Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:53:21.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The wholesale produce auction: An alternative marketing strategy for small farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Stephan Tubene  and
James Hanson
Stephan Tubene*
Affiliation:
The Small Farm Institute, Maryland Cooperative Extension, University of Maryland, 7320 Ritchie Highway, Suite 210, Glen Burnie, MD 21061–3165
James Hanson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, JD 20742.
*
S. Tubene ([email protected]).
Get access

Abstract

Small farmers urgently need alternative marketing strategies if they are to achieve the goals of a more sustainable agriculture. This study was a survey of nine Pennsylvania wholesale produce auctions, all established between 1984 and 1998. The main goals of the auctions were to serve local communities, provide high-quality produce to local consumers and make profits. The results showed that the auctions typically employ an average of 7–10 people per growing season. The five most common commodities sold were cantaloupe, watermelon, tomato, pumpkin and sweet corn. Asparagus and onions were the least sold during a regular growing season. In terms of market share, roadside market operators purchased the largest proportion of produce (40%), followed by farmers (27%), chain food stores (16%), independent grocery stores (11%) and restaurants (6%), making up an average annual gross sale of $3.5 million per auction. The study revealed that the nine Pennsylvania produce auctions were successful in meeting their goals. The reasons for success included private ownership, excellent quality and freshness of produce, good location, local produce recognition, clientele availability and customer-oriented business. The auction managers identified some weaknesses, including inconsistent and poor grading, limited space in the auction facility, produce unavailability and limited volume, lack of cooling facility, price fluctuation and slow service. The study indicated that local wholesale produce auctions are a useful marketing alternative for small farmers in Pennsylvania, by providing marketing outlets and convenient shopping centers for sellers and buyers; by securing a source of fresh and locally grown produce not found in traditional wholesale terminal markets; and by allowing exchange and networking among farmers and buyers. Consequently, the wholesale produce auction can be a useful model for an alternative marketing strategy and can provide considerable benefits to small farm and rural communities.

Keywords

alternative agriculturemarket shareproduce marketingrisk managementroadside market operatorsrural Americasustainable agriculture
Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 18 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Barkema, A. 1993. Reaching consumers in the twenty-first century: The short way around the barn. Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 75(12):1126–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Barnett, V. 1991. Sample Survey Principles and Methods. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
3.Blaine, T., James, R., and James, B.. 1996. The effects of a wholesale fruit and vegetable auction on produce marketing and distribution. J. Food Distrib. Res. XXVIII (1):62–65.Google Scholar
4.Duncan, G., and Kalton, G. 1987. Issues of design and analysis of surveys across time. Int. Stat. Rev. 55(1):97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Hanson, J., and Rada, D.. 1992. Developing a Wholesale Marketing Strategy for Produce in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Mid-Atlantic Produce Project-MAPP. Information Series No. 209201. Dept of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland. College Park.Google Scholar
6.Kohls, R., and Uhl, J.. 1992. Marketing of Agricultural Products. 7th ed.Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.Google Scholar
7.SAN. 1999a. Diversify Crops to Boost Profits and Stewardship. Sustainable Agriculture Network. Cooperative State Research. Education, and Extension Service, US Dept of Agriculture. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
8.SAN. 1999b. Marketing Strategies for Farmers and Ranchers. Sustainable Agriculture Network. Cooperative State Research. Education, and Extension Service, US Dept of Agriculture, Washington. DC.Google Scholar
9.Schluter, G., Lee, C., and LeBlanc, M.. 1998. The weakening relationships between farm and food prices. Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 80(5): 1134–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Tubene, S., Hanson, J., and Myers, R. D.. 1999. Pennsylvania Produce Auctions Survey Report. Maryland Cooperative Extension, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
11.WINSTAR. 1994. WINSTAR. Release 1.71. Econometrics Computer Program. Anderson-Bell Corporation, Arvada, CO.Google Scholar