Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:43:23.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Economic Viability of Commercial Fresh Vegetable Production in the Northeastern United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

John W. Wysong ,
Mary G. Leigh  and
Pradeep Ganguly
John W. Wysong
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Mary G. Leigh
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Pradeep Ganguly
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Get access

Abstract

The Northeast region with nearly 25 percent of the U.S. population and purchasing power in 1983 is a deficit region in both processing and fresh market vegetable crops. This study explores the underlying factors in the long post-World War II decline in Northeastern vegetable production. It evaluates the economic viability of small-scale, family operated vegetable farms with emphasis on Maryland and the Baltimore-Washington Wholesale Market outlet near Jessup, Maryland.

Preliminary results of our study indicate that, under certain conditions, small-scale family farms can grow and commercially market fresh-market vegetables at competitive prices, and generate healthy cash flows. The optimum mix of crops would include up to three, non-competing crop sequences, with four different vegetable crops including spinach, snap beans, tomatoes and broccoli. Family (owner-operator) labor was found to be a major resource constraint on volume of vegetables marketed, especially tomatoes. Potentials for future expansion in selected crops seem to exist with improved technology and better management.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , April 1984 , pp. 65 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Assistance from personnel of the Md. Coop. Ext. Service was received in this study. This included collecting the farm organization and operation data from vegetable farms in the study areas.

References

Ahmad, Imtiaz. Risk Analysis and Optimum Cropping Combination Plans for Small Farmers In The Somerset and Wicomico Counties of Maryland, MD 952. Maryland Agr. Expt. Sta., October 1980.Google Scholar
Brandt, Jon A., and French, Ben C. “Mechanical Harvesting and the California Tomato Industry: A Simulation Analysis,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(1983): 265–272.Google Scholar
Dhillon, Pritam S. An Economic Analysis of Fresh Vegetable Farms In Southern New Jersey. A.E. 377 pp. 62. New Jersey Agr. Expt. Stat., Cook College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 1980.Google Scholar
Hall, B. F., and LeVeen, P. E. “Farm Size and Economic Efficiency: The Case of California,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60(1978): 589–600.Google Scholar
Hanson, G. D., and Eidman, E. “Farm Size Evaluation in the El Paso Valley: Comment,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(1983): 340–343.Google Scholar
Harwood, Richard R., and Patrick Madden, J. Research Agenda For The Transition to A Regenerative Food System. The Cornucopia Project of the Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA, 1982.Google Scholar
Hightower, Jim. Hard Tomatoes Hard Times. Schenkman Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA, 1973.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. “Labor Market Policies and Institutions in an Industrializing Agriculture,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(1982): 999–1006.Google Scholar
Huffman, Wallace E. “International Trade in Labor vs. Commodities: U.S.-Mexican Agriculture, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64 (1982): 989–998.Google Scholar
Kerr, Howard W.J., and Knutson, Lloyd. Editors. Research for Small Farms, Proceedings of the Special Symposium, USDA. ARS, MP 1422, July 1982.Google Scholar
Leigh, Mary G. An Analysis of Present Trends in Fresh Vegetable Production in the Northeastern United States With Special Emphasis on Farms in 1982. (M.S. Thesis, Graduate School, U. of MD. College Park, Campus, Dec. 1982).Google Scholar
Lipton, Weiner J. “Interpretation of Quality Evaluations of Horticultural Crops,” American Society For Horticultural Science, 15(1980): pp. 64–66.Google Scholar
Madden, J. Patrick, and Partenheimer, Earl J., “Evidence of Economies and Diseconomies of Farm Size,” Size, Structure and Future of Farms. Gordon Ball, A. E. and Heady, Earl O., editors. Iowa State University Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Ames, Iowa, 1972.Google Scholar
Seckler, David, and Young, Robert A. “Economic and Policy Implications of the 180 Acre Limitation in Federal Reclamation Law.” American Journal of Agricultural Ecnomics, 60(1978): 575–588.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Robert O. “New Directions for Research in the 1980's.” Journal of the Northeastern Agr. Econ. Council, IX, (1980): 14–17.Google Scholar
Tyrell, Timothy J., Anderson, Glen D., and Weaver, Thomas P. “Is Self-Sufficiency A Legitimate Goal for Northeast Agriculture?” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, XI, (1982): 47–51.Google Scholar
Wysong, John W., and Porter, Roy D. Organization and Operation of Commercial Vegetable Farms on the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland. MP No. 485. University of Maryland Agr. Expt. Station, May 1963.Google Scholar