Guide

These are available at the Rural Information Center Website at:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/ric/ruralres/funding.htm and in hardcopy.

To obtain a free copy of any of the guides, please call 1-800-633-7701

==============================================================

B. A Guide to USDA and Other Federal Resources for Sustainable Agriculture
and Forestry Enterprises, By Romana A, Vysatova and Laurie S. Z.
Greenberg; Edited by Valerie Berton
The entire guide can be viewed at this Website:
http://www.attra.org

To obtain a free copy of this guide, please contact any of the following

1. The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program
at P. O. Box 3657, Fayetteville, AR 72702; Phone: 1-800-346-9140
Fax: 501-442-9842

Others distributing this guide , also free of charge include:

2. Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, W2493 City Road ES,
East Troy, WI 53120-9271
Phone: 414-642-3303
Fax: 414-642-4028

OR
3. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Program
2121 Ag/Life Sciences Surge Building, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742-3358
Phone: 301-405-3186
Fax: 301-314-7373

Please be sure to give your complete name and address."
=====================================================

Denis Ebodaghe, Ph.D.
National Program Leader
Small Farms
USDA-CSREES
Phone: 202-401-4385
Fax: 202-401-5179
E-mail: debodaghe@reeusda.gov
Website: http://www.reeusda.gov
Phone: 1-800-583-3071

Back to Contents

New in Print - Publications about Direct Marketing

In the future, we would like to include information about new publications of interest to Farmer Direct Marketing Website users. If you would like to have your publication considered, please send a copy:
Nichole Holley, USDA/W&AM, Room 2642-S, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC, 20250-0269.
Let others know about your accomplishments!

Hot Peppers & Parking Lot Peaches: Evaluating Farmers' Markets in Low Income Areas

The Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC) has announced the release of its newest publication,
"Hot Peppers and Parking Lot Peaches: Evaluating Farmers' Markets in Low Income Communities."
This report by Andy Fisher explores a breadth of issues associated with direct marketing in
inner-city communities. It presents case studies of 9 farmers markets in California and the
East Coast, enumerating guidelines for successful market operation and development. It also
includes a literature review of barriers associated with fruit and vegetable consumption,
including cooking and shopping habits, of low-income individuals and their implications for
farmers markets. The report concludes with an analysis of policy barriers and opportunities
at the Federal and State (California) levels, especially relating to EBT and the FMNP. A series
of policy recommendations follows.

The report (65 pp.) is available from the CFSC at P.O. Box 209, Venice CA 90294.
Cost is $10 + $2 s/h. CFSC members receive a 20% discount.
For more information, contact the CFSC at 310-822-5410
or check out the executive summary on their web page at: www.foodsecurity.org

Back to Contents

Building Bridges - Growing Community: Emerging Alliances for Community-Based Farm Product Marketing in Kentucky

"In 1997, the U.S.D.A. Southern Regional Sustainable Agriculture Professional Development grant, provided funding to the Commodity Growers Cooperative (CGC) and several partners. These monies enabled extensive collaboration with non-governmental organizations, provided participatory training and development projects for a wide variety of non-traditional alliances, and further advanced the goals for promoting sustainable agriculture in this state during 1997 and 1998. CGC refers to this collaborative training and professional development component of its work as "Community Based Farm Market Training Project"....This Annual Report covers activities conducted during a time from July 1997 through November 1998, although some background information is provided for several components of the project, reaching as far back as 1996."

"In order to work towards diversification, market development, and a sustainable food system in Kentucky, CGC, through the "Community Based Farm Marketing Training Project," decided to join together and propose a number of policy goals including: building community institutional capacity through training programs; organizational development and management assistance and program materials; ensuring access and availability for community residents to resident to fresh, locally produced food; and building and encouraging local markets for farmers and their products."

"In order to realize these goals: the Project Team identified four specific objectives and developed a work plan in order to achieve these objectives. These included: (1) building local capacity for improving farmers markets and expanding existing markets into public markets through developing and disseminating guidebooks for market development; (2) organizing community food councils and conducting community food access assessments in targeted communities by providing information and training about successful programs; (3) training community organizations to expand on and replicate the Harvest Festivals organized by Partners for Family Farms, and; (4) ensuring access to marketing and organizational assistance for farmers by providing training to extension agents, farmers, small business assistance programs and others who assist farmers associations in community food issues, market development planning, building access to capitol, and organizational management for farmer associations."

For more information or a copy of the Annual Report "Building Bridges - Growing Community: Emerging Alliances for Community-Based Farm Product Marketing in Kentucky", please contact:
Commodity Growers Cooperative Association, 620 S. Broadway, Suite 209, Lexington, KY 40508
Phone: (606) 233-7845, Fax: (606) 252-9255.
The cost of the report is $5.00 + $3.00 s/h.

Back to Contents

Return to Farmer Direct Marketing Newsletter Index