Marketing Methods Used in 2001
(percentage using each strategy)

Urban Puget Sound

State-Wide

-

Wholesale Buyers, Brokers

30.00

47.40

-

Grocery Stores

4.38

6.40

-

Growers’ Cooperatives

10.62

25.73

-

Farmers’ Markets

12.50

8.28

-

Direct Sales (Catalogs/Internet)

9.38

8.54

-

Community Supported Agriculture

3.77

1.79

-

Roadside Stands/Farm Stores

20.13

12.19

-

U-Pick Sales

12.58

6.83

-

Food Cooperative

1.26

2.31

-

Production/Marketing Contract

3.80

14.36

-

Institutional (schools, etc.)

1.89

1.88

-

Restaurants

5.03

3.32

-

Retained Ownership

4.43

6.60

-

Other

49.70

29.31

Farm Products Grown/Produced in 2001
(percentage growing each commodity)

Urban Puget Sound

State-Wide

-

Fresh Vegetables

 13.84

10.05

-

Fresh Fruits

10.69

28.16

-

Fruits/Vegetables for Processing

0.00

10.53

-

Grains

0.00

17.15

-

Hay

20.75

28.60

-

Ornamentals (Flowers, Bulbs, etc.)

18.24

7.31

-

Eggs and/or Poultry

10.69

4.51

-

Dairy Products (milk, cheese)

4.43

2.98

-

Cattle and/or Cows

41.77

34.92

-

Hogs

5.73

3.15

-

Sheep

5.06

3.32

-

Goats

2.53

2.21

-

Value-Added Products (jams, etc.)

3.85

2.05

-

Other

25.15

16.62

Strategies to be Attempted in 2002-2004
(percentage choosing each strategy)

Urban Puget Sound

State-Wide

-

More Direct Marketing to Consumers

38.27

25.13

-

Diversify Products Grown on Farm

17.28

23.85

-

Explore Greenhouse Production

10.49

6.39

-

Add On-Farm Packing/Processing

3.09

4.86

-

Join Producers’ Cooperative

1.23

5.45

-

Market Directly to Stores/Restaurants

7.41

7.16

-

Use Product Labeling (e.g. “green”)

4.94

5.88

-

Other Strategy

12.96

17.21

-

NO RESPONSE

65.43

60.14

Farming Practices Used in 2001
(percentage using each practice)

Urban Puget Sound

State-Wide

-

Crop Rotation

17.53

32.06

-

Vegetative Buffer Strips

24.52

18.28

-

Reduced Tillage

7.89

21.50

-

Direct Seeding/No-till

16.99

13.79

-

Intercropping /Companion Planting

7.14

7.19

-

Cover Crops

15.03

23.02

-

On-Farm Composting

39.74

21.45

-

Apply Compost/Organic Materials

42.59

27.27

-

Fertilize at Agronomic Rates

31.58

49.82

-

Mulch Using Organic Materials

23.23

18.51

-

Use Manure as Fertilizer

64.29

42.40

-

Water/Soil Moisture Monitoring

12.34

32.47

-

Soil Conservation/Erosion Control

24.18

43.32

-

Soil Nutrient Testing

20.00

45.83

Release of Beneficial Predators

9.80

9.52

Pheromones

3.25

15.18

Monitoring Pest Populations

25.97

42.37

Intensive Rotational Grazing

33.77

22.16

Tillage for Weed Control

29.87

37.81

Precision Agriculture with GPS

2.00

6.89

Attitudes Toward Marketing and Farm Policy
(percentage of Those Who Neither Agree nor Disagree are not given)

Urban Puget Sound

State-Wide

Agree

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

-

Labeling products as “Grown in WA” would benefit producers

74.83

      6.62

77.22

5.63

-

Biggest threat to my farm’s viability is falling prices

47.72

    21.67

73.86

12.68

-

Free Trade Agreements will help my farm be profitable

9.34

    38.67

21.91

45.50

-

Government-supported agriculture programs should be targeted to small/medium farms

67.76

    10.53

68.23

14.39

-

“Buy Local” campaign could increase consumption of local products

66.67

      7.34

57.22

13.82

-

Maintaining family farms is important to County’s future

80.39

      7.19

86.60

4.82

-

Need is greater than ever for Public Ag. Research and Extension

63.33

      7.34

63.79

11.45

-

Private Agribusiness can replace most University Research and Extension

7.90

    58.55

13.03

56.38

-

In-County consumers should have more local foods made available

67.79

      5.36

57.08

6.32

-

Direct Marketing is effective for keeping farms viable in my county

76.66

      2.67

60.96

11.09

-

Significant demand exists for organic ag. products in Washington

57.72

    10.74

39.43

23.18

-

Extension programs benefited my farm business

52.63

    15.13

59.05

14.21

Level of Involvement in Farm Related Organizations from 1999-2001
(percentage of Those Who Are Not Involved are not given)

Urban Puget Sound

State-Wide

Somewhat

Very

Somewhat

Very

-

Farm Bureau

8.28

3.45

21.53

3.63

-

Commodity Commission

2.10

0.70

8.86

3.41

-

Grange

12.08

2.01

13.53

2.93

-

Growers’ Association

13.61

6.80

24.67

12.43

-

Growers’ Cooperative

4.14

2.76

18.95

11.62

-

Farmers’ Market Association

6.90

4.83

6.80

3.59

-

Other Farm Organizations

4.70

5.37

2.94

3.60

Attitudes Toward Farming and Environmental Issues
(percentage of Those Who Neither Agree nor Disagree are not given)

Urban Puget Sound

State-Wide

Agree

Disagree

Agree

Disagree

-

Environmental Regulations have negative impact on farming practices

68.25

13.52

74.26

12.52

-

Farmers’ Contributions to land stewardship are appreciated by public

40.27

46.98

28.60

53.51

-

Environmental Risks of GMOs are not well understood

67.63

6.71

69.18

8.04

-

Farmers should be paid for participation in wildlife programs

76.15

7.95

73.78

9.35

-

Local Gov’t should restrict non-ag. development in key ag. areas

77.33

12.00

65.82

19.02

-

Land should be farmed to protect long-term productive capacity

64.90

9.93

59.31

19.16

-

Consumer Concerns about GMOs outweigh overall benefits of their use

32.19

24.65

27.66

35.64

-

If a GMO were available in one of my commodities, I would try it

34.69

29.25

41.75

25.69

-

To protect against urban sprawl, ag. land restrictions will be needed

51.65

30.47

43.57

43.22

-

Farmers should be compensated if restricted from selling ag. land

84.32

7.84

81.03

9.97

Information Sources Accessed by Farmers During 2001
(percentage of Those Who Do Not Access a Particular Source are not given)

Urban Puget Sound

State-Wide

Once or Twice

>Twice

Once or Twice

>Twice

-

Other Growers/Farm Managers

24.67

38.67

27.70

45.52

-

Private Consultants

14.59

5.56

15.62

17.74

-

Commodity/Grower Associations

14.09

6.34

26.06

17.79

-

WSU Co-operative Extension

27.78

8.33

36.25

18.97

-

Farm Supply Dealer/Ag. Business

39.19

18.92

30.77

46.65

-

Farm Newspapers/Magazines/etc.

31.30

38.78

30.18

45.65

-

State Department of Agriculture

14.69

4.90

24.66

8.64

-

Farm Bureau

10.49

4.90

15.52

7.66

-

Natural Resource Conservation Svc.

8.33

4.86

18.24

7.51

-

Banker/Financial Consultant

5.56

4.86

16.86

10.66

-

Legal Consultant

9.02

4.86

18.43

7.27

-

Television/Radio

6.90

4.83

14.58

10.69

Internet

13.11

24.14

16.93

25.26

Size of Farm Operations in 2001
(in average number of acres)

Urban Puget Sound

State-Wide

-

Acres Owned and Operated

49.60

287.06

-

Acres Rented and Operated

15.50

273.25

-

TOTAL ACRES OPERATED

63.52

561.41

-

Acres Certified as Organic

0.78

2.55

-

Acres in Transition to Organic

0.73

1.82

-

Acres Managed Organically but NOT Certified

9.30

19.49

Percentage of Farmers Who Use Following Types of Labor on Their Farms in 2001
(percentage utilizing each labor type)

Urban Puget Sound

State-Wide

-

Non-Paid Family Members

67.91

61.08

-

Paid Family Members

31.86

40.88

-

Interns or Apprentices

5.88

2.25

-

Non-Family, Seasonal, Temporary

42.02

59.05

-

Non-Family, Year-Round, Permanent

16.67

28.11

Percentage of Farmers With Selected Background Characteristics
(percentage with each characteristic)

Urban Puget Sound

State-Wide

-

Parents farmed during own childhood

61.01

71.59

-

Worked full-time, non-farm job before farming

82.80

76.05

-

Currently operates parent’s farm

27.67

42.03

Self-Description of Size of Own Farm
(column totals 100 percent)

Urban Puget Sound

State-Wide

-

Small

88.68

75.39

-

Medium

10.69

21.48

-

Large

0.63

3.13

Distribution of Farms by Total Farm Receipts in 2001
(column totals 100 percent)

Urban Puget Sound

State-Wide

-

Less than $2,500

19.87

11.33

-

$2,500 to $24,999

53.21

35.40

-

$25,000 to $49,999

6.41

10.80

$50,000 to $99,999

7.69

9.65

$100,000 to $249,000

4.49

15.13

$250,000 to $499,999

3.85

8.23

$500,000 or more

4.49

9.47