Hostname: page-component-6c8bd87754-fppf4 Total loading time: 0.153 Render date: 2022-01-16T10:54:07.614Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }
>Journals
>Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems
>American Journal of Alternative Agriculture
>Volume 17 Issue 1
>The wholesale produce auction: An alternative marketing...
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture
The wholesale produce auction: An alternative marketing strategy for small farms
Stephan Tubene and
Stephan Tubene*
The Small Farm Institute, Maryland Cooperative Extension, University of Maryland, 7320 Ritchie Highway, Suite 210, Glen Burnie, MD 21061–3165
Department of Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, JD 20742.
S. Tubene (stubene@umail.umd.edu).
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.
alternative agriculturemarket shareproduce marketingrisk managementroadside market operatorsrural Americasustainable agriculture
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 18 - 23
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/AJAA20013[Opens in a new window]
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002
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 ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
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
No CrossRef data available.
View all Google Scholar citations for this article.
Send article to Kindle
Stephan Tubene (a1) and James Hanson (a2)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/AJAA20013
Send article to Dropbox
To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.
Send article to Google Drive
To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.
Reply to: Submit a response
Title * Please enter a title for your response.
Contents * Contents help
Close Contents help
- No HTML tags allowed
- Web page URLs will display as text only
- Lines and paragraphs break automatically
- Attachments, images or tables are not permitted
Please enter your response.
Email * Email help
Close Email help
Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.
Occupation Please enter your occupation.
Affiliation Please enter any affiliation.
Conflicting interests
Do you have any conflicting interests? * Conflicting interests help
Close Conflicting interests help
Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.
More information *
Please enter details of the conflict of interest or select 'No'.
Please tick the box to confirm you agree to our Terms of use. *
Please accept terms of use.
Please tick the box to confirm you agree that your name, comment and conflicts of interest (if accepted) will be visible on the website and your comment may be printed in the journal at the Editor's discretion. *
Please confirm you agree that your details will be displayed.