The Grower Perspective:

Wisconsin Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Production

Karen Delahaut, IPM Outreach Specialist

September 2002

Introduction

The fresh market fruit and vegetable industry in Wisconsin is large, diverse, and increasing annually. Production and pest management practices range from conventional to certified organic and the crop is marketed in a wide variety of ways. Approximately 1500 fresh vegetable and 200 berry growers sell fresh produce in Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin conducted a survey of fresh market growers in 2001-02 to understand and report practices used by this industry.

Fresh market growers can be defined as those growers of vegetables or berries that market their crop directly to the consumer. Common markets include road-side or farm stands, farmer’s markets, subscription or community supported agriculture, U-pick, retail grocery stores, and restaurants. Growers excluded from this survey include large commercial growers in the state that grow a single commodity that is sold “fresh” such as potato growers raising table stock or cabbage grown for slaw. However, large sweet corn growers that market their crop directly for example, were included in this survey.

Funding for the survey was provide by the Pesticide Use Risk Reduction (PURR) project through pesticide overcharge money. The funds were administered by the Wisconsin Department of Justice and distributed by the Center for Integrated Agriculture Systems at the UW. The mission of PURR is to address both the potential short- and long-term management impacts of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. This survey will help determine the impact of FQPA on the fresh market produce industry in Wisconsin and prioritize research and extension programs to help growers make th transition to reduced availability of certain pesticides.

The Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service (WASS), a division of the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (WDATCP), has conducted a survey of the acreage, yield, and production for large-scale fruit and vegetable commodities yearly. In addition, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) routinely conducted pesticide use surveys, the most recent being completed in 1996. However, both surveys concentrated on commercial producers that typically grow a single crop, but not on diverse, smaller-scale, fresh market growers. In 1996, a production and pest management survey was conducted by WASS via funding by the National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP). The 1996 survey focused primarily on management practices and pesticide use. Comparisons will be made between the current and 1996 surveys to help understand the evolution of the fresh market industry in the state when appropriate data is available.

The survey measured the current production and pest management practices to determine the value of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies to fresh market growers. The survey also attempted to determine what barriers prevented IPM adoption. In addition to management data, the survey also gathered information on demographics and marketing. All of this information will be used to help guide University specialists as they develop programming and educational opportunities for this group.

Apple growers were excluded from this survey because their production practices vary considerably from vegetable and berry growers.

Survey Background

A database of fresh market growers was created from lists derived from the following agencies:

· DATCP Agricultural Showcase and Berry Brochure

· Wisconsin Berry Growers’ Association

· Wisconsin Fresh Market Vegetable Growers’ Association

· Michael Fields Agricultural Institute

· UW-Extension Healthy Farmers Healthy Profits

· UW Cooperative Extension County Agents

· Farmer’s Market Coordinators

· Other growers

The fresh market grower database included 901 farms. The survey was distributed to 270 random growers, representing 30% of the database. An introductory letter was sent to potential survey recipients in August 2001 (Appendix A). The first mailing of the survey was sent in September and requested completion by November 1. A reminder was sent in November that included a toll-free number for growers to contact for assistance in completing the survey. Seventy-three of the original survey recipients were replaced for various reasons including undeliverable addresses, no longer in business, or not growing the crops surveyed. By the end of 2001, 105 of the 270 surveys had been completed and returned (39%). A second mailing was sent out in January and an additional 26 surveys were returned providing a total response rate of valid surveys at 56%.

In addition to the bad addresses and transient nature of the industry, there is a concern about how accurately the survey sampled fresh market growers in Wisconsin. Some growers are from diverse cultural backgrounds and do not speak English, making it difficult to survey Hmong or others of this very important group of growers.

This report is divided into the following sections: respondent demographics, farm characteristics, labor, crops grown, marketing, and pest management.

Respondent Demographics

Of the 131 growers that completed the survey the ratio of men to women as the primary farm operator was 4:1. Farming continues to be a male-dominated industry. However the 20% of female who were primary farm operators illustrates more women are managing fresh market farms. The age range of the respondents was 33-80 years with an average age of 52.

The tenure of the primary farm managers indicates 50% have been farming for less than 10 years which was similar to what was obtained in 1996. The experience ranged 6 months to 42 years with the median being 10 years. Only one woman has been the primary farm manager for more than 25 years. Twenty-two of the 26 women that responded as being the primary farm manager have been that position for 10 years or less (85%). The majority of the male farm managers have been managing their farms between 11 and 25 years. However, there were 16 men who have been the primary managers for over 26 years as compared with the one woman who’s managed her farm for more than 40 years.

English is the primary language spoken by fresh vegetable and berry growers. However 3% indicate that Hmong is also spoken in their home, 1.6% speak Spanish, and 2% listed other languages: primarily German and Pennsylvania Dutch.

Sixty-five percent of the respondents have completed post high school degrees including vocational or trade school, college, or graduate school. Only 3 respondents indicated that they didn’t complete high school. Five people didn’t answer this question. Wisconsin growers are an educated group. Personal experience working with the fresh market growers suggests the post-high school educations of some growers are unrelated to crop production, farming, or agribusiness (e.g. law). The unique challenges to University specialists in educating the industry on proper production and pest management practices is designing basic and advanced programming for the growers. Fresh market growers are often more willing to try new farming methods in an attempt to become more productive and profitable farmers because of their previous educational experiences.

The respondents were surveyed how much income was generated from the sale of fresh fruits and vegetables. The data does not represent off-farm income nor is it net income after expenses have been paid. The breakdown of the data across the categories was relatively even and is represented in Table 1. Ten growers did not answer this question.

Table 1: On-Farm Income

Income	Frequency	Valid Percent
$0-999	12	9.9
$1,000-1,999	16	13.2
$2,000-4,999	9	7.4
$5,000-9,999	19	15.7
$10,000-14,999	13	10.7
$15,000-24,999	10	8.3
$25,000-39,000	15	12.4
$40,000-79,000	12	9.9
$80,000 or more	15	12.4
Total	121	100.0

Farm Characteristics

The farm characteristics obtained through the survey were not surprising. The industry is diverse and partially described in this section. Fresh market farms ranged from 1-94 years in business with a median age of 12 years. The respondents themselves have been the primary managers for 6 months to 42 years with a median of 10 years. Nearly 25% of the farms have been in existence for 25 years or more with an additional 25% being in operation less than 5 years. The 1996 survey indicated that 30% of the farms surveyed had been in operation for 5 years or less. The high number of undeliverable, returned surveys and the data from this survey and the 1996 survey, suggests barriers to enter these industries are low.

Organic production systems were used by 32% of growers whereas 67% of the growers said they used conventional practices. Generally, older operations tended to be conventional farms while the younger operations were more likely to be certified organic or consider themselves organic without having obtained certification.

Table 2: Age of Operation and Years in Management

	Valid Percent
	Total Operations	Conventional Operations	Organic Operations	Primary Manager
				Male	Female
< 5 years	20.6	14.3	34.2	19.6	46.2
6-10 years	22.9	19.0	31.7	19.6	38.5
11-25 years	32.8	38.1	26.8	45.1	11.5
26-40 years	13.0	17.9	4.9	12.7	0.0
> 40 years	10.7	10.7	2.4	3.0	3.8
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Only three of the growers indicated their farms have been in organic operation for more than 25 years compared to 24 conventional operations. The majority of organic farms (65.9%) have been in operation ten years or less. In the 1996 survey, 75% of the organic farms indicated they had been in business 10 years or less.

There is an interesting correlation between the age of the operation and whether the crops are grown organically. Generally, the older operations tend to be conventional while organic farms came on the scene more recently. This may be explained by the recent demand for organic products in the marketplace. This may also suggest that older conventional farms are not likely to convert to organic growing practices.

Calculating farm size with respect to crops grown presented a challenge since most growers are not growing a full acre of any one crop except the large-scale crops such as sweet corn or pumpkins. To determine acreage of crops grown on less than 1 acre, we asked growers the number of feet of row grown by crop and typical row spacing. Then we calculated acreage by crop from row-feet and row spacing. When ranges specified and for those categories that represented a range, the mid-point of that range was used. We also compared the years in operation, years respondent was the primary manager, and organic vs. conventional status with farm size (Table 3).

Table 3: Farm Size

Years in Operation	< 5 acres	5-20 acres	> 20 acres	Total
< 5 years	14.6%	4.9%	1.6%	21.1%
6-10 years	13.0%	7.3%	4.1%	24.4%
11-25 years	9.8%	17.1%	5.7%	32.6%
> 25 years	8.1%	5.7%	8.1%	21.9%
Total	45.5%	35.0%	19.5%	100.0%

The data shows that almost half of the fresh market operations in the state are under 5 acres in size regardless of the age of the operation and _ of farms are 20 acres or less. Farms greater than 20 acres in size are 5 years or older with the exception of two.

Farms that were less than 5 acres in size were equally popular between organic and conventional management. Farms larger than 5 acres were conventional operations. This trend continued when we looked at farms over 20 acres in size where conventional farms outnumbered organic farms 5:1. This can be explained by the management intensity necessary for organic farms.

Table 4: Farm Size vs. Management Practices

Farm Size	Number of Conventional Farms	Number of Organic Farms
< 5 acres	26	25
5 - 20 acres	30	12
> 20 acres	20	4
Total	76	41

The average farm size at the time of the 1996 survey was 15 acres compared to17 acres in this survey indicating a negligible change in the time between surveys.

Labor

The number of laborers per farm ranged between 1 and 42 workers with the median being 5. A couple of the larger farms increased the average to 8.3 due to more than 20 workers on the largest farms. Family members comprised 82% of the workforce with the remainder of laborers hired, non-family workers. None of the respondents used interns or volunteers, which is known to occur on some of the organic operations in the state. The Michael Fields Agricultural Institute helps advertise intern positions and serves as a network to place students on various farms around the state who are interested in offering such an opportunity to students. Internships benefit the student and the farm manager. The intern gains valuable life experience on the host farm while the farm manager receives labor in exchange for room, board, and often a small salary.

Crops Grown

The majority of the survey respondents grew cucurbits; tomatoes and other solanaceous crops; and sweet corn. Thirty-five percent of the respondents grew raspberries while 38% grew strawberries. Of berry growers responding to the survey, all also raised some vegetables.

Solanaceous crops including tomatoes, peppers, and eggplants were one of the most commonly reported groups of crops grown organically. Cucurbits represented the other most common organically-produced crop. Additionally, twice as many organic growers raised onions, leafy greens, cole crops and potatoes than conventional fresh market growers responding to the survey. Organic sweet corn production was limited to less than 5 acres due to intense insect pressure late in the season. The ratio of organic to conventional berry production was 1:1 for raspberries and 2:1 for strawberries. The organic strawberry growers generally grew less than one acre.

Table 5: Crop Acreage by Crop

Crop	Area Grown	Number of Conventional Growers^1	Number of Organic Growers
Asparagus	< 30 sq. ft.	0	4
	30 sq. ft. - 300 sq. ft.	1	7
	300 sq. ft. - 1/4 acre	4	2
	1/4 acre - 4 acres	11	3
	4 - 30 acres	2	0
Cole Crops Broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts	< 50 row feet	1	5
	50 row feet - 1/4 acre	4	17
	1/4 - 2 acres	4	5
	2 -10 acres	44	0
Crop	Area Grown	Number of Conventional Growers^1	Number of Organic Growers
Cucurbits: Cucumbers, Melons, Pumpkins, Squash	< 1/4 acre	1	14
	1/4 - 1 acre	5	11
	1 - 5 acres	16	5
	5 - 10 acres	14	2
	10 - 100 acres	6	1
Leafy Greens	< 30 row feet	2	2
	30 - 150 row feet	4	5
	150 row feet - 1/4 acre	3	12
	1/4 - 2 acres	2	4
	2 - 10 acres	0	1
Legumes: Peas Beans - snap and dried	< 30 row feet	1	0
	30 - 150 row feet	3	8
	150 row feet - 1/4 acre	5	13
	1/4 - 2 acres	9	7
	2 - 10 acres	3	0
	> 10 acres	2	0
Onions	< 30 row feet	2	2
	30 - 150 row feet	4	8
	150 row feet - 1/4 acre	5	10
	1/4 - 2 acres	6	6
	2 - 10 acres	2	1
	> 10 acres	0	0
Potatoes	< 50 row feet	2	2
	50 row feet - 1/8 acre	2	11
	1/8 - 1 acre	3	12
	1 - 10 acres	8	3
	10 - 100 acres	1	1
Crop	Area Grown	Number of Conventional Growers^1	Number of Organic Growers
Raspberries	< 50 row feet	1	4
	50 - 250 row feet	1	6
	250 row feet - 1/4 acre	4	7
	1/4 - 1 acre	5	3
	1 - 5 acres	9	0
	> 5 acres	3	0
Root Crops: Carrots, Radishes, Beets, Turnips, Parsnips, Rutabagas	< 30 row feet	1	3
	30 - 150 row feet	1	5
	150 row feet - 1/4 acre	5	11
	1/4 - 2 acres	4	5
Solanaceous Crops: Tomatoes, peppers, eggplants, tomatillos	< 50 row feet	2	6
	50 row feet - 1/4 acre	4	17
	1/4 - 2 acres	9	15
	2 - 10 acres	13	7
	10 - 100 acres	2	0
Strawberries	< 500 row feet	2	4
	500 row feet - 1 acre	4	10
	1 - 2 acres	9	0
	2 - 5 acres	3	1
	5 - 10 acres	10	0
	> 10 acres	6	0
Sweet Corn	< 1/4 acre	2	7
	1/4 - 1 acre	2	11
	1 - 5 acres	7	8
	5 - 10 acres	9	0
	10 - 100 acres	7	0
	> 100 acres	2	0

^{1 Three growers didn’t respond to the question of whether they produced an organic crop and therefore couldn’t be segregated in this table. Where this occurred, these growers were not included in the totals.}

Marketing

We were interested in learning where the growers currently marketed their produce, the potential of the various markets that currently exist that they weren’t utilized, and what they felt the barriers to the development of each market were. Farmers markets and roadside stands were the most popular marketing strategies currently used by the respondents followed by grocery stores and U-pick operations. The lack of wholesale marketing may be under-represented because commercial potato, onion, sweet corn and other large-scale producers market their crops wholesale but were not included in this survey. When we asked growers the markets they’d like to pursue, the response indicated that all markets were equally desirable. The growers were asked for those markets listed they currently don’t sell to, to make a check on a line that best represents the likelihood that they could develop or enter this market in their area. The range in mean scores between 1.6 and 2.4 indicating that the respondents felt the likelihood of market development was less than somewhat likely (Table 6). Percentages in the first column exceed 100% because many growers market their crop in more than one way.

The responses of market potential for the various markets was also analyzed based on characteristics of the respondent such as age, gender, farm size, income, crop diversity, and organic vs. conventional practices.

Table 6: Market Potential

Market	Percent of Growers Currently Utilizing this Market	Mean Scores of Likelihood of Developing the Market
Farmer’s Markets	53.4%	2.1
Roadside Stands	51.1%	2.4
Wholesale	16.0%	1.6
U-pick	38.9%	1.8
Schools	3.8%	1.6
Restaurants	15.5%	2.1
CSA	9.2%	1.9
Grocery Stores	36.6%	2.1

We also asked what the key barriers to each market were and why respondents currently weren’t utilizing these markets. Cost and time were cited as the barriers most frequently in pursuing farmer’s markets, roadside stands, U-picks and restaurants. In addition, the distance of the farm and possible roadside stand to the potential customer was also cited as a barrier to this market. High demands on the grower were cited as the most common barrier to developing sales to grocery stores and wholesale markets. Growers also indicated that lower returns (prices) in these markets were prohibitive compared to more direct sales. It was interesting to note that the respondents didn’t really know the potential to marketing to schools or through CSAs. The results are listed in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Perceived Barriers to Market

Barrier	Farmer’s Markets	Roadside Stands	Wholesale	U-Pick	Schools	Restaur ants	CSA	Grocery Stores
Cost/Time	75.0%	50.0%	14.9%	44.9%	13.8%	33.8%	22.9%	28.3%
Distance to Customers	13.9%	25.0%	6.0%	8.2%	8.8%	2.9%	5.7%	0.0%
Vendor Restricts Access	0.0%	0.0%	11.9%	2.0%	11.3%	11.8%	1.4%	15.2%
Demands are too great	5.6%	22.2%	53.7%	28.6%	27.5%	30.9%	18.6%	52.2%
Don’t know	5.6%	2.8%	13.4%	16.3%	38.8%	20.6%	51.4%	4.3%

Growers were asked to rate on a scale of 1 (not practical) to 5 (very practical) suggestions for increasing local demand for fresh market fruits and vegetables. Across the board for each marketing suggestion, organic growers and female respondents had a higher mean value. With respect to the development of coops, organic or female growers had a mean of close to one point higher than the conventional or male growers. The longer the respondent has been manager of the operation the lower the mean value for the practicality of using tax incentives to encourage restaurants or grocery stores to buy locally and for the development of a coop.

Table 8: Practicality for Increasing Local Demand

	Mean Values of Practicality
Tax incentives for restaurants or food stores to buy locally	2.6
Business loans/grants for retail outlets	2.8
Require public institutions to purchase local produce	2.7
Develop co-ops for production and sale	3.1
Develop processing facilities for value-added products	3.2
Develop community storage facilities to “extend the season”	2.7

Finally, the growers were asked to rank the following ideas on a scale of 1 (I don’t like the idea) to 5 (I like the idea very much):

· Develop and provide more information and examples on how fresh market crops could be sold to restaurants and other food retailers.

· Develop and provide promotional materials that growers can use to increase demand for fresh market crops in their local areas.

· Develop and provide information on how to produce fresh market crops in a more profitable manner.

· Develop a standard grading system for fresh market fruits and vegetables that could be linked to a suggested pricing schedule.

Table 9: Market Interest

Marketing Idea	Interest in the Marketing Idea
Marketing Information	3.3
Promotional Material	3.6
Increase Profitable Production	3.6
Standard Grading System	2.9

The results to this question indicate that the growers liked the ideas of the development of promotional materials to increase the demand for fresh market crops and learning how to produce these crops more profitably the most.

One grower provided an extensive comment on marketing in the Milwaukee area which can be found in the comment section near the end of this report.

Pest Management

Because this survey was intended to determine the impact of FQPA on the market growers of the state, we asked the respondents to indicate their top insect, disease and weed problems and select from a list of management options up to 5 practices commonly employed to manage each pest type in each crop. Fresh market growers do not rely heavily on pesticides as their primary pest management practice. A limited number of herbicides can be used in mixed plantings and many plant diseases are better managed preventively than with fungicides. Pesticide cost or consumer demand may also contribute to the reason why IPM is being employed by a high percentage of fresh market growers.

Scouting

Growers were asked if the crop was scouted, what scouting strategies are used, who does the scouting and how often, and if the farm is not scouted, why not. Scouting occurs on 90% of the crops on a regular basis. The majority of the crops are monitored by the respondent or a family member. Only 10% of the growers hired an independent crop consultant or an employee of the local cooperative to scout for them. Almost 90% of the growers scout their crop at least weekly with just over half of those reporting scouting every few days. Organic growers indicated they were more likely to monitor their crop more frequently than once a week. The remainder of the respondents indicated that they scouted the crop when pest damage was visible to determine the extent among the entire crop, as needed at critical stages of crop development, or when pest outbreaks are likely.

Of the 12 growers who indicated they did not scout, the reasons for not scouting were: four reported that pests simply were not a problem and scouting wasn’t necessary and five indicated that they apply pesticides based on experience and therefore scouting wasn’t necessary. Other reasons reported include time constraints, expense, and that scouting wasn’t appropriate for the pests encountered. Only one respondent indicated that they didn’t need to scout because they practiced a regular spray program.

The 1996 survey also queried growers as to their scouting practices. At that time 91% of the respondents indicated they scouted with only one person contracting the service from an independent crop consultant. Similar to this year’s survey, 80% scouted their crops at least once a week.

Trapping

Growers were also asked whether they used monitoring traps such as pheromone or blacklight traps to monitor the presence and activity of economically-important insects. Twenty-five percent indicated they use traps to monitor insect pests. When we cross-tabbed the growers who produced sweet corn with those who trap for insect pests Only 13 of 56 growers trap for insects despite past UW-Extension programs encouraging otherwise.

In the 1996 survey, growers were also asked whether they trap for insects and 8% indicated that they trapped for one or more of the following pests: corn earworms, European corn borers, Colorado potato beetles, onion thrips, aphids, diamondback moths, and potato leafhoppers. An additional 32% indicated that they would be more likely to trap if training were made available.

Weather Data

The use of weather data to predict insect and disease outbreaks was evenly split. Weather information used includes degree days to predict insect pest development and fine-tune their pest management timing while rainfall and humidity help determine disease development.

IPM Adoption

Each grower was asked to select the two main reasons why they felt more fresh market growers don’t use IPM practices. Forty-five percent indicated they thought that growers using pesticides felt they had no need for IPM practices. Twenty-seven percent felt that there was a lack of good information on IPM. Roughly 20% felt IPM was not practical because they never heard of it.

Table 10: Reasons for Not Adopting IPM

Reason	Percent Responding
Use pesticides; don’t need IPM	45.5%
Lack of information on IPM	27.6%
Can control pests without IPM	24.2%
Don’t believe it’s effective	21.8%
Never heard of IPM	19.4%
IPM isn’t practical	17.7%
IPM won’t work on a small scale	16.9%
IPM is too expensive	6.5%

IPM Strategies

We wanted to determine how well IPM adoption was being met by this diverse group. In addition to the preceding questions related to IPM practices, the respondents were also surveyed as to what pest management practices were employed for the specific crops grown in their operation.

The results have been broken down between vegetables and berries as well as by weeds, insects, and diseases within each crop group. Growers were asked which actions, up to five, they used to manage pests in a particular crop.

Weed Management

The top three weed management strategies employed by fresh market vegetable growers include hand weeding as needed (60.3%), mechanical cultivation on a whole field basis (56.5%), and crop rotation (45.8%). In berries, hand weeding remained the number one weed management strategy (44.3%). This was followed by the use of mulch (plastic, grass, or straw at 33.6%) and mechanical field cultivation (22.1%). Regular herbicide applications were only made by 22 of the vegetable growers and 16 of the berry growers. This represents approximately 17% and 12% of the growers, respectively. Herbicide use as needed scored slightly higher but the majority of the vegetable growers rely on cultural practices to reduce weed infestations and prevent future weed problems. Berry growers responded similarly although more vegetable growers indicated they were likely to cultivate to manage weeds over using herbicides. Crop rotation is less feasible in berry production due to the perennial nature of the crops. The diverse nature of most vegetable plantings limits the number of suitable herbicides for use with multiple crops is very limited.

Table 11: Weed Management Practices in Vegetables

Weed Management Method	Number Responding	Valid Percent	Percent of Acreage
Hand weeding	79	60.3
Cultivation to manage existing weeds	74	56.5
Crop rotation to prevent weed outbreaks	60	45.8
Cultivation to prevent weed outbreaks	50	38.2
Mulch with plastic, grass, straw	43	32.8
Herbicides as needed	30	22.9
Mowing to prevent weed outbreaks	28	21.4
Regular herbicide applications	22	16.8
Herbicide spot applications	18	13.7
Herbicides in high risk areas	16	12.2
No action taken to manage weeds	14	10.7
Cover crop	9	6.9

Table 12: Weed Management Practices in Berries

Weed Management Method	Number Responding	Valid Percent	Percent of Acreage
Hand weeding	58	44.3
Mulch with plastic, grass, straw	44	33.6
Cultivation to manage existing weeds	29	22.1
Mowing to prevent weed outbreaks	21	16.0
Regular herbicide applications	16	12.2
Herbicides as needed	16	12.2
Cultivation to prevent weed outbreaks	16	12.2
Crop rotation to prevent weed outbreaks	14	10.7
Herbicide spot applications	13	9.9
Herbicides in high risk areas	10	7.6