Page 1

Give to AgEcon Search

The World’s Largest Open Access Agricultural & Applied Economics Digital Library

This document is discoverable and free to researchers across the

globe due to the work of AgEcon Search.

Help ensure our sustainability.

AgEcon Search

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu

aesearch@umn.edu

Papers downloaded from AgEcon Search may be used for non-commercial purposes and personal study only.

No other use, including posting to another Internet site, is permitted without permission from the copyright

owner (not AgEcon Search), or as allowed under the provisions of Fair Use, U.S. Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S.C.

New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station

P-02903-1-07

May 2007

Survey Methods and Identification of Ethnic

Crops for the East Coast in the USA: A

Procedural Synopsis

Ramu Govindasamy

Richard VanVranken

William Sciarappa

Albert Ayeni

Venkata S. Puduri

Kim Pappas

James E. Simon

Frank Mangan

Mary Lamberts

and

Gene McAvoy

Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics

Rutgers Cooperative Extension

New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station

School of Environmental and Biological Sciences

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901

May 2007

This project was supported by the National Research Initiative (NRI) of the Cooperative

State Research, Education and Extension Service, United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA), Award # 2005-35618-15735.

Survey Methods and Identification of Ethnic

Crops for the East Coast in the USA: A

Procedural Synopsis

Ramu Govindasamy

1

, Richard VanVranken

2

, William Sciarappa

2

,

Albert Ayeni

3

,Venkata S. Puduri

1

, Kim Pappas

1

, James E. Simon

4

,

Frank Mangan

5

, Mary Lamberts

6

, and Gene McAvoy

7

1

Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Rutgers University, New

Brunswick, NJ 08901;

2

Department of Agriculture and Resource Management Agents,

Rutgers Cooperative Extension, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901;

3

International Programs, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901;

4

New Use

Agriculture and Natural Plant Products Program, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ

08901;

5

Department of Plant, Soil & Insect Sciences, Amherst, MA 01003;

6

Florida

Cooperative Extension, Homestead, FL 33030;

7

Florida Cooperative Extension, LaBelle,

FL 33975.

Correspondence Address

Dr. Ramu Govindasamy.

Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

55 Dudley Road

New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520

Tel.: (732) 932-9155 ext.254

FAX: (732) 932-8887

E-mail address: govindasamy@AESOP.rutgers.edu

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge several individuals who contributed valuable expertise and

guidance to the progress of the project. At the University of Maryland, we appreciate the

inputs of Stephan Tubene, Agricultural Economist, Coordinator of the Small Farm

Institute, and State Coordinator of Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension

Service (CSREES) – USDA Small Farm Programs. We also recognize the valuable

contributions from Rutgers Food Innovation Center (FIC) and Interregional Research

Project No. 4 (IR-4) and most notably, the respective marketing and crop expertise of

Diane D. Holtaway, Associate Director and Hong Chen, Chair - International Crop

Grouping Consulting Committee. These university partners made significant

contributions in the initial consumer survey development, specifically in the ethnic crop

identification and selection process. We acknowledge the Language Institute at Rutgers

and, in particular, Professors R. Van Ness Simmons and Phyllis Zatlin for their assistance

in securing translators from their respective Asian and Spanish language departments to

prepare bilingual versions of the ethnic consumer surveys. Morris Gbolo, Brian Hulme,

and Vivian Quinn of Rutgers Cooperative Extension are recognized and appreciated for

their field trial management. We also thank Drs. Chung Park and Qing-Li Wu of Rutgers

Plant Biology and Pathology for their valuable assistance and support relative to Asian

ethnic crops.

This project was supported by the National Research Initiative (NRI) of the Cooperative

State Research, Education and Extension Service, United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA), Award # 2005-35618-15735. The opinions expressed in the article

are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official positions or policies of the

USDA, NRI,, Rutgers University, University of Florida, or University of Massachusetts.

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 2

List of Tables.............................................................................................................................. 3

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 4

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 8

2. Research Approach................................................................................................................. 9

3. ETHNIC CONSUMER SURVEY ....................................................................................... 12

3.1. Sample and Method ........................................................................................................... 12

3.2. Implementation and Outcomes .......................................................................................... 14

3.3. Design; Sequence and Content .......................................................................................... 18

3.4. Data Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 20

4. CROP SELECTION PROCESS .......................................................................................... 20

4.1. Identify Ethnic Crops of Interest; 100+ Crops................................................................... 21

4.2. Assess Demand and Supply/Production Potential; 42 crops ............................................. 22

4.3. Prioritize Production Research; 28 Crops.......................................................................... 23

4.4. Develop Production Plot Plans; 12 Research and 16 Demo Crops ................................... 32

5. ETHNIC CROP PRODUCTION AND RESEARCH PROGRAM..................................... 35

5.1. Production Trials................................................................................................................ 35

5.2. Case Studies....................................................................................................................... 36

5.3. Outreach............................................................................................................................. 36

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH............. 37

References ................................................................................................................................ 38

Appendix: Ethnic Consumer Survey Questionnaire ................................................................ 39

List of Tables

Page

Table 3.1. East Coast Ethnic Populations.....................................................................................13

Table 3.2. Ethnic Consumer Survey Respondent Summary.........................................................16

Table 3.3. Ethnic Consumer Survey Administration....................................................................17

Table 4.1. Chinese Ethnic Produce Survey Ranking ....................................................................24

Table 4.2. Asian Indian Ethnic Produce Survey Ranking ............................................................25

Table 4.3. Mexican Ethnic Produce Survey Ranking...................................................................26

Table 4.4. Puerto Rican Ethnic Produce Survey Ranking ............................................................27

Table 4.5. Prioritization Process; Proposed Production Crops.....................................................30

Table 4.6. Selected Crops for Production Plots............................................................................34

List of Figures

Page

Figure 2.1. Recent U.S. Population Growth Rates .......................................................................10

Figure 2.2. Projected Trends in U.S. Population ..........................................................................11

Figure 4.1. Crop Selection Process...............................................................................................21

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The rapid expansion of ethnic populations presents significant opportunities for fruit and

vegetable producers along the East Coast to take advantage of their close proximity to

densely populated areas. This study was undertaken to document and quantify the

current market for selected ethnic vegetables and assess the demand so farmers may grow

crops targeted from a demand perspective. The project has two phases; Phase I and II.

Phase I includes assessment and quantification of ethnic market demand to focus

production efforts in the subsequent phase. Phase II utilizes the demand findings to

develop production trials, grower recommendations, and strategies to coordinate year-

round production of select ethnic crops to serve this market niche. The procedural

synopsis contained in this publication documents the survey methods and crop

identification processes used to identify and quantify the market, assess demand, and

select appropriate crops for production trials. It provides an overview of the market-first

approach and interdependency of Phase I and II necessary to address the existing local

supply-demand gap.

The specific ethnic market subjects of study were the Asian and Hispanic segments,

chosen for their strong recent growth and continued growth expectations. The top two

sub-groups within each of these segments were chosen for the study; Chinese and Asian

Indian (Asian sub-groups) and Puerto Rican and Mexican (Hispanic sub-groups). The

geographic focus is the East Coast and includes Washington D.C. and sixteen states

bordering the East Coast. A statistically representative sampling of consumers from each

of the four ethnic sub-groups in area was gathered via a stratified sampling method.

Bilingual phone surveys were developed and administered and 1,084 completed surveys

were collected to assess ethnic produce demand, quantify the current market, and acquire

purchase data for ethnic crops to prioritize selections for production trials.

The ethnic crops of interest were identified through a selection process that began with a

crop expert panel review of an initial list of over 100 ethnic crops to select 42 produce

items for inclusion in the ethnic consumer survey questionnaire. Results of the survey of

271 randomly selected East Coast consumers from each of the four ethnic groups were

used to rank the crops included in the questionnaire, within ethnicity, according to

expenditure and/or purchase data. Multiple criteria were established to rank produce

items and allow for comparisons across produce items of various unit types (i.e. pounds,

bunches, and numbers). The surveyed demand criteria included average expenditures,

frequency of purchase, and volume of purchase. In addition to the surveyed demand,

crops were also evaluated for production research potential (research interest, yield

potential, and anticipated cost effectiveness) by production trial participants in three

states. A combined assessment (actual survey demand and estimated production

potential) was particularly important in cases where a single systematic demand approach

(comparison) was not sufficient to distinguish between crops for research prioritization

purposes.

The result of the production research prioritization process based upon primarily survey

demand, combined with production considerations, yielded a targeted list of 28 (of 42)

crops recommended for production trials. Logistical concerns (space, labor and budget

constraints) drove decisions to limit the number of replicated crops to twelve and include

crops of similar species suited for production on black plastic mulch with drip irrigation

systems. Species with cross-ethnic demand were given higher priority for replication to

maximize the return on research efforts. Also, despite not using the most appropriate

production system for them, the crops with the highest overall survey rank from each of

the ethnic groups was included to ensure that the crops with the highest demand from

each group were represented, once the cross-ethnic list had been exhausted. The same

underlying factors that supported the decisions for replicated trial selections also

contributed to the selection of ten crops for demonstration trials (incremental research

benefits, seed availability, and survey demand).

Demonstration and research trials are already underway and will ultimately be

established at six sites located in three states along the East Coast (two in Florida, one in

Massachusetts, and three in New Jersey). Trials are to be conducted at each location for

two seasons. Due to varying climates, production seasons vary from site to site and

special attention to variations in yield and quality of produce, as may be affected by

season and geographic location, is warranted. Crop quality and yield parameters will be

evaluated statistically to determine suitability for commercial production and develop

recommendations for geographic sequencing of production, by month/season, to sustain a

twelve month production supply in the eastern United States. Information from the

production trials will be combined with case study findings to make final crop

recommendations and communicated accordingly to East Coast farmers. Completion of

the second phase of the study is targeted for 2009.

1. Introduction

Economic opportunities have arisen in the last decade for specialty crop agriculture

catering to the ethnically diverse consumers along the eastern coast of the United States

(Govindasamy et al. 2006; Mendonca et al. 2006; Sciarappa, 2001-2003; Tubene, 2001).

United States Census data show average population increases of 13% from 1990 to 2000

as compared to 48% for Asians and 58% for Hispanic (Census 1990, 2000). The ethnic

population boom along the East Coast is even more pronounced. In ethnically diverse

population hubs such as the Northeast Region, the Asian population growth reached 60%.

Similarly growing Hispanics concentrations are geographically dispersed along the East

Coast, with just five states (FL, GA, NY, NC, and NJ) accounting for over one fifth of the

nation’s Hispanic population growth and yielding a combined growth rate of 59%. The

rapid expansion of ethnic populations presents significant opportunities for fruit and

vegetable producers in the region to take advantage of their close proximity to densely

populated areas. To help East Coast farmers remain economically viable, this U.S.

Department of Agriculture, National Research Initiative study was undertaken to

document and quantify the current market for selected ethnic vegetables. Assessing

demand allows farmers to target crops with the highest potential return.

A survey based on random sampling was prepared for four predominant and growing

ethnic groups, specifically; Chinese, Indian, Mexican and Puerto Rican. Two hundred

seventy one East Coast residents were interviewed from each selected ethnicity totaling

1,084 samples. Crop production experts along the East Coast from Florida to

Massachusetts narrowed a potential list of over 100 fruits and vegetables based upon

production and climatic criteria. Bilingual surveys of the ethnic consumers from the

identified groups indicated food crop purchasing preferences of the top 10-12 crops for

each group which helped refine selections for field trialing.

The general objectives of the overall study are to:

1) identify and estimate the market size for ethnic segments that present significant

opportunities to regional growers;

2) assess demand, conduct production studies, and make production

recommendations for appropriate ethnic produce items for this market; and

3) develop strategies and production timelines to coordinate year-round production

of select ethnic crops to exploit this market niche.

The intended outcome of the project is to generate and distribute science-based

information about production, marketability, and utilization of selected ethnic food crops

and herbs. This initiative bridges the supply-demand gap, delivering practical solutions

to economic problems faced by many vegetable growers, and contributes to the

nutritional and health needs of regional consumers.

The procedural synopsis contained in this publication documents the survey methods and

crop identification processes used to identify and quantify the market, assess demand, and

select appropriate crops for production trials in order to address the supply-demand gap

(Phase I of overall project). The balance of the overall project objectives which include

production crop recommendations, strategies, and timelines (Phase II) will be provided in

a separate publication, after production trials are completed, to deliver science-based

supply-side recommendations.

2. Research Approach

National trends. Opportunities to capture anticipated market growth in certain ethnic

markets were identified, specifically for ethnic market segments growing at faster rates

than their ethnic and/or non-ethnic counterparts and for which growth is expected to

continue. The primary groups meeting these criteria included Asians and Hispanics

(recent rate of growth; Fig. 2.1. and continued growth expectations; Fig. 2.2.). The top

two sub-groups within each of these segments were chosen for the study; Chinese and

Asian Indian (Asian sub-groups) and Puerto Rican and Mexican (Hispanic sub-groups).

Figure 2.1. Recent U.S. Population Growth Rates

U.S. Population Growth Rates

by Race and Hispanic Origin

6%

19%

13%

20%

1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2000 to 2001

2000 to 2002

2000 to 2003

2000 to 2004

2000 to 2005

Year Comparison

C

u

m

u

lative

G

ro

w

th

Black

Asian

All other races

Hispanic (of any race)

White alone (not Hispanic)

Source: Population Estimates; April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005, Population Division, U.S.

Census Bureau, 2006

Figure 2.2. Projected Trends in U.S. Population

U.S. Population Projections

by Race and Hispanic Origin

0

50

100

150

200

250

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Year

P

o

pula

tion (M

)

Black

Asian

All other races

Hispanic (of any race)

White alone (not Hispanic)

Source: “U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin”, U.S. Census

Bureau, 2004

Rationale and Significance. Despite the competitive disadvantages relative to year-round

producers in western production areas, significant comparative advantages exist for local

East Coast growers as a result of their proximity to densely populated areas rich in ethnic

diversity (Govindasamy, Nemana, Puduri, Pappas, 2006). Increasingly, these producers

adopt new crops or create new value-added products in order to remain economically

viable. Growing ethnic crops presents opportunities for producers to exploit existing

comparative advantages associated with serving densely populated local ethnic markets

in order to increase profitability and sustain farming operations. The coordination of

production and marketing are critical to avoid the threats of rapid over-production (which

can quickly lead to depressed prices) and to overcome inadequate marketing

infrastructure in order to move product into community markets. Establishing or

extending existing cooperative marketing associations along the East Coast, from North

to South, can create an improved market system that provides appropriate year-round

supplies to the area.

Data Collection. The research program included the development, administration, and

data collection from an ethnic consumer survey. The survey objective was to gather

relevant consumer information from four ethnic groups (Chinese, Indian, Mexican, and

Puerto Rican) to include demographics, shopping patterns, preferences and opinions,

related practices, willingness to pay premiums over traditional American produce, and

typical produce expenditures. The data collected was utilized to analyze ethnic

consumers’ patterns of purchase and propensity to purchase ethnic produce, estimate the

associated market potential, and prioritize subsequent production studies of individual

crops in order to make recommendations to for local production.

Market Estimation and Production Research. The survey expenditure data collected

included both respondent estimates of average spending on all of their produce, ethnic

and total (including conventional American), and specific purchase data on selected

ethnic produce items. The ethnic produce expenditure data provided the data necessary

to estimate the respective ethnic produce markets for each of the four ethnicities of study.

The combination of ethnic and total produce expenditure allowed for a relative

comparison. The ethnic produce item specifics helped to guide decisions for production

research trials. The 42 produce items included in the survey questionnaire were selected

from an initial list of over 100 ethnic crops, as a result of a crop expert panel review. The

surveyed crop list was further refined through a systematic process based on the survey

results (demand) and relevant production considerations (supply) for the local

marketplace.

3. ETHNIC CONSUMER SURVEY

3.1. Sample and Method

Sample sizes for each ethnicity were identified based on 2000 Census populations for

Chinese, Asian Indians, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans in the 16 East Coast states and the

District of Columbia (Table 3.1.). Sample sizes of 271 surveys for each of the four ethnic

groups were statistically determined for a total of 1,084 surveys of ethnic produce

consumers. (The sampling error associated with an East Coast sample of 271 people

from each of the four ethnic groups is approximately +5% with a 90% confidence

interval.)

Table 3.1. East Coast Ethnic Populations

(United States Census 2000)

12,211

52,871

8,356

5,967

South Carolina

1,374

1,174

858

1,330

Vermont

228,557

55,178

57,241

50,650

Pennsylvania

31,117

246,545

26,197

18,984

North Carolina

1,050,293

260,889

251,724

424,774

New York

366,788

102,929

169,180

100,355

New Jersey

199,207

22,288

43,801

84,392

Massachusetts

2,275

2,756

1,021

2,034

Maine

25,570

39,900

49,909

49,400

Maryland

35,532

275,288

46,132

27,446

Georgia

482,027

363,925

70,740

46,368

Florida

2,328

5,098

2,845

3,734

District of

Columbia

14,005

12,986

5,280

4,128

Delaware

194,443

23,484

23,662

19,172

Connecticut

GROUP

ETHNIC

2,718,495

1,549,761

812,576

884,748

TOTAL

41,131

73,979

48,815

36,966

Virginia

25,422

5,881

2,942

4,974

Rhode Island

6,215

4,590

3,873

4,074

New Hampshire

Puerto

Rican

Mexican

Asian

Indian

Chinese

STATE

12,211

52,871

8,356

5,967

South Carolina

1,374

1,174

858

1,330

Vermont

228,557

55,178

57,241

50,650

Pennsylvania

31,117

246,545

26,197

18,984

North Carolina

1,050,293

260,889

251,724

424,774

New York

366,788

102,929

169,180

100,355

New Jersey

199,207

22,288

43,801

84,392

Massachusetts

2,275

2,756

1,021

2,034

Maine

25,570

39,900

49,909

49,400

Maryland

35,532

275,288

46,132

27,446

Georgia

482,027

363,925

70,740

46,368

Florida

2,328

5,098

2,845

3,734

District of

Columbia

14,005

12,986

5,280

4,128

Delaware

194,443

23,484

23,662

19,172

Connecticut

GROUP

ETHNIC

2,718,495

1,549,761

812,576

884,748

TOTAL

41,131

73,979

48,815

36,966

Virginia

25,422

5,881

2,942

4,974

Rhode Island

6,215

4,590

3,873

4,074

New Hampshire

Puerto

Rican

Mexican

Asian

Indian

Chinese

STATE

Further sample size requirements were established, based upon ethnic group by state in

accordance with a stratified random sampling method (stratified random sampling was

used where the sample is selected such that ethnic groups are represented in the same

respective proportion, by state, as they occur in the population, per Census 2000), with a

minimum requirement of one sample per state for each ethnic group. An additional

sample size of 271 was established, irregardless of state and ethnic group, to gather data

in a short survey delivered to non-purchasers of ethnic produce to assess their reasons for

not purchasing these items and determine their willingness to buy ethnic produce based

upon the availability of certain attributes.

3.2. Implementation and Outcomes

Administration. An outsourced firm specializing in telephone and internet data collection,

The Wats Room Incorporated (WATS), was contracted to conduct 1,355 telephone

interviews using Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) technology. Their

surveys were conducted by phone to ensure that a statistically significant randomized

sample was obtained. This entailed targeting and achieving the required sample sizes by

ethnicity and state while minimizing any costs associated with sample surpluses in certain

states and deficits in others (as might occur with a mail-administered survey). The

phone-administered questionnaires were to be completed by the principal grocery

shopper in each household, as identified by each respondent with prompting from the

interviewer.

Qualified (bi-lingual) interviewers received on-site Human Subjects Certification

Program (HSCP) training, per Federal-wide Assurance guidelines, in addition to survey-

specific training and practice, prior to conducting actual interviews. (HSCP includes

background material on human subject research which includes history, policies,

regulations, procedures and ethical practices.) A member of the Rutgers research team

was on-site at WATS in Rochelle Park, New Jersey during this training to monitor the

process, tour the facility, and oversee operations. Ongoing interviewer monitoring

throughout the field period was conducted by WATS. Interviewing commenced in late

February 2006, continued into March, with initial results available by the end of March

and final data files provided in early May, 2006.

Response Rate. Over 13,000 potential interviewee leads were utilized by WATS in order to

meet the sample size requirements. These leads were generated by ethnic surnames,

selected using a randomized selection process, and further randomized through CATI

programming. Ultimately, a total of 1,366 phone surveys were completed by ethnic

consumers as follows; 1,084 long-version surveys by purchasers of ethnic produce (271

ethnic produce purchasers from each of the four ethnicities surveyed; Chinese, Asian Indian,

Mexican, and Puerto Rican) and 282 short-version surveys by non-purchasers of ethnic

produce (defined as not having purchased within the past year), irrespective of ethnic group

(Table 3.2.; the actual number of short-version surveys collected exceeded the objective

slightly, resulting in 1,366 useable surveys as compared to the original 1,355 objective).

Roughly 10% of the numbers selected at random for each ethnic group yielded complete

interviews (Table 3.3.). However, many of telephone numbers originally selected were non-

residential or non-working numbers. Removal of these non-working numbers from the

equation reveals that 14% of the calls to working residential numbers resulted in completed

interviews. Many multiple call attempts to working residential numbers were unsuccessful

in contacting the principal grocer shopper in the house, as required for the survey interview.

Surveys were conducted between 5 pm and 9 pm EST to accommodate those shoppers that

work. Despite repeat call attempts of up to 10 telephone calls and/or three appointment

setting follow-ups per number, many qualified interviewees could not be reached. The

cooperation rate, or completed interviews as a percent of calls to a qualified (accessible)

interviewee, was approximately 37% (the cooperation rate is defined for these purposes as

completed interviews as a percentage of the sum of completed interviews, refusals, and

language barriers cited.).

Table 3.2. Ethnic Consumer Survey Respondent Summary

ETHNIC GROUP

STATE Chinese

Asian

Indian Mexican

Puerto

Rican

Total

Connecticut

6

8

4

19

37

Delaware

1

2

2

1

6

District of Columbia

1

1

1

1

4

Florida

14

23

63

46

146

Georgia

8

15

48

4

75

Massachusetts

26

15

4

20

65

Maryland

15

17

7

3

42

Maine

1

1

1

1

4

North Carolina

6

9

43

3

61

New Hampshire

1

1

1

1

4

New Jersey

31

56

18

36

141

New York

130

83

45

104

362

Pennsylvania

15

19

10

23

67

Rhode Island

2

1

1

3

7

South Carolina

2

3

9

1

15

Vermont

1

1

1

1

4

Virginia

11

16

13

4

44

Purchasers*

271

271

271

271

1,084

Non-purchasers**

107

36

105

34

282

Total Surveys

378

307

376

305

1,366

* Purchasers are respondents that indicated they have purchased ethnic fruits and vegetables within the

past 12 months.

** Non-purchasers are respondents that indicated they have not purchased ethnic fruits and vegetables

within the past 12 months.

Table 3.3. Ethnic Consumer Survey Administration

Ethnic Produce Survey

Summary & Call Completion Analysis

COMPLETED SURVEYS

Asian

Puerto

Total

Chinese Indian Mexican Rican

Purchasers

271

271

271

271

1,084

Non-purchasers

107

36

105

34

282

TOTAL

378

307

376

305

1,366

CALL COMPLETION ANALYSIS

a

Complete surveys

378

307

376

305

1,366

b

Total number of leads

3,505

3,514

3,421

2,790

13,230

Residential or Non-working #s:

550

700

1,454

882

3,586

c

Working Residential #s (complete, refusals, language, max calls)

2,955

2,814

1,967

1,908

9,644

d

Refusals

669

739

221

245

1,874

e

Language Barriers (including deaf)

199

121

85

23

428

f

Live (i.e. at least one call attempt made; active phone # determination)

1,514

1,622

393

866

4,496

a/b

Completion Rate = Complete/Total numbers selected

11%

9%

11%

11%

10%

a/c

Rigid Response Rate = Complete/Working Residential #s

13%

11%

19%

16%

14%

a/(a+d+e) Cooperation Rate = Complete/(Complete + Refusals + Language Barrier)

30%

26%

55%

53%

37%

Nuances of Ethnic Languages and Crop Names. The surveys were administered by

trained, bilingual phone interviewers in order to minimize response bias due to potential

language barriers. The interview languages made available were as follows; (1) Chinese

interviews offered/conducted in English, Mandarin, and Cantonese; (2) Indian interviews

offered/ conducted in English and Hindi; and (3) Mexican and Puerto Rican

offered/conducted in English and Spanish (reflective of respective dialect differences

between the two countries of origin; used, as needed, according to interviewer

confirmation of respondent’s country of origin).

Both the targeted call completion time for ethnic produce purchasers and the WATS

estimated completion time by WATS, prior to survey implementation, were under twelve

minutes. Average completion times by ethnic group actually ran up to three minutes longer,

depending on ethnicity, with the Asian (Chinese/Indian) segments being at the higher

extreme and the Hispanic (Mexican/Puerto Rican) segments closer to the original estimate

(Minutes; 15.39 Chinese, 13.64 Indian, 12.48 Mexican, 12.31 Puerto Rican). A greater need

for language/translation assistance, particularly in crop name recognition, by Asian versus

Hispanic interviewees was cited by WATS as the primary reason for the extended call

times. In anticipation of such crop name recognition issues, the bi-lingual interviewers

were well-prepared in advance of survey implementation to address these crop name

recognition issues and mitigate any potential reduction in survey completions. Interviewers

were provided with additional crop name variations and/or crop pictures to ensure

interviewer crop familiarity and increase their ability to ensure the same for survey

respondents. Therefore, although the Asian respondents experienced longer interview

times than their Hispanic counterparts, their call completion rates were similar (between

9% and 11% for all 4 groups surveyed).

3.3. Design; Sequence and Content

Two sets of data were collected, according to the two versions of the survey; long and

abridged. The questionnaire was designed to first assess whether the ethnic respondent

was a consumer of ethnic produce (in the past twelve months) or not, using a “yes” or

“no” screening question. Then a skip sequence was used by the interviewer, depending

on the interviewee’s response, to either; if “yes”, continue with a line of questioning that

will help to identify ethnic produce demand factors, or if “no”, identify reasons for not

purchasing ethnic produce (potential market opportunities).

The “purchasers” (respondents answering in the affirmative) proceeded to complete the

longer form of the survey, inclusive of questions about their purchase patterns

(frequency, spending, location or point of purchase, quantity, price, and expenditures)

and preferences and opinions with regard to product, placement, and price. Such inquiries

were made to quantify demand, assess the importance of product attributes, compare

ethnic versus conventional outlets (consumer perception), and determine price potential

(via consumer willingness-to-pay a premium over comparable American or conventional

substitutes). These respondents were also asked questions about different promotions and

advertisements and whether or not they influence purchase decisions. In addition, each

respondent was asked about related practices (whether or not he/she grows ethnic

produce for consumption at home and whether he/she is a vegetarian). Demographic

inquiries were made with regard to neighborhood, residency, household size and age

composition, languages and proficiency, and country of origin, in addition to other basic

socio-economic factors (age, education, income, etc.).

The “non-purchasers” (respondents with a negative answer) were urged to provide

reasons they do not generally purchase ethnic produce and were prompted with plausible

causes, if need be, such as “do not like ethnic produce”, “lack of availability”, “poor

selection”, “ethnic outlet not available or too far”, or “other”. These respondents then

proceeded to complete the abridged form of the survey.

Both purchasers and non-purchasers were asked questions about their relative willingness

(i.e. more willing, indifferent, less willing, or unsure) to buy ethnic produce based on

certain factors and/or product attributes.

The long version of the survey (completed by purchasers only) was intended to gather

demand and marketing information inclusive of the proverbial “4 P’s” of marketing

(Product, Placement, Price, and Promotion). The results of these surveys were used to

assess the market demand for the respective high-potential ethnic markets, and to direct

subsequent research (i.e. prioritize production crops) to satisfy and/or capture some of

this demand. The abridged survey version (completed by “non-purchasers”, irrespective

of ethnic group), was collected to ascertain reasons for non-purchase and identify

potential new, extended opportunities to exploit these markets. This shortened version

gathered primarily product attribute information for promotional purposes, to extend the

marketing reach of the initial project efforts to potentially underserved markets.

3.4. Data Purpose

Consumer Demographics, Patterns, Preferences, and Practices. The purpose of the

socio-demographic data collection is to identify relationships between ethnic consumer

expenditures and the respective demographic profiles. In addition to the typical socio-

demographic data (age, education, income, etc.), information such as birthplace, length of

residency in the United States, and age of immigration to the United States was collected

to measure acculturation.

Additional analysis of the survey sample expenditures and demographics as they

correspond to consumer shopping patterns, preferences, and related practices, will be

utilized to develop predictive demand models for the larger populations. These models

will facilitate effective distribution efforts by enabling producers, wholesalers, and

retailers to target appropriate markets and locations, based upon demographic profiles

and geographic population concentrations. This will help to marry the supply with local

demand, as appropriate, to optimize marketing efforts.

Produce Expenditures. The preliminary focus of the purchase pattern survey results data

was to quantify the average weekly expenditure for specific ethnic crops to prioritize the

subsequent production research. Detailed data including the quantity, unit of measure

(pounds/bunches/numbers), price, and average expenditure for each produce item was

collected and analyzed. Once summarized, this data yielded average expenditures for

each crop, by ethnic group, and served as a common denominator to compare and

prioritize crops across groups (described in greater detail in the “Crop Selection Process”

section that follows).

4. CROP SELECTION PROCESS

The crop selection process began with a crop expert panel review of an initial list of over

100 ethnic crops to select 42 produce items for inclusion in the ethnic consumer survey

questionnaire (Fig. 4.1). The surveyed crop list was further refined through a systematic

process based on the survey results (demand) and relevant production considerations

(supply) for the local marketplace, to arrive at a list of 28 crops to enter into production

trials (12 research and 16 demonstration plots).

Figure 4.1. Crop Selection Process

Identify

Ethnic Crops

of Interest

Generate Plot Plans; Maximize Research Potential

Consider logistical concerns such as;

* budget constraints * irrigation * seed availability

* budget constraints * irrigation * seed availability

* cross-contamination * plot space *supplies (plastic mulch, trellis)

➢Re-visit Research Candidates Examine survey demand rank

➢Re-evaluate Survey Rank Consider production research potential

➢Consolidate/Maximize Remove/replace duplicates, improve variety

➢Re-prioritize Crops for Production Select top 7 per ethnicity

Rank Crops (2x); Production Potential & Survey Demand

Asian Indian (#1-10) Mexican (#1-10)

Chinese (#1-12) Puerto Rican (#1

12) Puerto Rican (#1-10)

Conduct Process of Elimination;

Identify Research Crop Candidates

Convene Panel of Experts to reduce list by

~50% due to existing production barriers;

▪Climate

▪Growth cycle

▪Seed availability/regulation

▪Competition/Commodity nature

Create Initial Crop List

Common ethnic crops in local

marketplace

Assess

Supply &

Demand

Develop

Production

Plot Plans

Prioritize

Production

Research

x 2 Years

4.1. Identify Ethnic Crops of Interest; 100+ Crops

Create Initial Ethnic Crop List. An initial list of ethnic crops commonly sold/marketed

and considered as ethnic produce items for each of the four ethnic groups of study was

compiled based upon a combination of focus groups and identification through related

research (Govindasamy, 2006).

Conduct Process of Elimination. To determine which crops from the initial list to include

in the survey, a panel of twelve marketing, field/extension, and crop specialists

scrutinized the list of ethnic crops to eliminate those with existing production barriers that

could impede their local production and/or marketplace success. Production barriers

included local climate limitations, growth cycle (relatively short cycle necessary to grow

in designated East Coast production sites), lack of seed supply due to regulatory issues,

and local competition and/or commodity nature of certain produce items. Thus, specialty

crops with short post-harvest life were given priority over commodity and less-perishable

crops such as beans and certain peppers used primarily as spices.

This process reduced the survey crop candidate list to 42 crops (10 each for Asian Indian,

Mexican, and Puerto Rican, and 12 for Chinese) to assess demand. Due to budgetary

constraints, the list required further reductions to arrive at a final list of approximately 28

crops (targeting roughly 7 per ethnicity) to be included in subsequent production

research. Assessment of the survey results, along with additional production evaluation

for each, was conducted to achieve program goals.

4.2. Assess Demand and Supply/Production Potential; 42 crops

Rank Crops by Ethnicity. Results of the survey of 271 randomly selected East Coast

consumers from each of the four ethnic groups were used to rank the crops included in

the questionnaire, within ethnicity, according to expenditure and/or purchase data.

Multiple criteria were established to rank produce items according to: (1) mean (weekly)

expenditures across all respondents (including zero purchases); (2) mean (weekly)

expenditures across only respondents purchasing that item (excluding zero purchases);

(3) frequency of purchase across respondents (binary; 1 or 0 for purchase or non-

purchase, respectively), (4) volume (number of pounds, bunches, or units) purchased by

each respondent for each produce item; and (5) overall rank (average of results rankings

#1 thru #4) for each produce item.

In addition to assessment of the survey demand, crops were also evaluated for production

research potential (research interest, yield potential, and anticipated cost effectiveness) by

field study participants at each site.

A combined assessment (actual survey demand and estimated production potential) was

particularly important in cases where a single systematic demand approach was not

sufficient to distinguish between crops for research prioritization purposes.

4.3. Prioritize Production Research; 28 Crops

Re-visit Research Candidates; Examine Survey Demand Rank. The rank order according

to survey respondents’ purchases varied somewhat across the multiple criteria. An

Overall Rank threshold of 8 (average rank higher than 7) was established to help identify

crops with relatively low survey demand in an initial attempt to arrive at 28 crops (7 per

ethnicity) for the final production study. Crops at or above this threshold were more

closely examined based on the other four (independent) criteria. A few produce items

from each ethnicity consistently ranked 8 or higher across all of the criteria, allowing for

a systematic approach to eliminating crops from the research candidacy list. Crops

ranked 8 or higher in all (5) categories were systematically removed from further

production considerations. The remaining crops were further evaluated for supply-side

potential and consolidated across ethnic groups to maximize production research. This

process resulted in a proposed list of 28 production research crops.

Expenditure results of the Chinese consumers surveyed revealed a distinct ranking of 12

Chinese crops (Table 4.1). Five Chinese crops received an Overall Rank of 8 or higher.

Four out of these five crops consistently ranked 8 or higher in each category, suggesting

lower marketplace potential relative to their 1 thru 7 ranked counterparts. As such, these

four crops (oriental mustard, basil, Malabar spinach, and perilla) were not considered

strong candidates for further research and were removed from the candidacy list

altogether.

Table 4.1. Chinese Ethnic Produce Survey Ranking

Table 5

0.19

12

11.25

11

11

11

12

Perilla

0.20

11

11.25

12

12

10

11

Malabar

Spinach

0.22

10

10.5

10

10

12

10

Basil

0.71

9

8.5

8

9

8

9

Oriental

Mustard

0.79

8

7.75

9

7

7

8

Edamame

1.10

7

6

7

8

3

6

Ridged Gourd/

Luffa

1.04

6

5.5

3

3

9

7

Napa Cabbage

1.29

5

5

6

6

4

4

Snow Peas

1.28

4

5

5

4

6

5

Oriental

Spinach

1.60

3

3.5

4

5

2

3

Oriental

Eggplant

1.77

2

2.25

1

1

5

2

Pak Choy

2.26

1

1.5

2

2

1

1

Baby Pak Choy

Avg Exp

($)

Overall

Rank

Average Rank

Volume of

Produce

Bought

Produce

Purchase

Frequency

Mean

Expenditure

without Zero

Purchase

Mean

Expenditure

With Zero

Purchase

Rank Based on Criteria (weekly purchases)

Produce

0.19

12

11.25

11

11

11

12

Perilla

0.20

11

11.25

12

12

10

11

Malabar

Spinach

0.22

10

10.5

10

10

12

10

Basil

0.71

9

8.5

8

9

8

9

Oriental

Mustard

0.79

8

7.75

9

7

7

8

Edamame

1.10

7

6

7

8

3

6

Ridged Gourd/

Luffa

1.04

6

5.5

3

3

9

7

Napa Cabbage

1.29

5

5

6

6

4

4

Snow Peas

1.28

4

5

5

4

6

5

Oriental

Spinach

1.60

3

3.5

4

5

2

3

Oriental

Eggplant

1.77

2

2.25

1

1

5

2

Pak Choy

2.26

1

1.5

2

2

1

1

Baby Pak Choy

Avg Exp

($)

Overall

Rank

Average Rank

Volume of

Produce

Bought

Produce

Purchase

Frequency

Mean

Expenditure

without Zero

Purchase

Mean

Expenditure

With Zero

Purchase

Rank Based on Criteria (weekly purchases)

Produce

Results of the similarly surveyed Asian Indian consumers reveal the ranking of 10 Indian

crops (Table 4.2). Three crops received an Overall Rank of 8 or higher. One of these

(white pumpkin) ranked higher than 8 in every category and was removed from the

candidacy list altogether.

Table 4.2. Asian Indian Ethnic Produce Survey Ranking

The results of the similarly surveyed Mexican consumers reveal the ranking of 10 select

0.56

10

9.25

9

9

9

10

White Pumpkin

0.61

9

8.25

10

10

4

9

Amaranth

0.68

8

7.5

8

4

10

8

Mint Leaves

0.94

7

6.25

6

7

5

7

Ridge Gourd

1.06

6

5.5

7

8

1

6

Mustard Leaves

1.31

5

5.25

4

5

7

5

Bottle Gourd

1.33

4

4.5

5

6

3

4

Cluster Beans

1.48

3

4

3

2

8

3

Fenugreek

Leaves

2.23

2

2.5

1

1

6

2

Eggplant

2.48

1

2

2

3

2

1

Bitter Gourd

Avg

Expen-

diture

$

Overall

Rank

Average Rank

Volume of

Produce

Bought

Produce

Purchase

Frequency

Mean

Expenditure

without Zero

Purchase

Mean

Expenditure

With Zero

Purchase

Rank Based on Criteria (weekly purchases)

Produce

0.56

10

9.25

9

9

9

10

White Pumpkin

0.61

9

8.25

10

10

4

9

Amaranth

0.68

8

7.5

8

4

10

8

Mint Leaves

0.94

7

6.25

6

7

5

7

Ridge Gourd

1.06

6

5.5

7

8

1

6

Mustard Leaves

1.31

5

5.25

4

5

7

5

Bottle Gourd

1.33

4

4.5

5

6

3

4

Cluster Beans

1.48

3

4

3

2

8

3

Fenugreek

Leaves

2.23

2

2.5

1

1

6

2

Eggplant

2.48

1

2

2

3

2

1

Bitter Gourd

Avg

Expen-

diture

$

Overall

Rank

Average Rank

Volume of

Produce

Bought

Produce

Purchase

Frequency

Mean

Expenditure

without Zero

Purchase

Mean

Expenditure

With Zero

Purchase

Rank Based on Criteria (weekly purchases)

Produce

Mexican crops (Table 4.3). Three crops received an Overall Rank of 8 or higher and two

of these (Chili Habanero and Tutuma) consistently did so across all criteria and were

removed from the candidacy list.

Table 4.3. Mexican Ethnic Produce Survey Ranking

0.10

10

9.5

10

10

8

10

Tutuma

0.24

9

9

9

9

9

9

Chili Habanaro

0.83

8

7.5

8

8

6

8

Anaheim

Pepper

0.92

7

7

7

7

7

7

Chili Serrano

1.24

6

5

3

1

10

6

Cilantro

1.28

5

4.75

5

5

5

4

Calabacita

1.28

4

4.5

6

6

1

5

Chili Poblano

1.49

3

3.25

4

4

2

3

Calabaza

1.73

2

2.75

2

3

4

2

Tamatillo

2.76

1

1.75

1

2

3

1

Chili Jalapeno

Avg

Expen-

diture

$

Overall

Rank

Average Rank

Volume of

Produce

Bought

Produce

Purchase

Frequency

Mean

Expenditure

without Zero

Purchase

Mean

Expenditure

With Zero

Purchase

Rank Based on Criteria (weekly purchases)

Produce

0.10

10

9.5

10

10

8

10

Tutuma

0.24

9

9

9

9

9

9

Chili Habanaro

0.83

8

7.5

8

8

6

8

Anaheim

Pepper

0.92

7

7

7

7

7

7

Chili Serrano

1.24

6

5

3

1

10

6

Cilantro

1.28

5

4.75

5

5

5

4

Calabacita

1.28

4

4.5

6

6

1

5

Chili Poblano

1.49

3

3.25

4

4

2

3

Calabaza

1.73

2

2.75

2

3

4

2

Tamatillo

2.76

1

1.75

1

2

3

1

Chili Jalapeno

Avg

Expen-

diture

$

Overall

Rank

Average Rank

Volume of

Produce

Bought

Produce

Purchase

Frequency

Mean

Expenditure

without Zero

Purchase

Mean

Expenditure

With Zero

Purchase

Rank Based on Criteria (weekly purchases)

Produce

The results for surveyed Puerto Rican consumers reveal the ranking of 10 select Puerto

Rican crops (Table 4.4). Three crops received an Overall Rank of 8 or higher, but none of

these consistently ranked 8 or higher in all categories. As a result, none of these three

crops were systematically eliminated from the candidacy list.

Table 4.4. Puerto Rican Ethnic Produce Survey Ranking

0.10

10

7.75

10

10

1

10

Verdolaga

0.43

9

7.75

8

9

5

9

Calabacita

0.51

8

7.25

7

7

7

8

Berenjena

0.56

7

6.75

9

8

3

7

Chile

Caribe

0.70

6

6.25

5

5

10

5

Pepinillo

0.63

5

6

6

6

6

6

Fava Beans

0.96

4

5

4

3

9

4

Calabaza

1.68

3

3.25

2

1

8

2

Cilantro

1.58

2

3

3

4

2

3

Aji Dulce

1.74

1

2

1

2

4

1

Batata

Avg

Expen-

diture

$

Overall

Rank

Average Rank

Volume of

Produce

Bought

Produce

Purchase

Frequency

Mean

Expenditure

without Zero

Purchase

Mean

Expenditure

With Zero

Purchase

Rank Based on Criteria (weekly purchases)

Produce

0.10

10

7.75

10

10

1

10

Verdolaga

0.43

9

7.75

8

9

5

9

Calabacita

0.51

8

7.25

7

7

7

8

Berenjena

0.56

7

6.75

9

8

3

7

Chile

Caribe

0.70

6

6.25

5

5

10

5

Pepinillo

0.63

5

6

6

6

6

6

Fava Beans

0.96

4

5

4

3

9

4

Calabaza

1.68

3

3.25

2

1

8

2

Cilantro

1.58

2

3

3

4

2

3

Aji Dulce

1.74

1

2

1

2

4

1

Batata

Avg

Expen-

diture

$

Overall

Rank

Average Rank

Volume of

Produce

Bought

Produce

Purchase

Frequency

Mean

Expenditure

without Zero

Purchase

Mean

Expenditure

With Zero

Purchase

Rank Based on Criteria (weekly purchases)

Produce

Re-evaluate Survey Rank; Consider Production Potential. Once the crops that qualified

for systematic elimination from production research were removed, the remaining crops

were re-evaluated with consideration for production interests to either justify including

them as production candidates or remove them accordingly. The analysis considered the

incremental research benefits of comparisons of similar crop types and the marketplace

and/or profitability potential, among other considerations.

In the case of Chinese crops, the removal of relatively low demand crops resulted in a list

of production candidates with significant research potential, as relatively little historic

research exists on local production of these crops.

The proposed Asian Indian production crop candidates contained three types of leaves,

but the inclusion of more than two types of leaves was not warranted from a production

perspective (i.e. limited uniqueness of potential research findings associated with these

two crops of similar cultural production methods relative to the other candidates in the

group). The relative commodity nature of these leaves drove the decision to eliminate

one of the leaf varieties. Fenugreek remained as a candidate, given it was ranked in the

top three based on Overall Rank as well as three of the four individual rank criteria. A

pre-existing local production interest in mint, given its additional non-food/religious

demand and non-spice uses (i.e. additional marketing potential), fueled the decision to

retain it as a production candidate. Consequently, mustard leaves were eliminated from

production candidacy.

The Mexican production candidate list contained multiple types of peppers. Despite the

limited incremental research benefits associated with an abundance of crops of similar

species, there were no existing supply-side concerns which distinguished one pepper

from another in terms of production preferences. Therefore, no crops were removed from

the production list solely on the basis of limited (individual) production potential. Rather,

the subsequent review of a combined list of peppers from both Hispanic groups of study

(i.e. Mexican and Puerto Rican), resulted in a consolidated list with fewer pepper

candidates (i.e. without duplicates or redundant ‘hot’ or ‘sweet’ types).

The Puerto Rican production candidates required further refinement, as no crops were

systematically eliminated on the basis of relatively low demand. Each of the ten

surveyed crops was closely scrutinized on the basis of supply and profit potential. Fava

beans were considered to have relatively limited supply (profit) potential, given the

relatively short season for local production and the history of limited successes by local

growers who have experimented with small-scale production of this crop. As a result,

fava beans were eliminated from production candidacy. The remaining crops were

reviewed for duplication across the Hispanic ethnic groups (i.e. along with the Mexican

list) to arrive at a proposed production candidate list of 7 crops for each group.

Consolidate/Maximize Across Ethnicities. Additional deletions were made to the

remaining crop lists for each ethnicity to eliminate duplication across ethnic groups and

maximize production research efforts. This consolidation of candidates from the four

ethnic lists resulted in a combined list of 28 unique crop candidates and was conducted in

a manner that balanced 7 crops per ethnic group (by design, such that survey rank was

not a factor in the manner, or order, in which duplicates were removed from a particular

ethnic group, as both groups stand to benefit from subsequent production research).

Specifically, the following additional eliminations of crops were made;

• Ridged gourd/luffa was removed from the Chinese list (duplicate of Indian list)

• Bitter gourd was removed from the Asian Indian list (duplicate of pepinillo on the

Puerto Rican list)

• Cilantro was removed from the Mexican list (duplicate of Puerto Rican list)

• Calabaza and calabacita were removed from the Puerto Rican list (duplicates of

Mexican list)

Re-prioritize Crops for Production. The result of the production research prioritization

process based upon primarily survey demand, combined with production considerations,

yielded the targeted list of 28 (of 42) crops recommended for production trials (Table

4.5).

Table 4.5. Prioritization Process; Proposed Production Crops

Crop Candidates

Re-visit Candidacy

Re-Evaluate Rank

Consolidate/Maximize

Re-Prioritize

Survey Demand;

Eliminate if Rank > 8;

Consider Production

Across Ethnic Groups;

Select 28 Crops

Overall Rank

for All (5) Survey Criteria

Potential

Remove Duplicates

Chinese

1 Baby Pak Choy

Baby Pak Choy

2 Pak Choy

Pak Choy

3 Oriental Eggplant

Oriental Eggplant

4 Oriental Spinach

Oriental Spinach

5 Snow Peas

Snow Peas

6 Napa Cabbage

Napa Cabbage

7 Ridged Gourd/Luffa

Remove (Indian duplicate)

Remove

Remove

Remove

Remove

Remove (Puerto Rican duplicate)

Remove

Remove

Remove (Puerto Rican duplicate)

Remove

Remove

Remove (Mexican Duplicate)

Remove

Remove (Mexican Duplicate)

8 Edamame

Edamame

9 Oriental Mustard

10 Basil

11 Malabar Spinach

12 Perilla

Asian Indian

1 Bitter Gourd

2 Eggplant

Eggplant

3 Fenugreek Leaves

Fenugreek Leaves

4 Cluster Beans

Cluster Beans

5 Bottle Gourd

Bottle Gourd

6 Mustard Leaves

7 Ridged Gourd

Ridged Gourd

8 Mint Leaves

Mint Leaves

9 Amaranth

Amaranth

10 White Pumpkin

Mexican

1 Chili Jalapeno

Chili Jalapeno

2 Tomatillo

Tomatillo

3 Calabaza

Calabaza

4 Chili Poblano

Chili Poblano

5 Calabacita

Calabacita

6 Cilantro

7 Chili Serrano

Chili Serrano

8 Anaheim Pepper

Anaheim Pepper

9 Chili Habanero

10 Tutuma

Puerto Rican

1 Batata

Batata

2 Aji Dulce

Aji Dulce

3 Cilantro

Cilantro

4 Calabaza

5 Fava Beans

6 Pepinillo (bitter gourd)

Pepinillo (bitter gourd)

7 Chili Caribe

Chili Caribe

8 Berenjena (eggplant)

Berenjena (eggplant)

9 Calabacita

10 Verdolaga

Verdolaga

4

42 Crops

-7

-2

-5

28 Crops

This re-prioritized list contained four species that had significant cross-ethnicity demand

that were deemed high production research priorities as a result. Specifically, the four

species, ethnic groups consuming them, and corresponding crops in this list were as

follows:

Cucurbits (Cucurbita)

Cucurbits were in demand by all four ethnic groups of study. A total of five

unique cucurbits were included in the consumer survey. These were categorized

into two cultural production types, trellised vs.non-trellised, for production plot

planning purposes. The two trellised cucurbits included luffa (ridged gourd, in

demand by both Asian groups) and bitter melon (bitter gourd/pepinillo in demand

by Asian Indians and Puerto Ricans, respectively). There were three non-

trellised: bottle gourd (in demand by Asian Indians), calabaza squash (Hispanic

winter squash), and zucchini (calabacita; Hispanic summer squash).

Eggplant (Solanum)

Eggplants were in demand by three groups (Chinese/Asian Indian/Puerto Rican).

Three types of eggplant were included in the candidate list (Oriental eggplant var.

Orient Express, Asian Indian eggplant var. Raavayya variety and

Berenjena/Dominican eggplant).

Chili/Peppers (Capsicum)

Peppers were in demand by two groups (Mexican/Puerto Rican). A total of six

types of pepper were included in the candidate list (chili jalapeno, chili poblano,

chili Serrano, chili caribe, aji dulce, and Anaheim pepper).

Coriander (Coriandrum)

Coriander/cilantro, in demand by two groups (Mexican/Puerto Rican), was

included in the candidate list.

4.4. Develop Production Plot Plans; 12 Research and 16 Demo Crops

Identify Top Priority Crops for Replicated Trials. Logistical concerns (space, labor and

budget constraints) drove decisions to limit the number of replicated crops to twelve and

include crops of similar species suited for production on black plastic mulch with drip

irrigation systems. Species with cross-ethnic demand were given higher priority for

replication to maximize the return on research efforts. Fifteen crops on the list had cross-

ethnic demand.

Coriander/cilantro was the only crop with cross-ethnic demand that did not have two or

more types to compare, and along with the Chinese greens, is already grown extensively

by New Jersey and Florida growers. Ultimately, because cilantro and the Chinese greens

are usually grown in bare-ground, wide beds with overhead irrigation, these crops were

placed in demonstration plots rather than being replicated. Four cucurbits, three

eggplants, and two Capsicum peppers with cross-ethnic demand would be replicated.

Cucurbits. Lack of seed availability drove the final decisions of which (four) cucurbits to

include in the replicated plots. Appropriate seeds for calabaza and calabacita were not

found in time for the production trial season. Calabacita was shifted from a replicated to

a demonstration plot plan since a true seed for this variety was not obtained and another

zucchini variety was substituted. There was no available seed substitute for calabaza so it

was replaced by a second luffa (smooth luffa; in addition to the ridged gourd/luffa) to

allow for luffa comparisons. The remaining cucurbits, bitter gourd and bottle gourd,

were included the replicated trials.

Eggplants. Appropriate seeds for berenjena (Dominican eggplant) were also not secured

in time for trials. Another Asian Indian eggplant variety (Bharta) was substituted and

entered into replicated trials, along with the Oriental eggplant and Raavayya variety.

Peppers. The number of Capsicum peppers to be replicated was reduced from six

varieties to two due to the lateness of obtaining seed. Qnly the pepper types with the

highest overall survey demand rank from each of the Mexican and Puerto Rican lists

were included (chili jalapeno and aji dulce, respectively) representing one hot and one

sweet variety.

Additional High-Demand Crops. Despite not using the most appropriate production

system for them, the crops with the highest overall survey demand/rank from each of the

Chinese, Mexican, and Puerto Rican groups were added to the replicated plots (the

highest ranked crop from the Asian Indian list was already included) to ensure that the

crops with the highest demand from each list were included, once the cross-ethnic list had

been exhausted. These three additional crops completed the list of twelve crops to be

included in replicated trials.

Develop research and demonstration crop plot plans. A recommended plot plan,

inclusive of twelve replicated crops and sixteen demonstration crops (ten specified crops,

with additional space for six ‘cooperator’s choice’ crops), was developed to permit the

statistical inclusion of data across locations for comparative analyses. It also allowed

field participants at each site to research crops and/or varieties that might be particularly

relevant in their local area.

A process of elimination was used to arrive at ten crops to be included in demonstration

trials at all sites. The same underlying factors that supported the decisions for replicated

trial selections also contributed to this process: incremental research benefits, seed

availability, and survey demand. Seed/plant availability was the limiting factor for

several of the pepper types and cluster beans as appropriate varieties were not found in

time for the production trial season. Amaranth and verdolaga were excluded due to low

demand relative to the remaining proposed production crops (illustrated in Table 4.2 and

Table 4.4, respectively). The remaining ten proposed crops were selected for

demonstration plots at every site along with the twelve previously identified replicated

crops (Table 4.6).

Table 4.6. Selected Crops for Production Plots

(by Ethnic Group; Research vs. Demonstration)

Ethnic

Group

Plot Type

Ethnic Crop Name

Scientific Name

Chinese

Research Baby Pak Choy

Brassica rapa L. ssp chinensis

Oriental Eggplant

Solanum melongena L.

Smooth Luffa

Luffa aegyptiaca Mill. (or L. cylindrica (L) M. Roemer)

Demo

Edamame

Glycine max (L.) Merr.

Napa Cabbage

Brassica rapa L. ssp chinensis

Oriental Spinach

Spinacia oleracea L.

Pak Choy

Brassica rapa L. ssp chinensis

Snow Peas

Pisum sativum L. var. macrocarpon

Asian Indian Research Bottle Gourd

Lagenaria siceraria (Mol.) Standl.

Eggplant (Raavayya)

Solanum melongena L. var. Raavayya

Eggplant (Bharta)

Solanum melongena L. var. Bharta

Ridged Gourd

Luffa acutangular (L.) Roxb.

Demo

Fenugreek Leaves

Trigonella foenum-graecum L.

Mint Leaves (Spearmint)

Mentha spicata L.

Mexican

Research Chili Jalapeno

Capsicum anuum L.

Tomatillo

Physalis philadelphica Lam. (or P. ixocarpa Brot.)

Demo

Calabacita

Cucurbita pepo L.

Chili Pablano/Ancho

Capsicum anuum L.

Puerto Rican Research Aji Dulce

Capsicum chinense Jacq

Batata

Ipomoea batatas ( L.) Lam.

Pepinillo/Bitter gourd

Momordica charantia L.

Demo

Cilantro/Coriander

Coriandrum sativum L.

5. ETHNIC CROP PRODUCTION AND RESEARCH

PROGRAM

After completing the first phase of the ethnic produce project related to consumer survey

results, the second phase focused on food crop production research and demonstration.

The four primary objectives of this phase were to;

1) establish a common set of field demonstration and research plots in each

collaborating state;

2) demonstrate and evaluate a variety of ethnic crops grown at each site;

3) conduct case-studies of specialty-ethnic produce growers; and

4) communicate ethnic crop production information to advisors and growers via

presentations, tours, websites, fact sheets, articles, and other forms of

informational literature.

5.1. Production Trials

Trial Locations and Evaluation Parameters. For the 2006/07 trials, demonstration and

research crops, selected as previously described, were to be established at six sites

located in three states along the East Coast: two in Florida, one in Massachusetts, and

three in New Jersey.

Crop quality and yield parameters were developed in order to make recommendations for

geographic sequencing of production, by month/season, to sustain a twelve month

production supply in the eastern United States.

Summer 2006 demonstration and research trials were established in Massachusetts and

New Jersey on research farms. Commercially available cultivars of the selected crops

were grown following standard commercial production practices in a randomized plot

design including one replication of demonstration crops and 3 to 4 replications of

research crops at each site. Crop quality and yield parameters were measured and will be

evaluated statistically to determine suitability for commercial production. Special

attention will be paid to variations in yield and quality of produce as may be affected by

season and geographic location. Winter production intended to begin in Florida in early-

2007 has been postponed to consider redesigning the research plots to obtain more useful

information. Within the limitations of the grant, the trials will be conducted at each

location for two seasons.

5.2. Case Studies

Cooperating growers of specialty and/or ethnic crops will be identified in each

collaborator’s area. One or two will be selected to participate in a full-farm case study of

their business. The case study analysis will compare farm size, number of crops and

rotations, primary market(s) and selling methods, gross income, amount of labor used,

and the owner’s perceptions of ethnic crop markets in order to ascertain barriers to and

opportunities for production and marketing of ethnic produce.

5.3. Outreach

Results of the production trials and case studies will be presented at appropriate

professional and trade conferences, included in journal and trade publications, and

through media outreach to growers and ethnic consumers. Professional and trade

conference affiliations to-date include presentations and corresponding papers in

associated proceedings at the American Society of Horticultural Sciences National

Conference, the New Crops and New Uses 6

th

Annual Symposium, and numerous

extension meetings and trade shows throughout the East Coast (e.g. SC, PA, NJ, DE,

NY). PowerPoint presentations and posters have been developed for outreach to local

vegetable growers to communicate information from these ethnic crop studies providing

them with demand assessments in order to a adopt market-first approach to crop

production. These outreach tools provide graphical consumer data, identify specific

ethnic crops with significant ethnic consumer demand, and promote alternative/niche

marketing.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

FURTHER RESEARCH

The approach outlined in this paper uses a detailed market driven assessment and then

custom tailors field production research and supportive applied studies to bolster and

drive the market study. Such a model is often discussed but rarely practiced. The

approach described provides a model to bridge the gap between consumer, distributors

and growers. This strategic approach to new crop introduction provides the needed

research support to commercial growers linking the production research to specific

consumer demands. Information from the production trials will be combined with case

study findings to make final crop recommendations and communicated accordingly to

East Coast farmers. Completion of the second phase of the study is targeted for 2009 to

accommodate the postponed Florida trials and still allow for two seasons in all three

states of study.

References

Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS), 2004. Consumer Expenditures Survey. United

States Department of Commerce. Washington, DC. http://bls.gov/ces/home.htm

Govindasamy, R., A. Nemana, V. Puduri, K. Pappas, B. Schilling, J.E. Simon, R.

VanVranken, L. Brown, 2006. Demographics and the Marketing of Asian Ethnic

Produce in the Mid-Atlantic Sates, NJ Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers

University. NJAES P-029031-06. May 2006.

Govindasamy, R., A. Nemana, V. Puduri, K. Pappas, 2006. Ethnic Produce Marketing in

the Mid-Atlantic States: Consumer Shopping Patterns and Willingness-to-Pay

Analysis. Choices – The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues. 4

th

Quarter

2006. Vol. 21. No. 4. pp. 237-241.

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2006-4/produce/2006-4-07.htm

Mendonca, Raquel U. de, M. Moreira, F. Mangan, and T. Brashear. 2006 Production and

Marketing of New Eggplant Varieties for New Markets. UMass Vegetable Notes. Vol.

17. No. 3. pp. 1-4.

Produce Marketing Association (PMA) 2006. Hispanics, Asians and Fresh Produce.

http://www.pma.com

Sciarappa, W. 2001. Growing Ethnic Vegetables with Plasticulture. Vegetable Growers

News. April 2001. Volume 35, No. 4. pp. 32-33.

Sciarappa, W. 2003. Heritage Crop Research at Rutgers. Proceedings National

Association of County Agricultural Agents. July 2003. p. 122.

Tubene, S. 2001. Market Potential for Ethnic Produce in the Mid-Atlantic Region.

Maryland Cooperative Extension, University of Maryland, College Park-Eastern

Shore.

U. S. Census, 2000. United States Department of Commerce. Washington, DC.

U. S. Census, 1990. United States Department of Commerce. Washington, DC.

Appendix: Ethnic Consumer Survey Questionnaire

Ethnic Produce Consumer Survey

Hello, I am calling on behalf of Rutgers University and the United States

Department of Agriculture. <Language and ethnicity determination> We are

conducting a survey to understand the trends in Ethnic consumers’ fruits and

vegetable purchases.

➢ May I speak with the principal grocery shopper in your household?

“N/A”: “Is there a time when he/she will most likely be available?” <Record and re-

attempt>

“No”: “Thank you and have a pleasant day/evening” <Terminate call>

<New interviewee>: Repeat above then continue below

<Currently speaking>: Continue with, “Then please be aware that…”

Your responses will remain anonymous. The information you provide will not be

linked to you personally, but rather, will be combined with the responses of

the other individuals that participate in the survey. Your voluntary

participation will assist in the assessment and response to <Asian

Indian/Chinese/Mexican/Puerto Rican> consumer trends and preferences.

It will take approximately five to ten minutes to complete this survey. May I

proceed with asking you some questions about your fruits and vegetable

purchases? Y/N

“Yes”: Proceed to questionnaire

“No”: “Thank you and have a pleasant evening” <Terminate call>

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________

1a. Have you purchased any <Ethnic group> fresh fruits or vegetables over the

past 12 months?

1.1 Yes

2.1 No

“Yes”: Proceed to question #2

“No”: Follow-up with question 1b;

1b. What are your reasons for NOT purchasing? Please provide all reasons

that contribute to your decision NOT to purchase. <If necessary,

prompt/code all that apply>

1.1 Do not like <Ethnic group> produce

4.1 Closest ethnic outlet

is too far

2.1 Lack of availability in American store5.1 No ethnic

store/outlet available

3.1 Poor selection in American store 6.1 Other <”Please

specify”>_________

Go to question #12, record response, and close with “Since you have not

purchased <Ethnic group> fresh fruits or vegetables over the past 12 months,

that completes our survey. Thank you for your valued participation in this

study.”

2. Over the course of the year, how often do you typically purchase <Ethnic

group> fruits and vegetables within a month? XXXX times/visits

3. On average, how much do you spend on <Ethnic group> fruits & vegetables per

visit? $XXX.XX

39

4. On average, how much do you spend for all of your fruits & vegetables, in a

month? $XXX.XX

5. Where do you tend to buy <Ethnic group> fruits & vegetable during the course

of the year? Please indicate all places, even if only available seasonally,

from the following:

<Code all that apply>

1.1 Typical American grocery stores

4.1 On-farm markets or roadside

stands

2.1 Ethnic grocery stores

5.1 Other <”Please

specify”>_________

3.1 Community farmers' market

6. What portion of your <Ethnic group> fruits & vegetables are purchased at

typical American grocery stores? Would you say, “ALL, MOST, SOME, or NONE”?

<If necessary, provide examples of “American grocery stores” such as; “A&P,

Albertsons/ACME, Food Lion, Foodtown, Piggly Wiggly, Sam’s Club/Walmart, and

Wegmans” >

1. 1 All

2.1 Most

3.1 Some

4.1 None

7. How close to your home is the nearest <Ethnic group> grocery store or

market? XXXX miles

<If necessary, encourage to approximate, or code:>

1 Not aware of such a store w/in 60 miles

8. I am now going to read you, in your language of origin, the names of some

<Ethnic group> fruits and vegetables. I will ask you for the quantity that

you buy per week and the typical price that you pay for the item, regardless

of where you purchase.

<Respondent purchase data is to be collected and recorded, by produce item, as

follows;

Read first name listed for item. List alternate names, as needed, until respondent

recognizes item.

If necessary, prompt with “pounds, bunches, or numbers”. Code response

accordingly.

If necessary, prompt with “either price per unit OR total purchase cost”. Code as

appropriate; only one of the two (price or purchase cost) need be recorded, as it will

be used to estimate the other.>

No:

Name

Quantity/Week

Price/Unit

Total

Purchase Cost

1

Lbs/bunch/numbers

2

Lbs/bunch/numbers

3

Lbs/bunch/numbers

4

Lbs/bunch/numbers

5

Lbs/bunch/numbers

6

Lbs/bunch/numbers

7

Lbs/bunch/numbers

8

Lbs/bunch/numbers

9

Lbs/bunch/numbers

10

Lbs/bunch/numbers

I am going to read to you a list of attributes, and ask you to rate the

importance of each in terms of your decision to shop for and purchase <Ethnic

group> fruits and vegetables.

9. Please respond to each of the following with whether the attribute is “VERY,

SOMEWHAT, or NOT” important: <If necessary, repeat categories and/or define attribute

as indicated>

Very

Somewhat

Not

important Unsure

a) Store Availability (Location/Season)

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

b) Language (Spoken/Understood/Labels/Ads) 1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

And specifically, in terms of the fruits and vegetables:

c) Selection (Variety/Origin)

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

d) Freshness (Ripeness/Maturity)

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

e) Quality (Taste/Nutrition/Shelf-life)

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

f) Price (per relative unit)

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

g) Packaging (Type or pack size/units)

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

h) Other <”Please specify”>:_______

1.1

2.1

Now I will read you a few of those same attributes, and ask you to compare

<Ethnic group> outlets to typical American or conventional establishments,

based on each attribute.

10. Please respond to the following with whether you find the <Ethnic group>

outlets to be “BETTER, the SAME, or WORSE” than the conventional

establishments, in terms of their fruits and vegetables: <If necessary, repeat

categories and/or define as in #9 and below>

Better

Same

Worse

Unsure

a) Selection is

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

b) Freshness is

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

c) Quality is (Includes packaging)

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

d) Price is

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

e) Packaging (Type or pack size/units)

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

f) Other <”Please specify”>:_______

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

11. Are you willing to pay more for <Ethnic group> fruits and vegetables than

the comparable American or conventional substitutes, and if so, what percent

more? XXXX percent (“No” =0)

<If necessary, prompt with, “Would you say approximately 5, 10, 15, 20%, or more

than 20%?”>

12. If made available to you, would you be “MORE willing to buy, INDIFFERENT

to, or LESS willing to buy” <Ethnic group> fruits and vegetables that are:

<If necessary, repeat answer choices:>

More willing Indifferent Less

willing Unsure

a) Sold in <Ethnic group> outlets

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

b) Grown on local farms

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

c) Organically grown

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

d) Genetically modified

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

d) Labeled according to country of origin 1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

e) Recently introduced or new to market

1.1

2.1

3.1

4.1

13. Which types of advertisements would influence your decision to purchase

<Ethnic group> fruits & vegetables? Please indicate all types, even if not

currently available, from the following: <Code all categories that apply, after

providing examples listed>

1.1 Out-of-store ads (media including radio, TV, newspaper, and on-line)

2.1 Visible-from-road ads (such as billboards and on-farm or roadside stands

promotions)

3.1 On-site or in-store ads (displays, demos, brochures, posters/banners, or

announcements)

4.1 Point-of-purchase ads (price cards/tags or produce identification;

labels/stickers)

5.1 None

6.1 Other <”Please specify”>_________

14. Do you grow <Ethnic group> fruits or vegetables for consumption at home?

1.1 Yes

2.1 No

15. Are you a vegetarian?

1.1 Yes

2.1 No

The following information concerning you and your household are necessary for

classification purpose. Again, your answers will be kept strictly confidential

and used only to help us interpret the aggregate survey results.

16. Is your neighborhood URBAN, SUBURBAN, or RURAL?

1.1 Urban

2.1 Suburban

3.1 Rural

17. How many years have you been living in <City, State>? XXXX years

18. Including yourself, how many people are in your household? XXXX people

19. How many of the people in your household are age 17 or less? XXXX people

20. Which of the following ranges includes your age: <Read options>

1.1 Less than 20

4.1 51 to 65

2.1 21 to 35

5.1 Over 65

3.1 36 to 50

21. What is the highest level of education equivalent that you have completed:

<Read options>

1.1 Less than 12th grade

3.1 4 year college degree

2.1 High school graduate

4.1 Post graduate or advanced degree

3.1 2 year college degree

22. Which of the following best describes your current occupation? <Read

options>

1.1 Employed by someone else

4.1 Full-time Homemaker

2.1 Self-employed

5.1 Unemployed

3.1 Retired

6.1 Other <”Please specify”>:_______

23. Which of the following ranges includes the annual-income of your household

before taxes:

1.1 Less than $20,000

4.1 $60,000 to $79,999

7.1 $125,000

to $149,999

2.1 $20,000 to $39,999

5.1 $80,000 to $99,999

8.1 $150,000

to $199,999

3.1 $40,000 to $59,999

6.1 $100,000 to $124,999

9.1 $200,000

or more

24. Which of the following best describes your current marital status? <Read

options>

1.1 Married

4.1 Separated

2.1 Single

5.1 Widower

3.1 Divorced

6.1 Other <”Please specify”>:_______

25. <Code based on interviewer’s determination>

1.1 Female

2.1 Male

26. Do you speak your ethnic language? <If necessary, prompt to answer with “Yes”

or “No”>

1.1 Yes

2.1 No

3.1 Somewhat/very little <Only if

indecisive>

27. Where were you born?

1.1 U.S.

2.1 <Country of Ethnic origin>

3.1Other (please

specify):________

“US”: (Skip question #28) Read final statements and then terminate call

<Country of Ethnic origin> or “Other”: proceed to question #28

28. How old were you when you arrived in the US? XXXX Years

Our survey is now complete. Thank you for your valued participation in

this study.

<If necessary at any time during the survey, provide project sponsor information and

contacts below:>

Rutgers University contact:

Dr. Ramu Govindasamy

PHONE: (732)932-9171,x-254

E-MAIL: govindasamy@aesop.rutgers.edu

Sponsoring organization:

Department of Agricultural, Food & Resource Economics

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

55 Dudley Road

New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-8520

PHONE: 732/932-9155

FAX: 732/932-8887

WEBSITE: www.aesop.rutgers.edu/~agecon

Partner Sponsoring Organization:

Unites States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

WEBSITE: www.usda.gov

OR

USDA Agricultural Research Service

5601 Sunnyside Avenue

Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5128

WEBSITE: www.ars.udsa.gov