The California Agricultural 

Direct Marketing Study 

Prepared by: 

Kenneth M. Kambara, Ph.D. and Crispin L. Shelley 

Through a cooperative agreement between: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Transportation and Marketing Programs 

Marketing Services Branch 

and 

California Institute of Rural Studies 

Davis, California 

January 31, 2002 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................... I 

OVERVIEW ........................................................................................... ii 

Key Findings of the CADMS Phone Survey .............................................. iii 

Key Findings of the CADMS Case Study ................................................. v 

Capstone Comment ........................................................................... vi 

PART I: THE CALIFORNIA DIRECT MARKETING SURVEY

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 

THE CONTEXT OF DIRECT MARKETING.............................................. 3 

An Uneven Playing Field ................................................................... 3 

An Alternative Paradigm .................................................................... 5 

California Leads.............................................................................. 5 

Entry Opportunities .......................................................................... 6

DATA AND METHODS ......................................................................... 7 

Sample Frame ................................................................................ 7 

Survey Participation ......................................................................... 9 

SURVEY RESULTS .............................................................................. 9

Participant Profile ........................................................................... 10 

Farm Characteristics ........................................................................ 11 

Scale Effects and Micro-agriculture ..................................................... 15 

Farm Sales and Income ..................................................................... 18 

Market Pressures ............................................................................ 18 

Gender Differences ......................................................................... 18 

Importance of Marketing Goals ........................................................... 19 

Obstacles to Success ........................................................................ 22 

Grower Recommendations ................................................................. 22 

Motivations and Obstacles to Direct Marketing ........................................ 23 

Foreign-Born Operators and Direct Marketing ......................................... 26 

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) .............................................. 28 

Farm Typologies Based on Age and Experience Farming ............................ 29 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................... 32 

Farm Entry ................................................................................... 32 

Farm Viability ............................................................................... 32 

REFERENCES .................................................................................... 34 

APPENDIX ....................................................................................... 35 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

ii

PART II: IMMIGRANT AGRICULTURAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 

METHODS ......................................................................................... 2 

DEMOGRAPHICS AND HISTORY .......................................................... 3 

STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION .............................................................. 4 

FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 5

Family and Clan Relationships ......................................................... 5 

Knowledge Sharing ....................................................................... 6 

Purchasing Economies ................................................................... 8 

Labor ....................................................................................... 8 

Timely Marketing ........................................................................ 9 

Competition and Pricing ................................................................ 10 

Sustainability ............................................................................. 10 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................... 12 

REFERENCES .................................................................................... 15 

APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 17
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The research for this publication was conducted under a cooperative agreement 

between the California Institute of Rural Studies and U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), Agricultural Marketing Service, Transportation and Marketing Programs, 

Barbara Robinson Deputy Administrator. Tim Payne, Economist, Market Services 

Branch was Project Leader for USDA. Claire Klotz of the Marketing Service Branch 

was Project Leader in the early stages of the project. Mitchell Naylor, former CIRS 

Editor, was lead interviewer in the early stages of the project. Lisette Saca, CIRS 

Research Associate, took primary responsibility for the phone surveys. Don Villarejo, 

former CIRS Executive Director, and Shaw Perrin, former CIRS Research Associate, 

were largely responsible for the research design and the preparation of the original grant 

proposal. 

Valuable input was also received from Gail Feenstra, Food Systems Analyst at the 

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SAREP), and from Chuck 

Ingels, UC Cooperative Extension Advisor for Sacramento County. Sacramento County 

Deputy Agricultural Commissioner, Debbie Thompson provided crucial information, and 

Will Stockwin of Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF) was also consulted 

on this project. 

Many thanks to the California Department of Food and Agriculture for their public 

access databases, and to the CIRS Editor, John Nagiecki, who made this report readable.
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

ii

OVERVIEW 

The California Agricultural Direct Marketing Survey (CADMS) represents a first 

step by the California Institute for Rural Studies to build a more solid foundation for 

understanding the relative importance of direct marketing (DM) for California's farmers, 

its rural communities, and its food consumers. Prior to addressing the responses provided 

by 250 California farmers to this telephone survey and companion case study, it is worth 

situating the issue of DM within the larger context of food system development. 

In essence, food production, processing, marketing, and consumption have 

undergone a steady process of regional specialization in the past two centuries, resulting 

in a global food system characterized by long-distance transport from the field to the 

table. Integral to this process has been the industrialization of the production process, 

resulting in a growing dependence of farmers on advanced technological inputs produced 

off the farm. These trends, made possible by massive infusion of low-cost fossil fuels, 

have resulted in a rate of productivity growth that has more than kept pace with global 

population growth. U.S. consumers have benefited greatly in terms of low cost food: our 

percentage of income spent on food has declined from 21 percent to 11 percent in the past 

62 years. 

With its ideal Mediterranean climate and extensive irrigation system, California 

continues to make significant improvements in productivity in conjunction with a steady 

shift towards high value fruit, vegetable, and horticultural crops. For example, total sales 

increased by 60 percent from 1988 to 1997. However, despite this dramatic increase in 

sales volume, both the number of California farms and net cash returns declined by 11 

percent in the same period. While a full explanation of the reasons for this apparent 

anomaly go beyond the scope of this report, these facts represent the impact of an 

ongoing cost-price squeeze facing California farmers. In essence, California farmers, like 

farmers elsewhere, find themselves in a weak position vis a vis other food system sectors. 

On the one hand, they have little choice but to ante up for rising costs of technological 

inputs such as chemicals and machinery. On the other, they generally cannot pass on 

those costs to upstream food system sectors such as processors, shippers, and retailers. 

This combination of rapid productivity growth and food system market relationships goes 

a long way towards understanding the long-term decline in the real cost of food, 

shrinking per unit profit margins for farmers, and a steady decline in the number of 

family farms. 

On the consumption side we see a parallel contradiction. Despite the availability of a 

cornucopia of low cost healthy food—much produced in California—the United States is 

facing a looming public health crisis due to the over-consumption of high-fat, simplesugar food. Adult obesity increased by 60 percent in the 1990s, with over 50 percent of 

adults now overweight. The obesity-related disease of Type II (adult onset) diabetes is 

growing at a parallel pace among adults as well as adolescents. 

The dramatic growth in the direct marketing of farm commodities represents a 

positive counter-trend to these negative production and consumption trends. Through a 

variety of DM outlets ranging from roadside stands to Internet-based direct sales, food 

consumers are able to gain access to very fresh, healthy food at competitive prices. In the 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

iii

bargain they gain the chance to meet the farmer in person and learn more about how and 

where their food was grown. Because DM is well-suited to small- and medium-scale 

family farms, these operations are able to eliminate food system intermediaries who 

generally capture the majority of the food dollar. The result is higher per unit profit 

margins, allowing family farms to regain a competitive edge without resorting to the 

more conventional survival mechanism of scale expansion. 

Given this backdrop, the CADMS was specifically designed to address two 

fundamental questions: First, to what extent does DM improve the viability of existing 

farm operations (i.e., farms that embraced DM after a period of conventional marketing 

practices)? Second, to what extent does DM assist farm entry by ethnic minorities and 

immigrant farmers? With a large and growing number of Asian and Latino immigrants, 

the second question is particularly appropriate for California. Direct marketing allows 

farmers to begin farming at volumes that might otherwise be too small for conventional 

marketing outlets, particularly in combination with the higher per unit profits of direct 

sales. Given the well-established contribution of family farms to local and regional 

economies that result from the multiplier effects of their income, the significance of DM 

goes well beyond our project's focus on farm survival. 

Because the phone survey methodology was not conducive to accessing immigrants 

and ethnic minorities who often lack English language proficiency, the second question 

posed above was addressed via a case study approach focusing on Laotian (Mien) 

immigrant strawberry farmers in the Sacramento region. As a result, this report is really 

two reports joined by a common theme yet distinguished by contrasting methodologies. 

In the CADMS phone survey drawn from all DM farms registered with the California 

Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), we employ statistical inference to identify 

key issues and groupings of DM operations. In contrast, we make no general claims in 

respect to the overall population of immigrant/ethnic direct marketers. But the case study 

uncovered a fascinating set of processes whereby the Mien have been able to harness the 

full measure of their cultural values and relationships in a successful effort to build a 

thriving roadside stand-based strawberry market. In short, the two halves of this report 

offer the reader the opportunity to compare and contrast the issue of depth versus breadth 

in respect to generalization. 

Key Findings of the CADMS Phone Survey 

Recognizing that this overview only addresses the highlights, several key findings 

emerge from the CADMS phone survey: 

1. Farmers' markets were the predominant channel for DM, with 80 

percent of the 250 participants employing this method. Fifty-four 

percent employed this method exclusively. 

2. In general, yearly gross sales from these farming operations was 

relatively low, with 54 percent under $25,000. 

3. In terms of the proportion of sales from DM relative to total farm sales 

of the farm, there was a progressive reduction in the percentage of total 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

iv

sales via DM as farm size increased. In brief, the smaller farms were 

more dependent on DM. 

4. Sixty-three percent of farmers reported higher per unit profit margins 

from DM sales relative to conventional marketing channels. The mean 

net profit difference was 65 percent. 

5. Direct marketing was particularly important as a means for small farms 

to begin operation, e.g., the threshold volume of sales for farmers' 

market participation is typically lower than for conventional marketing 

methods. 

6. Closely related to the above points, over 78 percent stated that DM was 

important or very important to their operation. It was particularly 

important for younger and beginning farmers. 

7. In respect to motivations for DM activities, over 42 percent cited a 

local farmers' market as a catalyst for DM sales. Thirty-eight percent 

cited the satisfaction of dealing directly with the public. 

8. Key constraints on success in DM included lack of affordable labor (33 

percent), excessive regulations and/or paperwork (20 percent), and lack 

of access to operating capital (20 percent). 

9. In terms of institutional support, 23 percent sought more 

marketing/educational programs from government agencies such as the 

USDA. 

10. DM was particularly important as a means for foreign-born 

respondents to begin farming. Sixty percent stated this as a deciding 

factor versus less than 40 percent for native born participants. 

11. Community supported agriculture (CSA) emerges as a particularly 

robust form of DM. A majority of CSAs had yearly sales of over 

$100,000 and 67 percent had organic sales, figures well beyond the 

general sample. CSA operators were younger on average than their 

counterparts as well (48 versus 55 years). 

In addition to the above findings, a cluster analysis was employed to segregate DM 

operations into a general typology. Three groups emerged, characterized by clear 

differences in age, years in farming, and total DM sales. The first group appears to be 

retirees who have entered into agriculture with DM as a catalyst. They are older 

operators with relatively few years in agriculture. Their farm size and DM sales is 

relatively small as well. The second group was nearly the same age but had more years 

in farming and larger operations. They appear to be established "professionals," and were 

often motivated to engage in DM as a result of a crisis in profitability. The final group 

was younger farmers who have been particularly motivated by a philosophical orientation 

to DM. All but one of the 13 CSA operators interviewed were in this group, for example. 

A significant proportion were highly successful direct marketers, at least in terms of gross 

sales: 32 percent had annual sales of over $50,000. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

v

Key Findings of the CADMS Case Study 

The concept of embeddedness, i.e., social ties that often underlie and facilitate 

successful economic activity, is employed as a key construct in our analysis of Mien 

strawberry production in the Sacramento region. Three Mien farmers participated in 

intensive interviews, supplemented by interviews with key informants. These farmers are 

part of a cohort of Mien farmers who are accountable for a steady increase of strawberry 

sales in Sacramento County in the past decade. Starting with no reported sales in 1993, 

2000 sales were reported at just under $3 million. The vast majority of these sales are via 

roadside stands adjacent to the planted acres. 

The apparent success of the Mien in urban fringe agriculture can be traced to the 

following: 

1. Central to success in strawberry production is the ability to mobilize 

timely labor: extended family and clan ties are employed in a complex 

web of reciprocal relations characterized by inter-familial exchange of 

labor and an absence of cash wages. 

2. Knowledge of strawberry production practices are shared through an 

extended social and familial network. 

3. Equipment is shared and growers buy chemicals and plastic sheeting 

collectively in bulk quantities, both of which address their relative lack 

of access to capital and reduce per unit input costs. 

4. Growers are able to informally agree on a price floor for strawberries at 

the beginning of the marketing season. 

Key constraints and conclusions regarding the sustainability of Mien strawberry 

production include: 

1. While strong social ties within the Mien community are key to their 

success in labor allocation, language and related cultural barriers 

constrain their knowledge of cutting edge production practices that are 

available from government sources such as Cooperative Extension. 

This persists even in the face of an effort by a county extension agent to 

outreach to this group. 

2. Lack of access to cold storage facilities and more extensive marketing 

channels beyond the roadside stand result in substantial crop losses and 

revenue. Limited language proficiency and capital limitations underlie 

these problems. 

3. Mien farmers appear to be facing looming agroecological problems. 

Lack of access to land and capital are constraining crop rotation. They 

are also minimizing, to the extent possible, their use of expensive 

chemical fumigants. All of these factors suggest serious pest and soil 

fertility problems in the future. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

vi

4. The ongoing integration of the Mien, and their children in particular, 

into U.S. culture may result in a breakdown in their capacity to 

mobilize labor. 

5. Intense development pressure in the Sacramento region threatens the 

Mien growers' access to leased and purchased land. 

6. Long-term viability of Mien production will likely depend on the role 

of organizational intermediaries that can bridge the gap between the 

Mien and mainstream agricultural, finance, and marketing institutions. 

Capstone Comment 

Recognizing the caveats that accompany any body of survey-based research, the 

CADMS provides clear evidence that direct marketing is making a substantial 

contribution to those farms that practice it and, by extension, the localities of these farms. 

Equally significant, this study, in conjunction with related research, provides us with a 

much more differentiated understanding of what kinds of farmers are engaging in direct 

marketing. Our typology of direct marketers, in conjunction with the compilation of their 

corresponding issues and concerns, provides a formative basis for follow-on research and 

interventions. And finally, the CADMS findings suggest that direct marketing is a 

critical element in an alternative food system whose evolutionary logic is capable of 

restoring the balance between the health of our farms, our communities, our bodies, and 

our environment.
PART I 

The California Agricultural Direct Marketing Survey 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

1

INTRODUCTION 

California is the nation’s leading agricultural state; its 69,000 farmers sell more than 

$25 billion in farm products each year, two-thirds more than second-ranked Texas. The 

state produces nearly two-thirds of all fruits, nuts, and berries in the country, half of all 

vegetables, and one-fifth of milk and nursery crops. Despite increases in production 

efficiency and overall success in agricultural markets, the state’s small farms are not 

reaping rewards. Instead, many small producers are going out of business because they 

cannot compete with large agribusinesses. 

California is also the nation’s leading urban state, with more than 93 percent of its 

residents living in urban or suburban settings. As the state’s population centers have 

expanded, encroachment on agricultural lands has increased and is now widely 

considered a threat to farming. But the proximity of many California farms to large 

urban centers is a major opportunity as well.1

 With a huge market nearby, these regions 

contain a multitude of direct-to-consumer farm marketing possibilities. 

Growers are increasingly taking advantage of new direct marketing (DM) outlets 

made available by this alternative local economy, with farmers’ markets leading the way. 

Products sold and gross sales at farmers’ markets have increased dramatically in recent 

decades. Vendor surveys at these markets nationwide have shown seasonal sales of 

$1,000 to $100,000 or more, with total sales reaching up to $1.1 billion (USDA 1996). 

These farms have been directly marketing their products at farm tours, festivals and 

fairs, on the Internet, through mail order catalogs, to local schools and cooperatives, and 

through subscriptions in community supported agriculture (CSA) arrangements. By 

eliminating wholesalers and other middlemen, direct marketing increases the viability of 

existing farms. Farmers who pursue these markets directly capture a greater share of 

revenues from food purchases. 

The economic and social benefits of this marketing strategy include urban 

revitalization, regeneration of a sense of community, reduction of economic risk to 

communities from the loss of farming, and the creation of farm entry opportunities for 

recent immigrants (Roth 1999). Moreover, benefits of direct marketing apply to 

producers, consumers, communities, the environment, and our national food system. 

Producers enjoy higher returns, contributing to long-term farm viability. Because very 

little capital outlay is required to begin marketing directly, DM is seen as a vehicle for 

new small farm entry. Consumers have greater confidence in the safety of their food 

when it comes from local growers, as well. It also gives these farmers the opportunity to 

test new products and services, explore niche markets, and measure consumer response. 

Though consumer preferences are constantly shifting, demand for fresh produce has 

skyrocketed in recent years. Americans are more concerned than ever before with health 

and nutrition, a fact reflected by increases in farmers’ market patronage and the number 

of individual markets. Also, annual per capita consumption of fresh fruit has increased 

by 21 percent and per capita consumption of fresh vegetables has increased by 14 percent 

 

1

 For example, farmers in California’s Central Valley are in close proximity to the Bay Area and Los 

Angeles-San Diego markets, as well as the rapidly growing urban centers of Sacramento, Stockton, 

Modesto, Fresno, and Bakersfield. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

2

Direct Marketing’s Comeback 

Direct marketing of farm products is 

certainly not a new phenomenon, but the 

twentieth century saw a near disappearance 

of such marketing channels after World War 

II. With time, however, the back-to-the-land 

movement of the 1970s and the farm crisis 

of the 1980s produced a generation of 

farmers seeking diversified and 

decentralized marketing options and 

alternatives outside of traditional channels 

(Roth 1999; Bills 2000). Sales of farm 

products directly to consumers provided 

these opportunities, and took the form of 

roadside stands, farmers’ markets, and Upick operations (Roth 1999). 

from 1980 to 1994 (Govindasamy, et al. 1998). But the potential market for fresh 

produce may be much larger, as produce consumption in lower income brackets is less 

substantial than in middle-class or higher income brackets (USDA 1999). With greater 

education on health, nutrition, and food preparation, consumption may rise in the 

demographic groups that typically do not buy fresh produce. 

The community also benefits from direct marketing farms. These farms add to the 

economic diversity, provide for employment both on the farm and at the marketing point, 

utilize local resources, and enrich tourism in the area. Direct marketing farms provide 

producers with the means for innovation and specialization, thus increasing the options 

for all farmers. Direct marketing also lends itself to more truly sustainable production 

and distribution methods: most direct marketers are small-scale farms; use less chemical 

inputs, since customers frequently ask for this; and distribute produce locally, cutting 

down on distribution costs while providing fresher food. 

This survey report provides key information on how direct marketing has been 

creating opportunities for small farmers, while constructing an accurate profile of those 

who engage in the practice. With funding support from the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), CIRS set out to answer two main questions in conducting its 

survey: How does direct marketing impact farm entry? How does direct marketing affect 

long-term farm viability? Along with this primary focus, we also sought answers to the 

following related questions: 

• What accounts for the success of direct marketing? 

• How are growers able to capture a market niche that allows them to remain viable? 

• Does DM provide opportunities for minority, immigrant, and women farmers that 

conventional marketing does not? 

• What obstacles do direct marketers face, and how can government and agricultural 

agencies help? 

This survey investigated these 

questions with the intention of providing 

guidance to create policies and programs 

that support small farmers and direct 

marketers. It also sought to encourage 

additional investigations by establishing the 

first database concerned with California 

farms that market directly to consumers. 

We begin this part of the report by 

fleshing out the context of direct marketing, 

followed by a description of the data and 

methods we used in the survey. We then 

provide detailed results from our survey, 

including an in-depth analysis of the data, 

before wrapping up Part I with a summary 

and conclusions. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

3

Yearly Gross Sales 1,997

Percent 

Increase or 

Decrease 1,992

Percent 

Increase or 

Decrease 1,987

less than $2,500 19,473 -14.2% 22,692 -2.1% 23,187

$2,500 to $4,999 6,516 -9.0% 7,160 -17.3% 8,661

$5,000 to $9,999 6,498 -12.4% 7,417 -12.9% 8,512

$10,000 to $24,999 8,621 -7.5% 9,324 -15.5% 11,028

$25,000 to $49,999 6,747 -2.2% 6,899 -12.3% 7,863

$50,000 to $99,999 6,544 2.9% 6,360 -7.8% 6,895

$100,000 to $499,999 11,823 6.1% 11,143 -2.5% 11,430

$500,000 or more 3,129 2.2% 3,063 8.4% 2,825

Total/Average 69,351 -4.3% 74,058 -7.7% 80,401

Source: Census of Agriculture , U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997.

Table 1

TOTAL CALIFORNIA FARMS BY FARM SCALE

THE CONTEXT OF DIRECT MARKETING 

An Uneven Playing Field 

The global expansion of agricultural markets and massive technological 

improvements have provided opportunities for producers and distributors of agricultural 

products to market on a national and even international scale. Improved transportation, 

for example, has given retailers the ability to source supplies nationally, thus enabling 

them to be less dependent on local supplies from farms at terminal markets. Supermarket 

chains now coordinate purchases through a central warehouse, and with this 

centralization and concentration of buying power, have become one of the agricultural 

industry’s “price makers.” Producers, on the other hand, have have generally been 

unable to set prices, and must accept the highest bid offered to them by shippers or 

processors (Lighthall 2000). Consequently, many small growers face a huge 

disadvantage because they are unable to meet price, volume, and delivery requirements 

while remaining profitable. Over the decades, food has been standardized and 

commodified, within the context of an industrial food system (Tansey and Worsley 

1995).2 All of this has come at the detriment of quality for the consumer and the farmer’s 

share of the food dollar.3 

Due to the competitive market pressures in the industry, the overall number of 

California farms has been declining, from 80,401 farms in 1987 to 69,351 in 1997 (see 

Table 1). Worse, this decline is concentrated in small farm categories, while farms with 

 

2

 The symbolic meaning of foods, within a complex sociocultural milieu, has replaced its use value as 

sustenance. Moreover, foods have also become cultural icons with modern advertising and branding, with 

consumer associations linking people and objects, in terms of status (Bourdieu 1993), affect transfer 

(Cialdini 1988), or internalization (Kelman 1958). 

3

 Research has shown that recent corporate profits have come the expense of quality and customer 

satisfaction (Fornell 2000). 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

4

gross sales of $100,000 and more are increasing in number. Gross profit margin also tells 

a troubling story of the small farm. Producers with under $50,000 in gross sales are 

generally taking losses every year, while large and very large farms are more profitable 

than ever (see Figure 1). 

Scale obviously affects the entire strategy for small farmers. These growers have 

great difficulty in maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage from their operations. 

Why? Small farmers using traditional channels cannot easily capture economic rents 

effectively, as their resource base (assets and skills) is rarely neither inimitable nor 

inappropriable.4

 Unless small producers employ a radically different production 

technology, rivals with superior resources (e.g., plant or intangible assets5) or other 

capacities can easily undermine any cost efficiencies. 

 

4

 This assertion is based upon a resource-based view of the firm, in which the key to success is seen as the 

creation of completely unique assets or resources that are difficult or impossible for competitors to imitate. 

For direct market farmers, the concepts of inimitability and inappropriability are crucial, since local market 

bases are limited in scope. Carving out a particular market niche based on local needs and preferences is 

what makes small direct marketers so successful, as opposed to attempting to compete in conventional 

markets where they are easily outdone by agribusiness operations on a resource level. See Wernerfelt 

(1984). 

5

 This encompasses a farm’s entire resource base, including land, equipment, reputation, good will, etc. 

Overall Gross Profit Margin by Gross Revenue Category

-1.50

-1.25

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

les s than

$5,000

$5,000 to

$9,999

$10,000 to

$24,999

$25,000 to

$49,999

$50,000 to

$99,999

$100,000 to

$499,999

$500,000 or

m ore

Total

Gross Profit Margin (Revenues-Expenses/Revenues)

Figure 1
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

5

An Alternative Paradigm 

Direct marketing (DM) allows the farmer to capture a higher proportion of the food 

dollar. Instead of competing directly with large agribusiness firms, local growers are able 

to carve out a local market niche and thereby increase their financial viability. DM 

allows growers to redefine the entire marketing mix of product, price, placement (channel 

of distribution), and promotion. Within the context of DM, the producer has the benefit 

of dramatically increased product quality, prices that are competitive with chain 

supermarkets, a distribution strategy that short-circuits the channel intermediaries and 

operates at a much smaller scale, and promotion that focuses on low to negligible costs.6

This alternative scheme can be characterized in terms of consumers and producers 

acting less as atomized units of consumption and production, respectively, and more as 

part of an “embedded” social network (Granovetter 1985; Hinrichs 2000). Economic 

activities within such an embedded context rely upon multiplex7 social relations that 

govern transactions and resource flows. DM farms’ efficiency “losses” due to scale are 

countered by advantages from establishing relationships with consumers, suppliers, 

lateral farmers, cooperative extension agencies, DM groups, and associations.8

 

What DM offers is an avenue for agricultural entrepreneurship, in an arena that 

typically has high entry barriers. DM production tends to be smaller scale with diverse 

cropping. Farmers engaging in DM need to be flexible, timing their production schedule 

with their distribution strategy. There is also an emphasis on fostering social linkages 

with others that shape economic activity within the DM paradigm. Finally, truly 

sustainable agriculture is better suited to DM, as the interaction of small-scale production 

and collaboration through social relations (farmer-to-consumer relations, farmer-tolaborer relations, and farmer-to-farmer relations) are well suited to internalizing social 

costs due to face-to-face interactions. In sum, DM offers an avenue for financial viability 

in the midst of a concentration of profits in the hands of large agribusiness. 

California Leads 

According to the Census of Agriculture, California farmers reported over $73 million 

in direct farm sales for 1997. This represents 14.5 percent of the U.S. total of DM sales 

and exceeds second-ranked Pennsylvania by more than $7 million (see Table 2). The 

number of farms engaged in DM is also on the rise, according to Census of Agriculture 

 

6

 In terms of produce, quality is conceptualized by freshness and taste, as opposed to physical appearance, 

which may be compromised in DM settings. Promotion occurs on a grassroots or “guerilla” basis, but this 

does not preclude institutional leveraging, where local or statewide campaigns are deployed using mass 

media. 

7

 Multiplex ties means that there are multiple forms of linkages (e.g., transactional, social, political, 

cultural, etc.) between social entities. 8

 The negative consequences of the conventional marketing and distribution system—including 

environmental degradation, food safety issues, tasteless produce engineered and picked for long 

distribution routes, factory-raised and processed meat, and health risks associated with exposure to 

chemicals—may be pushing consumers to re-establish their bond with local farmers. The “buy local” 

movement has even influenced some supermarkets to purchase produce from local, small producers, in 

order to capitalize on consumer demand for fresh, locally produced food.
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

6

County

Direct Farm 

Sales

San Diego, CA $6,205,000

San Joaquin, CA $5,868,000

Lancaster, PA $5,589,000

Worcester, MA $4,725,000

Burlington, NJ $4,078,000

Tulare, CA $4,028,000

Riverside, CA $3,947,000

Fresno, CA $3,817,000

Ventura, CA $3,478,000

Stanislaus, CA $3,343,000

Total $45,078,000

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture , Bureau 

of the Census, 1997.

LEADING U.S. COUNTIES IN 

DIRECT FARM SALES

Table 3

data. Almost 6,000 California farms reported direct sales in 1997, up 13 percent from 

5,229 farms in 1992. Nationwide, DM farms are increasing as well, up 8 percent from 

1992 to a total of over 93,000 farms reporting direct sales in 1997. 

Seven of the ten leading U.S. counties in direct farm sales are located in California, 

with San Diego County being first in the nation at $6.2 million in 1997 (see Table 3). 

Both traditional California farm counties and those close to urban centers show 

significant direct sales. Direct farm sales in California are growing faster than in any 

other state. California farmers reported an 84 percent increase in total direct sales from 

1992 to 1997, while nationwide direct farm sales increased 24 percent (in constant 1992 

dollars).9 

Entry Opportunities 

Direct marketing plays a vital role in creating farm entry opportunities in California. 

Often, access to customers through direct marketing enables new farmers to receive 

relatively quick payback on their cash outlay. Substantial anecdotal evidence suggests 

that Mexican, Salvadoran, Laotian (Iu-Mien and Hmong), Cambodian, Chinese, and 

Vietnamese immigrants are among the most vigorous practitioners of direct marketing, 

often growing high-value crops such as strawberries or specialty vegetables on small 

acreage. The Census of Agriculture does not report the ethnic makeup of California’s 

direct market farmers, although we do know that at least 6 percent of all farms in the state 

 

9

 Almost 90 cents of every dollar spent on DM purchases in California were for fruits, nuts, berries, and 

vegetables in 1997. Of all these commodities produced in California, about 1 percent were sold directly in 

1997. However, research is needed on what proportion of total fresh produce sales in California is 

accounted for by direct sales. 

State

Direct Farm 

Sales

Percent of 

Total

California $73,179,000 13.3%

Pennsylvania $48,745,000 8.8%

New York $40,088,000 7.3%

Michigan $28,720,000 5.2%

Ohio $28,221,000 5.1%

TOTAL $218,953,000 39.7%

, ALL STATES $550,947,000 100%

Table 2

FIVE LEADING U.S. STATES IN DIRECT 

FARM SALES

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture , Bureau of the 

Census, 1997.
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

7

are operated by Hispanics, 5 percent by Asian or Pacific Islanders, and less than 1 percent 

by African Americans (USDA 1997). 

The emergence of numerous farmers’ markets in California has been central to 

growth in direct market farm sales. Starting from a mere handful in the mid-1970s, today 

there are more than 320 weekly farmer’s markets at locations throughout California. The 

California Department of Food and Agriculture provides review and certification of these 

organized direct marketing activities through the 58 county agricultural commissioners. 

Illustrative of the novel effort involved in the creation of this form of marketing outlet is 

the history of the Stockton’s Farmers’ Market. Started by the Rural Economic 

Alternatives Project of the American Friends Service Committee in 1978, the Stockton 

farmers’ market has grown to support an ethnically diverse mix of small-scale San 

Joaquín Valley farmers. 

But farmers’ markets are just one way to market farm products directly. While a fair 

amount of attention has been paid to farmers’ markets recently, less well recognized is 

the continuing importance of roadside stands and the emergence of newer strategies, such 

as farmers contracting directly with individuals in community supported agriculture 

arrangements. Although the 1997 Census of Agriculture included a question that asks 

farmers to identify which channel of direct marketing they engage in—roadside stands, 

farmers’ markets, pick your own, door to door, etc.—it did not ask what portion of direct 

market sales occurred through each of the various direct marketing avenues. 

DATA AND METHODS 

Sample Frame 

A sample of California farm operators was selected on a regional basis from a 

stratified universal sample frame of all such farms. This ensured that all production 

regions in the state were adequately represented, and it offset the possible bias that might 

otherwise have been introduced due to the effects of differing regional crop patterns and 

production practices. All California farmers who directly market their crops had an equal 

opportunity to be selected for an interview. 

The sample frame was composed of 4,283 producer names obtained from the 

California Certified Farmers’ Markets Association of the California Department of Food 

and Agriculture (CDFA). It contained the names of all direct marketing agricultural 

producers who had received certification by agricultural commissioners in each county 

within California, including those who sell at farmers’ markets, at roadside stands, at 

their farm sites, or through some other means. Another list of 54 Community Supported 

Agriculture operations was obtained from the Community Alliance with Family Farmers 

(CAFF) in Davis, California. This was added to the sample frame, making the total 

sample frame size 4,337. 

After completing the statewide database of direct market farms, we assigned the 

operators to one of six agricultural regions in the state, using the geographic definitions 

adopted by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the Employment 

Development Department. These regions are the North Coast, Sacramento Valley, San 

Joaquín Valley, Central Coast, South Coast, and the Desert. Table 4 shows the number 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

8

Region Farms

Percent of 

Total Farms Total Sales

Number 

Sampled

Percent of 

Sampled Farms

San Joaquin Valley 1,604 27.2% $22,474,000 53 21.2%

Sacramento Valley 1,449 24.6% $11,122,000 66 26.4%

South Coast 1,181 20.0% $17,956,000 59 23.6%

North Coast 764 12.9% $5,177,000 40 16.0%

Desert 459 7.8% $6,267,000 11 4.4%

Central Coast 444 7.5% $10,273,000 21 8.4%

Total 5,901 100% $73,269,000 250 100%

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture , Bureau of the Census, 1997; and California Institute for Rural Studies

Table 4

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL DIRECT MARKET SALES

of farms reporting direct sales and the aggregate volume of reported sales by agricultural 

region in 1997. 

The number of farms randomly selected for interviews in each region (identified as 

“Number Sampled” in Table 4) is approximately proportionate to the aggregate regional 

direct market farm sales.10 This procedure ensured that the sample was properly 

weighted to reflect 

the level of farm 

production for the 

direct markets from 

each region. 

Using 

Microsoft Excel, 

four computerized 

random selections 

were taken, bringing 

the total sampled to 

955. Each random selection was checked against the existing list to ensure no producer 

was selected more than once. Because the sample frame list did not include phone 

numbers, two sources were utilized for obtaining them: the Internet information directory 

and the USA.com Powerfinder PhoneDisc (western states). If no listings by name were 

found, the telephone numbers were sought through reverse directory by address or by 

business name when that information was available. When neither of these methods 

proved productive, an additional Pacific Bell information check was made. 

Telephone contacts were initially attempted at three time periods: 10:00 AM–12:00 

noon; 1:00 PM–3:00 PM; and 5:00 PM-7:00 PM, but better results were made when 

attempts were made between 5:00 PM and 9:00 PM. Minimums of three attempts were 

made to contact each producer in the random selections. 

A pilot survey was conducted with 10 producers to test the survey instrument. The 

interviewer called producers, gave the same pre-written introduction to each interviewee, 

and then proceeded to ask survey questions in as consistent a manner as possible (see 

Appendix for the CADMS instrument). During the interview, answers were recorded by 

hand on a hard copy of the survey. If contact was not made, the date, time and reason for 

non-contact were written on the random sample list next to the grower’s name. A data 

entry template was developed in Microsoft Access, and survey responses were entered 

into the database following the interview. 

 

10 We conducted a Chi-square test to assess whether our sample matched the number of farms regionally. 

The Chi-square is a non-parametric test that looks at the actual observed counts (o) of sampled farms in a 

region, comparing them to what one would expect (e) given the proportion of DM farms in a given region 

out of the population of all California DM farms. The formula is: 2 χ = ( ) ∑=

− 2

1

2

i e

o e , following a Chi-square 

distribution with degrees of freedom (ν) = i-1, where for each of the six regions, o is the observed count of 

surveyed farms, e is the expected count from the farm proportions in each region, i is the number of regions 

(6), and ν = i-1 = 5. The test statistic was 2 χ (5) = 10.967 and was not significant at the .05 level, 

indicating that the sample approximated the population. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

9

Sales Group

Percent of 

Farms that 

Direct Market

Percent of 

All Market 

Farms

$1 million or more 2.9 6.4

$500,000-$999,999 2.0 4.2

$250,000-$499,999 3.3 5.7

$100,000-$249,999 7.5 10.2

$50,000-$99,999 7.7 8.8

$49,999 or less 76.6 64.7

TOTAL 100 100

So urce: USDA Census o f A griculture , B ureau o f the Census, 1997.

ALL CALIFORNIA FARMS, BY SALES GROUP

Table 6

Survey Participation 

The process for the main survey 

interviews remained the same as the 

pilot, though a number of changes were 

made to the survey instrument following 

the pilot. Out of the 955 producers that 

researchers attempted to contact, 250 

were actually interviewed (see Table 5). 

Only 54 declined or refused to be 

interviewed, and 156 were disqualified. 

Most of those who were disqualified 

were no longer marketing directly to the 

public, and a few were disqualified 

because they did not speak either 

English or Spanish. Thus, the 

participation rate was relatively high, at 

82.24 percent. The refusal rate was 5.65 

percent, and the response rate was 53.19 

percent. The majority (495, or 51.83 

percent) could not be contacted despite 

at least three attempts. Reasons for noncontact included disconnected phone 

numbers, wrong numbers, busy signals, 

and no answer. 

SURVEY RESULTS 

In California, farms that market 

their products directly to consumers 

have lower gross revenues than the 

average farm in the state. Under 3 

percent of direct market farms report 

direct and other sales of $1 million or 

more, while 6.4 percent of all farms 

in California report sales in that 

range. Three of every four direct 

market farms could be considered 

“very small,” with reported sales less 

than $49,999 (see Table 6). 

A large share of direct market farms in California are also small in terms of acreage 

(see Table 7). Nearly 77 percent of direct market farms are 49 acres or less, as compared 

with 60 percent of all farms in the state. Likewise, just 2.3 percent of direct market farms 

are 1,000 acres or more, while 6.9 percent of all farms are of that size. In addition, a 

higher proportion of farms that direct market are owned by an individual or family (86.5 

Response Number

Total 

Number Percent

Phone number not found 216

No answer, recording 144

No answer 61

Call back later 45

Busy 19

Disconnected phone number 5

Wrong number 2

Not available 2

Left message 1

Attempted but not contacted 495 51.83%

Disqualified 156 33.91%

Declined/Refused 54 17.76%

Interviewed 250 82.24%

Total 955

Response Rate 68.17%

Refusal rate 5.65%

Sampling rate 22.02%

Sampling fraction 5.76%

N = 4,337

Table 5

SURVEY PARTICIPATION

Note: M ost of those who were disqualified were not doing direct marketing any longer, 

but a few were disqualified because they did not speak either English or Spanish.
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

10

Size Group 

(Acres)

Percent of 

Farms that 

Direct Market

Percent of 

All Market 

Farms

2,000 or more 1.1 3.6

1,000-1,999 1.2 3.3

500-999 1.9 4.8

260-499 2.9 5.8

140-259 4.4 7.3

100-139 3.2 4.3

70-99 3.8 5.1

50-69 4.7 5.0

49 or less 76.8 60.8

TOTAL 100 100

So urce: USDA Census o f A griculture , B ureau o f the Census, 1997.

ALL CALIFORNIA FARMS, BY SIZE GROUP

Table 7

Age Range

All CA 

Farms

CA FarmsPercent

CADMS 

Sample 

Farms

CADMS 

Sample 

FarmsPercent

under 25 382 0.5% 1 0.4%

25-34 3,000 4.0% 9 3.7%

35-44 11,754 15.9% 28 11.4%

45-54 19,440 26.2% 73 29.8%

55-64 17,371 23.4% 61 24.9%

65-69 7,510 10.1% 18 7.3%

over 70 14,669 19.8% 55 22.4%

Total 74,126 100% 245 100.00

Mean 57 57

N = 74,126

So urce: USDA Census o f A griculture , B ureau o f the Census, 1997.

AGE OF FARM OPERATOR, ALL CALIFORNIA FARMS

Table 8

percent), as compared with all farms in 

the state (76.6 percent). This suggests 

that direct marketing is important to the 

viability of many small-scale, familyowned farming operations in the state. 

A key area of concern is that average 

direct sales per farm is low: $12,401 per 

farm in California and just $5,915 in the 

United States during 1997. This reflects 

the relatively small size of many direct 

market farms. It is not known how many 

of these are farmers supplementing their 

income with off-farm employment versus 

those producers who are growing and 

selling produce as a hobby or to 

supplement their household income from 

some other profession. It is also possible that direct marketers do not rely solely on only 

one marketing channel, and are using several avenues to sell their crops. 

Participant Profile 

Producers who market directly to the public ranged in age from 20 to 86. As with all 

farm operators, direct marketing producers tend to be older than other professionals. 

Forty-three percent of those surveyed were age 60 or older, and only 9.7 percent were 

under 40 (See Table 8). The 

average age of participants 

was 57, thus precisely 

matching the average age of 

all California farmers as found 

by the USDA’s 1997 Census 

of Agriculture. 11 Figure 2

compares age data from the 

Census and the CADMS. 

Most direct marketers, 54 

percent, have been farming 

for 15 years or less, and only 

15 percent have farmed for 

more than 30 years. 

Immigrant farmers are a small 

minority in agriculture, and 

 

11 Another Chi square test was conducted to assess the proportions in each age category across studies. The 

statistic was not significant at the .05 level ( 2 χ (6) = 7.33), indicating that there were no differences in the 

proportions. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

11

this was reflected in the direct marketing survey as well. Only 28 participants, or 11 

percent, were foreign born. These immigrants have spent from 5 to 54 years in the 

United States, with the average being 23 years. 

Direct marketers’ ethnic makeup was predominantly white, non-Hispanic (87 

percent). Only 4.4 percent were Hispanic/Latino, 4 percent were Asian, and 4.4 percent 

were in the “other” category. This heavily white, non-Hispanic percentage, though high, 

is slightly lower than the Census figures for all farmers in California, which are over 91 

percent white, non-Hispanic. 

Participants were generally screened to make sure they were the main farmer or at 

least an equal partner in the farm operation. Even with this initial screening, gender was 

one category in which direct marketers diverged from the general population of farmers 

in California. Seventy-five participants were women, or 30 percent, while only 16 

percent of all California farmers are women, according to Census data (USDA 1997). 

Part of this difference could be attributed to tendencies for women and men to separate 

farm duties into heavy labor (men) and keeping the books (women). Our survey did not 

specifically ask about gender roles on the farm, so this cannot be inferred. 

The largest number of those surveyed were farming and living in the Sacramento 

Valley region—66 participants, or 26.4 percent. The South Coast region was the second 

most frequently represented region at 59 participants, or 23.6 percent. San Joaquín 

Valley followed with 53 participants, or 21.2 percent. The North Coast, Central Coast, 

and Desert regions were also represented in the sample. 

Farm Characteristics 

The vast majority of CADMS direct marketers (80 percent) are selling their products 

at farmers’ markets (see Table 9). Roadside stands and on-farm/word-of-mouth sales are 

Figure 2

Age of Operator, All California Farms & DM Survey Sample

15.9%

10.1%

29.8%

19.8%

23.4%

26.2%

4.0%

0.5%

22.4%

7.3%

24.9%

11.4%

3.7%

0.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-69 over 70

Age

Percentage

CA FarmsPercent

CADMS Sample

Farms-Percent
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

12

also somewhat popular, with 45 respondents participating in each of these direct 

marketing strategies (18 percent each). Community supported agriculture (13, or 5.2 

percent), internet/mail order sales (14, or 5.6 percent), and U-pick operations (10, or 4 

percent) are frequently used. Thirty-four growers, or 13.6 percent, are utilizing some 

other form of direct marketing, including sales to cooperatives, schools, farm tours, 

festivals, and street fairs. 

Farmers’ markets are used 

most often because they seem to 

offer the best opportunities for 

direct marketers. These markets 

enjoy maximum consumer 

patronage compared with other 

options. Not only are these 

markets able to capture a greater 

share of consumers’ dollars, but 

direct contact with customers 

provides valuable input that 

allows farmers to meet demands 

and preferences more easily while 

carving out a market niche.12 

Social atmosphere and 

camaraderie are also part of the 

draw for shoppers. 

While the majority of growers (66.3 percent) use only one DM channel, many use 

several simultaneously. The combinations of DM channels employed by farmers are 

summarized in Table 10. Though the mean number of DM channels employed per 

grower was greater than one, overall, the modal number of DM channels employed was 

one. Thus, the majority of respondents were utilizing only one DM channel ( x = 1.45, σ

=.74). Participants were asked what proportion of their total farm sales came from direct 

marketing. Responses ranged from 1 percent to 100 percent, with a mean ( x ) of 67 

percent. Forty-two percent responded that 100 percent of total farm sales came from 

their direct marketing operations. Statewide, registered organic production accounted for 

less than 1 percent of total crop production value, with a subset of this figure being 

certified organic crops (Tourte and Klonsky 1998). 

Still, many consumers associate direct marketers with organic products. 

Consumption of organic produce has been on the rise, with national retail sales jumping 

from $75 million in 1992 to $158 million in 1997, and direct markets are increasingly 

becoming the source of organic produce for consumers. The number of organic growers 

in California has increased from 1,273 in 1992 to 1,533 growers in 1997. Also, the 

number of California acres farmed organically jumped from 40,571 in 1993 to 67,826 in 

 

12 This is a process that George Day (1994) calls “market-drivenness,” where information from outside the 

organization (e.g., market sensing, fostering customer and channel relationships, and technology 

monitoring) is scanned for and integrated with internal information to create new knowledge. 

Strategy

Number of 

Farms 

Employing 

Strategy*

Percent of all 

DM Strategy 

Occurences

Farmers' market 200 80.0%

Roadside stand 45 18.0%

On-farm/word-of-mouth 45 18.0%

Other 34 13.6%

CSA 13 5.2%

U-pick 10 4.0%

Internet 7 2.8%

Mail order 7 2.8%

Total 361

N = 250

*Some farms employ multiple strategies

Source: California Institute for Rural Studies

DIRECT MARKETING STRATEGIES EMPLOYED

Table 9
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

13

Table 10 

DIRECT MARKETING CHANNEL COMBINATIONS 

DM Channels Number of Channels Count 

Percent of Farms 

FM 1 134 53.82 percent 

FM/RS 2 15 6.02 percent 

FM/OF 2 13 5.22 percent 

RS 1 13 5.22 percent 

FM/Oth 2 12 4.82 percent 

OF 1 11 4.42 percent 

FM/OF/Oth 3 8 3.21 percent 

FM/CSA 2 6 2.41 percent 

RS/OF/Oth 3 4 1.61 percent 

CSA 1 2 0.80 percent 

FM/CSA/Oth 3 2 0.80 percent 

FM/Mail 2 2 0.80 percent 

FM/UP 2 2 0.80 percent 

OF/Oth 2 2 0.80 percent 

Oth 1 2 0.80 percent 

UP 1 2 0.80 percent 

CSA/OF 2 1 0.40 percent 

FM/RS/CSA 3 1 0.40 percent 

FM/RS/OF/Oth 4 1 0.40 percent 

FM/RS/Oth 3 1 0.40 percent 

FM/UP/Int/OF/Mail/Oth 6 1 0.40 percent 

Int 1 1 0.40 percent 

OF/Int 2 1 0.40 percent 

OF/Oth 2 1 0.40 percent 

RS/CSA 2 1 0.40 percent 

RS/Int/Mail 3 1 0.40 percent 

RS/Int/Oth 3 1 0.40 percent 

RS/Mail 2 1 0.40 percent 

RS/Oth 2 1 0.40 percent 

RS/OF 2 1 0.40 percent 

RS/UP 2 1 0.40 percent 

RS/UP/Int/OF 4 1 0.40 percent 

RS/UP/Mail 3 1 0.40 percent 

UP/OF/Oth 3 1 0.40 percent 

 249 100.00 percent 

FM=Farmers’ Market, RS= Roadside Stand, CSA=Community Supported Agriculture, UP=UPick, Int=Internet, Mail=Mail Order, OF=On-Farm Sales/Word-of-Mouth, Oth=Other. 

N=249 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

14

1997 (Klonsky 2000). Direct marketing respondents were asked what percent of their 

total sales was in organic produce. Almost 80 percent of respondents have no sales in 

organics, while 18.8 percent sell only organic produce. Thus, while 19 percent of direct 

market growers sell some organic products, only 2 percent of all California farmers grow 

organically. 

Participants sold a total of 234 different commodities directly to the public. Of 

these, 145 were sold by 175 conventional growers, and 89 were marketed as organically 

produced by the 51 organic growers surveyed. 

The ratio of commodity variety marketed per grower differed significantly between 

conventional and organic growers. For conventional farmers, the ratio of cumulative 

varieties marketed to number of growers was 0.83:1. For organic growers, the ratio was 

1.75:1. Thus, organic farmers are generally marketing a greater variety of products than 

conventional growers. 

The most common conventional commodities marketed were tomatoes (42 

respondents), cut flowers (33 respondents), oranges (25 respondents), apples (24 

respondents), and peaches (23 respondents). Organic producers most commonly 

marketed tomatoes (21 respondents), squash (19 respondents), and apples (12 

respondents). 

The number of acres planted per grower ranged from one-eighth of an acre to 20,000 

acres, with a median of 5 acres. Over 50 percent had less than five acres planted, 

indicating that direct marketing attracts very small growers. In more detailed 

descriptions of their operations, many growers described “backyard” or “hobby” growing 

situations, and others described small “retirement operations.” One grower had 20,000 

acres planted, but only 9 percent of growers had over 100 acres. 

An even more dramatic spread occurred between the number of acres purchased and 

the number of acres leased by direct marketing farmers (see Figure 3). Seventy-five 

percent of growers did not lease any land, and 88 percent leased fewer than 10 acres. 

Coupled with the relatively small size of most direct marketers, these figures suggest that 

farmers produce on small parcels of purchased land. Indeed, almost 60 percent had 

purchased 10 acres or less, while only 7 percent had purchased 100 acres or more. 

Even within the scope of direct marketing, we suspect that there are scale effects at 

hand. We have introduced the idea that micro-agriculture (defined here as those farms 

with five acres or less) may be on a different technological curve. Smaller farms do not 

enjoy scale economies or market power, but they also are less likely to suffer from inertia 

effects from fixed investments and are more flexible in terms of production and 

marketing. We address issues of scale in-depth below. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

15

Scale Effects and Micro-agriculture 

Yearly gross sales of direct 

marketers reflected the small size 

of most of these farming 

operations: 54 percent made less 

than $25,000 in sales and over 18 

percent made less than $2,500 

(see Table 11). We looked at 

scale in terms of both yearly gross 

DM farm sales and acres 

planted.13 There is a negative 

relationship between DM sales 

percentage and annual farm 

sales—with the negative effect 

more pronounced in larger farms 

(over $50,000 in gross sales) (see 

Figure 4). 14 Significant 

differences between the means of DM farm percentage were found with farms under 5 

acres ( x = 46.62 percent, σ = 38.07) versus those over 5 acres ( x = 83.50 percent, σ = 

 

13 These two variables are highly correlated, using Spearman’s correlation coefficient (ρ = .749, p < .000). 14 Spearman’s rho also confirms this negative relationship found graphically (ρ = -.472, p < .000). 

Figure 3

Acres Purchased and Acres Leased by Direct Marketers

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

less than 10 10 to 49 50 to99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 1,000 or more

Acres

Count

Purchased

Leased

Sales Amount

Number of 

Respondents

Percent of Total 

Respondents

less than $2,500 46 18.4%

$2,500 to $4,999 23 9.2%

$5,000 to $9,999 28 11.2%

$10,000 to $24,999 37 14.8%

$25,000 to $49,999 26 10.4%

$50,000 to $99,999 19 7.6%

$100,000 to $499,999 24 9.6%

$500,000 or more 10 4.0%

Refused to answer 37 14.8%

Total 250 100.0%

N = 250

Source: California Institute for Rural Studies

Table 11

YEARLY GROSS SALES
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

16

30.68) were found (F1, 226 = 65.35, p < .000).15 Clearly, DM utilization is more intensive 

with smaller farms, indicating that DM is less attractive to larger operations. 

 Larger farms are able to derive more of the household income from farming, given 

that there is a strong positive correlation between household income from farming and 

gross farm sales (Spearman’s ρ = .662, p < .000). Therefore, smaller farm revenues are 

not the principal source of total household income.16 A similar pattern was found with 

acreage. The number of crops under cultivation also differed with scale but the issue is 

complex. We created a crop diversity index (CDI) variable, norming crops under 

cultivation (regular, organic, and total) with acres planted: 

Crop Diversity Index = number of crops/acres planted 

It appears that crop diversity is inversely related to scale, in terms of gross farm sales 

(see Figure 5), but organic crops appear to be diverse regardless of scale, with the 

exception of farms between $25,000 to $50,000 in gross sales. These relationships also 

bear out statistically. We found that DM farms had on average a little over one crop per 

acre cultivated overall ( x = 1.30, σ = 1.75, n = 226). Organic production had higher 

diversity when compared to non-organic production, with the means x = 1.71, σ = 2.22, 

n = 49 and x = 1.56, σ = 1.53, n = 181, respectively. The Spearman’s rho coefficients 

 

15 The ANOVA test used had roughly equal cells (small farm n = 119, larger farm n = 109) and a Levene 

test showed that the cell variances were not homogeneous at the 95 percent confidence level. We ran a 

non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test and found significant mean differences between small and larger farms 

on DM proportion, so it is unlikely that the heterogeneous variance issue in the ANOVA produced an 

erroneous solution. 

16 This relationship was also found examining graphical plots. 

Figure 4

Sales Proportion from Direct Marketing &

Household Income

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Less than

$2,500

$2,500 to

$4,999

$5,000 to

$9,999

$10,000 to

$24,999

$25,000 to

$49,999

$50,000 to

$99,999

$100,000 to

$499,999

$500,000 or

more

Annual Farm Incom e

Mean Sales Proportion from DM
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

17

show a strong negative relationship between overall CDI and total farm revenues (ρ = -

.687, p < .000) and between CDI and acreage (ρ = -.916, p < .000). Similar patterns were 

evident for the organic and non-organic subgroups. 

We compared micro-agriculture farms (under five acres) to larger farms, with respect 

to the perceived obstacles to success (discussed in-depth in a later section). Growers were 

asked if there was anything preventing them from being even more successful in their 

direct marketing efforts. Generally speaking, smaller farms report the largest barrier to 

be a lack of access to land, with 74 percent of the 36 growers who cited this obstacle. 

Larger farms perceived a lack of marketing outlets (21 percent of 35 growers who cited 

this obstacle), long distance to markets (56 percent of 36 growers who cited this 

obstacle), and a lack of time (55 percent of 22 growers who cited this obstacle). 

We used graphical plots, in addition to the statistics, to show how scale in DM 

appears to show a discontinuity around $50,000 in gross sales. Micro-agriculture farms 

appear to be categorically different than the larger ones in the sample. In terms of 

production, larger farms have less DM intensity than smaller farms. Additionally, the 

smaller of the larger revenue farms (i.e., those between $50,000 and $100,000 in gross 

sales) did have higher DM intensity. The larger DM farms tended to be full-time 

operations, with more of a proportion of household income coming from the farm and 

less crop diversity on a per acre basis. Smaller farms face the barrier of not having 

enough land but these difficulties are a trade-off, as larger farms face problems with 

marketing, transportation, and production (i.e., not enough capacity to cost-effectively 

manage larger acreage).

Figure 5

Crop Diversity Index (crops per Acre) & Annual Farm Income

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Less than

$2,500

$2,500 to

$4,999

$5,000 to

$9,999

$10,000 to

$24,999

$25,000 to

$49,999

$50,000 to

$99,999

$100,000 to

$499,999

$500,000 or

more

Annual Farm Incom e

Mean of Crops per Acre (Crop Diversity Index-CDI)

Crops Per Acre Total

CPA Non-Organic

CPA Organic
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

18

Farm Sales and Income 

To find out the extent to which direct marketing, as a strategy, is helping to maintain 

the viability of such farms, growers were asked if they made a higher profit margin from 

direct marketing or from conventional marketing of their products. As expected, most 

participants (63 percent) responded that they were able to capture a higher profit margin 

by directly marketing their products. The net profit difference between conventionally 

marketed and directly marketed products ranged from zero to 400 percent (where direct 

marketers make four times the amount of profit they make by conventionally marketing 

their products). The mean net profit difference was 65 percent, indicating that direct 

marketers are generally able to capture much higher profits by cutting out the middlemen. 

Market Pressures 

Growers were asked if they planned to sell all or most of their products directly to 

the public when they started farming. Those who planned to sell directly to the public 

when they started farming were very small in scale compared with those who had not 

considered direct marketing until later in their farm careers. In general, those who 

planned to direct market had also spent fewer years in farming. This suggests that direct 

marketing provides a point of entry for newer farmers. Since their original farming plans 

included direct marketing, many new micro-agriculture farmers seemed to be aware that 

the boom in farmers’ market patronage presents an opportunity for them. In fact, due to 

market pressures and competition with agribusiness in the wholesale market, many 

growers commented that, “Direct marketing is the only way for small farmers to market.” 

A large percentage of small direct marketers believed that they really had no choice but 

to market directly to consumers if they wanted their farm to survive. 

When they started farming, those who planned to sell all or most of their products 

directly to the public continued to have a higher sales proportion from their direct 

marketing operation. Those who would not have started farming if they could not sell 

directly to the public tended to also have a higher sales proportion from their direct 

marketing operation, emphasizing the level of importance direct marketing had for these 

growers. It was also clear that the more acres a grower had purchased, the less 

importance they placed on direct marketing. These trends suggest that direct marketing 

serves as a vehicle for new farm entry and micro-agriculture viability. 

Gender Differences 

The gender of the operator was significant in several ways. When asked what made 

them start selling directly to the public, men were more likely to have answered that they 

wanted the opportunity to capture added-value and higher profit margins. Yet women 

tended to have significantly higher profit margins from direct marketing than men. Men, 

however, earned a greater percentage of household income from farming than women. 

One possibility for these differences was a significant gender difference in types of 

commodities marketed. However, the CADMS did not find any significant differences 

between men and women on this count. A recent study has shown that an organization 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

19

staffed predominantly by women created a culture emphasizing social relations, rather 

than pure instrumentalism, and was considered to be a rapidly growing and successful 

company (Martin, et al. 1988). The same may be true for small DM farms managed by 

women. This effect may go beyond social linkages and be driven by the fact that women 

have different decision-making styles or that perhaps men may be overconfident in their 

decisions (Belenky, et al. 1986, Barber and Odean 2001). Bielby and Bielby (1988) also 

found that in jobs with similar amounts of autonomy, women put more effort into their 

jobs than do men. Women may engage in different product strategies that yield higher 

margins but these profits can be competed away with competition unless there is a 

persistent first-mover advantage (Lieberman and Montgomery 1988), which may stem 

from differences in decision-making or management. Clearly, these and other findings 

suggest that more research is needed in the area of gender and direct farm marketing.

Importance of Marketing Goals 

Growers were first asked how important direct marketing is to their farm operation. 

On a scale of one to five, with one being irrelevant and five being very important, over 78 

percent responded that direct marketing was important or very important to their farm’s 

success (Figure 6). Over 60 percent said direct marketing was very important. As 

expected, many of these small operations depend on their direct marketing efforts almost 

entirely. 

Importance of Direct Marketing to the Farm Operation

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Irrelevant, no longer direct

marketing or farming

Not very important or

marginal

Fairly important Important Very important or essential--

the basis of the operation

itself

Level of Importance

Percent of Respondents

7, or 2.8%

27, or 10.8%

15, or 6%

45, or 18%

151, or 60%

Figure 6
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

20

Interestingly, direct marketing was most important to younger farmers and farmers who 

have been farming for fewer years (Table 12). In fact, the more years a grower had been 

in the business, the less important direct marketing was to their farm operation. More 

detailed analyses of age and experience are discussed below. 

Reasons varied for 

selling directly to the 

public as opposed to 

wholesale marketing. 

Respondents were 

asked what made them 

decide to start selling 

directly to the public. 

They were prompted 

with 11 possible 

answers, of which they 

could list any number 

of responses that 

applied to them. The 

most commonly cited reason growers sold directly to consumers was that the formation 

of a new farmers’ market in their area created a new opportunity for them (See Table 13). 

Over 42 percent gave this reason for direct marketing. Thirty-eight percent started direct 

marketing because of the satisfaction they got from dealing directly with the food 

consumer. Close to 33 percent said direct marketing fits with their personal philosophy 

of agriculture and the food system. Twenty-eight percent said they liked having the 

opportunity to capture added value and higher profit margins from direct marketing, and 

28 percent also said it was a way for them to sell their surplus commodities. 

Most direct marketers (60 percent) answered yes when they were asked if they had 

planned to sell all or most of their products directly to the public when they started 

farming. If they had not been able to sell directly to the public when they started, 72 

percent said they still would have started farming. Comments from respondents indicated 

that they enjoyed farming enough to try it despite the marketing strategy available to 

them, but they had trouble competing with larger growers in the wholesale market. Many 

indicated that marketing directly to consumers was the only way or the best way for small 

producers. Thus, small farm viability is significantly boosted with direct marketing as 

the main marketing strategy. 

C o u n t M e a n S td D e via tio n

Irre le va n t, n o lo n g e r in d ire c t 

m ark eting/farm ing 7 62.57 17.63

N o t ve ry im p o rta n t/m a rg in a l 2 7 5 7 .7 3 1 4 .1 6

Fairly im portant 15 59.73 14.06

Im po rtan t 4 5 60 .23 14 .1

V ery im portant, es s ential 151 55.74 12.31

O ther/not applic able, 5 49.4 13.35

T ab le 12

Im porta nce of Dire ct M a rke ting to the Fa rm O pe ra tion & Age

S o u r c e : Ca lif o r n ia In s titu te f o r Ru r a l S tu d ie s , 2 0 0 1
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

21

In fact, the 63.2 percent of respondents who claimed a higher profit margin from 

direct marketing than from conventional marketing tend to be those who planned to direct 

market their products when they started farming. Participants with higher profit margins 

from direct marketing also had a tendency to say they would not have started farming if 

they could not have sold directly to the public. This appears to reflect an attitudinal 

effect on ultimate success. Those who set out to market directly to consumers may have 

more clearly defined and realistic goals and visions of what is possible for the small 

farmer. They may also recognize the necessity of direct marketing as their main 

marketing strategy and therefore take more steps to make it a success. 

Growers who have been in the business longer generally had not planned to sell 

directly to consumers when they started farming. This is likely due to the lack of direct 

marketing outlets in the past, such as farmers’ markets, in the last decade. More 

experienced farmers had also purchased more land and tended to make much higher 

yearly gross sales. Thus, farming experience was still a strong determinant of farm 

viability. On the other hand, yearly gross sales decreased as the age of the operator 

increased. This negative correlation could be explained by backyard, hobby, and 

retirement growers who may reach a point where production intensity decreases due to a 

decreased reliance on farm income for livelihood. Nevertheless, care should be taken in 

interpreting these numbers, as participants were not directly asked how much they relied 

on their farm income for their livelihood. 

Reason

Number of 

Responses

Percent of Total 

Respondents

Farmers' market in local area created new opportunity 106 42.4%

Satisfaction that comes from dealing directly with the food consumer 95 38.0%

Fits with my personal philosophy of agriculture and/or the food system 82 32.8%

Other 74 29.6%

Had surplus commodities to sell 70 28.0%

Opportunity to capture added value/higher profit margins 69 27.6%

Desire to cut out the middlemen 47 18.8%

Was a way to get started in farming 45 18.0%

Low profit margins from conventional marketing 41 16.4%

Saw success of neighbors or other farmers 37 14.8%

Only or best way for the small farmer 31 12.4%

Hobby, backyard or retirement grower 29 11.6%

Diversify marketing strategies and/or test new products 23 9.2%

Faced crisis of low profits, had to do something different 16 6.4%

Read about success of direct marketing 10 4.0%

No answer 3 1.2%

TOTAL 778

N = 250

Source: California Institute for Rural Studies, 2001

WHAT MADE YOU DECIDE TO START SELLING DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC?

Table 13
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

22

Obstacles to Success 

When asked what was 

preventing them from 

further success, 32.8 

percent of growers cited a 

lack of affordable labor or 

a labor shortage (See 

Table 14). Another 7.6 

percent indicated that they 

had “hit a wall” in 

expansion. And another 

9.6 percent said they 

lacked the time necessary 

to be more successful. 

The connection between 

these three common 

responses becomes clear 

when the more detailed 

comments are considered. 

When pressed for 

further explanation, most 

of these respondents said they had reached a point where expansion would mean altering 

the nature of the operation. One farmer said he “can’t move the volume that he needs, 

there’s too much employer time needed.” Another said “Small growers can’t expand. 

They have to devote their own time to producing and going to markets because they can’t 

afford the extra help.” A third noted that “expansion would involve higher costs all 

around, which would be prohibitive.” And a fourth said she would need to hire someone 

to sell her product, but her profit margin is not high enough to do that. Since small 

farmers are disadvantaged in the general market, they experience higher costs than large 

producers. Though many would like to expand, they are prevented from doing so by 

labor, transportation, water, land, and energy costs. Hence, most expand to the point 

where they can manage everything themselves, but cannot afford to grow beyond this 

point. 

Grower Recommendations 

Based on the hurdles they face, growers communicated many suggestions for ways 

that local, state, and federal governments, the USDA, the Cooperative Extension Service, 

university researchers, or farming organizations could help them. The most common 

recommendation (29.6 percent of respondents) was to decrease the amount of 

bureaucracy, government interference, paperwork, and fees (See Figure 7). In fact, some 

respondents believed they would have to quit farming within a year or two due to the 

burden of government regulations and fees. 

Response

Number of 

Responses

Percent of Total 

Respondents 

(N=250)

Lack of affordable labor/labor shortage 82 32.8%

Excessive bureaucracy/regulations/paperwork 50 20.0%

Lack of access to operating capital 49 19.6%

Lack of marketing outlets 38 15.2%

Long distance to markets/transportation costs 38 15.2%

Lack of access to land 35 14.0%

Other 31 12.4%

High cost of registration fees for marketing 25 10.0%

Lack of time 24 9.6%

Poor management/promotion of farmers' markets 21 8.4%

Hit a "wall" in expansion 19 7.6%

Age 18 7.2%

Low population in area/low customer base 13 5.2%

Not interested in expanding 12 4.8%

High cost of or lack of water 11 4.4%

Too much competition 11 4.4%

Lack of information about strategies 9 3.6%

TOTAL 486

N = 250

Source: California Institute for Rural Studies

IS THERE ANYTHING PREVENTING YOU FROM BEING EVEN MORE 

SUCCESSFUL IN YOUR DIRECT MARKETING EFFORTS?

Table 14
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

23

Growers also would like more institutional support in both production and marketing 

(23.2 percent). While several farmers spoke highly of educational programs sponsored 

by Cooperative Extension, many said they could benefit most by some marketing 

education and assistance. One grower said, “Advertising is key, and agencies should do 

more of this.” The type of advertising assistance suggested by farmers varied, from large 

USDA-led campaigns similar to the Five-a-Day program that encourages more 

consumption of fresh produce, to requests for local farmers’ market managers to place 

advertisements in local papers. Several requested that more signage be provided by 

cities. 

Another common concern was the makeup of farmers’ market vendors. Since this 

was by far the most common direct marketing strategy employed, many growers made 

suggestions for market managers. Small farmers are worried about the entrance of large, 

non-local growers into farmers’ markets because they do not feel they can compete with 

these operations. Fourteen percent recommended restricting farmers’ markets to local, 

small growers only. Many expressed frustration with having to compete with “packing 

sheds” and “resalers” who sell produce at markets that they did not grow. 

One important suggestion frequently mentioned was to increase the number of 

marketing outlets for vendors (9.2 percent). Several growers said they consistently had 

trouble getting into farmers’ markets because they were full or because they were too few 

and far between. Other common recommendations were to conduct more certification 

and health inspections and increase quality control, and to provide financial support 

and/or subsidies to small growers who market directly to the public. 

Motivations and Obstacles to Direct Marketing 

As noted above, the DM sales proportion was higher for those with higher profit 

margins from DM. We wanted to examine which factors, besides farm scale, predicted 

higher DM sales proportions, since this tends to contribute to the viability of DM as a 

Figure 7

Grower Suggestions for Institutional Support

29.6%

23.2%

14.0%

9.2%

7.2%

5.2%

3.2% 2.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Decrease

bureaucracy,

government

interference and

fees, and

paperw ork

Provide more

institutional

support in

production and

marketing

Restrict farmers

markets to small,

local grow ers

only

Increase the

number and size

of farmers

markets for more

vendors

Conduct more

inspections and

increase quality

control

Provide financial

support and

subsidies

Conduct few er

inspections

Achieve better

local, state and

federal

coordination

Suggestion

Percent of Respondents
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

24

strategy. To do this, we used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to assess how 

motivations to start DM and perceived obstacles to success influenced the outcome of 

DM sales proportion.17 The models were estimated, using the following form (general 

and matrix algebra): 

Y = b0+b1x1...bnxn+ε

Y = βX+ε

Where Y is the dependent variable, b0 is a constant term, b1x1 to bnxn are the 

independent variables, and ε is the error term. The set of binary independent variables is: 

x1 = low profit margins 

x2 = opportunity to capture value 

x3 = way to get started farming 

x4 = faced crisis of profits 

x5 = farmer's market opportunity 

x6 = satisfaction 

x7 = saw success of neighbors 

x8 = read about success of DM 

x9 = fits personal philosophy 

x10 = desire to cut out middleman 

x11 = had surplus commodities to sell 

x12 = backyard/hobby/retirement producer 

x13 = only/best way for small farmers 

x14 = diversify marketing/test new products 

x15= other 

The dependent variable is non-normal, introducing estimation problems stemming 

from non-constant variance or heteroskedasticity.18 Multicolinearity was assessed by the 

tolerance statistic in the regression model, using the heuristic of tolerance < .70 indicating 

colinearity, as well as principal components diagnostics. The variable x9 (fits personal 

philosophy) tended to be correlated with other independent variables, which also makes 

the estimates of the coefficients (b) unreliable. We ran two reduced models, each 

eliminating one of the two correlated independent variables, x9 (fits personal philosophy) 

and x6 (satisfaction). The two models were very similar (see Tables 15 and 16). 

 

17 Unlike Spearman correlation coefficients, these models look at relational patterns simultaneously, i.e.,

the probability of an effect, given other effects. Thus, the psychological motivations are not assessed in 

isolation but within an associative mental schema. 

18 This makes the estimates of the coefficients (b) unreliable but this can be overcome through weighted 

least squares (WLS). We ran both OLS and WLS models with similar results, so we chose to report the 

more parsimonious OLS results, which are more straightforward to interpret. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

25

Table 15

Effect of Motivations (without “satisfaction of directly selling”) on 

DM Sales Intensity

= 2 Radjusted .159; F14, 229 = 4.274, p < .000 

X (Independent Variables) b t p 

(Constant) 9.0390 0.0000

Question 5a low profit margins 0.0584 0.8573 0.3922

Question 5b opportunity to capture value -0.0356 -0.5769 0.5646

Question 5c way to get started farming 0.1862 2.9036 0.0040

Question 5d faced crisis of profits -0.0646 -0.9612 0.3375

Question 5e farmer's market opportunity 0.0681 1.0476 0.2959

Question 5g saw success of neighbors 0.0042 0.0668 0.9468

Question 5h read about success of DM 0.0764 1.2509 0.2122

Question 5i fits personal philosophy 0.1085 1.6735 0.0956

Question 5j desire to cut out middleman 0.1632 2.5583 0.0112

Question 5k had surplus commodities to sell 0.0797 1.2207 0.2235

New cat. 5l Backyard/hobby/retirement producer 0.1292 2.0834 0.0383

New category 5m Only/best way for small farmers 0.2093 3.3209 0.0010

New category 5n Diversify marketing/test new 

products -0.1396 -2.2570 0.0250

Question 5o Other 0.0158 0.2537 0.8000

Table 16

Effect of Motivations (without “fits personal philosophy”) on 

DM Sales Intensity

= 2 Radjusted .170; F14, 229 = 4.552, p < .000 

X (Independent Variables) b t p 

(Constant) 8.6630 0.0000

Question 5a low profit margins 0.0443 0.6514 0.5154

Question 5b opportunity to capture value 

-

0.0261 -0.4246 0.6715

Question 5c way to get started farming 0.1815 2.8479 0.0048

Question 5d faced crisis of profits 

-

0.0491 -0.7300 0.4661

Question 5e farmer's market opportunity 0.0505 0.7747 0.4393

Question 5f satisfaction 0.1588 2.4327 0.0158

Question 5g saw success of neighbors 0.0093 0.1504 0.8806

Question 5h read about success of DM 0.0753 1.2420 0.2155

Question 5j desire to cut out middleman 0.1588 2.5320 0.0120

Question 5k had surplus commodities to sell 0.0806 1.2484 0.2132

New category 5l Backyard/hobby/retirement producer 0.1208 1.9561 0.0517

New category 5m Only/best way for small farmers 0.2151 3.4316 0.0007

New category 5n Diversify marketing/test new 

products 

-

0.1345 -2.1872 0.0297

Question 5o Other 0.0284 0.4567 0.6483
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

26

Both models found positive relationships between DM sales proportion and each 

of the following motivation categories: 1) a way to get started in farming; 2) a desire to 

cut out channel intermediaries; 3) an outlet for backyard/hobby enthusiasts; and 4) as the 

only or best way for small farmers. The strongest and most significant relations were 

found between DM sales proportion and the categories, “a way to get started farming” 

and “as the only or best way for small farmers.” Not surprisingly, the motivation 

“diversify marketing/testing new products” was negatively related to DM sales 

proportion. “Satisfaction with directly interacting with the consumer” and “fitting with 

personal philosophy” were positively related to DM sales proportion but were marginally 

significant. 

How “perceived obstacles to success” affects DM sales intensity offered fewer 

insights. A full model using all perceived limitations did not suffer from multicolinearity 

but only found three significant predictors and explained little variance ( = 2 Radjusted .068, 

F3,240 = 6.869, p < .000 ). We ran a reduced (nested) model19 with only the three 

significant independent variables, x1 = lack of operating capital, x2 = lack of time, and x3 

= other,20 which had the following estimates, β1 = .13, p = .04, β 2 = -.17, p = .005, β 3 = 

-.18, p = .003, respectively. Those citing a lack of operating capital as a limitation were 

more likely to have greater DM sales proportion, while those citing a lack of time and 

“other” reasons were likely to have a lower DM sales proportion. 

Foreign-born Operators and Direct Marketing 

In terms of exploring the 

topic of agricultural 

entrepreneurship, we were 

interested in the roles of human 

migration, community-based 

enterprises, and the viability of 

the small farm. As stated above, 

there were 28 participants (11 

percent) who were foreignborn.21 The ethnicity of the 

foreign-born operators (see 

Table 17) tended to be of European and Asian descent, at 32 percent and 21 percent, 

respectively. 

 

19 A nested model has a subset of the independent variables included in the full model. 

20 Obstacles in this category ranged from excessive bureaucracy, lack of time, hitting a wall in expansion. 

age, no interest in expansion, high cost/access to water, and too much competition. 21 Given the relatively few number of operators who are foreign born, inferential comparisons (t-tests or 

ANOVAs) across groups lack the sufficient power to discern differences and there was often a violation of 

the homogeneity of variance across cells assumption, i.e., heteroskedastic data. Moreover, although 

percentages are reported, care should be used in their interpretation, given the small cell sizes, i.e., the 

number in each category. Hence, the cell counts (number in each category) are also reported. 

Table 17

Foreign-Born Operator Ethnicity 

Ethnicity of Foreign-Born 

Operators Count (n=28) Percent 

White, non-Hispanic 9 32.14

Asian 6 21.43

Other 5 17.86

Pacific Islander 3 10.71

Other Latino, Spanish-Origin, 

& Hispanic 3 10.71

Hispanic/Latino 2 7.14
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

27

Most of the following results comparing foreign-born and U.S. operators are 

summarized in Table 18. Due to small sample restrictions and high variation in the 

results within each category, indicated by the standard deviations (σ), inferential 

comparisons are inconclusive. Yet, foreign-born operators, when compared to U.S. 

native-born operators, tended to have a greater share of household income from farming, 

were farming for fewer years, had a greater share of farm sales derived from direct 

marketing, and tended to be younger. Foreign-born operators also tended to cultivate and 

own fewer acres. Half of the 28 operators leased their land, in sharp contrast to the 22 

percent of the 210 native-born operators. An examination of the ranges of response finds 

that no foreign-born operator has planted or purchased over 260 acres. Foreign-born 

operators have a greater likelihood of engaging in organic farming. They are just as, if 

not more likely to be profitable from DM, with 78 percent being profitable compared to 

76 percent of the native U.S. farmers. A greater percentage (70.4 percent versus 60.3 

percent) of foreign-born operators planned on selling directly at the onset of farming, and 

a slightly higher number (88.9 percent versus 86.1 percent) would have still started 

farming if DM were not an option, when compared to their U.S. native counterparts. 

A vast majority (85.7 percent, 21 respondents) noted that direct marketing is 

important or very important to their farm operation, which is only slightly greater than 

the 77.6 percent of those who are native born. In terms of revenue, there is a general 

sense of parity. Forty-eight percent of the foreign-born brought in less than $10,000, 

compared to 44.7 percent of the U.S. natives. Choices of DM channels were similar for 

both foreign-born and U.S. natives. 

Table 18

Native US versus Foreign-Born Operators’ Farming Characteristics 

Mean 

Foreign-Born 

(n=28) 

Std.Dev.

(σ) 

Mean 

US Native 

(n=210) Std.Dev. (σ) 

Household Income from Farming 58.42 43.81 45.9 41.20

Years Farming 13.29 8.45 18.73 14.64

Sales Proportion from DM 74.88 36.37 66.05 38.81

Age 53.68 17.39 57.24 12.44

Acres Planted 20.62 50.73 167.40 1431.47

Acres Purchased 23.09 55.97 66.62 226.54

Count percent Count percent 

Organic Farming 3 10.7 47 24.2

Higher Profit from DM 18 78.3 136 76.4 

Plan on Selling to Public w/DM 19 70.4 126 60.3

Still Sell to Public, if no DM 24 88.9 149 86.1
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

28

The motivations for starting DM activities were overwhelmingly related to farmers’ 

markets having created a new opportunity. For the 28 foreign-born operators, over 60 

percent stated this as a deciding factor. Slightly less than 40 percent of the native U.S. 

operators cited this as a motivation, which was the highest ranking of that group. Other 

factors were a sense of satisfaction coming from dealing directly with food consumers 

(53.6 percent), a way to start farming (28.6 percent), having surplus commodities to sell 

(28.6 percent), a way to capture added value (25 percent), fitting with personal 

philosophy (25 percent), and seeing the success of neighboring farms (21.4 percent).22 

The barriers to success, as reported by the operators, were mainly associated with major 

factor inputs. 

The 28 foreign-born operators cited the following barriers to their DM efforts: lack 

of affordable labor (35.7percent), lack of access to operating capital (32.1percent), and 

lack of access to land (17.9 percent).23 Though foreign-born operators tended to state this 

less often, both foreign-born and U.S. natives suggested that assistance for DM farmers 

would be best directed towards the reduction of bureaucracy/government interference and 

paperwork, (10.7 percent and 24.3 percent, respectively) and providing more institutional 

support for production and marketing, 14.3 percent and 23.8 percent, respectively. 

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) 

 We examined whether CSAs were a more robust form of DM but the small 

number of CSAs in the sample limited the analyses. A majority of the CSAs had yearly 

gross sales over $100,000, with 25 percent over $500,000 and none under $10,000. We 

compared CSAs to other DM farms of the same size; namely, DM farms with gross sales 

over $10,000. We conducted ANOVAs to determine statistically significant differences 

between CSAs and DM farms of similar sizes, along the lines of selected farm and 

operator characteristics. Regionally, there were more CSAs in the Central Coast and 

Sacramento Valley than expected24 and fewer in the North Coast, San Joaquín Valley, 

South Coast, and Desert. Farms with CSA operations had a greater proportion of sales 

from DM, greater proportion of sales in organics, greater crop diversity (using the crops 

per acre index), and fewer acres planted, purchased and leased. Since the biodynamic 

farming movement (a form of organic agriculture) embraced the CSA model at the 

beginning of this century (Meller 2000), it is not surprising that farms with CSA 

operations had 67 percent of sales from organics, compared to 18 percent for the other 

DM farms. This difference was statistically significant (F1,147 = 16.66, p < .000) but it 

should be noted that the variance was not heterogeneous. The rest of the differences were 

not significant, most likely due to a lack of statistical power given the relatively few 

number of CSAs. Operators’ age and experience tended to be less for CSAs, 48 versus 

55 and 16 versus 21, respectively, but these differences were not significant. 

Examination of farm operator gender found that CSA operations were slightly more 

 

22 The remaining motivations represented less than five operators and are not summarized here. 

23 The remaining barriers represented less than five operators and are not summarized here. 24 Given the distribution of farms in the sample across regions. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

29

likely to have women operators (33.3 percent) when compared to similar sized farms 

(26.5 percent). 

Farm Typologies Based on Age and Experience Farming 

To assess small farm demographics, we used a descriptive multivariate technique—

cluster analysis—to assign operators to classes based upon operator age and years 

farming. Farmers are an aging population. It is suspected that age and experience might 

hold patterns that can clarify the issue of the aging farmer population. The algorithm 

specified was k-means, the number of à priori classes was set to three for ease of analysis 

and interpretation, and listwise deletion was specified.25 The three classes or clusters are 

summarized in Table 19. Each cluster had 74, 48, and 109 operators, representing 32, 21, 

and 47 percent of the valid 231 cases, respectively. 

Cluster 1 members were older but have about 13 years of experience, on average. 

We called this group the Retirees, because they tended to be farming only part time, as a 

hobby or for extra retirement income, and were relatively new to farming. Retirees 

tended to have no interest in expansion, as their income from direct marketing their 

produce was not their main source of income. Cluster 2 members were also older but had 

over four decades of experience, on average. We called this group the Professionals, 

because they had been farming for decades and tended to consider farming their main 

occupation. Their farm operations generally provided their main source of income. The 

largest cluster, called New Blood, had younger operators who also had about 13 years of 

experience, on average. This group tended to view farming as their main source of 

income and as their main occupation, but they were younger and newer to the business. 

We looked at DM motivations, farm revenues, acres planted, and DM sales proportion to 

 

25 K-means cluster analysis is a technique that places cases (farm operators) into k number of groups 

specified by the researcher based upon a specified set of variables. The variance is partitioned so that the 

distributions of the groups are significantly different. In a sense, it is a MANOVA in reverse, where the 

dependent measures are specified in advance and a factor is created (cluster membership) that parses the 

variation into k levels. In order to facilitate interpretation, the variables specified should represent some 

underlying latent construct. In this instance, we specified three groups (k = 3) to be estimated with two 

variables (age and experience) that we suspected would share covariation. Listwise deletion uses only 

cases with complete data across all variables specified, i.e., age and experience, so that the estimation does 

not “go beyond the data”. 

Table 19 

Cluster Analysis Means (Standard Deviations) for Age & Experience Farming 

Variable Cluster 1 

(Retirees) 

Cluster 2 

(Professionals) 

Cluster 3 (New 

Blood) 

n = 74 (32.03percent) n = 48 

20.78percent) 

n = 109 (47.19percent) 

 

Years of Farming 12.81 (7.51) 40.77 (11.75) 13.32 (9.16) 

Age of Operator 68.82 (7.58) 64.17 (10.53) 46.39 (7.24) 

N=231 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

30

typify these clusters. Table 20 summarizes farm incomes across clusters. Across the 

clusters, we examined the top motivations cited within that cluster and conducted a Chi- 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

31

square analysis of the motivations to determine in what proportions these motivations 

were represented in each cluster of farmers.26 These are summarized in Figure 8. 

Across all clusters, “farmers’ markets creating an opportunity” and “satisfaction with 

working directly with the consuming public” were top motivations. Retirees also had 

surplus commodities to sell, had a personal philosophy in line with DM, and tended to be 

motivated by backyard/hobby farming. Farms in the Retiree group had a high proportion 

of their revenues from DM ( x = 76, σ = 34, median = 97) and few acres planted ( x = 7, 

σ = 13, median = 2). Over half of these farms bring in less than $5,000 in revenues per 

annum. 

The Professionals were motivated by experiencing a crisis in profits, as well as 

seeing DM as a way to capture value. They were not motivated by DM as a means of 

farm entry, as they tended to be farmers already, and they did not see DM as the best way 

for small farms. The Professional farm operations had a much lower proportion of their 

revenues from DM ( x = 43, σ = 37, median = 30) and the most acres planted ( x = 171, σ

= 405, median = 32). These farms tend to bring in more revenues, with over 50 percent 

earning more than $25,000 per year. They have been in farming for years on larger 

parcels and saw DM as an opportunity to remain viable. 

New Blood members tended to have a wide array of motivations, with more farmers 

citing more motivations. This cluster saw DM as the best way for small farms and 

thought that DM coincided with their philosophies. This cluster also has unique 

 

26 We used Chi-square analyses to test to determine if the 14 motivations in a cluster are distributed 

proportionally, i.e., 32, 21, and 47 percent, for clusters 1, 2, and 3, respectively. If a motivation is over- or 

under-represented, the Chi-square statistic is significant. 

Table 20 

Farm Income and Clusters 

Older-Less 

Experienced 

“Retirees” 

OlderExperienced 

“Professionals”

Younger-Less 

Experienced 

“New Bloods” Total 

 Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent 

less than $2,500 23

35.3

8 2 5

1

6 16.67 41 20.40

$2,500 to $4,999 13

20.0

0 1 2.5 9 9.38 23 11.44

$5,000 to $9,999 8

12.3

1 6 15

1

1 11.46 25 12.44

$10,000 to $24,999 12

18.4

6 8 20

1

6 16.67 36 17.91

$25,000 to $49,999 5 7.69 8 20

1

3 13.54 26 12.93

$50,000 to $99,999 1 1.54 8 20 9 9.38 18 8.96

$100,000 to $499,999 3 4.62 6 15

1

4 14.58 23 11.44

$500,000 or more 0 0.00 1 2.5 8 8.33 9 4.48

Total 65 100 40 100

9

6 100 201 100
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

32

predilections for DM channel selection. CSA is almost exclusively subsumed by New 

Blood operators, with 92.3 percent of the farms with such operations in this cluster. 

Roadside stands were strongly represented in this cluster, with 59.1 percent of the 44 

farms using roadside stands in the cluster. Farms in the New Blood cluster had a much 

higher proportion of their revenues from DM ( x = 69, σ = 39, median = 98) and few 

acres planted ( x = 49, σ = 136, median = 5). Almost 45 percent of this cluster had 

$10,000 or less in annual farm revenues. This group seemed more committed to DM as a 

strategy than the other groups. 

Interestingly, no cluster had a relatively greater proportion of farms that said they 

earned higher profit margins from DM (between 73 and 77 percent of the 193 farms 

reporting their profitability). Not surprisingly, a large majority of farm operators within 

the Retirees 1 (81percent) and the New Blood (61 percent) reported that they planned to 

sell using DM when they started farming, while a large majority of Professionals said 

they did not (73 percent). For Retirees and New Blood, DM served as a founding-point 

strategy, while for Professonals, DM is a transition strategy.27 A majority in all three 

clusters noted that they would still farm if DM was not an option. In the Retiree and New 

Blood clusters, the percentages were 72 percent and 70 percent, respectively. In the 

Professional cluster, the percentage was very high at 90 percent. For those in the 

Professional cluster, farming is a way of life and DM is a means to an end, in this case 

farm viability. 

 

27 Transition, in this sense, refers to the movement from one DM channel to a different channel or multiple 

channel usage. It often is spurred by profit crises, but is not necessarily tied only to survival purposes. 

Figure 8

Differences in Actual versus Expected Motivation Frequencies &

Chi-Square Results

47.83%

55.56%

0.00%

57.14%

32.81%

3.57%

33.33% 31.88%

67.86%

20.78% 20.78%

47.19% 47.19%

20.78% 20.78% 20.78%

32.03% 32.03%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Surplus ** Bckyd/Hobby* Start Farm ** Cris is Profit** Capture

Value*

DM Best

Way†

Low

Margins †

Surplus

Commod*

DM Bes t

Way†

Clus ter 1 Clus ter 1 Clus ter 2 Clus ter 2 Clus ter2 Clus ter2 Clus ter2 Clus ter3 Clus ter3

Cluster & M otivation

Percentage

Observed Expected

† p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

33

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

This report summarizes the data from the California Agricultural Direct Marketing 

Survey (CADMS) and provides selected analyses that address the main issues of farm 

entry and farm viability. Specifically, questions about the key success factors, creation of 

market niches, demographics, and obstacles are addressed. 

Farm Entry 

Direct marketing clearly fosters farm entry. Those operators who planned to sell 

using a DM strategy when they started farming tended to have smaller operations, had 

less experience farming, and had a greater proportion of sales derived from DM. The 

cluster analyses found that there were two groups of relatively new farmers that used DM 

as a vehicle for entry, one younger and the other being an older “retirees” cohort. Both 

intended on using DM to sell their products. A majority of foreign-born operators (over 

60 percent) cited the opportunities created by the farmers’ market channel as a motivation 

for engaging in DM activities, compared to the less than 40 percent of the native U.S.-

born respondents citing the same. While DM is a founding strategy for new farmers, it is 

also a transitional strategy for existing ones, which is further discussed below. 

Farm Viability 

Direct marketing is a means to a viable small farm strategy. Smaller farms tend to 

use DM to augment other sources of income for the household. Since DM offers greater 

profit potential, it allows operators to retain a greater share of the food dollar. Moreover, 

more women experience a higher profit from DM than men. Though gender differences 

were detected in our analysis, the reasons for these differences remain to be explored. 

The major obstacles to success were the limits of small-scale craft production. In 

order to expand, more labor (or operators’ time) and capital would be required, implying 

that larger scale DM farms are on a different technological production curve. Direct 

marketing operators also saw that a reduction in bureaucracy would be beneficial towards 

increasing their success. This usually meant cutting down on certification requirements, 

paperwork, marketing regulations, and fees. More technical support in terms of 

production and marketing were also cited as desirable. Production using a DM strategy 

allows for niche marketing, where contact with consumers provides market information 

and loyalty. 

The linkage of DM to communities is a possible avenue for farmers to create 

multiplex ties with the consuming public, enabling loyalty and market-sensing. Studies 

of CSAs and how agriculture can be used to foster a sense of community should be 

examined, given recent interest in community-based issues. We have found that CSAs 

tend to farm on fewer acres but also tend to have greater gross sales. Moreover, CSA 

operators tend to be younger and have fewer years of experience. A better understanding 

of the social dynamics of CSA production and marketing is necessary to disentangle 

these issues. This is a unique form of production/marketing that involves consumers 

directly in the real costs and risks of farming, and often involves consumers volunteering 

to labor on the farm and/or to market the weekly boxes of produce. The social networks 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

34

and relationship dynamics in these arrangements may hold clues to CSAs’ increasing 

successes. 

Finally, the cluster analysis found that there was a cohort of older, more experienced 

farmers that used DM as a transitional strategy. These small farm operations used DM as 

a way to gain a greater share of the food dollar in a competitive environment where profit 

margins have been eroded. 

In summary, the CADMS offers a cross-sectional snapshot of DM operator 

responses. It is relatively mute on processes, such as how operators started farming, and 

did not include respondents that had no English skills. (This issue is addressed in Part II 

of this report, which is a case study on immigrant strawberry farmers who use DM as a 

strategy.) Studies of communities of practice, i.e., farmers and those they have 

relationships with on the production and marketing side, may also shed light on how 

small farms can more effectively collaborate. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

35

REFERENCES 

Barber, Brad and Terrance Odean (2001), “Boys Will Be Boys: Overconfidence and 

Common Stock Investment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, (February), 261-

292. 

Belenky, Mary, Blythe Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, and Jill Tarule (1996), Women's 

Ways of Knowing, New York, NY : BasicBooks.

Bielby, Denise D. and William T. Bielby (1988), “She Works Hard for the Money: 

Household Responsibilities and the Allocation of Work Effort,” American 

Journal of Sociology, 93, 1031-59Bourdieu, Pierre. (1993). The Field of 

Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. City of New York: Columbia 

University Press. 

Chandler, Alfred Dupont (1962), Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the 

Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. 

Cialdini, Robert B. (1988). Influence: Science and Practice. Second Edition. 

Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Co. 

Day, George S. (1994), “The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations,” Journal of 

Marketing, 58 (April), 37-52. 

Fornell, Claes (2000), “The American Customer Satisfaction Index,” University of 

Michigan Business School working paper, Ann Arbor, MI. 

Govindasamy, R, M. Zurbriggen, J. Italia, A. Adelaja, P. Nitzsche (1998), “Farmers’ 

Markets: Consumer Trends, Preferences, and Characteristics,” ???

Granovetter, Mark (1985), “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of 

Embeddedness,” American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3), 481-510. 

Hinrichs, Clare C. (2000). “Embeddedness and Local Food Systems: Notes on Two 

Types of Direct Agricultural Market.” Journal of Rural Studies. 16(3), 295-303 

Kelman, Herbert C. (1958). “Compliance, Identification and Internalization: Three 

Processes of Attitude Change.” Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2, 51-60. 

Klonsky, Karen. (2000). “Organic Agriculture in California.” Dept. of Agricultural & 

Resource Economics, University of California, Davis. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

36

Kohli, Ajay and Bernard Jaworski (1990), “Market-Orientation: The Cobstruct, Research 

Propositions, and Managerial Implications, Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 1-

18. 

Lieberman, Marvin and David Montgomery (1988), “First-Mover Advantages,” Strategic 

Management Journal, 9 (Summer), 41-58. 

Lighthall, David. (2000). “California Agriculture and the Food System: Agricultural 

Workers Caught in the Vice of Declining Profits.” Paper presented for The 

California Endowment. 

Martin, Joann, Kathleen Knopoff , Christine Beckman (1998), “An Alternative to 

Bureaucratic Impersonality and Emotional Labor: Bounded Emotionality at The 

Body Shop,” Administrative Science Quarterly, ??? 

Meller, Marilyn and Jim Sluyter. “Community Supported Agriculture.” Online article: 

http://www.traverse.com/nonprof/center/synapse31/csag.html. 

Roth, Monika (1999). “Overview of Farm Direct Marketing Industry Trends.” 

Agricultural Outlook Forum. Presented February 22, 1999. 

Saxenian, AnnaLee (1994), Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon 

Valley and Route 128, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Tansey, Geoff and Tony Worsley, The Food System: A Guide, London: Earthscan. 

Tourte, Laura and Karen Klonsky (1998), “California’s Organic Agriculture,” Small 

Farm News, University of California Small Farm Center (Fall) accessed online at 

www.sfc.ucdavid.edu/pubs/SFNews/Fall98/organic.html on January 19, 2002. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1997), Census of Agriculture, Bureau 

of the Census. 

United States Department of Agriculture. (1996). Food Consumption, Prices, and 

Expenditures, 1996. Economic Research Services. SB 928. April 1996. 

United States Department of Agriculture. (1999). Agricultural Research Service. 

February 1999. Data Tables: Food and Nutrient Intakes by Income, 1994-96. 

Online. ARS Food Surveys Research Group, available on the “Products” page at 

http://www.barc.usda.gov/bhnrc/foodsurvey/home.htm
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

37

APPENDIX 

 Survey ID Code: _________ 

CIRS Survey for California Direct Marketing Study: Version 5 

Date of interview: _______________ Name of operator: ____________________ 

Phone number: _________________ County/address of operation: _____/______ 

Introduction: (please provide text) 

1. I have a couple of questions but the main question is: How important is direct 

marketing to your farm operation? In other words, is it worth the extra time and 

effort? (Their answer should correspond to one of the following.) 

___ 1. irrelevant, not longer direct marketing or in farming 

___ 2. not very important/marginal; 

___ 3. fairly important; 

___ 4. important; 

___ 5. very important; essential—the basis of the operation itself. 

___ Other or not applicable (record in notes section) 

2. About what proportion of your total farm sales is from direct marketing? If you also 

sell through conventional brokers, processors, or wholesalers, do you make a higher 

net profit from direct market sales of the same products? 

Sales proportion ________ Doesn’t know ________ 

Higher profit margin from DM? Yes ______ No _______ 

Approximate net profit difference ________ Doesn’t know ________ 

3. In percentage terms, could you estimate how much of your total household income 

comes from your farming operation? _____________ 

4. How long have you been farming _________? 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

38

5. What made you decide to start selling directly to the public? (prompt with the 

following answer categories, then record more specific response from list a. through 

m) 

___ A. Search for higher profits or financial pressure 

___ B. A way to get into farming 

___ C. New markets opened up 

___ D. Learned about the success of others 

___ E. Philosophical reasons 

___ a. low profit margins from conventional marketing 

___ b. opportunity to capture added value/higher profit margins 

___ c. was a way to get started in farming 

___ d. faced crisis of low profits, had to do something different 

___ e. farmers' market in local area created new opportunity 

___ f. satisfaction that comes from dealing directly with the food consumer 

___ g. saw success of neighbors or other farmers 

___ h. read about success of direct marketing 

___ i. fits with my personal philosophy of agriculture and/or the food system 

___ j. desire to cut out the middleman 

___ k. had surplus commodities to sell 

___ l. other (record response in notes section) 

___ m. no answer 

6. When you started farming did you plan to sell all or most of your products directly to 

the public? (This answer may in fact emerge from the response to 4. If so, skip to 8.) 

a. Yes _____ b. No _____ 

7. If you were not able to sell directly to the public, would you still have started farming? 

a. Yes _____ b. No _____ 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

39

8. Is there anything preventing you from being even more successful in your direct 

marketing efforts? (prompt with the following answer categories, then record more 

specific responses from list a. through l.) 

___ A. Lack of land, capital, labor, or knowledge 

___ B. Lack of markets or distance to markets 

___ C. Problems with management or regulation of farmers markets 

___ D. Other 

___ E. None given 

___ a. lack of access to land 

___ b. lack of access to operating capital 

___ c. lack of marketing outlets 

___ d. lack of information about strategies 

___ e. poor management/promotion of farmers' markets 

___ f. lack of affordable labor/labor shortage 

___ g. long distance to markets/transportation costs 

___ h. low population in area/low customer base 

___ i. high cost of registration fees for marketing 

___ j. excessive paperwork involved in DM participation 

___ k. other (record answer in notes section) 

___ l. none given 

9. Can you give us any suggestions for ways that local, state, and federal governments, 

the USDA, the Cooperative Extension Service, university researchers, or farming 

organizations might be able to help you do a better job of direct marketing? 

(Responses will be summarized in notes section and later condensed into categories.) 

a. Yes _____ (see notes) b. No _____ 

10. Yearly gross sales: ___ a. less than $2,500 

 ___ b. $2,500 to $4,999 

 ___ c. $5,000 to $9,999 

 ___ d. $10,000 to $24,999 

 ___ e. $25,000 to $49,999 

 ___ f. $50,000 to $99,999 

 ___ g. $100,000 to $499,999 

 ___ h. $500,000 or more 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

40

11. a. Acres planted: _____ b. Acres purchased: _____ c. Acres leased: ______ 

12. Direct marketing strategies employed (provide percentage sales contribution of each 

if possible): 

___ a. roadside stand 

___ b. farmers’ market 

___ c. CSA 

___ d. U-pick 

___ e. Internet 

___ f. Other (see notes section) 

13. Commodities that are currently being sold directly (ranked in order of importance if 

possible): 

 ___ a. ___________________ ___ e. ___________________ 

 

 ___ b. ___________________ ___ f. ____________________ 

 ___ c. ___________________ ___ g. ___________________ 

 ___ d. ___________________ 

14. Are any of these commodities marketed as organic food? If so, which ones? 

___ a. ___________________ ___ e. ___________________ 

 

 ___ b. ___________________ ___ f. ____________________ 

 ___ c. ___________________ ___ g. ___________________ 

 ___ d. ___________________ 

15. If yes to 14., what percentage of your sales was in organic produce? _____ 

16. Age: _________ 

17. Ethnic background: a. _____________ b. ______________ c. _______________ 

18. How long have you lived in the United States? ___________ 
PART II 

Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship1

A Case Study of Southeast Asian Strawberry Producers in the Sacramento Region 

 

1

 This case study was conducted and written by Crispin L. Shelley. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

1

INTRODUCTION 

This case study focuses on strawberry cultivation and direct marketing by Southeast 

Asian immigrant farmers (specifically, Mien immigrants from Laos), in the Sacramento 

and North San Joaquín Valleys. Though strawberry production had been declining in the 

area for decades, these farmers spurred a boom that began in the late 1990s. Figure 2-1 

shows how dramatic the rise in production has been in Sacramento County alone. Fields 

that had been long abandoned—mainly by Japanese American strawberry growers—were 

suddenly being furrowed and planted by Mien immigrants with high-cost, high-margin 

strawberries, which were then directly marketed to the consuming public through 

roadside stands. 

By examining the underlying factors and processes that account for this remarkable, 

seemingly inexplicable success story, this study fleshes out important details regarding 

the socially and culturally mediated ties of the Mien that support the start-up of smallscale production among these immigrant growers. The confluence of culture and 

agriculture in California strawberries has been addressed in another study, which 

contrasted Anglo, Japanese, and Mexican farmers (Wells 1996). However, the recent 

phenomenon of Mien strawberry growers in the Sacramento region has not been 

previously investigated. 

This case study complements and embellishes the information presented in Part I, 

specifically seeking to disentangle the process by which the Mien became strawberry 

farmers, the nature of their current production, and their approach to direct marketing. 

Following this introduction, we discuss the methods used in the study and present 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Years

Revenues

Figure 2-1

No 

acreage 

reported

32 

acres

54 

acres

65 

acres

88 

acres

100 

acres

134 

acres

157 

acres
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

2

demographic and historic information as well as details regarding strawberry production. 

We then discuss our findings in six parts, having organized them according to the 

categories that guided our research: family and clan relationships, knowledge sharing, 

purchasing economies, labor, timely marketing, and sustainability. We then provide a 

summary and conclusions section, which includes recommendations for a short-term 

strategy to assist growers. 

METHODS 

In order to offer deeper insights on the influence of immigrant culture/status on 

direct market farming, we sought opportunities to perform a case study research project. 

A timely article in the Sacramento Bee sketched out a story on Sacramento’s Laotian 

strawberry growers, suggesting possibilities for a case study (Schnitt 2001). But before 

launching into in-depth interviews with growers, we first gathered relevant background 

information to understand more of the context. 

Chuck Ingels, a Sacramento County Cooperative Extension advisor with a history of 

extension support to Mien strawberry producers, provided information on strawberry 

production in the region, including methods and a list of strawberry growers. We 

supplemented the Sacramento list of strawberry growers with those from Yolo County, 

bringing the pool of possible interviewees to 40. Before beginning the interviews, 

however, we obtained background information on Mien culture and migration patterns 

from a Mien community leader, who also provided recommendations for approaching 

growers. 

We developed our interview protocol based upon questions that arose from the 

quantitative analysis in Part I. As stated earlier, the protocol sought to disentangle the 

process by which the Mien became strawberry farmers, the nature of their current 

production, and their approach to direct marketing. A staff member at the Community 

Alliance with Family Farms (CAFF) who had extensive experience with interviewing 

farmers reviewed the protocol prior to the study (See Appendix). 

Mien growers responded to our initial phone calls with some distrust and hesitancy. 

We also encountered a language barrier. Out of the 40 possible grower interviewees, 

only three agreed to an in-person interview at their strawberry field site. Each interview 

lasted one hour, and two of the three agreed to be tape-recorded.1 Photographs of the 

strawberry fields, roadside stands, and signs were also taken at each site. 

Though our original plan called for five grower interviews, it became clear that 

theoretical saturation had occurred after three interviews. In other words, little or no new 

general information about direct marketing, farm entry, and labor mobilization was being 

gathered with each subsequent interview, though responses did vary in many ways. The 

level of cultural “embeddedness” occurring within this population of immigrants is very 

high (Lewis 1992); that is to say, economic and social decisions are highly culturally 

mediated. This likely explains why all three growers had the same or similar things to 

 

1

 The interviews generally followed the guidelines set by Spradley, James P. (1979) in The Ethnographic 

Interview. For example, the use of interviewing techniques such as asking different types of questions 

(descriptive, structural, and contrast), expressing interest, expressing ignorance, etc., were all used in the 

interview protocol and on an improvisational basis. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

3

say about their direct marketing operations. Embeddedness considers how social 

relations guide economic activity and counters the logic of the independence of the 

behaviors of institutions and organizations (Granovetter 1985).2 Though the other 37 

growers on our lists who were unwilling to be interviewed might have provided 

additional information, two of the three growers we did interview indicated that most of 

the Mien strawberry producers in the area had very similar operations. This group of 

producers usually consulted with fellow Mien in their production and/or business 

decisions. This indicates that our case study likely reflects characteristics of the 

population of Mien strawberry growers in the area. 

All three growers appeared to be in their early 40s and had several children each. 

Two of the three had five children each who lived in the household, along with 

grandparents. The first grower interviewed lived in a home on his field site in Rio Linda, 

an unincorporated outskirt north of Sacramento that is a mix of farmland and encroaching 

suburbia. He had 2.5 acres, 1.75 of which were planted in strawberries. The second 

grower lived in Waterford, an agricultural area about 12 miles west of Modesto. He had 

5.5 acres planted and lived on site in a home that bordered the field. He also leased a 

three-acre parcel just outside of Modesto, which was also planted in strawberries. The 

third grower leased five acres in south Sacramento in an area that was a mix of farmland 

and encroaching development. This grower brought his uncle to the interview because 

his uncle had helped him start growing strawberries. 

DEMOGRAPHICS AND HISTORY 

Strawberry growers in the Sacramento and North San Joaquín Valleys are mainly 

Laotian, and in the Sacramento region, specifically of Mien ethnic descent. Currently, 

there are about 35,000 Mien in the United States, and Sacramento has the largest 

concentration of these immigrants in the country (about 12,000). There is a smaller 

community of Mien in the Fresno area, which has become a stronger Hmong community. 

All three grower interviewees indicated they initially lived in southern California and 

later moved to Fresno for several years before settling in the Sacramento area. 

Mien culture has no real written language, and instead places strong emphasis on the 

oral tradition. It also emphasizes collaboration and consensus-based decision-making, as 

opposed to a more top-down approach. Since most Mien do not have much education, 

and since they lack solid English skills, they generally have a hard time finding non-farm 

employment that pays enough to support their large families. Moreover, given their 

history of farming in their own country, agriculture offers a lifestyle that is familiar to 

them. 

The Mien people originated in China, and it is believed they were driven to Laos and 

Thailand for economic and political reasons. As they migrated into the hills of Laos, they 

began a form of subsistence slash and burn (swidden) farming that continued for 

 

2

 For the most part, studies of embeddedness have focused on “communities of practice,” mainly in the 

context of business firms, but have often ignored how culture mediates economic activity. Saxenian (1994) 

looked at how a regional network had its own culture of practice that evolved organically. This is arguably 

quite different from situations where cultural forms, à priori, shape the nature and scope of an embedded 

network, let alone in cross-cultural or intercultural circumstances. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

4

centuries, growing mostly corn, rice, and beans on small, temporary plots of land. 

During the Vietnam War, many Laotians, including the Mien, assisted the American CIA 

in preventing a Vietnamese takeover of their country. When the Vietnamese eventually 

did take over Laos in 1975, the Mien and other groups, such as the Hmong, were forced 

to flee to Thailand, where they established refugee camps in the Mekong River Delta. In 

1978, the first Mien refugee family came to the United States, and many later followed. 

Sponsorship organizations offered financial help and other services so that refugees could 

reestablish their lives in the States. 

STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION 

In 1993, strawberries were not even listed under “Miscellaneous Crops” in the 

Sacramento County Agricultural Commissioner’s Report. By the year 2000, production 

values had skyrocketed to almost $3 million, with most of this production occurring on 

plots tended by Mien farmers (Ingels 2001). These Mien strawberry farms are microscale operations, with most being well under 10 acres.3

 Strawberry production lends 

itself to such small-scale enterprises, as managing the crop requires considerable 

managerial surveillance, multiple production windows, and the use of quality labor for an 

intensive period during harvest.4

 On the surface, it appears as if prices are rising, possibly 

making strawberries even more profitable. We examined California fresh strawberry 

prices over time correcting for inflation (See Figure 2-2) and real prices are in fact flat, 

around $65.84 per hundred pounds5. 

Cultivation usually begins with discing—facilitating the decomposition of any 

previous foliage—followed by fumigation with methyl bromide. Rows are then plowed 

and covered in plastic sheeting, and plants are inserted in holes made uniformly across 

the sheets, a process that is highly time and weather sensitive. The plants bear for five 

cycles in a year.6 Careful attention must be paid to the timing of the harvest, as there is a 

very small window for proper ripeness and to ensure flowering for the next cycle.7

 

3

 Prior studies of strawberry farming have tended to focus on relatively large farms. Wells (1996) studied 

strawberry farms in the Central Coast, defining small, medium, and large farms as having 14, 32, and over 

100 acres, respectively. 

4

 Strawberry plants are susceptible to a wide array of diseases and pests and the fruit are fragile and highly 

perishable—hence profit potential, which is high, is accompanied by a parallel level of risk. The shelf life 

of strawberries can be dramatically increased through chilling to 32 degrees (Cooperative Extension 1989). 5

 We fitted an equation to real and nominal prices over time. The real price equation showed that time 

varied at the rate, x0

, which is, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to the constant of 1. Hence real 

prices are constant at $65.84. 

6

 The production cycle depends upon the variety of strawberry cultivated. Chandler varieties are in the field 

from August/September through June (April–June harvest) and Seascapes are in the field from November 

through September (July–September harvest). 

7

 Production windows are defined following Lighthall and Roberts (1995) as naturally-determined time 

periods within which a particular field operation must be completed. Failure to do so results in production 

losses. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

5

Labor is a pivotal input cost, with harvest and non-harvest labor reaching upwards of 

50 percent of total production expenses (Cooperative Extension 1989). A conventional 

belief is that labor needs to be both relatively cheap and intensively managed, as 

strawberry harvesting requires crop-specific knowledge and high levels of care to ensure 

the plants are not injured or abused (Wells 1996). Under the social relations framework 

governing Central Coast strawberry production, labor recruitment, allocation, 

deployment, supervision, and payment fit the conventional model. Conventional 

strawberry production has high input costs per acre, high profit margin potential per acre, 

and high labor requirements (1.5-2 workers per acre) during harvest (Wells 1996). 

Additionally, labor and management are arranged on a contractual basis. In contrast, as 

will be argued below, labor management in Mien strawberry production is deeply 

embedded in cultural relationships to the point that wage relations are eliminated. 

FINDINGS 

Family and Clan Relationships 

The Mien community is very tightly-knit. They discourage outside marriages, and 

there are often three or four generations living in one household. Most families have at 

least three children, and five children is very common (Saephan 2001). One of the 

highest values in Mien culture is honoring the family, and family hierarchy and clan 

hierarchy are important organizational schemes within the culture’s kinship network 

(Mathews 2000). Individual Mien families relocate to a neighborhood when they learn of 

Figure 2-2

Real (2000 Dollars) & Nominal Fresh California Strawberry Prices 1989-1999

y = 46.559x0.1235

R2 = 0.4684(Nominal)

y = 65.836x-0.0049

R2 = 0.0018 (Real)

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Year

Price per 100 pounds

Price per cwt (100

Pounds)-Real

Price per cwt (100

Pounds)-Nominal

Power (Price per

cwt (100 Pounds)-

Nominal)

Power (Price per

cwt (100 Pounds)-

Real)
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

6

another Mien family living there, especially if the family is a household of a respected 

elder in their culture (Saephan 2001). In this way, pockets of Mien families recreate 

whole communities over time, and both Fresno and Sacramento have become central 

Mien communities on the West Coast of the U.S. 

The story of the settlement of Mien in the Sacramento area began, according to the 

community leader interviewed for this case study, when his grandfather was one of the 

first Mien to settle in the Sacramento region. Having arrived in Long Beach after leaving 

Laos, his grandfather received public assistance, but when the programs were cut in his 

county, he and his family moved to Sacramento where there were better assistance 

programs.8

 Because of his grandfather’s status as an elder and shaman, 40 to 50 other 

Mien families soon followed. They soon attracted the attention of Mien families in San 

Francisco, Oregon, and Washington, who all began moving to Sacramento. Since the 

Mien are largely responsible for the growth in strawberry production in the Sacramento 

region, the growth of their population and community link directly to their increasing 

entry into farming. 

Knowledge Sharing 

The three growers interviewed said that the increasingly saturated market in Fresno, 

where they began farming as apprentices on the farms of relatives and/or friends, led 

them to seek new opportunities beyond the region.9

 They came to Sacramento upon 

learning of the expanding population of Mien there.10 These farmers brought with them 

the knowledge and skills that they had acquired in Fresno. Knowledge of strawberry 

farming was thus transferred experientially through an extended social and familial 

network. 

Though they learned the techniques for raising strawberries in California, all three 

growers expressed frustrations with the methods they were taught. One grower said the 

way of farming in the United States is totally different than it was in Laos: 

In Laos you plant anything you want and they just grow up. You don’t 

need water or fertilizer. It’s natural. When you put a plant in the ground, it 

just grows up. All you have to do is weed. In this country, we need to 

water, add irrigation and a pump and use ditch water and add fertilizer. We 

have to use a tractor and all kinds of equipment. In Laos, we just cut down 

the trees and burn everything down and then plant. 

 

8

 The Mien population, and other Southeast Asian refugee groups, have relied heavily on public aid 

programs in the past due to their refugee status and the U.S. government’s involvement in the Vietnam 

War. The sometimes horrific conditions under which many were finally able to flee Laos and Thailand, 

their lack of access to an education in their own countries, and their limited English abilities bring 

enormous obstacles to this immigrant population in finding jobs and providing for their families. 

9

 While they were learning how to grow strawberries, interviewees generally worked part time and/or 

received public assistance. Within a few years, all three moved north to start their own farm. None had 

any contact with Cooperative Extension prior to starting out on their own. 10 Other deciding factors included the readily available and high-quality agricultural land closely 

surrounding the city and a temperate regional climate that was perfect for strawberry production. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

7

This passage underscores the marked transformation of the Mien farmers' 

agroecological and socioeconomic environment. The contrast between the arguably 

primitive swidden agriculture employed in Laos and the highly industrialized production 

of strawberries is quite striking. As argued below, however, the cultural legacy of their 

prior experience is in fact central to success in this radically new environment. 

Knowledge sharing in an experiential/apprenticeship manner was crucial for the 

Mien, as they have much to learn and written materials in English are often beyond their 

comprehension. Studies have shown that such sharing is a cornerstone of farmer-tofarmer networks, which form the basis of “alternative knowledge” systems (Hassanein 

1999). Unlike mainstream agricultural institutions, these networks are organized from 

the bottom up, emphasizing the collective knowledge and experience of their members. 

Because the Mien farmer networks are culturally mediated, they take on an even greater 

role and importance in the daily activities of these farmers. 

The paths by which Mien acquire skills and knowledge from one another adheres to 

a hierarchical system that begins with certain “core” growers. A hierarchical branching 

occurs as core growers (usually respected clan elders) pass on their knowledge of farming 

to other Mien, who, in turn, teach others in the group (Saephan 2001). But this system 

eventually reaches its limit. When one of the growers interviewed was asked if he could 

go to fellow strawberry growers in his area for advice, he replied, “No, because we all 

have the same ideas about farming, because most of the growers in the area learned from 

me.” In cases such as this, the network is considered “over embedded,” i.e., network 

members are overly reliant on each other for advice, and thus receive little or no outside 

input. 

This issue reflects a key shortcoming in the knowledge-sharing system of the Mien. 

While such sharing is an absolute necessity for farm entry, the accompanying insularity 

of the group has made it difficult for them to acquire new knowledge about production or 

marketing. This becomes most apparent when problems arise that cannot be dealt with 

by the existing knowledge base. Interviewees discussed times when they received “bad 

advice” from friends and lost whole crops.11 This is a problem the Mien would like to 

redress. All three interviewees expressed interest in learning new methods that could 

make production and marketing easier, but none knew where they could find it. While 

strong culturally mediated kinship ties provided opportunities for farm entry, it became a 

liability in cases where farmers needed to be innovative and respond to changing 

conditions, which would better ensure their long-term viability. Thus, the social relations 

that guide Mien growers into strawberry production can become over embedded at times. 

The problem of over embeddedness can create challenges for outreach efforts aimed 

at assisting such farmers. It also underscores the need for culturally relevant programs. 

Several years ago, Sacramento County Cooperative Extension Advisor Chuck Ingels 

 

11 On the one hand, culturally embedded relationships can help to leverage resources and incubate 

entrepreneurship. On the other hand, it can lead to myopic decision making, information and knowledge 

bottlenecks, and vulnerability to exogenous shocks (See Uzzi 1997). This is particularly the case where 

economic actions are also familial. Situations where those working together are similar are prone to have 

their judgment clouded, as “the ties that bind may also be the ties that blind” (Powell and Smith-Doerr 

1994). 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

8

began holding a yearly meeting at the County Agricultural Commissioner’s office for 

Mien strawberry growers. Attendance at these meetings grew from a paltry four or five 

growers at the first meeting, to over 40 growers in attendance at the most recent meeting. 

While this growth attests to farmer interest in acquiring new information, not all 

considered the experience beneficial. One of the interviewees in this study said he had 

trouble sifting through the written materials in English, another, who had worked with 

Cooperative Extension, found the advice useless or impractical for his situation. The 

third interviewee, who apparently did not attend the meeting, said he had never heard of 

the organization. This disjunction between the Mien and Cooperative Extension may be 

a function of the over embeddedness of the former’s networks, which likely do not mesh 

well with common agricultural outreach efforts. Again, this problem emphasizes the 

challenge of carefully tailoring a program to a group’s unique cultural needs. 

Purchasing Economies 

Local growers share not only knowledge, but also equipment, supplies, and labor. 

Mien growers tend to buy chemicals and plastic sheeting together in bulk to save on input 

costs. Equipment is almost always shared, as it is extremely expensive to purchase all the 

equipment necessary for strawberry production. In fact, for those growers who are not 

able to rely on sharing equipment, the difficulty is finding an inexpensive way to hire an 

equipment operator for the planting season. One grower complained that hiring someone 

else to do the work was not only expensive, but hard to obtain on the very specific days 

strawberry production required the work. Timing presented a problem even for those 

who could share equipment, as many growers needed to use the equipment at the same 

time. This was usually worked out by growers all helping on one farm one day in order 

to get the equipment to the next grower’s farm the next day. 

One county agricultural commissioner estimated total equipment costs to be around 

$100,000 for independent strawberry production. Other inputs include fumigation, at a 

cost of $2,000 to $3,000 per acre. In contrast to more conventional strawberry 

production (i.e., that of the Central Coast), the Mien farmers did not fumigate every year, 

resulting in some initial cost savings. Unfortunately, all three growers described 

considerably lowered yields in years when they could not fumigate. Still, with such high 

input costs, strawberry production would be a difficult undertaking for the Mien, were it 

not for their culturally embedded cooperative sharing arrangements. 

Labor 

Labor costs can make up 50 percent or more of total production costs, placing limits 

on expansion for most producers (Wells 1996). Strawberry production is labor intensive, 

but even more, the timing of labor inputs are critical to successful production. A labor 

force that is available on short notice and for only a short period of time for the harvest 

and planting seasons is difficult to find. For the Mien, however, use of family members, 

relatives, and friends as unpaid laborers means cutting input costs in half. Family 

members who work part-time jobs are available every day, and even those who have fulltime, off-site jobs make themselves available during their free time. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

9

All three grower interviewees said that in certain years, they and/or their spouses 

worked full-time jobs until harvest season, when they took leaves of absence or quit. 

Work history of the growers and their spouses was very spotty, since the nature of most 

jobs obtained is transitory, and because their main goal was to be able to work on 

strawberry production full time without working other jobs. 12 

Timely Marketing 

Almost all of the Mien strawberry producers in the Sacramento region market their 

produce directly to the public via roadside stands. This is not surprising given that the 

survey results found that direct marketing channels, mainly farmers’ markets and 

roadside stands, were a mode of entry into farming (see Part I). The Mien farmers 

generally pick only what they think they will sell in a day, since the perishability of 

strawberries, optimally chilled to 34o F within three hours of harvest, makes storage 

impossible for the small grower. Location on or near a main highway or road is crucial, 

and signage must be strategically placed to give drivers the opportunity to stop.13 

This system is not without its challenges. All three producers complained of the 

majority of their crop going to waste. 14 One claimed that 80 percent of his crop is wasted 

every season. Only one grower had the ability to sell damaged or surplus produce to a 

processor, and this was the grower in the Modesto area. There is currently no processor 

in the Sacramento area, so marginal or surplus produce is written off as a loss. 

Trying to strike a balance between the amount produced and the number of 

consumers is a constant battle. All three growers expressed the need for more effective 

marketing strategies and increased access to consumers. Growers have placed 

advertisements in local papers that resulted in some success. One said he had even tried a 

radio advertisement but would not do it again because of the expense. Farmers’ markets 

are one likely answer, but this option is difficult for the small grower of a crop with such 

a short season and a highly perishable product. Securing a booth at a farmers’ market 

also may involve filling out an application or other forms (a difficult hurdle for those who 

do not speak English), and a commitment that the small grower may not be able to meet 

with his fluctuating harvest. Additionally, engaging in the farmers’ market channel 

would require that labor be taken out of the field during the harvest in order to get the 

product to market. 

 

12 One grower was a janitor, another worked for a drywall company, and the third went to mechanic school 

but couldn’t find work due to limited English skills. In general, the jobs Mien are able to find are as 

unskilled temporary laborers. 

13 In the areas surrounding Sacramento, where most of the Mien growers are located, development is 

happening at a rapid pace. This means more traffic is driving by these fields, and encroaching housing 

developments mean more potential consumers are nearby. These developments have contributed to the 

boom in Mien strawberry production in the area, even as land prices rise. 14 Strawberries stored at 85oF lose quality equivalent to being stored for a week at 32oF (Cooperative 

Extension 1989). Ostensibly, roadside stands could enhance the value to consumers by finding costeffective ways to keep the product cold. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

10

Competition and Pricing 

The Sacramento County Agricultural Commissioner along with Extension Adviser 

Chuck Ingels and several Mien growers agreed that strawberry competition was stiff. 

One Mien grower worried about the competitive advantage many “underground” growers 

had. He said some were underpricing their berries and taking less profit because they 

were receiving public assistance and had a secure income. The unfair competition that 

results from those who sell “under the table” in such a way was partially alleviated in 

parts of the Sacramento region when growers, who met after an Extension outreach 

meeting, agreed to setting common prices. These growers were able to ensure that they 

obtained a fair price by effectively taking price out of the competitive equation. Of 

course, other competitive factors remained: location, quality of produce, advertising, etc. 

Nevertheless, these growers at least did not need to worry about losing customers to the 

stand down the road because of a pricing mechanism that reflected unfair practices. 

Instead, they could safely price their berries based on their real input costs, assuring 

themselves a fair margin of profit. 

Sustainability 

Mien growers tend to “scrimp” on chemical inputs, due to their costs. Still, methyl 

bromide was used by all three interviewees, coupled with a lack of crop rotation as they 

could not afford to keep any land out of production. One grower said the Cooperative 

Extension agent had spoken to him about crop rotation, but he didn’t have enough land to 

make it work. However, all three expressed a desire to produce more “naturally” or 

sustainably, and they requested practical information on ways of doing that. 

Another issue was soil management practices. All three strawberry farmers used 

fertilizers but none used any compost. One respondent said he did not have the room. 

Moreover, due to the production cycle and the small acreage, crop rotation was not 

deemed feasible. Since strawberries are notoriously hard on soils, there may be 

diminishing returns in the years to come as the soil structure is depleted. 

Another factor mediating against the adoption of more sustainable practices is the 

fact that most Mien farm their land under a temporary lease arrangement. Though rental 

prices have remained manageable for most growers, it is not clear how long this will last. 

Some growers expressed concern that their leased land will be bought by developers, and 

they will have to start again in a new location. Many are already temporarily leasing the 

land from developers who are waiting for zoning and building permits before they begin 

developing the land. In these cases, there is little motivation for building up the soil 

through expensive initial soil amendments and labor-intensive sustainable practices if the 

growers will soon be forced to abandon land to developers in a few years. 

A critical question here is whether the smaller scale of Mien production, in concert 

with their alternative method of labor management, reduces the negative environmental 

impacts of strawberry production. For example, Lighthall and Roberts (1995) found that 

medium- and small-scale farmers in north central Iowa were more capable of adopting 

ridge till, a more sustainable form of corn and soybean production that significantly 

reduced soil erosion and herbicide impacts, than large scale farmers. In this case, the key 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

11

to reducing environmental impacts was the adoption of a more complex production 

system that introduced new, more timely field operations for fertilization and weed 

control. Medium- and small-scale farmers were inclined to adopt ridge till because their 

scale of production enabled them to complete these field operations within their 

corresponding production windows. In contrast, large-scale farmers had concluded that 

ridge till was too risky at their scale of production, citing the problem of meeting these 

new production window demands. As in the case of Mien strawberry production, ridge 

till producers were cutting per acre input costs (herbicide and nitrogen fertilizer) as a 

result of their superior ability to mobilize family labor on a timely basis. 

Social networks and the use of family labor also raise the issue of social 

sustainability. Though the use of family labor was the strongest factor in carving out a 

market niche for Mien growers in Sacramento, the work itself is backbreaking, and 

family members, especially children, do not always want to help out. Two growers 

complained of back pain during planting and harvest seasons due to repetitive bending 

and squatting motions. One grower described the way holes are punched in the plastic 

bed lining so that the strawberry plants can be placed in the ground. This task requires a 

gas-powered hole burner that is carried by the grower. The operation involves bending 

over and punching a metal cylinder through the plastic at regular intervals to burn a hole 

in the plastic lining, all the while 

carrying a tank of gas on one’s 

back. 

Social sustainability may also 

be in question not only because of 

the inherent physical toll of 

strawberry production, but because 

of the possibility of familial labor 

exploitation. When children and 

other younger family members feel 

pressured into helping in the fields, 

a wedge may be driven between 

the generations. Two of the 

growers talked briefly about the 

reluctance of their children to work 

in the field. With the widening 

generation gap of first and second 

generation Mien immigrants, the 

added pressure on children can be a 

source of familial conflict 

(Saephan 2001). 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

12

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This case study explains the process by which immigrant farmers get their start in 

California agriculture, using a direct marketing strategy based on roadside stands. Mien 

Strawberry production is particularly illustrative as it offers an interesting intersection of 

culture, social networks, and agricultural entrepreneurship, in which cultural ties organize 

economic activity. These ties afford the Mien entry into agriculture, serving as a 

mechanism of knowledge transfer and diffusion while enabling entrepreneurship among 

immigrants with no written language tradition or basic English skills. Moreover, there is 

the use of shared labor that is culturally mediated. Akin to the study of Silicon Valley 

and Route 128 (suburban Boston) by Saxenian (1992), we find that Laotian farmers use 

social networks to solve strategic problems and capitalize on their proximity to one 

another. However, there is a flip side to this coin. The social network also has the 

capacity to inhibit the incorporation of new knowledge and the diffusion of innovations, 

where social ties create a form of insular myopia (Powell and Smith-Doerr 1994; Uzzi 

1997). 

Although we discussed how cultural linkages affect the strawberry production 

process, marketing encompasses a different set of relations, i.e., those with consumers. 

Roadside stands provide farmers with limited English skills a way to sell strawberries and 

also to get a sense of the market through direct contact with their customers. These 

relationships put a “face” on agriculture, linking the consumer and the producer and 

tempering purely instrumental exchanges. As pointed out by Hinrichs (2000), 

agricultural direct marketing involves a combination of face-to-face embedded social 

relations and economic instrumentality. Though strong social and cultural ties may serve 

to support direct marketing activity and its associated small-scale agricultural production, 

they do not displace the essential economic relationships in which this activity is 

immersed. “Social ties, personal connections, and community good will,” writes 

Hinrichs, “are often appropriately seasoned by self-interest and a clear view of process.” 

Among the Mien strawberry growers we interviewed, this seemed to be the case. 

For example, migration patterns and farm entry are both affected by social linkages with 

clear cultural overtones. Moreover, the dissemination of information, its conversion to 

knowledge, and how kinship ties affect decision making are all intertwined with culture. 

It is these linkages and ties that give rise to the unique apprenticeship arrangements, 

where free labor is provided for relatives’ and/or friends’ farms. Since labor costs can 

make up 50 percent or more of total production costs, the apprentices provide a valuable, 

if not essential, service for growers. In turn, the apprentices receive vital training and 

experience not otherwise available to them, which helps facilitate the launching of similar 

directly marketed strawberry ventures. Also important are the Mien’s collective 

purchasing economies, which help to offset the high input costs of strawberry production. 

Nevertheless, it is not clear whether the strong kinship and community ties that exist 

among the Mien can be adequately reproduced over time. While farming provides 

channels for the hierarchical distribution of knowledge and skill sets to younger 

generations of Mien, which is important in their culture, fractures in intergenerational 

relations have begun to appear. It may be that these fractures may eventually lead the 

Mien to follow the path of the Japanese American strawberry farmers that preceded them. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

13

Regional development is also a dual-edged sword. While it has brought consumer 

markets in closer proximity to growers’ land, it is also likely to lead development 

interests to usurp the Mien. Local planning and land use will likely play a huge role in 

the strategic viability of micro-agriculture in the region. 

Related to this issue is the problem of environmental sustainability. It is not clear 

whether the smaller scale of Mien production, in concert with their alternative method of 

labor management, reduces the negative environmental impacts of strawberry production. 

Nevertheless, there is an opportunity for the adoption of more sustainable agricultural 

practices in this community. Growers are open, and sometimes eager, to learn and adopt 

new sustainable practices. One specifically mentioned the desire to become organically 

certified, since many of his customers had been asking for organic strawberries. But 

advice should be practical, have demonstrated success, and be accompanied by strong 

support along the way. That support may come in the form of financial help, translation 

and other assistance in filling out forms, or detailed and thorough help in taking 

advantage of existing resources. 

On a more general level, a strategy to assist the Mien should focus on overcoming 

the barriers that have made it difficult for them to obtain outside knowledge and skills. 

One consideration is for Cooperative Extension advisors to cultivate a more nuanced 

understanding of Mien culture and their unique situation in strawberry production. The 

two interviewees who had heard of Cooperative Extension repeated the complaint that 

Cooperative Extension gives advice that is “for big corporations” and is based on a model 

that is “too perfect.” Since growers repeated the desire to learn about sustainable and 

successful production practices, there is a need for Cooperative Extension to reach this 

population with practical, culturally sophisticated advice that takes into consideration the 

particular hardships of this community. 

The Mien community leader that was interviewed recommended that workshops and 

conferences be held more frequently and that they be more collaborative in nature. 

Translators should be provided because most Mien have limited English skills and 

written materials should be kept to a minimum. As stated previously, Mien culture has 

no real written language and places strong emphasis on the oral tradition. 

One possibility would be to hold meetings at a grower’s field site, for the purpose of 

demonstrations of new practices and opportunities for grower comments and discussion. 

These meetings ought to be viewed as an opportunity for Cooperative Extension to learn 

more about this group of growers so that they might better tailor future outreach and 

assistance efforts to the practical realities and financial limitations of Mien growers. 

The Mien community leader also emphasized the importance of “going into the 

community and building relationships with community leaders that can be used to gain 

meaningful access to growers, especially growers who are Mien clan leaders.” Venturing 

into the Mien community is a meaningful step in bridging the cultural barrier, as opposed 

to requesting that growers attend meetings in Agricultural Commissioner’s offices. 

Furthermore, building a relationship with a respected clan leader can provide an “in” to 

more successfully introducing new ideas. This is crucial, as we saw earlier the ways in 

which the hierarchy and cultural isolation of Mien culture can preclude the adoption of 

innovative production and/or marketing practices. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

14

All three growers were desperate to find new marketing outlets. Unfortunately, this 

is where agricultural agencies offer no support whatsoever. Even the Sacramento County 

Cooperative Extension advisor admitted his own lack of knowledge and background in 

marketing, while acknowledging Mien growers’ particular need in this area. Since there 

are no strawberry processors in the Sacramento area, growers need to find alternative 

ways of dealing with their surplus. One model that ought to be considered is the Hmong 

strawberry marketing cooperative being formed in the Fresno area (Ingels 2001). Hmong 

growers have formed a cooperative in order to sell to supermarkets and to local 

processing plants. The limitation of selling to processors is the low returns growers 

receive for their produce. However, cooperative marketing arrangements should be 

further explored, as there is the possibility of marketing to restaurants, schools, farmers’ 

markets, and supermarkets. The need for more marketing support is not unique to Mien 

growers, as most small farmers and direct marketers complain of the lack of outlets and 

support. 

In summary, this study supported the results of the direct marketing phone survey, 

while offering additional important insights. The Mien earn 100 percent of their farm 

income by marketing their produce directly to consumers through roadside stands. They 

knew of no other way they could sell their crops, and thus the viability of their operations 

depended entirely on the roadside stands. Direct marketing was also the only known 

vehicle for farm entry, especially given the limited English skills and relative cultural 

isolation of the Mien. 

The concept of embeddedness was utilized to analyze Mien socio-economic 

networks, and this proved to be useful in explaining the recent growth in Sacramento 

County Mien strawberry production. While farm entry was mediated by direct marketing 

opportunities, it was the social embeddedness of the Mien community that was largely 

responsible for so many new farm entries. More research should be done on the success 

of the Hmong strawberry producers in Fresno and the cooperative marketing networks 

they are forming, as these are likely to positively impact farm viability for all immigrant 

growers. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

15

REFERENCES 

Cooperative Extension. (1989). Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 

University of California. 

Granovetter, Mark (1985), “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of 

Embeddedness,” American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3), 481-510. 

Hinrichs, Clare C. “Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct 

agricultural market.” Journal of Rural Studies. July 2000, Vol. 16 Issue 3, 295-

303. 

Ingels, Chuck. (2001). Sacramento County Cooperative Extension Advisor. 

Interviewed on July 24, 2001. 

Lewis, Judy, et al. (1992). Minority Cultures of Laos: Kammu, Lua, Lahu, Hmong and 

Mien. Southeast Asian Culture and Education Foundation. 

Lighthall, David R. and Rebecca S. Roberts (1995). “Towards an Alternative Logic of 

Technological Change: Insights from Cornbelt Agriculture.” Journal of Rural 

Studies. 11(3), 319-334. 

Mathews, Rachel. (2000). “Cultural Patterns of South Asian and Southeast Asian 

Americans.” Intervention in School & Clinic. Nov., 2000, Vol. 36 Issue 2, pp. 

101-105. 

Powell, Walter and Laurel Smith-Doerr. (1994). “Networks and Economic Life.” In Neal 

Smelzer and Richard Swedberg, Eds., The Handbook of Economic Sociology. 

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 368-402. 

Saephan, Kevin. (2001). United Iu-Mien Community, Inc. Interviewed on December 

10, 2001. 

Saxenian, AnnaLee (1994), Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon 

Valley and Route 128, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Schnitt, Paul. (2001). “A New Crop of Farmers: Sacramento’s Laotian strawberry 

growers revive an old tradition.” Sacramento Bee. May 10, 2001. 

Spradley, James P. (1979), The Ethnographic Interview, New York: Holt, Rinehart, & 

Winston. 

Stockwin, Will. (2001). Media and Outreach Coordinator at the Community Alliance 

with Family Farmers (CAFF). Interviewed in November, 2001. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

16

Uzzi, Brian (1997). “Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: the 

Paradox of Embeddedness.” Administrative Science Quarterly. 42(1), 35-67. 

Wells, Miriam J. (1996). Strawberry Fields: Politics, Class, and Work in California 

Agriculture. Cornell University Press. 

Wernerfelt, Birger (1984) “The Resource-based View of the Firm." Strategic 

Management Journal, 5: 171-80. 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

17

APPENDIX 

Direct Marketing Case Study 

Interview Guide

First, I thought we’d start off by talking about farming and your farm. 

 

1. What are your thoughts on farming? Why do you farm rather than making a living 

another way? 

• Have your reasons for farming changed since you began, or since you came 

to this country? 

• Before you came here, did you have any previous farming experience? 

2. How would you describe this farm? 

• Are you the primary farmer on this farm? (Who does what work on the 

farm? Do you supply all the labor on the farm? Do you share decision 

making with a partner?) 

• How long have you been farming on this farm? 

• How much do you produce? 

• How much income do you make from the farm? 

• What are your goals for your farm? 

3. How did you get started farming strawberries in Sacramento? 

• Once you decided to produce strawberries, how did you figure out how to set 

up your operation? 

• Did you start farming with strawberries, or some other crop? 

• How much do other strawberry farmers help you out? How? 

• How much have you grown? How much do you want to grow? 

• Do you plan to diversify in terms of crops grown, industry sector (processing, 

etc.) and/or marketing strategy? 

4. I don’t know much about strawberry production. Could you tell us about the 

strawberry production cycle? What are the steps or phases that you go through 

during the year? 

• Soil preparation 

• Planting 

• Dealing with weeds/pests. Use chemicals? 

• Harvest 

• Packing 

• Marketing/selling 

• What proportion of costs account for land? Labor? 

5. Tell us about your household and family. 

• How many people live in your household? 
CIRS Immigrant Agricultural Entrepreneurship 

18

• Who works off farm? Where? 

• What proportion of income and what proportion of work is done off farm? 

• How many hours does your family spend working on the farm during the 

year? 

• Do you have to pay them? 

6. Tell us the story of how you and your family got here to the U.S. and to California? 

• Age? 

• Where did you/they come from specifically? 

• What year did you/they come? 

• Who did you/they come with? 

7. What do you think about the role of agricultural research and extension services? 

• In what ways is it positive? 

• In what ways is it negative? 

8. Tell us about how you market your product? 

• Finding a good location 

• Signage 

• Competition 

• Regulations 

• Are there things you would like to do in the future? Why aren’t you doing 

those things yet? 

9. What would you do differently if you could? What is your ideal farming situation? 

Why aren’t you doing those things now? 

• Hired labor or family? 

• Chemicals or sustainable? 

• Scale? 

• Shared resources/collaborative practices? 

• Buy or lease land? 

Thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it. As we are reviewing our 

notes, if we come across anything that seems unclear, would it be ok if we call you in the 

near future just to clarify our notes? Thank you