Agriculture in the Southeast Region of Washington

For Printer-Friendly pdf version click here.
(Free Adobe Acrobat Reader required, download here)

Marketing Methods Used in 2001 (percentage using each strategy)
		Southeast Region	State-Wide
-	Wholesale Buyers, Brokers	37.08	47.40
-	Grocery Stores	2.30	6.40
-	Growers’ Cooperatives	60.23	25.73
-	Farmers’ Markets	2.30	8.28
-	Direct Sales (Catalogs/Internet)	9.09	8.54
-	Community Supported Agriculture	0.00	1.79
-	Roadside Stands/Farm Stores	6.82	12.19
-	U-Pick Sales	1.14	6.83
-	Food Cooperative	3.41	2.31
-	Production/Marketing Contract	32.58	14.36
-	Institutional (schools, etc.)	2.27	1.88
-	Restaurants	1.14	3.32
-	Retained Ownership	4.55	6.60
-	Other	15.12	29.31

Farm Products Grown/Produced in 2001 (percentage growing each commodity)
		Southeast Region	State-Wide
-	Fresh Vegetables	9.09	10.05
-	Fresh Fruits	2.30	28.16
-	Fruits/Vegetables for Processing	7.95	10.53
-	Grains	69.32	17.15
-	Hay	23.86	28.60
-	Ornamentals (Flowers, Bulbs, etc.)	0.00	7.31
-	Eggs and/or Poultry	2.27	4.51
-	Dairy Products (milk, cheese)	0.00	2.98
-	Cattle and/or Cows	25.00	34.92
-	Hogs	4.55	3.15
-	Sheep	3.41	3.32
-	Goats	3.41	2.21
-	Value-Added Products (jams, etc.)	2.30	2.05
-	Other	25.00	16.62

Strategies to be Attempted in 2002-2004 (percentage choosing each strategy)
		Southeast Region	State-Wide
-	More Direct Marketing to Consumers	15.73	25.13
-	Diversify Products Grown on Farm	26.97	23.85
-	Explore Greenhouse Production	1.12	6.39
-	Add On-Farm Packing/Processing	4.49	4.86
-	Join Producers’ Cooperative	3.37	5.45
-	Market Directly to Stores/Restaurants	3.37	7.16
-	Use Product Labeling (e.g. “green”)	6.74	5.88
-	Other Strategy	22.47	17.21
-	NO RESPONSE	56.18	60.14

Farming Practices Used in 2001 (percentage using each practice)
		Southeast Region	State-Wide
-	Crop Rotation	74.70	32.06
-	Vegetative Buffer Strips	26.25	18.28
-	Reduced Tillage	58.54	21.50
-	Direct Seeding/No-till	46.84	13.79
-	Intercropping /Companion Planting	2.56	7.19
-	Cover Crops	8.64	23.02
-	On-Farm Composting	5.00	21.45
-	Apply Compost/Organic Materials	8.64	27.27
-	Fertilize at Agronomic Rates	67.50	49.82
-	Mulch Using Organic Materials	11.11	18.51
-	Use Manure as Fertilizer	17.28	42.40
-	Water/Soil Moisture Monitoring	37.50	32.47
-	Soil Conservation/Erosion Control	85.37	43.32
-	Soil Nutrient Testing	67.90	45.83
-	Release of Beneficial Predators	18.99	9.52
-	Pheromones	3.90	15.18
-	Monitoring Pest Populations	39.74	42.37
-	Intensive Rotational Grazing	22.78	22.16
-	Tillage for Weed Control	55.56	37.81
-	Precision Agriculture with GPS	12.66	6.89

Attitudes Toward Marketing and Farm Policy (percentage of Those Who Neither Agree nor Disagree are not given)
		Southeast Region		State-Wide
		Agree	Disagree	Agree	Disagree
-	Labeling products as “Grown in WA” would benefit producers	72.62	5.95	77.22	5.63
-	Biggest threat to my farm’s viability is falling prices	75.58	11.90	73.86	12.68
-	Free Trade Agreements will help my farm be profitable	36.90	42.86	21.91	45.50
-	Government-supported agriculture programs should be targeted to small/medium farms	66.66	14.28	68.23	14.39
-	“Buy Local” campaign could increase consumption of local products	45.58	21.69	57.22	13.82
-	Maintaining family farms is important to County’s future	89.42	4.71	86.60	4.82
-	Need is greater than ever for Public Ag. Research and Extension	67.06	10.59	63.79	11.45
-	Private Agribusiness can replace most University Research and Extension	15.29	61.35	13.03	56.38
-	In-County consumers should have more local foods made available	45.78	9.63	57.08	6.32
-	Direct Marketing is effective for keeping farms viable in my county	53.57	14.28	60.96	11.09
-	Significant demand exists for organic ag. products in Washington	27.06	35.29	39.43	23.18
-	Extension programs benefited my farm business	69.06	11.76	59.05	14.21

Level of Involvement in Farm Related Organizations from 1999-2001 (percentage of Those Who Are Not Involved are not given)
		Southeast Region		State-Wide
		Somewhat	Very	Somewhat	Very
-	Farm Bureau	24.10	4.82	21.53	3.63
-	Commodity Commission	12.82	8.97	8.86	3.41
-	Grange	21.79	5.13	13.53	2.93
-	Growers’ Association	43.90	17.07	24.67	12.43
-	Growers’ Cooperative	39.51	20.99	18.95	11.62
-	Farmers’ Market Association	6.41	2.56	6.80	3.59
-	Other Farm Organizations	2.56	3.85	2.94	3.60

Attitudes Toward Farming and Environmental Issues (percentage of Those Who Neither Agree nor Disagree are not given)
		Southeast Region		State-Wide
		Agree	Disagree	Agree	Disagree
-	Environmental Regulations have negative impact on farming practices	79.07	11.63	74.26	12.52
-	Farmers’ Contributions to land stewardship are appreciated by public	29.07	59.30	28.60	53.51
-	Environmental Risks of GMOs are not well understood	79.76	8.33	69.18	8.04
-	Farmers should be paid for participation in wildlife programs	79.76	11.63	73.78	9.35
-	Local Gov’t should restrict non-ag. development in key ag. areas	77.91	16.48	65.82	19.02
-	Land should be farmed to protect long-term productive capacity	61.90	21.42	59.31	19.16
-	Consumer Concerns about GMOs outweigh overall benefits of their use	29.42	47.06	27.66	35.64
-	If a GMO were available in one of my commodities, I would try it	49.40	22.89	41.75	25.69
-	To protect against urban sprawl, ag. land restrictions will be needed	50.59	37.65	43.57	43.22
-	Farmers should be compensated if restricted from selling ag. land	74.12	16.47	81.03	9.97

Information Sources Accessed by Farmers During 2001 (percentage of Those Who Do Not Access a Particular Source are not given)
		Southeast Region		State-Wide
		Once or Twice	>Twice	Once or Twice	>Twice
-	Other Growers/Farm Managers