ASSESSING NEEDS AND MARKETING STRATEGIES FOR SMALL-SCALE
HISPANIC FARMERS IN MICHIGAN

By
Lourdes R. Martinez Romero

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILSOPHY
Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies
2011

ABSTRACT
ASSESSING NEEDS AND MARKETING STRATEGIES FOR SMALL-SCALE
HISPANIC FARMERS IN MICHIGAN
By
Lourdes R. Martinez Romero

Hispanic farmers are the largest and fastest growing sector of minority farming groups in
the United States. They are categorized as “socially disadvantaged” and most operate “limited
resource” farms. In the Midwest, Michigan ranks first in the number of Hispanic farmers and,
despite overall indicators of economic expansion of the agricultural sector, Michigan Hispanic
farmers continue to show poor economic performance. The main objective of this dissertation is
to analyze Michigan Hispanic farmers’ access to, and participation in, federal, state and
community-based organizations and support programs that are designed to improve their farming
conditions. In addition, this dissertation analyzes farmers’ marketing experience and ability to
access local and regional markets that can increase farm income. Finally, the third objective is to
analyze the use of social connections to access relevant marketing information in order to
improve farm management.
This dissertation followed a case study approach. In total, 50 Hispanic farmers were
identified using a combination of key informants and snowball sampling techniques. The data
collection strategy included structured in-depth interviews and group meetings, surveys of farm
and demographic characteristics, and participant observations. Results included qualitative and
quantitative analyses which were organized in three different essays. The first essay presents the
current social and farming conditions of Hispanic farmers in Michigan – their need for

production and marketing assistance and support, and their level of access to this assistance from
federal, state or community-based organizations. The second essay explores Hispanic farmers’
marketing experience, skills, and expectations for the future. The objective is to identify farmers’
specific marketing needs and limitations, and areas in which government and community-based
agents could assist these farmers’ efforts to improve their marketing opportunities. Finally, the
third essay illustrates the importance of social and business connections so that Hispanic farmers
have more access to marketing information. In order to succeed and remain competitive in agrofood value chains, Hispanic farmers need to focus on mechanisms to access such important
information.
The results suggest that Hispanic farmers in this sample generally do not use the
resources available to them, and those who most need it are less likely to participate in programs
designed to support their farm endeavors. While Hispanic farmers have been able to access local
markets over the years, they still struggle with identifying and accessing new markets, and rely
heavily on single-market strategies that increase dependence on these markets. They have not
defined a marketing objective that would guide their efforts to improve their farm viability.
Nevertheless, these farmers have an extensive network that can become a method to overcome
marketing limitations. Nonetheless, they still face issues of limited connections outside their
local markets, and lack of trust among other Hispanic farmers. Coordinated policies and outreach
efforts among farmers, extension and NGO agents can help Hispanic farmers increase their
participation in local value chains, and improve their farm viability

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to thank my major professor and advisor Dr. R. James Bingen for his
guidance and support throughout my PhD program and at the end of this steep road which is
writing a dissertation. Thanks to Dr. Suzanne Thornsbury who kindly provided her expertise and
useful comments which improve the quality of my research and dissertation. Dr. David Conner
and Dr. Phillip Howard provided their knowledge and accompany me during this process for
which I am really thankful.
My research has been possible thanks to the funds provided by the Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Extension (SARE) student grant, the MSU Graduate School research
enhancement fellowship and the Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP)
student grant. I would like to acknowledge the support of the College of Agricultural and Natural
Resources which awarded me a dissertation completion fellowship.
Connecting with Hispanic farmers in Michigan was possible thanks to Mr. Filiberto Villa
who so nicely agreed to introduce me to his friends in Southwest Michigan. Mr. Felipe Llerenas
also took time out of his busy schedule to introduce me to other Hispanic farmers. Mr. Antonio
Castro-Escobar from the Michigan Department of Agriculture kindly accompanied me several
weekends and introduced me to a wonderful group of farmers.
Special thanks to Mr. Luis Garcia, from the MSU College Assistance Migrant Program
(CAMP) and High School Equivalency Program (HEP). Thanks to his support I was able to
contact more people who worked with Hispanics in Michigan and through his friends I was able
to recruit more farmers for my research. In addition, Luis and his wife Irma were and will always
iv

be my family in Michigan. So many times I just went to their place and they so nicely shared
with me wonderful time and conversations, so important when you are away from the ones you
love.
My dear friends Edith, Ana Delia, Cecilia and Itza were with me all the time along this
journey. They gave me strength and support when I needed the most, and they provided the
laugh and good moments even when things looked like they were falling apart. Thanks to Jenny
Buckley for hours of conversation in the office or sometimes over a drink. From far away, Dr.
Laura Donnet was a constant support and expert in so many areas ranging from agricultural
economics to eastern philosophy. Also, I want to thank my friends and colleagues in the CARRS
department who were very supportive all these years.
To my parents, Tomas and Carmen, I owe everything I am today. They have always
supported me and loved me so much even when they did not understand what I was doing. My
sister Norma is my inspiration and the reason why I kept on studying. She took the time to listen
to me and to provide her wise and unconditional support during all these years. My sister
Carmen is the single reason why I was able to come to the U.S. and fulfill my dreams.
Thanks to Athur, my best friend and my love, for being so supportive even when he was
going through his own ordeal.
Finally, I thank God for each and single day of this program.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ xi
CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
References ....................................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................. 10
HISPANIC FARMERS IN MICHIGAN: SOCIAL AND FARMING CONDITIONS AND
NEEDS FOR ASSISTANCE........................................................................................................ 10
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 10
Background ............................................................................................................................... 12
Key terminology .................................................................................................................... 12
Hispanic Farmers’ Migration to the Midwest and Michigan ............................................... 14
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................................ 20
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 23
Hispanic farmers in Michigan: current demographic and farming conditions.................... 23
Access and Need for Assistance ............................................................................................ 27
Participation in federal, state, NGO programs, or farmer’s groups .................................... 31
Summary and Discussion .......................................................................................................... 33
Chapter II - Appendix A ........................................................................................................... 44
References ................................................................................................................................. 48
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................. 52
HISPANIC FARMERS IN MICHIGAN: MARKETING EXPERIENCE, SKILLS AND
EXPECTATIONS IN ACCESSING PRODUCE MARKETS..................................................... 52
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 52
Background ............................................................................................................................... 53
Hispanic farmers: Social and Economic performance ......................................................... 53
Hispanic Farmers’ Marketing Practices in Michigan .......................................................... 55
Conceptual framework .............................................................................................................. 57
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................................ 61
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 67
Marketing Experience ........................................................................................................... 67
Marketing Skills .................................................................................................................... 71
Marketing plans .................................................................................................................... 76
Summary and Discussion .......................................................................................................... 80
References ................................................................................................................................. 96
vi

CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................... 102
MICHIGAN HISPANIC FARMERS’ USE OF SOCIAL NETWORKS TO ACCESS
MARKETING INFORMATION................................................................................................ 102
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 102
Background ............................................................................................................................. 103
Conceptual framework ............................................................................................................ 107
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis .............................................................................. 111
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 114
Family networks .................................................................................................................. 114
Friend Network ................................................................................................................... 117
Local Buyer Networks ......................................................................................................... 120
Outside buyer network ........................................................................................................ 123
Summary and Discussion ........................................................................................................ 125
References ............................................................................................................................... 132
CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................... 137
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 137
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 145
Appendix A. Survey Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 146
Appendix B. Dissertation Coding Scheme .............................................................................. 152

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. 2007 Midwest Hispanic Principal Operators, Total Farm Acres and Average
Farm Size …………………………………………………………………………………. 37
Table 2. Participants Characteristics from Interview and Survey ………………...……… 38
Table 3. Participants by County and total Agriculture Census proportion ……………….. 39
Table 4. Participants Farming Characteristics ..…………………………………………… 39
Table 5. Farm Size and Area Cultivate..………………………………………………….. 40
Table 6. Number of Producers by Size of Operation and Production ……………………. 40
Table 7. Percentage of Income from Farming ………………………………..................... 40
Table 8. Hispanic Farmers Assistance Needed and Received in Michigan ……………… 41
Table 9. Assistance Needed and Received by Size of Farm Operation …………………… 41
Table 10. Hispanic Farmers Participation and Knowledge of Federal, State, NGO and
Farmer’s Groups ..………………………………………………….................................... 42
Table 11. Federal, State and NGO programs with programs for Hispanic Farmers……… 45
Table 12. Land Use for Fruit and Vegetable Production and Number of Hispanic
Principal Operators in the Midwest .………………………..…………………………….. 87
Table 13. Years Farming in Michigan …………...……………………………..………... 88
Table 14. Years Farming in Michigan by Origin ………………………………..……..… 88
Table 15. Examples of Participants Previous Experience Farming ..……………………… 89
Table 16. Sales by Market Channels ……………………………………………………… 90
Table 17. Use of Multiple Market Channels by Type of Production ………………………90
Table 18. Intention to Sell to Supermarkets (SM) and Restaurants by Type of Production .91
Table 19. Difficulty Dealing with Transaction Costs Variables ………………………….. 91
Table 20. Hispanic Farmers’ Expected Improvements for the Future ………..................... 92
viii

Table 21. Hispanic Farmers’ Reasons to Continue the Same in the Future ………………. 92
Table 22. Hispanic Farmers’ Reasons to Quit farming in the Future …………………….. 92
Table 23. Correlation Results for Sales to Different Markets……………………………... 93
Table 24. Table Exact Logistic Regression Results …………..…………………………... 94
Table 25. Codes used for Assistance and Support from Federal, State and NGO groups... 152
Table 26. Codes used for Marketing Experience, Skills and Expectations for the Future... 154
Table 27. Codes used for Use of Social Networks to Access Marketing Information …… 163

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Farms with a Hispanic Principal Operator in the Midwest …………..

43

Figure 2. Indicators to Measure Hispanic Farmers Marketing Experience and Skills
………………………………….…………………………………………

95

Figure 3. Strength of Relationships based on Burt (1997) ……………...………

130

Figure 4. Strength of Relationships among Hispanic Farmers ………..………..

131

x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

2007 Census of Agriculture…………………………….…………..

Census

Community Supported Agriculture ………………………………..

CSA

Conservation Stewardship ….…………………….………………..

CSP

Environmental Quality Incentives..………………………….……..

EQIP

Farm Service……………….……………………………………….

FSA

General Education Development .………………………………….

GED

Good Agricultural Practices ………………………………………..

GAP

Good Handling Practices…………………………….………….….

GHP

High School Equivalency Program ……………….………………

HEP

Integrated Pest Management…………….…………………………

IPM

Michigan Department of Agriculture ..…………….………………

MDA

Michigan Food and Farming Systems……………………...………

MIFFS

Michigan State University ..……….……………………………….

MSU

National Institute of Food and Agriculture…………………………

NIFA

Natural Resource Conservation Agency .…………………………..

NRCS

Non-Governmental Organization…….……………………………..

NGO

Small Socially-Disadvantaged Producer ..………………………….

SSDPG

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension…..………………

SARE

The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990…..…

Farm Bill

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act

IIRIRA

The Immigration Reform and Control Act…..……………………..

IRCA

The Legal Immigration and Family Equity …………..……………

LIFE

United States Department of Agriculture…………………………..

USDA

xi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Hispanic farmers are the largest and fastest growing sector of minority farming groups in
the United States (Kandel and Cromartie 2004; Fry 2008) Around the country, Hispanic farmers
have received considerable attention from government and non-government organizations
(NGOs), because they are more likely to be beginning farmers and continue to be categorized as
“limited resource” and “socially disadvantaged” farmers (Dismukes et al. 1997; Ahearn and
Newton 2009; Kleiner and Green 2008). The U. S. 2007 Census of Agriculture (Census) reported
a 14 percent increase in the number of Hispanic farm operators since 2002, significantly
exceeding the overall increase in farm operators across the country (U.S. NASS 2009).
Reportedly, Hispanic farm production exceeds 20 million acres of land, producing crops and
livestock worth at least $6 billion, making it an important contributor of agricultural outputs
(U.S. NASS 2009). However, despite Hispanic farmers growing importance in agricultural and
rural communities, they struggle to increase their income and maintain their farm viability.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) characterizes Hispanic farmers as
“socially disadvantaged” farmers (Dismukes et al. 1997; FACT 1990). These farmers or ranchers
are part of a group which has been “subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their
identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities” (FACT 1990), a
situation that has prevented farmers from accessing important services to improve their farming
condition. In addition – and also tied to their social condition – Hispanic farmers are more likely
1

to operate limited resource farms, which are operations in a given geographic area (e.g., a state,
county, or project area), which have distinct economic disadvantages when compared to other
farmers’ operations (Hoppe and Korb 2005). In a study conducted on behalf of the National
Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) (Swisher et al., 2007), Hispanic farmers around the
country confirmed numerous difficulties they face when striving to increase their income and
maintain their farms. Among the most serious, Hispanic farmers struggle with access to
information, knowledge about government programs and regulations, access to production
resources (e.g., equipment, land, and infrastructure), limited production management skills (e.g.,
pest management, water availability), limited financial access, and marketing challenges. These
issues represent barriers to improving their farming conditions (Swisher et al., 2007).
Given Hispanic farmers social and economic struggles, the objectives of this dissertation
are:
i) to analyze Hispanic farmers current farming conditions and to explore access to
support from federal, state and community-based organizations,
ii) to analyze marketing experience, skills and specific plans to access local and regional
markets
iii) to explore social and business connections to access relevant marketing information
that could help them improve their farm management.
Regarding geographic scope, the analysis focuses on small-scale Hispanic farmers in
Michigan. Michigan represents an important reference for Hispanic farmers in the Midwest, as it
ranks tenth in the country, and first in the Midwest in the number of Hispanic farmers (U.S.
NASS 2009). Despite overall indicators of economic expansion in the agricultural sector in
2

Michigan (Peterson et al., 2006), Hispanic farmers continue to show poor economic performance
(U.S. NASS 2009). The Census reports that 53 percent of Hispanic farmers in Michigan reported
total annual sales of less than $5,000 and more than 40 percent cite farming as their primary
occupation (U.S. NASS 2009), confirming the importance of finding alternative strategies to
increase farm viability for this segment of the farm population, and the need to include and
address the types of support Hispanic farmers require to increase market participation and
income.
The dissertation results were organized in case studies (Yin 1998). The selection of
participants, data collection strategy and analysis of results followed a multi-method approach. A
multi-method approach made possible that a large number of farmers could be included in this
research and helped validate the results (Maxwell 2005). For the selection of participants, only
farmers producing fruit and vegetables were considered for this research. This selection was
necessary given that produce farmers differ from other farmers in terms of farm size, which tend
to be smaller than other crops, and marketing channels, which are different from those used by
commodities such as corn and soybean or other products such as milk. According to the Census,
approximately 166 Hispanic farmers in Michigan are producers of fruit, vegetable and berries
(U.S. NASS 2009). From this population, two methods were used to identify and recruit
participants. First, key informants from different groups currently working with Hispanics in
Michigan provided the names and contact information of some potential participants. Second,
snowball sampling, in which one participant yielded a new set of contacts, provided additional
potential participants. After these contacts were made, a total of 50 Hispanic farmers were
identified and agreed to participate in this study from July 2009 to May 2010.
3

For the data collection, the study used a structured in-depth interviews and group
meetings, survey of farm and demographic characteristics and participant observation during
seminars, meetings and a farm conference. All participants followed the same line of inquiry to
ensure that results could be compared from different people and from groups (Patton 2002). All
the information collected from the survey and interviews was entered in NVivo software and
coded for qualitative data analysis. Descriptive information from the survey was entered and
analyzed in PWAS/SPSS software for data analysis.
The results were organized into three different essays. The first essay (Chapter 2)
presents the current social and farming conditions of Hispanic farmers in Michigan, their needs
for production and marketing assistance and support, and their access to this assistance from
federal, state or community-based organizations. Hispanic farmers face unique challenges to
assimilate and participate in agricultural and farming programs designed to support farmers and
help them improve the viability of their farms. A large percentage of Hispanic farmers in
Michigan do not use the resources available to them and those who need more support are less
likely to participate in programs designed to support their farm endeavors. As Hispanic farmers
become more involved in agricultural production and rural communities, access to relevant
production and market information from the government and community-based agencies are
very important to effectively help them deal with challenges in their markets and remain
competitive.
The second essay (Chapter 3) explores Hispanic farmers’ marketing experience, skills
and expectations for the future. Studies on small business and rural entrepreneurship suggest that
marketing experience, skills and clear expectations for the future are important personal
4

resources to access markets and improve business and farm viability. Thus, the objective of this
essay is to identify farmers’ specific marketing needs and limitations and areas in which policy
and government agents and community-based organizers could support these farmers. The
results suggest that while over the years Hispanic farmers have gained important marketing
experiences and skills that have helped them access their current markets, they still struggle and
need support to deal with different marketing issues such as access to new markets and heavy
dependence on single markets. In addition, when asked about their expectations for the future,
most Hispanic farmers have not clearly defined a marketing objective that would help them
guide their efforts to improve their farm viability.
Finally, the third essay (Chapter 4) illustrates the importance of social and business
connections for Hispanic farmers to access more marketing information. In general, marketing
information is very important for farmers and farm management, because it represents an ‘aid to
decision-making’ (Gofton 1997). Thus, for Hispanic farmers with limited access to marketing
information there is need to focus on mechanisms to access such important information to
succeed in agro-food value chains. Hispanic farmers who already have an extensive social
network could use it as a feasible alternative to overcome marketing limitations. However, issues
such as limited connections outside their local markets and lack of trust among farmers need to
be addressed to fully benefit from their rich social network.
Hispanic farmers need innovative outreach and extension support that government and
NGO groups can, and in some cases already, provide. Some initiatives include targeted training
sessions with relatively small group of farmers. An important consideration to increase the
number of participant is that training sessions, farm meetings or field days should accommodate
5

the needs of part-time farmers who work during the week and cannot participate during regular
office hours. Bilingual sessions could help farmers get more acquainted with farm management
jargon and specific marketing information. In addition, government and NGOs can help Hispanic
farmers increase their number of connections to more businesses and in different markets.

6

References

7

References

Ahearn, M., and Newton, D.J. 2009. Beginning farmers and ranchers. Washington DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, ESCS for Econ Inform Bul 29, May.
Dismukes, R., Harwood, J.L. and Bentley, S.E. 1997. Characteristics and Risk Management
Needs of Limited-Resource and Socially Disadvantaged Farmers. Washington DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, ESCS for Agric. Infor Bull 733, April.
FACT, Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. 1990. Title SEC. 2501
“Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers.” Available at:
http://national4-hheadquarters.gov/about/offices/legis/25fact.html.
Fry, R. 2008. Latino Settlement in the New Century. Washington DC: Pew Hispanic Center
Report.
Gofton, L. 1997. “Marketing Research.” In D. I. Padberg, C. Ritson, and L. M. Albisu, eds. AgriFood Marketing Oxon and New York: CAB International, pp. 225-252.
Hoppe, R.A. and Korb, P. 2005. Large and Small Farms: Trends and Characteristics.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ESCS for Agric. Info Bul 797, March.
Kandel, W. and Cromartie, J. 2004. New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ESCS for Rur Develop Res Rep 99,
May.
Kleiner, A.M. and Green, J.J. 2008. “Expanding the Marketing Opportunities and Sustainable
Production Potential for Minority and Limited-Resource Agricultural Producers in
Louisiana and Mississippi.” Southern Rural Sociology, 23(1): 149-169.
Maxwell, J.A. 2005. Qualitative Research Design An Interactive Approach. 2nd ed. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 3rd ed. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Peterson, H.C., Knudson, W.A. and Abate, G. 2006. The Economic Impact and Potential of
Michigan’s Agri-Food System. Lansing MI: Michigan State University Product Center
Report 1-1606.

8

Swisher, M.E., Brenna, M., and Shah, M. 2007. Hispanic-Latino Farmers and Ranchers Project.
Final Report. Washington DC: Dept. of Fam., Youth and Comm. Sciences, University of
Florida.
U.S. NASS National Agricultural Statistical Service. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture.
Washington DC.
Yin, R.K., 1998. “The Abridged Version of Case Study Research: Design and Method.” In L.
Bickman and D. J. Rog, eds. Handbook of Applied Social Science Research Methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 229-259.

9

CHAPTER 2

HISPANIC FARMERS IN MICHIGAN: SOCIAL AND FARMING CONDITIONS AND
NEEDS FOR ASSISTANCE

Introduction
Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing minority group in non-metropolitan areas of
the U. S. While areas in the South were the traditional destinations for Hispanic immigrants,
since the 1990s the Southeast and Midwest have seen the greatest influx of Hispanic migration.
In the Midwest alone, the number of farms with a Hispanic operator increased by more than 200
percent in Kansas and Michigan, and 110 percent in Minnesota between 1992 and 2007. Other
states – such as Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota – have almost double the number of farms
managed by a Hispanic operator. In the 10 year period from 1997 to 2007, while almost all
Midwestern states saw a rise in the number of Hispanic farm operators, this increase in number
was most dramatic (120 percent) in Michigan, ranking it first in the Midwest and 10th in the
nation in the number of Hispanics as principal farm operators.
Although Hispanic migration is not a new event in Michigan, most studies on Hispanic
migration have generally addressed migrants’ working conditions in factories and farms, with
very limited attention to those who farm. Though the percentage of Hispanic farmers in
Michigan remains relatively low (around one percent) the number of farms managed by
Hispanics as principal operators is growing rapidly, according to the Census and other studies.
As this number increases, so too does awareness that this group of farmers – many who are just
beginning to farm – need assistance in overcoming the characterization that they are “limited
10

resource” and “socially disadvantaged” farmers. This assistance is needed if the objective to
support “the success of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers as they work to feed people
in their local communities and throughout the world”1 is to be accomplished.
Within the main objective of supporting and improving the farming condition of Hispanic
farmers in Michigan, the specific objectives of this paper are: to update information about
Hispanic farmers in Michigan, including demographic and farming characteristics; to provide
information about their need and access to programs designed to promote farm viability; and to
address specific needs for assistance to improve Hispanic farmers’ access to markets and farm
viability. To accomplish these objectives, this paper uses the result of surveys and interviews
with 50 Hispanic farmers in Michigan from September 2009 to May 2010.
Currently, Hispanic farmers in Michigan still struggle with social disadvantages and
marginalization. In addition, a large percentage of Hispanic farmers in Michigan do not use the
resources that are available to them. Those who need more support are less likely to participate
in programs designed to support their farm endeavors. As Hispanic farmers become more
involved in agricultural production and rural communities, they need access to relevant
production and market information from government and community-based agencies that will
effectively help them deal with challenges in their markets.
This paper is divided as follows: first, it provides background information on main
terminology used, and a brief historical review of Hispanic migration into Michigan and the
Midwest to contextualize the current situation of Hispanic farmers. The second section describes

1

USDA Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan
http://www.nifa.usda.gov/newsroom/news/2009news/12091_socially_disadvantaged.html
11

methods of data collection and analysis, the third section presents the results and, finally, a
discussion summarizes the main findings, research limitations and areas for future research.
Background
Key terminology
Several concepts introduced in the 1990 U. S. Farm Bill and the Census of Agriculture
are commonly used by USDA federal programs to characterize Hispanic farmers’ social and
farming conditions. In order to better understand the implication of these labels in the context of
this investigation, the most relevant terms are explained in greater detail. First, this paper follows
the U. S. Census of Agriculture (the Census) definition of “Hispanics.” According to the Census,
Hispanics are all people who indicate their origin as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or
South American, or some other Hispanic origin. Hispanics can be of any race (U.S. NASS). In
more general terms, “Hispanic” is a label used to group individuals living in the U. S. who have
some background, or are from Spanish-speaking countries, in Latin America (Hoy 2007). Other
terms, such as Latino, Chicano, Latin-American, and Mexican-American, are also commonly
used to describe this group. In this paper, all these different terms are grouped under the term
“Hispanic” for simplicity and consistency.
A second term to clarify is the definition of “farmers”. In this paper, Hispanic farmers are
people who describe themselves as farm principal operators in the Census (U.S. NASS).
According to the Census, principal operators are those “primarily responsible for the on-site,
day-to-day operation of the farm or ranch business. This person may be a hired manager or
business manager” (U.S. NASS). Considering this definition, principal operators do not
necessarily own the land on which they farm. Hispanic farmers range from newcomers (e.g.,
12

immigrants from other countries), who may or may not own land they farm, to established
individuals whose families have farmed for generations (Swisher et al., 2007).
The USDA considers all Hispanic farmers to be members of a group called “socially
disadvantaged farmers”. This term was first introduced in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act of 1990 (1990 Farm Bill). The 1990 Farm Bill defined these farmers or ranchers
as people who have been “subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as
members of a group without regard to their individual qualities” (FACT 1990). In addition to
Hispanic farmers, other farmer groups considered socially disadvantaged are African-Americans,
Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, Asians, and Pacific Islanders.
The USDA also acknowledges that most Hispanic farmers operate “limited resource
farms”. These farms are operations in a given geographic area (e.g., state, county, or project
area) with distinct disadvantages when compared to other farms and farmers in the same
geographic area. A farm qualifies as a limited-resource farm when it has gross sales of less than
$100,000 in a given year, total assets less than $150,000, and total household income less than
$20,000 in a given year (Hoppe and Korb 2005). In addition, household income is considered
low when it is below the poverty level for a family of four, or less than half the median
household income in a specific county in a given year (Hoppe et al., 2007).
Finally, this dissertation follows the U.S. Census Bureau geographical division of
regions. The main purpose is to facilitate comparisons among different studies addressing
Hispanic migration and demographic changes in the Midwest. The Midwest, as indicated by the
Census Bureau, is a geographic region comprised of the following states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,

13

Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and
Wisconsin.
After clarifying the main terms used in this dissertation, the next step is to briefly analyze
the most important historical events that have been identified as promoters of Hispanic migration
to the Midwest, including Michigan. These events help to explain Hispanic farmers’ decision to
farm in Michigan and, to some extent, explain their current socio-economic condition.
Hispanic Farmers’ Migration to the Midwest and Michigan
Overall, Hispanics have become the largest minority group in the U. S., and are the
fastest growing minority group in non-metropolitan areas (Kandel and Cromartie 2004; Fry
2008). Historically, areas in the Southwest were the preferred destination of Hispanics
immigrants. In recent years, non-metropolitan areas in the Southeast, Midwest and Northwest
have seen the greatest growth in the number Hispanic immigrants (Naples 2000; Kandel and
Cromartie 2004; Fry 2008). In the Midwest, all states showed an increase in the number of farms
with a Hispanic principal operator between 1992 and 2007 according to the Census of
Agriculture. However, from 1997 to 2007, the number of farms managed by Hispanic farmers
increased 120 percent in Michigan, 67 percent in Kansas, 14 percent in Minnesota and 12
percent in Illinois, whereas Indiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin saw a
decrease in the number of farms managed by Hispanic farmers during the same period (Figure
1). According to this data, Michigan has become one of the most important destinations for
Hispanic farmers in the Midwest (Table 1).
Researchers who study Hispanic migration recognize different factors that have
influenced migration and settlement in non-traditional regions in the U. S. Among the most
14

important factors were changes in immigration law and policies, job availability in the Midwest
and the development of migrant networks. Simultaneously, all these factors played an important
role in influencing the movement of Hispanics from traditional areas, such as California, Texas,
and Mexico, to the Midwest and, eventually, to Michigan.
Three specific policy changes are believed to have promoted relocation of Hispanics from
the traditional immigration areas of California and Texas to new areas in the U.S. First was, the
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), second, the passage of proposition 187 in
California, and third, the hardening of the borders in Texas and California (Hirschman and
Massey 2008).2 The passage of the IRCA gave amnesty to approximately 3 million Hispanics in
the U. S., 54 percent of whom lived and worked in California (Martin 1996). One of the main
consequences of IRCA was an enormous influx of newly legalized workers, in addition to the
constant influx of immigrants with false documents who looked for jobs. These workers
inundated the labor market in California, thus encouraging people to look for new opportunities
in other states (Martin 1996; Hirschman and Massey 2008). The IRCA also stipulated a Special
Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, which helped undocumented individuals working in
agriculture to obtain legal residency, and later relocate to areas where demand for agricultural

2

While the first wave of Hispanic migration started with the temporary farm-worker program
known as “the Bracero Program” in 1942 which ended in 1964, this program promoted mostly
migration to the Southwest and specifically to California. In the 22 years the program lasted, it
was estimated that 4.6 million “braceros” entered and settled in the U.S. (Durand and Massey
1992). Later in the 60s and up until the 80s, special immigration programs allowed more
migration of Hispanics from Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala under especial
refugees visas (Hirschman and Massey 2008).
15

labor was high (Diaz-McConnell 2004).3 In the 1990s, since most Hispanic immigrants
concentrated in California, illegal migrants, as well as the newly documented workers, created an
immigration crisis. Most Hispanic workers were unskilled and lack English proficiency which
made it harder to find better jobs (Hirschman and Massey 2008). In addition, in the 1990s,
California had an economic recession that prevented people from finding jobs. This situation
influenced new legislation to prevent local and state agency spending on illegal immigrants
(Hirschman and Massey 2008). Proposition 187 sought to ban undocumented migrants from
using publicly provided services, including schools. It also required state and local institutions to
report “suspected” illegal immigrants and made it a felony to obtain and use illegal documents
(Martin 1996; Hirschman and Massey 2008). While the proposition was ultimately challenged
and declared unconstitutional, it promoted more actions against immigrants, and gave a clear
message to all legal and illegal Hispanics that they were no longer welcome in California
(Hirschman and Massey 2008).
Another important policy that promoted relocation of Hispanics was the hardening of the
borders in California and Texas. In 1993 and 1994, two programs – known as “Operation Holdthe-Line” in El Paso, Texas, and “Operation Gatekeeper” in San Diego, California – established
high security to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing the borders. Although these procedures
were successful in these two cities, the new wave of immigrants started crossing the border

3

After IRCA, in 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(IIRIRA) extended the provision to apply for permanent residents to migrants who entered the
U.S. before 1988 and submitted their applications by January 1998. In 2000, the Legal
Immigration and Family Equity act (LIFE act) extended the deadline of IIRIRA from January
1998 to April 2001 allowing more undocumented immigrants to apply for legal residency (DiazMcConnell 2004).
16

through Arizona and the Rio Grande Valley, later moving north, relocating mostly in the
Midwest and other non-traditional regions (Hirschman and Massey 2008).
Although policy changes were important, jobs created with the development of
agricultural and wage labor markets were the most important forces promoting long-distance
migration (Rochín, 1999; Diaz-McConnell 2004; Millard and Chapa 2004; Hirschman and
Massey 2008). Millard and Chapa (2004) identified two paths of Hispanic settlement in the
Midwest. First was the arrival of migrant farm workers, which mostly included people already
born in the U. S. The second, most recent group came to work either in light industry or food
processing jobs (Millard and Chapa 2004). The latter group usually migrated directly from
Mexico, and already had jobs through informal recruitments, using Hispanic social networks
before arriving in the U. S. (Millard and Chapa 2004; Parrado and Kandel 2008).
In the Midwest, around two-thirds of the migrants who arrived after 1980 worked either
in the service sector or as laborers in low-skill and low-pay jobs (Saenz 1996). Most Hispanics
were recruited and attracted to this kind of work because they did not require skills or English
proficiency, there were few opportunities for immigrants elsewhere, and these jobs did not
compete with the local workforce (Chapa et al., 2004; Parrado and Kandel 2008). Immigrants
who arrived in the 1990s and 2000s faced even more unfavorable conditions than their
predecessors. The growing number of Hispanics did not find it easy to assimilate, often because
they arrived without legal documents and had extremely low levels of education (Massey 2008).
This disproportionate migration of undocumented young men with fewer years of formal
education and lack of English proficiency contributed to the increase in the level of

17

disadvantages and the marginalization of Hispanics (Saenz 1996; Jefferds and Millard 2004;
Kandel and Cromartie, 2004; Jensen, 2006).
Job availability influenced the growth and development of migrant networks (Durand and
Massey 1992; Winters et al., 2001). Migrant networks are composed of family, friends and
“paisanos,” or people from the same community who arrived to the U. S. before other groups,
and settled in communities. Once a group of migrants were settled in a community, costs and
risks were reduced for the next group of newcomers. Social ties, particularly labor ties, were
easier to establish (Durand and Massey 1992). Family and community networks generated
information and assistance to newcomers. Finally, once networks were established, migration
became generalized, hard to stop, and dynamic (Winters et al., 2001).
Migrant networks which allowed Hispanics to move to the Midwest are also believed to
have helped migrants acquire land and become farmers (Garcia et al., 2008; Leach and Bean
2008). In the late 1990s and the 2000s, the acquisition of farm land by migrants in the Midwest
gained attention because most of these beginner farmers – people who have less than 10 years of
experience managing a farm – are likely to be of Hispanic background (Ahearn and Newton
2009). As mentioned before, by 2007, almost all Midwestern states saw increases in the number
of farms with at least one Hispanic principal operator, and these numbers more than doubled in
Michigan between 1997 and 2007 (Figure 1).4
In addition to migrant networks, social capital and self-initiative have also contributed to
the decision to farm. For example, in Iowa, Lewis (2009) found that farming was a strategy

4

The 2002 Census of agriculture is not included in this figure because it accounted for up to
three principal operators while the other censuses accounted for at least one principal operator of
Hispanic origin.
18

Hispanic workers found to utilize human, social, cultural and financial household assets (Lewis
2009). Lopez-Ariza (2007) reported that Hispanic farmers in Michigan used their rural
background in farm work as an opportunity to start a farm business (Lopez-Ariza 2007). In some
cases, farm owners helped Hispanic farmers acquire and work their land (Lopez-Ariza 2007).
Although most Hispanic farmers in Michigan had some farming background from either Mexico
or seasonal farm work in the U.S., the decision to farm was not entirely guided by production
and market knowledge (Santos & Castro-Escobar forthcoming).
Independence attached to owning land was also an incentive for some Hispanics to
become farmers (Lopez-Ariza 2007; Lewis, 2009; Santos and Castro-Escobar forthcoming). In a
small sample, Lopez-Ariza (2007) found that six out 12 Hispanic farmers saw farming as a way
of being their “own boss” and make decisions about their property (Lopez-Ariza 2007). Similarly
in Iowa, Lewis (2009) found that as small-scale farmers, Hispanic farmers could make a
secondary income and become more independent from landlords and employers, and possibly
diversify with other businesses (Lewis, 2009). However, their limited resource farming
represents a challenge to maintain their farms.
Evidence from studies in the Midwest suggests that Hispanics preferred the small cities
and towns because they represented an improvement in their quality of life. Rural areas had
better schools, lower crime rates, affordable housing and other amenities (Leach and Bean 2008;
Parrado and Kandel 2008). For example, the farmers in Michigan interviewed by Lopez-Ariza
(2007) saw it as a way to escape the problems connected with living in poor areas of Chicago.
After living in the city for 15 to 20 years, these Hispanics were able to afford land in Michigan
with the help of their savings or relatives and friends (Lopez-Ariza 2007). Close proximity to
19

Chicago allowed them to maintain their off-farm jobs while transitioning into farming (Santos
and Castro-Escobar forthcoming).
From these reviews it is possible to suggest that Hispanic farmers based their decision to
farm on the opportunity to use their social capital, the independence attached to farming and the
desire to improve their quality of life. However, what is not clear is whether Hispanic farmers
base their investment in farming on economic and market factors. Therefore, lack of appropriate
farm planning represents a barrier Hispanic farmers face in improving their social and farming
situation.
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis
This paper followed a case study approach. As a method, case studies are well-positioned when
the objective is to gain more knowledge about a specific group and the issues affecting this group
(Yin 2009). The limited information about Michigan Hispanic farmers’ access to, and
participation in, federal and other outreach assistance requires an exploratory inquiry for which
this framework.
The first step in this case study was to select the participants for this investigation. The
selection followed a purposeful sampling technique. This sampling technique is generally used
when the objective is to focus on specific groups and to learn more about specific issues
affecting this particular group (Patton 2002; Kemper et al., 2003). In addition, purposive
sampling provides more detailed information from smaller and carefully selected cases (Patton
2002).

20

Participants were identified using both homogeneous case and snowball sampling (Kemper et
al., 2003). Homogeneous sampling selects key elements from a group to study. In this case,
criteria to select farmers included: being defined as Hispanic according to the Census definition
and the participants’ knowledge of their ethnicity, being the principal operator of a farm or
closely related to this person (e.g., wife, husband, son, daughter), and being in charge of
production and marketing. In addition, participants had to be producers of fruit and vegetables.
This project excluded producers of grain and livestock commodities (e.g., corn, soybeans, and
beef) because they have different production and marketing channels. Finally, this project
excluded Hispanic farmers who owned large-scale operations (e.g., more than 500 acres of land)
in Michigan.
The participants were also identified through snowball sampling and key informants. At the
time of this research, there was no publicly available directory of Hispanic farmers in Michigan;
thus, snowball sampling was critical to recognize and recruit farmers for the project. Once
potential participants were identified, they were personally contacted by the researcher and asked
to take part in the study. In total, 50 Hispanic farmers agreed to participate in the project from
September 2009 to May 2010. During the recruitment process and before the interviews, a
statement of their rights was explained to participants and they each received a confidentiality
agreement.
The first step during data collection was to ask participants to complete a written survey5 with
information about their farms and their demographic characteristics, as well as questions about
their needs for farm assistance, knowledge of federal, state and non-governmental programs for
5

A sample of the survey questionnaire is available in Appendix A of the dissertation
21

farmers; and participation in farming groups or associations. After completing the initial
questionnaire, each participant was asked to comment and explain their answers during a
personal interview. For example, if participants indicated in their survey that they did not seek
assistance, they were asked to provide reasons why. This mix-method approach provided more
detailed information to understand the needs and challenges Michigan Hispanic farmers face, as
well as clarification and triangulation to validate responses. In addition to the survey and
interview, the data collected and analyzed as part of this research were compared (when
possible) with information from the Census and other recent case studies.
The survey and interview information collected was entered in NVivo software for qualitative
data analysis. Each question from the survey was represented by code. For example, the question
“Have you received assistance from any federal, state, or non-profit organization?” was
represented by the code “assistance received”. Sub-codes were established to organize different
responses. For example under “assistance received” two sub-codes, “have not tried” and
“institutions” were developed to account for participants who never tried to access any assistance
and those who specifically mentioned institutions from which they had or had not received
assistance, respectively6.
Descriptive information from the survey was entered and analyzed in PWAS/SPSS software.
All the descriptive information is presented in tables. In cases where groups within this sample
were constructed and compared, the corresponding Chi-square statistic was computed and
reported in tables to determine the relationship among variables.7 Lastly, the results are
6

The coding scheme is available in Appendix B of the dissertation.
Chi-square test is used to test for statistical independence of variables. If the test provides an
indicator that variables are independent it means that there is no relationship between the
22

7

organized and presented in three different sections; first, a section with descriptive information
about Hispanic farmers’ current demographic and farming conditions; second, farmers’ needs
and access to assistance, and third, participation in federal, state or NGO programs or farmers’
groups.
Results
Hispanic farmers in Michigan: current demographic and farming conditions
Hispanic farms in Michigan are mostly operated by relatively young male farmers.
According to the Census, 13 percent are female principal operators, and 87 percent are male
principal operators. Regarding age group, 8 percent of Hispanic principal operators are less than
35 years old, 69 percent are between 35 and 65, and around 24 percent are more than 65 years
old. Looking at the results from this research, out of all participants (50 farmers), 78 percent
were males and 22 percent were females (Table 2). Eighty-six percent of respondents were
between the ages of 35 to 65, 10 percent were less than 35 years of age and only four percent
were more than 65 years of age (Table 2). Compared to the Census data, this research included a
slightly different segment of Hispanic farmers in Michigan, but, for the most part, results also
reflect the Census findings that most Hispanic farmers are relatively young men.
Hispanic farmers in this sample have achieved relatively low educational levels and
continue to struggle with language barriers. Only 40 percent of participants had some high
school education. This included completion of some or all years of high school, participation in a

variables. However, if the variables are related, the test will be “significant” and it is possible to
establish the relationship between variables.
23

high school equivalency program (HEP)8, and completion of general education development
certificates (GED). Sixteen percent reached only elementary school levels, which included
having had some years of elementary education, or finished it. Eight percent had some college
education. On the other hand, 28 percent did not go to school in the U.S. and had had some
education in Mexico. Finally, 9 percent did not go to school at all (Table 2). The result from this
research and results from Lopez-Ariza (2007) confirm that Hispanic farmers’ level of formal
education in Michigan remains low (Lopez-Ariza 2007) and this could be an important factor
limiting participation in different programs.
In addition to low educational levels, Hispanic farmers still struggle with English
proficiency. Although participants were not directly asked about their level of English
proficiency, they indicated a preference to continue the interview in Spanish or English. While
most participants (84 percent) chose to continue the interview in Spanish, 30 respondents (60
percent) said they understood enough English to carry out a conversation (Table 2). However,
other farmers mentioned that their limited English fluency was a barrier to access more
information. As Massey (2008) found, low English proficiency combined with low educational
levels contribute to Hispanic farmers’ disadvantages and marginalization (Massey 2008).
Most Hispanic farmers in this study have a Mexican background and operate their farms
in the southwestern part of the state. Regarding the country or region of origin, 64 percent of
participants were originally from Mexico, 12 percent were from Texas and 10 percent from the
Midwest (e.g., Indiana and Michigan). Texans and Midwest migrants also had a Mexican
8

The High School Equivalency Program (HEP) helps migratory and seasonal farm workers (or
children of such workers) who are 16 years of age or older and not currently enrolled in school to
obtain the equivalent of a high school diploma and, subsequently, to gain employment or begin
postsecondary education or training (Source: Department of Education)
24

background. Only four percent were from other Latin American (LA) countries, and 10 percent
did not answer this question (Table 2). More than 70 percent of farmers in this research operated
their farms in Van Buren County. According to the Census, Van Buren County accounts for 34
percent of the total number of Hispanic principal operators in Michigan. Other participants
operated farms in Ottawa, Allegan, Berrien, Oceana, Ingham and Lenawee counties, representing
nine percent of the total number of principal operators according to the Census (Table 3).
Hispanic farmers described their farms as family-owned operations. Eighty percent of
respondents described a “family farm” as one in which the main source of labor was from family
members. Even when 14 percent answered that their farms were individually managed, they
explained that they would most likely work with a spouse. While the principal operator is usually
a male, 16 percent answered that females would managed most of the work (Table 4). Only six
percent responded that their farms were rented, which meant that the respondent would take all
responsibility for the farm management. Later, he or she would pay the owner of the land either a
fixed amount (i.e., monthly lease payment) or share of the total sales. As mentioned above,
family members would usually help with farm chores and management. However, 44 percent of
respondents indicated they would also hire people to help with production, usually during
planting season in the case of vegetable growers, or during harvest, in the case of fruit growers
(Table 4).
Hispanic farmers are mostly part-time farmers. Of all participants, 72 percent indicated
they worked on their farms only part-time, while the remaining 28 percent indicated they were
full-time farmers (Table 4). Part-time farmers usually work an off-farm job, and work extra
hours on their farms during the growing season which, in general, runs from March to October.
25

Most part-time farmers had jobs in factories, some owned small businesses, and others provided
different services (e.g., mechanic, driver, sales). Only two farmers reported farming as a
“hobby”. Part-time farming among Hispanic farmers is consistent with overall farming trends in
the U.S. where it is observed that, increasingly, small-scale farmers have off-farm employment
(U.S. NASS 2009).
Regarding farm size, the average area farmed was 30.9 acres, with a maximum of 198
acres. Some farmers reported renting additional land. The area cultivated ranged from 0.25 acres
to 88 acres, with an average area of 17.3 acres (Table 5). According to the Census, the average
size of farms operated by Hispanic farmers in Michigan is 80 acres. This average includes
production of other crops, which tends to be done on larger farms. Still, compared to the state
average, Hispanic farmers in this study manage relatively small-scale operations. In terms of
production, fruit producers tended to have bigger farms than non-fruit producers. Sixty-three
percent of fruit producers farmed more than 5 acres of land, whereas 58 percent of non-fruit
farmers were very small-scale and cultivated less than 5 acres (Table 6). According to the
Census, the average vegetable production acreage per farm in Michigan is 59.4 acres, for fruits
and nuts 44 acres and for berries 14.85 acres.
Consistent with Census data, Hispanic farmers’ income from farming is very low, which
contributes to categorizing their farms as limited resource. Fifty-two percent of respondents
indicated that their income from farming was less than 25 percent of the total household income
in a given year. Less than 20 percent of respondents received from one-fourth to three-quarters of
their income from farming, while 26 percent received more than 75 percent of their income from
farming. Two farmers reported receiving as low as $2,000 per year from the sales of farm
26

products. Two other farmers indicated that they were actually not receiving any income from
farming at the time of the interview, but they were expecting to start producing in the next year
(Table 7). The Census reports that more than 30 percent of Hispanic farmers received less than
$1,000 annually from farm income, 50 percent received around $1,000 to $50,000 annually, and
17 percent received more than $50,000 in total annual income.
Access and Need for Assistance
The Hispanic farmers interviewed face several challenges toward improving the viability
of their farms. First, their low educational levels were a disadvantage, as was the lack of access
to information and support from the government and other organizations. Second, farm limited
resources represent a challenge in terms of income that could help maintain farm viability. Given
this situation, this section addresses specific assistance needs and the levels of access Hispanic
farmers have to this kind of support.
In general, Hispanic farmers indicated a need for all kinds of assistance, but, in general,
were not receiving any. In the survey, farmers were asked whether or not they needed assistance
from agricultural agencies or organizations, specifically financial assistance. They were also
asked whether they had received or been denied assistance for farm related activities. Out of 50
respondents, 58 percent said they needed assistance and, specifically, 54 percent needed financial
assistance (Table 8). Only 22 percent had received some form of assistance for their farms, and
16 percent said they had been denied assistance (Table 8).
During the interviews, farmers offered more detail about the type of general assistance
they needed. More than 30 percent of participants explained that they would like to receive more
27

training on production-related activities, such as plant disease identification and management,
fertilizer requirements and usage for soil conditions, and information on pesticide usage and
training needed to become a certified pesticide applicator. Other farmers indicated they would
like assistance for installing irrigation systems and acquiring new buildings and equipment. From
these comments, it is possible to say that Hispanic farmers still struggle with access to basic
production management information. Around eight percent of farmers indicated a need for more
marketing related assistance. This would include information about market locations, training on
product specifications and how they can meet these requirements, information about Good
Agricultural Practice (GAP) requirements and certification, and other opportunities such as
organic marketing, or sustainable practices that would allow them access to other markets.
Regarding financial assistance, 22 percent of the farmers interviewed knew about the
USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA), either because they had already applied for funding or had
an application pending. This relatively low percentage can be considered an indicator of
Hispanic farmers’ knowledge and access to FSA funding. Among those farmers who had applied
for FSA funding, the level of paperwork and proof of production income requirements (e.g., not
a hobby farm) were very difficult challenges to overcome. Private financial institutions were
mentioned by 16 percent of participants as a main source for funding. In the opinion of two
respondents, financial institutions had many requirements and were not open to working with
small-scale Hispanic farmers. Likewise, only two farmers mentioned family as a source of
funding for their farming activities. This was surprising, as previous research had shown that
family members represented an important funding source when farmers started their farms in
Michigan (Lopez-Ariza 2007). Finally, 20 percent of farmers did not know where they could get
28

financial support for their farms. Some of these farmers indicated that they usually do not think
about it because they have never needed financial support, and in most cases they would usually
not invest more in their farms than they could afford using their own money.
While most farmers felt a need for assistance, 66 percent indicated they had never
received any kind of help (Table 8). Respondents indicated a relatively high level of frustration
with regard to available assistance from the governmental sources and NGOs. For example, one
farmer indicated he would go to extension offices, ask for production-related assistance and,
though information was available, it was not what he need for his farm.9 A second respondent
complained that, due to the size of his farm, he did not qualify for the financial assistance he
needed from a private institution. Several farmers indicated that their condition of ‘minority’ was
not based on race, but rather the fact that they were small-scale producers. When farmers were
asked about where they would seek assistance, seven farmers mentioned FSA and Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) offices, four farmers received some assistance from
Michigan State University Extension (MSUE), two farmers worked with NGOs and one farmer
consulted with a chemical company.
Very small-scale (i.e., less than 5 acres) Hispanic farmers were less likely to receive
assistance. While all farmers, regardless of income or size, had similar need for assistance, when
groups were compared, 42 percent of farmers with less than 25 percent of total income coming
from farming had not received any assistance, and only two farmers in the same group had
9

During this research, some extension agents and a Michigan Department of Agriculture
professional were independently working to provide Hispanic farmers with information about
production and pesticide application. However, these individuals were volunteering their time to
support Hispanic groups and their service was not part of a broader program to assist Hispanic
farmers.
29

received some assistance. Similarly, 38 percent of farmers with less than five acres of cultivated
land had not received any assistance, and only one farmer in the same category had received
assistance (Table 9).
More than 60 percent of those interviewed indicated they had never been denied
assistance (Table 8). Twenty-two percent explained that the reason they had not been denied was
because they have never asked. On the other hand, 24 percent of farmers explained why they felt
they were denied assistance. Six farmers were denied loans from FSA either because the FSA
officer told them they had no experience farming or they made a mistake in their applications,
and re-doing those applications would result in additional costs. Three farmers indicated they did
not understand why they were disqualified for a loan. Regarding MSUE, one farmer said she
called an Extension office and was told someone would come and help, but the person never
visited. Other farmers complained that Extension agents would indicate during meetings that
help was available, but would never provide contact information for the assistance. According to
some farmers, discrimination is very subtle. For example, one farmer explained that he felt
mistreated whenever office personnel realized he did not speak English well. Two other
respondents felt the same, and while they were not told directly that their English proficiency
was a barrier to communicate, they would make them feel uncomfortable. This difficulty
communicating with agents is probably a reason why Hispanic farmers are still reluctant to seek
assistance.

30

Participation in federal, state, NGO programs, or farmer’s groups
Survey respondents were asked about participation in federal, state or local farm groups,
and their knowledge of NGOs or private groups working with farmers in Michigan.10 As
expected, a high percentage of farmers did not participate in federal, state or community
programs. Out of all participants, 74 percent were not currently participating in any federal or
state programs, 48 percent was not aware of NGOs that worked with farmers, and 54 percent did
not participate in local farmer groups (Table 10).
For those farmers who were participating in different programs, the most common were
NRCS conservation programs and different training programs sponsored by the USDA. The
main state sponsored program farmers took part in was pesticide applicator certification. Farmers
who knew about NGOs were mostly familiar with the Michigan Food and Farming System
program, which is currently the only NGO with a specific multicultural program. In the case of
local farmers groups, some farmers would know about the cooperative “Farmers on the Move”
and the Michigan Hispanic Farmers Association.
When groups were compared by farm size and income, there was no statistically
significant difference, which suggests that most Hispanic farmers still do not participate in
programs sponsored by the government or NGOs. However, during the interviews, farmers
provided some reasons for their lack of participation. For example, two farmers explained that
trainings and meetings are usually during the week when they have to work somewhere else. One
farmer indicated lack of knowledge about programs in the area that would specifically target
small-scale farmers. Another believed he needed to be a large-scale farmer to qualify for
10

Appendix 1 includes a summary of main Federal, State and NGO programs in Michigan
31

participation. Some farmers said that they would like to participate in programs that would help
them. For example, these farmers suggested sources of financial support for small-scale farmers
as a good educational topic, including requirements necessary and directions in filling out forms,
which in the view of at least two farmers was a very complicated task.
Overall, it was observed that Hispanic farmers were misinformed about opportunities and
rarely would seek additional information from the sources (e.g., Extension offices or communitybased organizations). During the data collection stage, several production and marketing related
seminars were offered to all farmers in Michigan. These training sessions normally occur
throughout the year, but mostly during winter. In addition to regular seminars on production
practices, there were programs on Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and food safety
regulations. As well, specific field days for Hispanic farmers were organized to provide hands-on
experience. The institutions organizing these events included MSUE, Michigan Department of
Agriculture (MDA), USDA and Michigan Food and Farming Systems (MIFFS).
Regarding local farmer groups, Hispanic farmers were generally skeptical of working
with other farmers. However, during the data collection stage for this research, a new
cooperative of Hispanic farmers was formed with the support from a USDA grant. The main
purpose of the cooperative was to help farmers with different aspects of farming and marketing.
While some participants interviewed in this study were not sure how the cooperative would
function or how it could be beneficial for their farms, farmers were interested in the information
and marketing opportunities that might arise from the new venture. In addition to the
cooperative, an association of Hispanic farmers was registered with the Michigan Department of
Agriculture. However, during two different participant observations conducted at meetings of the
32

association and cooperative, farmers did not seem to understand how their participation entitled
them, or what they needed to do as members of this organization. During interviews with some
participants of these meetings, some were not sure about the difference between an association
and a cooperative. Likewise, three farmers indicated that it was difficult for them to work with
other Hispanic farmers because, in many cases, they did not trust each other. Two farmers said
they simply did not want to participate in farmer’s groups. As mentioned before, lack of accurate
information probably influences the limited participation of farmers in these different groups.
Summary and Discussion
This paper presented a review of Hispanic farmers’ social and farming characteristics,
needs and access to assistance, and participation in government and NGO programs. Despite the
fact that Michigan ranks number one in number of farms with a Hispanic principal operator,
there is still limited awareness of the specific challenges these farmers face and possible
alternatives to help them improve their farm viability. Hispanic farmers face numerous
constraints. However, access to, and participation in, programs designed to support farming
management can help them improve their socio-economic conditions.
Hispanic farmers interviewed in this research are socially disadvantaged, and most
operate limited resource farms. Most Hispanic farmers are relatively young men who are parttime farmers. Family labor represents the main support to maintain their operations. Hispanic
farmers operate, on average, 30.5 acres, which is below the average size for farms in Michigan.
More than 50 percent of these farmers made less than 25 percent of their total income from
farming. Regarding educational attainments, more than 40 percent in this research have only
completed basic education, and many still struggle with English proficiency. Low educational
33

attainment and English proficiency may increase their level of disadvantage, and further increase
their marginalization.
Considering farm economic characteristics, it is not surprising that Hispanic farmers in
this research study indicated a need for assistance to maintain farm viability. Out of the 50
farmers interviewed, 58 percent indicated they needed assistance, and 54 percent cited the need
for financial assistance in particular. However, only 22 percent of Hispanic farmers have ever
received assistance, and 16 percent said they were denied assistance. Regarding current
participation in government and NGO programs, 74 percent were not participating in federal or
state programs, 48 percent were not aware of NGO groups working with Hispanic farmers, and
54 percent did not participate of any local farmers groups.
Outreach and Extension programs remain some of the best options for farmers to access
and participate in government and NGO programs designed to support production and marketing
management, which, in turn, could help them increase their farm viability. However, despite
growing efforts to include Hispanic farmers in these programs, farmers still face unique
challenges to assimilate and effectively participate in these programs. Outreach program design
needs to consider the socio-economic condition of Hispanic farmers and their specific needs in
order to successfully serve and assist this target population. Some proposed activities include:
a) Targeted training sessions with relatively small groups of farmers, in which short
presentations in combination with other training materials, such as pictures or short videos,
represent an alternative to effectively reach out to Hispanic farmers. While more education and
training are necessary to help Hispanic farmers, traditional written materials, such as magazine

34

articles or booklets with extensive information, may not be effective tools to reach Hispanic
farmers.
b) Bilingual sessions could help farmers get more acquainted with terms and materials
that can be used in farm management. While programs that provide information in Spanish are
important, given that Hispanic farmers still have low English proficiency, Spanish-only training
could promote more problems with marginalization and highlight their language disadvantages.
c) Consideration in providing training and education sessions during those times when
Hispanic farmers are available is necessary. Training sessions, farm meetings or field days
should accommodate the needs of part-time farmers who work during the week and cannot
participate during regular office hours. Weekend programs should be considered as an
alternative.
d) Coordination among institutions providing support for Hispanic farmers is
fundamental to effectively reach them. The MDA and MSUE already coordinate some training
for pesticide certification and production management (Santos and Castro-Escobar forthcoming).
In addition, MSUE and MIFFS regularly coordinate information and training sessions. However,
coordination efforts among other institutions are rare. Particularly in these times of limited
funding, cost-efficient information delivery is important to reach to more farmers.
d) Careful consideration of issues affecting Hispanic farmers can help increase
participation in local farmers groups and community-based programs. During the interviews,
farmers complained that they were not receiving the type of support they needed. Listening
sessions or interviews with key informants can provide important feedback in developing
programs for Hispanic farmers. Explicit objectives to include certain target groups (e.g., farmers
35

with less than 10 acres, vegetable producers) can help concentrate efforts to increase
participation. Incentives (e.g., certificate of participation) can motivate farmers to participate.
e) Hispanic farmer’s leadership and support of fellow farmers are fundamental in creating
incentives for other farmers to participate. Community leaders training and mentoring programs
have been successful with other small-scale farmers, and have the potential to reach to other
Hispanic farmers. Though farmers were reluctant to work closely with other farmers in some
cases, in other situations, farmers were compelled to start an association or a cooperative,
because they felt these groups could help provide better marketing information. Efforts such as
these should be encouraged as they have the potential to give Hispanic farmers a voice.
The results from this research have some limitations. First, given the focus of this
research (small-scale Hispanic farmers) and the sampling technique utilized to identify
participants, the results are only applicable to this specific sample, and are meant to provide
more in-depth analysis of specific issues affecting Hispanic farmers. Second, though a significant
percentage of Hispanic farmers was included (more than 20 percent of fruit growers and more
than 50 percent of vegetable growers, according to the Census), the results are not meant to be
generalized to all Hispanic farmers in Michigan. However, they provide some important
variables that could be compared across different groups of Hispanic farmers and other minority
and fruit and vegetable farmers.

36

Table 1. 2007 Midwest Hispanic Principal Operators, Total Farm Acres and Average Farm
Size
Average
State
Farms
Acres
Farm size
Michigan

615

54,795

89

Kansas

555

335,823

605

Missouri

444

76,492

172

Iowa

346

103,666

300

Illinois

325

57,506

177

Ohio

302

44,549

148

Minnesota

296

101,372

342

Wisconsin

245

29,732

121

Indiana

217

35,333

163

Nebraska

166

157,066

946

South Dakota

116

87,645

756

North Dakota

92

149,958

1,630

Source: U.S. NASS 2009

37

Table 2. Participants Characteristics from Interview and Survey
Participants

Number

Number
Gender
Female
Male
Age
less than 35
35 to 65
more than 65
Education
High School (completed or some years, includes
GED)
Elementary (completed or some years)
Some college
Some school in Mexico
No school
Preferred language for the Interview
English
Spanish
English Proficiency
Yes
No
Did not answer
Country/Region of origin
Mexico
Texas
Midwest (Michigan, Indiana)
Other LA country (El Salvador, Cuba, etc.)
No answer

38

Percent

50

100

11
39

22
78

5
43
2

10
86
4

20
8
4
14
4

40
16
8
28
9

8
42

16
84

30
5
15

60
10
30

32
6
5
2
5

64
12
10
4
10

Table 3. Participants by County and Total Agriculture Census Proportion
County

Van Buren
Ottawa
Allegan
Oceana
Berrien
Ingham
Lenawee

Respondents

Ag Census

Respondents

------------- number ----------38
107
4
32
3
30
2
14
1
22
1
10
1
19

Ag Census

---------Percentage -----76
36
8
13
6
10
4
14
2
5
2
10
2
5

Source: U.S. NASS 2009

Table 4. Participants Farming Characteristics
Participants

Number

Management of the farm
Female
Male
Dedication to farming
Part time
Full time
Type of operation
Family
Individual
Rented
Hired labor
No
Yes
Farm production
Fruits
Vegetables
Small animals

Percent

8
42
36
14

72
28

40
7
3

80
14
6

28
22

56
44

38
10
2

39

16
84

76
20
4

Table 5. Farm Size and Area Cultivated
Acres

N

Minimum Maximum Average

Owned

47

0

198

30.5

Cultivated

47

0.25

88

16.9

Table 6. Number of Producers by Size of Operation and Production
Production
Size of operation

Fruits
Respondents

Non fruits
(%)

Respondents

(%)

5 acres or less

14

36.8

7

58.3

more than 5 acres

24

63.2

5

41.7

Total

38

12

Table 7. Percentage of Income from Farming
Income category
Less than 25%
26% to 50%
51% to 75%
More than 75%
Total

Respondents
26
7
4
13
50

40

Percentage
52
14
8
26
100

Table 8. Hispanic Farmers Assistance Needed and Received in Michigan
Question

General assistance needed
Financial assistance needed
Assistance received
Denied assistance

Yes
Number
29
27
11
8

No
No Answer
Number (%) Number (%)

(%)
58
54
22
16

15
14
33
31

30
28
66
62

6
9
6
11

Table 9. Assistance Needed and Received by Size of Farm Operation
Assistance

Group
Needed

Received

Yes
No
Yes
No
---------------------- Number --------------------Income
<25%
26 to 75%
>75%
Chi-square
Probability
Area cultivated
<5 acres
>5 acres
Chi-square
Probability

16
5
8
0.569
0.752

7
4
4

2
1
8
15.289
0.000

21
8
4

14
15
0.273
0.601

6
9

1
10
7.822
0.005

19
14

41

12
18
12
22

Table 10. Hispanic Farmers Participation and Knowledge of Federal, State, NGO and
Farmer’s Groups
Programs

Yes
Number

%

No
Number

%

No Answer
Number
%

Participation in Federal or State
programs

8

16

37

74

5

10

Knowledge of non-government
group or farmer’s groups

17

34

24

48

9

18

Participation in Farmer's group,
association or cooperative

14

28

27

54

9

18

42

700
600

Farms

500
400
300
200
100
0
Il

IN

IO

KS

Census 1992

MI

MN

MO

Census 1997

NE

ND

Census 2007

Figure 1. Farms with a Hispanic Principal Operator in the Midwest
Source: U.S. NASS 2009

43

OH

SD

WI

Chapter II - Appendix A

44

Table 11. Federal, State and NGO programs with programs for Hispanic Farmers*
Type
Source
Programs
Main purpose
Federal

The Farm
Service Agency
(FSA)

FSA loans

The Small
Farmer
Outreach
Training and
Technical
Assistance
Program
Building
Sustainable
Farms, Ranches
and
Communities

Outreach and
training

Operating loans to family-size
farmers who cannot obtain
credits from commercial banks
Used to purchase land,
livestock, equipment, feed,
seed, and supplies.
Funds for socially
disadvantaged farmers are
specifically reserved each year.
Provide agricultural assistance
and education to farmers from
socially disadvantaged groups

Sustainable
agriculture
Research and
Extension
(SARE)

Federal Programs for
Sustainable Agriculture,
Forestry, Entrepreneurship,
Conservation and Community
Development.

Small SociallyDisadvantaged
Producer Grant
(SSDPG)

Rural
development

Provide technical assistance to
small, socially-disadvantaged
agricultural producers through
eligible cooperatives and
associations of cooperatives.
Grants are awarded on a
competitive basis.

Environmental
Quality
Incentives
Program (EQIP)

Natural
Resources
Conservation
Services
(NRCS)

Up to 90 percent of the costs
associated with planning and
implementing conservation
measures for socially
disadvantaged and beginning
farmers or ranchers.

45

Table 11 (cont’d)
Type
Source

Natural
Resources
Conservation
Services
(NRCS)

Michigan
Department of
Agriculture

IPM Training
Program

Michigan
Department of
Agriculture

Federal
and State

Main purpose

Conservation
Stewardship
Program (CSP)

State

Programs

Good
Agricultural
Practices,
Good
Handling
Practices
(GAP/GHP)

Up to 90 percent of the costs
associated with planning and
implementing conservation
measures for socially
disadvantaged and beginning
farmers or ranchers.
A pesticide applicator must
attend a Michigan Department
of Agriculture approved IPM
Training Program before making
a pesticide application in
schools, public buildings, or
health care facilities.
This program provides
uniformity of a national auditing
program for the fresh produce
industry verifying good
agricultural and handling
practices. This is an
independent, third-party, auditbased service provided by
licensed fresh fruit and
vegetable inspectors who have
successfully completed the
GAP/GHP training class and
have participated in a minimum
of three audits, including two as
the lead auditor.

MSU Extension

46

Table 11 (cont’d)
Type
Source

Main purpose

Michigan Food
and Farming
Systems

Multicultural
Rancher
programs

Farmers on the
Move

Farmers’
cooperative

Some programs and workshops
include Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) trainings,
computer and web training
programs, blueberry production
workshops and farm visits,
business management and loan
workshops and now hoophouse
training workshops.
First cooperative for Hispanic
farmers in Michigan

Michigan
Hispanic
Farmers
Association

NGO

Programs

Farmer’s
association

First organized group for
Hispanic farmers in Michigan

* This list is a summary of available Federal, State and NGO programs available to socially
disadvantaged farmers in Michigan. This list is not exhaustive of all programs currently available
to farmers.

47

References

48

References

Ahearn, M., and Newton, D.J. 2009. Beginning farmers and ranchers. Washington DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, ESCS for Econ Inform Bul. 29, May.
Chapa, J., Saenz, R., Rochin, R. I., and McConnell, E. D. 2004. “Latinos and the Changing
Demographic Fabric of the Rural Midwest.” In A. V. Millard and J. Chapa, eds. Apple
pie and enchiladas: Latino newcomers in the rural Midwest. Austin: University of Texas
Press, pp 47-73.
Diaz-McConnell, E. 2004. “Latinos in the Rural Midwest: The Twentieth-Century Historical
Context Leading to Contemporary Challenges.” In A. V. Millard and J. Chapa, eds.
Apple pie and enchiladas: Latino newcomers in the rural Midwest Austin: University of
Texas Press, pp. 26-40.
Durand, J., and Massey, D. S. 1992. “Mexican Migration to the United States: A Critical
Review.” Latin American Research Review, 27(2): 3-42.
FACT, Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. 1990. Title SEC. 2501
“Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers.” Available at:
http://national4-hheadquarters.gov/about/offices/legis/25fact.html.
Fry, R. 2008. Latino Settlement in the New Century. Washington DC: Pew Hispanic Center
Report.
Garcia, V., Lopez-Ariza, B., and Marinez, J. 2008. “Exploring Undercounts in the Agriculture
Census: An Alternative Enumeration of Hispanic Farmers in Southwestern Michigan.”
The Journal of Latino-Latin American Studies, 3(2):47-58.
Hirschman, C., and Massey, D. S. 2008. “Places and Peoples: The New American Mosaic.” In D.
S. Massey, ed. New Faces in New Places: The Changing Geography of American
Immigration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 1-22.
Hoppe, R.A. and Korb, P. 2005. Large and Small Farms: Trends and Characteristics.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ESCS for Agric. Info Bul. 797, March.
Hoppe, R.A., Korb, P. 2005, O’Donoghue, E., and Banker, D. Structure and Finances of U.S.
Family Farms Family Farm Report, 2007 Edition. Washington DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, ESCS for Econ. Info Bul. 24, June.

49

Hoy, F. 2007. “Hispanic Entrepreneurship in the United States.” In L.P. Dana, ed. Handbook of
research on ethnic minority entrepreneurship: a co-evolutionary view on resource
management. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 177-194.
Jefferds, M., and Millard, A. 2004. “On the Line: Jobs in Food Processing and the Local
Economy.” In A. V. Millard and J. Chapa, eds. Apple pie and enchiladas: Latino
newcomers in the rural Midwest Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 125-148.
Jensen, L. 2006. New Immigrant Settlements in Rural America: Problems, Prospects, and
Policies. Durham, NH: The Carsey Institute Reports on Rural America, vol. 1, no. 3.
Kandel, W. and Cromartie, J. 2004. New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ESCS for Rur. Develop Res Rep 99,
May.
Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S. and Teddlie, C. 2003. “Mixed Methods Sampling Strategies in
Social Science Research.” In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, eds. Handbook of mixed
methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage
Publications, pp 273-296.
Leach, M. A., and Bean, F. D. 2008. “The Structure and Dynamics of Mexican Migration to New
Destinations in the United States.” In D. S. Massey, ed. New faces in new places: the
changing geography of American immigration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp.
51-74.
Lewis, H. 2009. “From Mexico to Iowa: New Immigrant Farmers’ Pathways and Potentials.”
Community Development. 40(2):139-153.
Lopez-Ariza, B. 2007. “A case study of Hispanic farmers in four southwestern Michigan
counties.” PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University.
Martin, P. 1996. “Immigration to the United States: Journey to an Uncertain Destination.” In
Rochin, R. ed. Immigration and ethnic communities: a focus on Latinos. East Lansing,
MI: Julian Samora Research Institute.
Massey, D. S. 2008. “Assimilation in a New Geography.” In D. S. Massey, ed. New faces in new
places: the changing geography of American immigration. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation Publications, pp. 343.
Millard, A. V., and Chapa, J. 2004. “Aqui in the Midwest [Here in the Midwest]” In A. V.
Millard and J. Chapa, eds. Apple pie and enchiladas: Latino newcomers in the rural
Midwest Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 1-21.
Naples, N. 2000. Economic Restructuring and Racialization: Incorporation of Mexicans and
Mexican-Americans in the Rural Midwest. San Diego, CA: Center for Comparative
Immigration Studies, UC San Diego.
50

Parrado, E., and Kandel, W. 2008. “New Hispanic Migrant Destinations: A Tale of Two
Industries.” In D. S. Massey, ed. New faces in new places: the changing geography of
American immigration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications, pp. 99-123
Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 3rd ed. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Rochín, R. I. 1999. The Changing Nature of American Agriculture and its Impact on Hispanic
Farm Labor: Topics for Research and Analysis. East Lansing, MI: The Julian Samora
Research Institute, Michigan State University.
Saenz, R. 1996. “The Demography of Mexicans in the Midwest.” In Rochin, R. ed. Immigration
and ethnic communities: a focus on Latinos. East Lansing, MI: Julian Samora Research
Institute.
Santos, M. J., and Castro-Escobar, A. Forthcoming. Increasing Knowledge and Networking
Opportunities for Small-Scale Mexican Growers in Southwest Michigan. R. Martinez ed.
East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Swisher, M.E., Brenna, M., and Shah, M. 2007. Hispanic-Latino Farmers and Ranchers Project.
Final Report. Washington DC: Dept. of Fam., Youth and Comm. Sciences, University of
Florida.
U.S. NASS National Agricultural Statistical Service. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture.
Washington DC
U.S. NASS National Agricultural Statistical Service. Information on Census of Agriculture:
Glossary. Retrieved from http://agcensus.mannlib.cornell.edu/glossary.php.
Winters, P., De Janvry, A., and Sadoulet, E. 2001. “Family and Community Networks in
Mexico-U.S. Migration.” The Journal of Human Resources. 36(1):159-184.
Yin, R. K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, London,
New Delhi, Singapore: Sage Publications, Inc.

51

CHAPTER 3
HISPANIC FARMERS IN MICHIGAN: MARKETING EXPERIENCE, SKILLS AND
EXPECTATIONS IN ACCESSING PRODUCE MARKETS

Introduction
According to the U.S. Census of Agriculture, Michigan ranks 10th in the country and first
in the Midwest in number of Hispanic principal farm operators. Currently, Hispanic farmers
produce and market a number of fruit and vegetable crops. However, they still struggle with poor
economic performance and lack of access to production and marketing support. Despite the
importance of marketing and market access to increase their farm viability and competitiveness,
information that specifically targets Hispanic farmers’ perspectives and focuses on successful
management and marketing strategy remains limited.
The objective of this paper is to explore Hispanic farmers’ marketing needs and
opportunities in Michigan. This paper analyzes their marketing experience, skills, and
expectations for the future. The analysis focuses on the marketing needs and limitations
identified by Hispanic farmers, as well as specific areas in which policy, government agencies,
and community-based organizations could support these farmers. In addition, this analysis
provides information that could help improve the economic viability of Michigan’s small-scale
Hispanic farms, and contributes to improving the overall economic performance of small-scale
agriculture throughout the state.
Data were collected using a mixed-method approach, in which interviews and surveys
52

were conducted with 50 Hispanic farmers in Michigan from July 2009 to May 2010. Results
suggest that, while Hispanic farmers have gained important marketing experiences and skills that
helped them access their current markets over time, they still struggle and need support to access
new markets and alleviate their heavy dependence on specific markets. In addition, most of the
farmers interviewed had not clearly defined a marketing objective that would help guide their
efforts in improving future farm viability.
In the following pages, a brief literature review of key issues facing Hispanic farmers is
presented. This is followed by a conceptual framework and methods used to analyze the data.
Following a presentation and discussion of the results, the paper concludes with a review of the
limitations of the research, and suggestions for future study.
Background
Hispanic farmers: Social and Economic performance
Hispanic11 farmers are increasing in number and economic importance in Michigan.
According to the U.S. Census of Agriculture (The Census), Michigan ranks 10th in the country
and first in the Midwest in terms of number of Hispanic principal farm operators12 (U.S. NASS
2009) (Table 12). While the Census shows an increase in the number of principal operators in
11

In this paper, “Hispanic” is a label used to group individuals living in the U.S. who have some
background or are from Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America (Hoy 2007). Hispanic
farmers in the U.S. include newcomers (e.g., immigrants from other countries) and/or established
individuals whose families have farmed from generations and are originally from the U.S.
(Swisher et. al., 2007). The U.S. census considers Hispanics those who indicate their origin as
Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or some other Hispanic origin.
Hispanics can be of any race (U.S. NASS)
12
According to the U.S. Census of Agriculture principal farm operator are people “primarily
responsible for the on-site, day-to-day operation of the farm or ranch business. This person may
be a hired manager or business manager.” (U.S NASS)
53

Michigan and the Midwest, there is still concern that this data does not accurately reflect the real
number of Hispanic farmers, which could currently be much larger (Garcia et. al. 2008). This
undercount of Hispanic farmers is due mainly to missing farmers from lists used by the Census,
new immigrant farmer’s lack of knowledge about the Census, language and illiteracy issues, lack
of trust on government institutions, and widespread informal arrangements among Hispanic
farmers, who use the name of other people to acquire land to farm (Garcia et. al. 2008).
One of the most striking issues affecting Hispanic farmers in Michigan is their poor
economic performance. Despite overall expansion of Michigan’s agricultural sector13 and
Hispanic farmers’ increased participation in production of Michigan crops that currently rank
among the top ten in the country (e.g. blueberry, apples), data from the census show that 53
percent of Hispanic farmers have total annual sales of less than $5,000, and only 17 percent
make more than $50,000 per year (U.S. NASS 2009). These numbers reflect the struggle these
farmers have in maintaining farm viability. The Census of Agriculture defined limited-resource
farms as those with “market value of agricultural products sold of less than $100,000, and total
principal operator household income of less than $20,000” (U.S. NASS).
While in general, Michigan small-scale farmers struggle with farm viability issues (50
percent of all small-scale farms in Michigan make less than $5,000 in total annual sales), the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) categorizes Hispanic farmers as “socially
disadvantaged,” a condition that has prevented Hispanic farmers from accessing programs
designed to improve their farm production and marketing, and further contributes to their low
13

It is estimated that agriculture and related agro-food and energy system contributes around $64
billion and supports more than 1 million jobs in Michigan. Farming represents around 11 percent
of total direct and indirect impact to the agro-food and agro-energy system in the state (Peterson
et. al. 2006)
54

farm viability. “A socially disadvantaged group” is defined as one whose members have been
subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without
regard to their individual qualities. Those groups include African Americans, American Indians
or Alaskan natives, Hispanics, and Asians or Pacific Islanders” (FACT 1990).
Hispanic Farmers’ Marketing Practices in Michigan
Despite the importance of marketing and market access to increase farm viability and
competitiveness, information that specifically targets the Hispanic farmers’ perspectives and
their current marketing strategies and farm management practices remains limited. In the most
recent federally-funded report addressing Hispanic farmers in the U.S., farmers cited marketing
and access to information among the major constraints in maintaining their farm viability
(Swisher et. al. 2007). These findings focused on case studies from California, New Mexico,
Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and Missouri, and included 72 Hispanic farmers in total. Though the
findings of this research provide important background to understand the marketing need of
Hispanic farmers around the country, it provided limited information about the Midwest and
Michigan, which currently had the largest number of Hispanic farmers in the region.
Similarly, Green (2001) found that limited financial resources and access to credit, lack
of information appropriate for their farm types, limited access to markets and low prices in their
markets were among the main constraints cited by limited-resource farmers in maintaining farm
viability (Green 2001). Again, while 17.6 percent of the 119 participants in Green’s study were

55

Hispanic farmers, the focus groups excluded most farmers from the Midwest and Michigan, and
it is not clear whether these issues could be considered similar in other regions (Green 2001).14
In Michigan, only two studies on Hispanic farmers have partially addressed farmers’
marketing needs and challenges. Santos and Castro-Escobar (forthcoming), based on interviews
with 30 Mexican farmers, reported that most immigrant Mexican farmers never farmed before
coming to Michigan. For the most part, these farmers followed the paths of family members who
migrated before them and, therefore, also followed similar marketing strategies (Santos and
Castro-Escobar forthcoming). Likewise, Lopez-Ariza (2007), in interviews with 12 Hispanic
farmers, found that marketing was a constraint in improving their farm viability (Lopez-Ariza
2007). However, the study did not address the specific marketing needs and/or opportunities
these farmers had to increase their farm viability. While all this information provides valuable
insights into Hispanic farmers’ marketing needs, there is still need to understand and analyze
their own marketing perspectives, given the challenging economic conditions and difficult social
situations they continue to experience in Michigan.
Information that can provide more detail on the marketing experience, skills and
expectations of Hispanic farmers in Michigan could offer a better understanding of farmers’
concerns, and focus on areas in which they need more support. In turn, this information can
provide a baseline for designing programs that would help Hispanic farmers assess their current
strategy and improve upon it to further their farm viability and competitiveness.

14

The sample included farmers from California, Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont and Washington and one group in Mexico (Green 2001)
56

Conceptual framework
Studies on small business and rural entrepreneurship suggest that marketing experience,
skills and clear expectations for the future are important personal resources for success.
Loscocco and Robinson (1991) found that small-scale business women often indicated that their
lack of managerial skills as a major barrier to successfully running their businesses (Loscocco
and Robinson, 1991). Loscocco et al. (1991) also found that additional skills and experience
were positively related to business success (Loscocco et al., 1991). In a review of different
studies on rural entrepreneurship in Europe, McElwee (2006) found that successful rural
entrepreneurs had constant development of professional and knowledge skills, the setting of
goals and the ability to reach them and set new ones, and the ability to use current and relevant
information to access markets in common (McElwee 2006). Richards and Bulkley (2007) also
found that successful farmers used their skills to adjust to free-market economy changes, based
on a review of different rural entrepreneurial studies (Richards and Bulkley 2007). Thus,
marketing experience, skills and clear expectations for the future are expected to help farmers
improve their farm management, and, ultimately, increase their viability.
While the concept of experience, skills and expectations seem straightforward, it is
important to clarify them within the context of the analysis of Hispanic farmers’ marketing
practices. In this paper, marketing experience refers to the number of years an individual has
been involved in a particular industry or activity within that industry, and the amount of time a
person has performed specific marketing activities (Kalleberg and Leicht, 1991; Loscocco et al.,
1991). In a farmer’s case, an important part of marketing experience is normally gained over
time by trying things and making mistakes (i.e., trial and error). Personal observations and
57

participation in marketing activities is considered to be “local knowledge” (Kloppenburg 1991;
Butler-Flora 1992)15. In this paper, it is assumed that Hispanic farmers build their local
knowledge of markets when they engage in market transactions and participate in different
market channels; thus, learning about requirements and trends in the market.
The emphasis on marketing knowledge for these farmers is based on prior research
showing the relevance of learning new practices or succeeding at doing something new. For
example, Millar and Curtis (1997) found that farmers in Australia were able to use their local
knowledge and experience to learn more about sustainable pasture management (Millar and
Curtis 1997). In Nebraska, Sattler-Weber (2007) found that although some small-scale businesswomen had limited formal education and no financial capital, they did have experience selling
farm products from their homes, which contributed to their business success (Sattler-Weber
2007). Similarly, it is expected that years of farming in Michigan has contributed to an increase
in Hispanic farmers’ local knowledge, and helped them maintain viability.
In addition to self-developed local knowledge, it is also important to have good quality,
overall marketing knowledge to remain competitive. Campbell and Barret (2008) suggests that in
many cases the real challenge for small-scale farmers is finding ways to learn about new market
opportunities and becoming more adept at accessing and using these opportunities (Campbell

15

The concept “local knowledge” is similar to the ‘indigenous knowledge’ of farmers in
developing countries (Kloppenburg 1991). As a concept, local knowledge has been contested in
developed countries mostly because of the widespread adoption of science-based knowledge and
the view that farmers are ‘adopters’ and not ‘creators’ of knowledge (Kloppenburg 1991). An
interesting example of local knowledge exchange can be found in Hassanein (1999). Proponents
of local knowledge criticize the belief that all farmers had equal access to science-based
knowledge and technologies and the resources to use them (Millar and Curtis 1997). In the case
of Hispanic farmers equal access to science-based information has not been the case.
58

and Barret 2008)16. Green (2001) found among socially disadvantaged farmers that marketing
problems, such as insufficient marketing information and prices, represented a barrier to
competition with larger-scale producers in their markets (Green 2001). Considering these studies
and the current situation, it is fair to expect that Hispanic farmers in Michigan face similar
challenges, and their limited marketing knowledge makes it difficult to improve their farm
viability.
Hispanic farmers’ marketing skills is the next factor explored.17 Marketing skills help
farmers deal with changes in markets structures. Clark (2009) found that, in the face of rapid
market changes, successful farm entrepreneurs would adopt new market strategies, such as
selling to niche markets or to outlets that offered specialized product attributes (e.g., local,
organic) (Clark 2009). Similarly, Ross and Westgren (2006) found that the ability to minimize
transaction costs help farm entrepreneurs generate profits and remain competitive (Ross and
Westgren 2006). Specifically, Michigan’s Hispanic farmers have developed marketing skills
over the years that have helped them successfully deal with transaction costs and access different
markets. However, it is also expected that these skills are relatively limited due to their limited
range of market and marketing knowledge.
Finally, in addition to farmers’ marketing experience and skills, Green (2001) suggests
that expectations for the future are a very important indicator of how socially disadvantaged
farmers perceive their business environment, as well as the kind of marketing strategies they
16

Shane (2000) found that the source of entrepreneurship was in the difference in information
about opportunities and individual characteristics influence the type of opportunity discovered
(Shane 2000).
17
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, skill is the ability to use one's knowledge
effectively and readily in execution or performance (Merriam-Webster).
59

would adopt (Green 2001). For example, McElwee (2006) found that successful farm
entrepreneurs usually had a goal-oriented management style in addition to managing a profitable
farm business, and used current market information to maintain their competitive advantage
(McElwee 2006). Thus, a well-defined marketing strategy could be an indicator of Hispanic
farmers’ expectations about their markets and the resources they believe they could access to
achieve their goals, given their socially disadvantaged condition.
While personal goals are important for successful future planning, Richards and Bulkley
(2007) argue that farmers need favorable conditions in their communities to encourage their
entrepreneurship (Richards & Bulkley 2007). Favorable conditions can be defined as those
market characteristics conducive to dynamic relationships among resources, people and firms
(Dinis 2006; Richards and Bulkley 2007). For example, farmers are more likely to use their
leadership skills to negotiate contracts or execute marketing plans with buyers and other
marketers when they have developed good, long-standing relationships with them (Escalante and
Turvey 2006; Ross and Westgren 2006). Similarly, in localized distribution channels in which
retail, food service companies and farmers work together to develop innovative marketing
strategies, favorable business conditions are the most likely reasons farmers successfully
cooperate and develop win-win models of food distribution with different business partners

60

(Kirschenmann et al., 2008). 18 However, In Canada, Siemens (2009) found that people in rural
areas must often operate without standard business resources (e.g., access to Internet, banking
services, and other information) that are generally needed to succeed in different endeavors
(Siemens 2009). Thus, while personal goals are very important, Hispanic farmers need a good
business environment to be able to find market opportunities that allow them to develop their
marketing strategies.
Exploring and analyzing Hispanic farmer’s marketing experience, skills and expectations
for future access to markets (Figure 2) are expected to: a) provide more detailed information
about marketing practices, given the limited information currently available regarding these
farmers; b) identify specific constraints they face in their markets that prevent them from
increasing their farm viability, and c) identify areas in which these farmers need more support to
successfully develop and increase their local marketing knowledge.
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis
The results discussed in this paper were collected as part of a case study. Case study is an
appropriate method when the objective of a study is to gain more knowledge about a specific
group, and the issues affecting this group (Yin 2009). However, one of the main limitations of
exploratory analysis like this is that the results are only applicable to the sample being studied,
18

The development of values-based value chains (Kirschenmann et al., 2008) and different case
studies of innovative models of small grower-retail and restaurant collaboration (Starr et al.,
2003; Hoshide 2007; King et al., 2010) represent examples of localized food distribution
channels in which retail, food service companies and farmers worked together to develop
innovative marketing strategies (Kirschenmann et al., 2008). In Europe the Slow Food
Movement developed a model to link small-scale producers with big retailers (Fonte 2006).
Also, in Europe, short food supply chains exemplify production-distribution systems inside and
outside communities that are not part of the conventional food distribution model and remain
viable for small-scale farmers (Renting et al. 2003; Ilbery et al. 2004).
61

and important generalizations cannot be made based on these results. Despite these limitations,
the limited information about Hispanic farmers and their marketing practices and strategies
requires an exploratory inquiry for which a case study approach is better suited (Yin 2009).
Two criteria were considered to select the population of Hispanic farmers in Michigan.
First, farmers had to have control of production and marketing. According to the Census of
Agriculture, there are 615 principal farm operators of Hispanic background in Michigan.19
Second, Hispanic farmers had to be classified as berry, fruit or vegetable producers. Considering
these characteristics, the Census identifies 146 Hispanic fruit producers, and 18 vegetable
producers in Michigan. While Hispanic farmers are currently producing an array of different
products in Michigan, there are different marketing channels utilized by producers of other crops
(e.g., corn or soybean) or products (e.g., milk). In addition, producers of fruits and vegetables are
more likely to use different marketing channels and sell directly to retail and food service, which
is an important aspect of this research.
Once the population of Hispanic fruit and vegetable producers (164 farmers) was defined,
this research used key informants and snowball sampling to select participants. After identifying
and contacting farmers, 50 Hispanic farmers agreed to participate in this research between July
2009 and May 2010. Out of these, 38 farmers reportedly produced fruit, including blueberries,
strawberries, apples, peaches and grapes; and 12 farmers produced vegetables. As a result, this

19

The definition of principal operator includes all those who run a farm and make daily
management decisions; they might be owners or be hired managers. In some cases, Hispanics
farmers would manage the production and labor, but they had no decision-making power with
regards to marketing products. In situations where that was the case, farmers were not
interviewed because the objective of the research was to know more about how they dealt with
marketing issues.
62

research covered approximately 24 percent of Hispanic fruit producers and 55 percent of
Hispanic vegetables producers in Michigan.
The data collection followed a mixed-method approach. The rationale for using this
approach was based on research suggesting that mixed-methods may be better to provide greater
diversity of different views, simultaneous depth and breadth, and internal validity (Maxwell
1996; Kemper et al., 2003;). Using mixed-methods have the potential to better address the issues
Hispanic farmers considered important with regard to their marketing experience, skills and
expectations for the future. In this research, a combination of a survey questionnaire, in-depth
individual and group interviews, and participant observations were all used to elicit information.
Secondary data from the U.S. Census of Agriculture was used to compare results from the
survey.
The data collection procedure involved two steps. First, participants were asked to
complete a survey in which they provided descriptive information about their farms (e.g., farm
size, location, type of production) and demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age range,
educational attainment, origin). This survey also asked farmers general marketing questions,
such as to markets sold (e.g., selling to broker or farmers markets), percentage of production sold
in various markets, if attempts had been made to sell to supermarkets and restaurants, what their
biggest challenges where when trying to sell products, and their expectations for the future.
In addition, farmers were asked to rate on a scale ranging from not difficult to very
difficult, the level of difficulty dealing with specific marketing activities or transaction costs in

63

their markets20. The list of common marketing activities followed Hobbs (1997), and included
searching for information (e.g., price, quality and markets), monitoring transactions (e.g.,
trusting buyers, building a reputation, getting payments) and negotiation activities (e.g.,
accessing markets, negotiating agreements, meeting buyers) (Hobbs 1997). Immediately after
rating these activities, farmers were asked to explain their answers in more detail. For example, if
farmers rated finding new markets as a very difficult activity, they were asked to provide more
information to explain their response, including examples. Similarly, farmers were asked about
their expectations for their future as farmers in Michigan, and asked to provide specific examples
to help clarify their answers.
In addition, three group interviews were also conducted during the course of this
investigation. Farmers completed the farm, demographic, marketing information and rating
portion of the survey individually, and, as a group, they discussed what they found difficult or
easy about marketing their products, as well as their expectations for the future. Finally, three
participant observations were conducted during meetings of a newly formed cooperative and an
association of farmers, respectively, and during a farmers’ conference. These observations were
useful in understanding how farmers interacted with other farmers, gaining more information
about common marketing problems, and how they were dealing with these issues (DeWalt
2002).

20

Ronald Coase coined the term “transaction costs” to explain the process of finding price
information and the costs associated with this action (Coase 1937). Transaction costs are present
any time firms need to negotiate delivery times, product characteristics and any other
information necessary to complete a transaction (Stiglitz 1989). Moreover, any time there is
uncertainty in a transaction there is a cost associated to it (North 1990).
64

All the individual and group interviews were transcribed immediately after they were
conducted, and analyzed using NVivo software for qualitative data analysis. A coding scheme
was developed for analyzing the transcribed interviews and group discussions following the
survey questionnaire (Patton 2002; Rubin and Rubin 2005). The main codes corresponded with
the questions used in the survey. For example, the code for “new markets” corresponded to the
question regarding “how difficult do you find finding new markets for your products?” After
grouping each answer under their first code, sub-codes with emerging themes were identified
from some answers. For example, under “new markets”, a sub-code “not looking” was developed
to address farmers who responded that they were not looking for new markets at the time of the
interview.21
All the numerical data (e.g., farm size, income from farming) from the survey was
analyzed using SPSS-PASW and STATA.22 In all group comparison cases, a Chi-square test was
conducted and reported. In addition, a model of factors influencing farmers’ decisions to
diversify their market channels was developed. Park and Lohr (2006) found that organic farmers
who diversify their market channels are more likely to improve their income and the viability of
their farms. Thus, it is increasingly important that farmers have a portfolio of market channels
(Park and Lohr 2006).
In the model, the dependent variable was whether or not farmers diversified market
channels. The explanatory variables were whether or not a farmer produced blueberries
(Blueberry), the level of difficulty in finding new markets (NewMkt_2), the number of years
21

Appendix A of this dissertation contains a table with the codes used in this paper.
It is important to remark that due to the nature of the sampling procedure, all the results from
the statistical analysis are only applicable to this specific sample.
65

22

farming in Michigan (Years_MI2) and the level of trust in their buyers (Trust_2). These
variables were based on previous research by McInnis (2003) on organic marketing channels,
which showed that small numbers of markets and lack of clear requirements from buyers
represented barriers to developing better marketing strategies (McInnis 2003). In addition, Hobbs
(1997) also found that the number of different markets or buyers was important to ensure
competition (Hobbs 1997). The variable “years farming in Michigan” was included because it
was expected that farmers who have been in Michigan for a longer time would have more
knowledge of markets and market transactions. Finally, a variable representing blueberry
producers was included to reflect the differences between blueberry producers and those who
were not blueberry producers. In order to estimate this model, an exact logistic regression (Hirji
1987; Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000) was selected, since it is a model that handles binary
outcomes correctly, given the small sample size (n=50).23
The results were separated in three different sections: marketing experience, skills, and
expectations for the future. Each section presents a report of both the quantitative analysis (e.g.,
number of years farming in Michigan, years farming by country or region of origin; percentage
sold by different markets) followed by the qualitative explanation of these results.

23

In situations where sample size is small and the outcome is binary, the mathematical
assumptions of the conventional logistic regressions, such as sample size large enough to be
normally distributed, likelihood ratio to follow Chi squared distribution, and Wald test to follow
normal distributions are not justified (Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000). However, the exact method
of logistic regression is based on the development of a statistical distribution than can be
completely enumerated. This is possible thanks to current statistical packages that allow for this
complex computation (Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000). The estimates were computed using a
multivariate shift algorithm (MSA) as presented by Hirki, Mehta and Patel (Hirji et al. 1987).
The statistical package used for this computation was STATA 10.
66

Results
Marketing Experience
Hispanic farmers’ marketing experience in Michigan was the first characteristic analyzed.
Two indicators were used to assess farmer’s experience; first, number of years farming in
Michigan, and second, their knowledge of local markets. The majority of participants have been
farming for a relatively short time. Forty-two percent of respondents began farming in Michigan
less than five years ago and 44 percent began farming six to 15 years ago. More established
farmers began 16 years ago (6 percent) and more than 30 years ago (8 percent) (Table 13).
The major difference among Hispanic farmers is how and where they learned about
farming and, subsequently, how they gained local marketing knowledge. More established
farmers (i.e., more than 15 years farming) were more likely to be born or raised in the U.S., and
less-established farmers (i.e., less than 15 years of farming) were from Mexico or other Latin
American countries (Table 14). When comparing established and less-established farmers, it was
expected that the number of years farming in Michigan would reflect more knowledge of local
markets and be better able to deal with marketing issues. For example, it was expected that more
established farmers would find it easier to identify new markets or access existing markets
because they had been farming longer. However, when a cross-tabulation was conducted, the
results were not statistically significant to show a difference between established and new
farmers in this study (Table 14). During interviews, some respondents from Mexico and other
Latin American countries explained that their knowledge of farming came from their farming
experience in their country of origin (Table 15). However, none of these farmers reported

67

growing fruits or vegetables before coming to the U.S., which is expected to limit their produce
marketing experience.24
Hispanic farmers who were born and/or raised in the U.S. had gained farming experience
as migrant workers, or because their parents were migrant workers. While they were confident
that the production practices that they had gained as a farm workers was valuable, the fact that
most were migrant workers, and not allowed to participate in marketing-related activities (e.g.,
negotiate prices with buyers) limited their marketing experience. Though these farmers had years
of farming experience before becoming fruit or vegetable farmers in Michigan, their exposure to
marketing activities was very limited. Therefore, even when all Hispanic farmers had some
marketing knowledge, it was limited enough that it did not help to significantly improve their
farm operations.
To further analyze Hispanic farmers’ local knowledge of markets, farmers were asked
about their markets and the percentage of total production they would sell on these markets
(Table 16). Farmers identified a variety of different direct-to-consumer markets (e.g., farmers
market, farm stand, direct distribution to neighbors), local stores, wholesale buyers and packers
to which they sold their products. While it was expected that, due to their relatively small-scale
production, Hispanic farmers would sell mostly through farmers markets or other direct-to-

24

This result is similar to the findings of Santos and Castro-Escobar (forthcoming) who reported
that Mexican farmers in Michigan usually did not have experience farming in the U.S. and their
marketing strategy was to imitate those who migrated before them (Santos and Castro-Escobar
forthcoming) .
68

consumer channel,25 most farmers identified local packers and wholesaler-brokers as their most
important markets.
Packers (i.e., fruit and vegetable processing companies) represented the major markets
for Hispanic farmers in this study. More than 60 percent of participants sold some percentage of
their production to packers and 52 percent sold exclusively to this outlet (Table 16). Farmers
agreed that the most important reasons to sell to packing companies were the proximity of these
facilities to their farms, and the convenience to sell to them.
The second most-used market was the wholesale/broker channel (Table 16). Around 30
percent of respondents sold all or some of their production to wholesale and brokers in Michigan
and occasionally Chicago. The wholesale/brokers to whom farmers sold products were either
relatives (e.g., brother, in-law) or friends from their same area, which suggests that family and
friendship networks play an important role in the marketing strategy Hispanic farmers adopt to
produce and distribute their produce. To illustrate this point, during one interview, a farmer
expressed his desire to switch production of a specific crop because the price he was receiving
was very low, but his relative/broker demanded that he continue growing this crop; thus, he
continued to be unprofitable. Similarly, another farmer decided to spray pesticides on his
blueberries after years of growing them organically. This would have given him the opportunity
to apply for an organic certification and generate more profit, but his relative-broker told him to
apply the pesticide so that this relative could sell his production in the conventional market.
These examples show that family and friendship connections are likely influencing Hispanic
25

The Economic Research Service (ERS) of the USDA reports that very small-scale farms
produced around 11 percent of the fruit and vegetables in the U.S., and they relied on direct-toconsumers channels, such as farmers markets as main channel of distribution (Gale 1997;
Newton and Hoppe 2001; Hoppe and Korb 2005; Hoppe et al., 2007)
69

farmers’ marketing decisions, and should be considered when assessing marketing strategies for
these farmers.
Sales to local stores (e.g., grocery stores, mom-and-pop stores) were uncommon. Only 10
percent of participants sold in this type of market (Table 16). None of the respondents indicated
selling exclusively to stores and, in some cases, farmers said they would sell as little as one
percent of all their production in this manner. No respondent reported sales to large-scale
supermarkets (e.g., Meijer or Kroger) or food service (e.g., school cafeteria, restaurants). When
asked whether or not they had tried to sell in these channels, 80 percent responded they had not.
Limited production capacity was cited as the main barrier for accessing this market. In addition,
none of the participants were considering food service as an outlet for their products. While
small-scale production could be a contributing factor in the lack of participation in this market,
there were a large proportion of Hispanic farmers who had limited first-hand knowledge about
the marketing requirements of this channel.
As mentioned before, Hispanic farmers did not widely use direct-to-consumers channels,
which are generally considered among most important outlets for small-scale producers (Buck et
al., 1997; Gale 1997; Kirschenmann et al., 2008). Only 12 percent of participants responded that
they relied on direct sales to market some of their products. They were reaching buyers through
direct delivery to neighbors, delivering to friends in Chicago, and building a reputation in their
communities, which encouraged neighbors to come to their farms to buy products. Also, some
farmers indicated sales in their own small convenience stores or farm stands. Again, for these
farmers, personal relationships were important and helpful as a marketing strategy to sell their
products.
70

Unlike other small-scale farmers, the Hispanic farmers in this research did not benefit
much from using organized farmers markets (Table 16). Only 10 percent used this channel to sell
either all, or as low as one percent of their total production. In general, respondents felt that their
local farmer markets did not have large number of buyers, and markets with more customers
require traveling long distances, making them unprofitable for the volume they would sell in one
day. In some cases, farmers indicated that they could not follow the requirements of their local
farmers markets (e.g., the farmers had to be the one selling, or production had to be organic). It is
important to note that, during the interviews, some farmers mentioned that they have never
considered farmers markets as an alternative marketing channel, and some were not very familiar
about them.
In general, farmers did not seem very familiar with direct-to-consumer markets and the
benefits that these kinds of markets could represent for them. One of the main advantages of
direct-to-consumer channel is farmer’s greater share of retail price and the greater opportunities
to connect with consumers and learn first-hand about demand. When asked, farmers were not
familiar with community supported agriculture (CSA), which has been a growing channel of
distribution and a marketing strategy for many small-scale farmers across the country (Schnell
2007). This also suggests that, although farmers have been selling in different markets, their
overall knowledge of marketing opportunities remains limited.
Marketing Skills
Following the analysis, the next set of characteristics explored was Hispanic farmers’
skills in accessing markets. First, it was observed that mainly, Hispanic farmers used two
marketing strategies: product specialization (i.e., production of one product for one market) and
71

market diversification (i.e., simultaneous use of marketing channels). In this research, 32 percent
of farmers used market diversification. The most common of these was selling to packers and
wholesale-brokers, selling to wholesale/brokers, and a small amount directly to consumers. In
two cases farmers sold to all three markets simultaneously.
In general, vegetable producers were more likely to produce different crops; thus, more
likely to use market diversification as a strategy than fruit producers (Table 17). Vegetable
growers produced various vegetables (e.g., tomatoes and peppers), or diversified their production
with other fruits, such as apples, grapes and peaches. In some cases, farmers had chickens and
sold broilers and/or eggs, and goats. Fruit producers and, in particular, blueberry producers
tended to have only blueberries and sell solely to fruit packers.
Following a market diversification strategy seemed to help farmers learn more about
different markets, even when they were not participating in them. For example, farmers who
diversified their markets were more knowledgeable about retail (e.g., supermarkets, grocery
stores) and/or food service (e.g., restaurants, or school cafeterias) markets. In total, six vegetable
producers and three fruit producers responded they have at least tried to sell to supermarkets and
restaurants (Table 18).
An important skill all Hispanic farmers have developed is their ability to deal with market
transactions, most commonly referred to as transaction costs (Table 19). For the most part,
Hispanic farmers were very confident in their ability to deal with a list of common transaction
costs presented to them. They rated receiving prompt payment for their products, being trusted
by buyers or customers, finding price and quality information for their products as a very easy or
easy transaction cost they dealt with when trying to sell their products. On the other hand,
72

farmers struggle with finding new markets, dealing with excess production in their markets,
accessing existing markets, meeting new buyers in their local markets, and negotiating
agreements or contracts.26
When Hispanic farmers were asked to explain the difficulties they had in their markets,
as expected, they said finding new markets for products a cost, in terms of the time, energy and
resources needed to sell products (Ross and Westgren 2006). Farmers selling to packers and
those selling in other markets close to their farms explained that the cost of transporting their
products was a constraint to selling to packers, because high transportation costs lowered profits.
In addition, farmers explained that looking for new markets, such as farmers markets, in their
communities was not profitable because rural Michigan markets had low numbers of visitors,
which also represented a serious constraint in finding ways to diversify markets. New farmers
were usually competing with farmers who already had a reputation in the markets, and/or were
larger in production scale (Escalante and Turvey 2006).
Another difficulty farmers found in selling their products was dealing with excess
supply.27 For example, farmers who sold to packers would usually base their planting and
harvesting decisions on the expectations that packers would process all the fruits delivered to
them. An excess supply of products meant packers would simply lower the price paid to the
26

Cross-tabulations were conducted to compare farmers by origin, size of farm, production of
fruit or non-fruit, and whether or not they diversified their market channels. In all cases there was
no statistically significant difference among farmers in this sample.
27
In 2008, fruit farmers experienced a year with exceptionally high yields. However, fruit
packers had a difficult year selling products. This situation extended into 2009 and fruit packers
were not processing all the fruit available in the area. This situation implied that during harvest
time (August to September), prices reached record lows in the area of this study (e.g.,
southwestern Michigan, west-central Michigan), and in many cases, processors had to reject
loads because they did not have capacity to process and sell all the fruits they received.
73

farmer. Since all farmers in this sample were price takers, they would have no choice but to
accept these lower prices or simply stop harvesting. For relatively new farmers, this situation was
very difficult to overcome. Eight farmers said they did not know what to do and stopped
harvesting. For more established farmers, their connections with managers and supervisors were
helpful in enabling deliveries. However, they too had to deal with lower prices.28
Similarly, access to markets with currently grown products was a difficult issue for 28
percent. Dealing with different marketing requirements usually represented major barriers for
Hispanic farmers when trying to sell their products. For example, all fruit farmers were required
to provide a list of pesticides they applied during the growing season, and without this document
farmers were not allowed to deliver their products to packing companies. This was particularly
complicated for new farmers who did not have permits to apply pesticides and, in many cases,
did not know how to obtain these permits. In addition, occasionally farmers had to register a year
in advance in order to deliver products to a packing company. In two different cases, farmers
were required to provide a Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) certification to continue selling
their products. For farmers selling in farmers markets, the requirement that the person selling the
products has to be the “farmer” in many of these markets was very difficult, since most farmers
had jobs besides farming, and needed to rely on others to sell their products. These requirements
represented high marketing barriers.
Getting connected with new buyers was difficult for 14 farmers. Some vegetable farmers
reported that they did not know how to initiate contact with a store manager or others who may
28

Unlike other farmers in Michigan who have relied on marketing cooperatives or associations
to deal with this kind of issue (e.g., apples growers who joined MACMA; tart cherry growers
and the Cherry Marketing Institute), Hispanic farmers did not mention using this marketing
mechanism to improve their choices to deal with excess supply of products.
74

be interested in their produce. These farmers acknowledged that they did not know anyone in
Michigan who could be a potential business contact. Another concern for farmers was trusting
new people who offered to buy their products. Some farmers were afraid of doing business with
new buyers because they have learned about or had bad experiences with new buyers. A
blueberry farmer explained that he needed to have the assurance that buyers would receive his
fruit during the season, because a one-time transaction was not worth the effort. This is
consistent with Hobbs (1997), who suggested that when farmers do not trust their buyers, they
need to look for alternative outlets, which again increases their transaction costs (Hobbs 1997).
Finally, for 11 farmers, negotiating market agreements or contracts with buyers was a
difficult activity. None of the participants had agreements with any buyer. While this is generally
difficult for all farmers, not just for Hispanic farmers, it was interesting that three farmers
mentioned that signing contracts was “dangerous.” They explained that in the event they were
not able to fulfill the contract, the buyers could take them to court, and they did not want to deal
with that situation. This shows that there are still misunderstandings among farmers about what
an agreement or contract means and the types available (e.g., contracts with “act of God” clause
to account for bad weather effects).
On the other hand, fruit farmers explained that, even if they were willing to negotiate
contracts or agreements with packers, this was simply not possible. As one farmer explained, it
was not possible to show up in a packing company, talk to the manager and request an agreement
(e.g., agreement to deliver 1,000 pounds of fruit per week). Another farmer said that packers give
farmers their standards for quality, such as pesticide spraying, etc. If a farmer followed the
packer’s requirements, these packers would buy from you. Otherwise, they would not accept
75

your fruit. Clearly, fruit growers and packers developed vertical relationships, which represent a
barrier to develop more coordination and cooperation with these buyers.
For seven farmers, the major market transaction skill learned was to rely on verbal
agreements with their buyers. This skill helped these farmers deal with market issues, because
they were able to communicate with people they already knew to sell their products. A farmer
explained that he had been able to talk to a vegetable packer about the prices his was receiving
and, after that, they agreed to a better price. This farmer attributed this success to the fact that
they had been working together for several years. In addition, some farmers said that relying on
verbal agreements with buyers was better in the long run, because this kind of relationship was
based on trust, reputation and mutual respect for each other. Consistent with the literature, in
some cases, when small-scale farmers are able to improve their negotiation skills and
representation, they might have a better chance at increasing their participation in different
markets (Bienabe and Sautier 2005). Skilled farmers need significant human capital to learn
marketing requirements which, in turn, reduces negotiation costs (Hobbs 1997).
Marketing plans
Hispanic farmers’ marketing plans and future market goal setting strategies were the last
set of characteristics analyzed.29 During the interviews, farmers were requested to think about
their farming and marketing plans five years from the time of the interview. Besides recording
29

McElwee (2006) found that farmers who had a plan for the future of their farms were most
likely to succeed in their endeavors than farmers who did not. Resources for beginning farmers
usually suggest they start with a clear plan for the future. See for example Michigan Beginning
Farmers Resources (http://beginningfarmers.org/); Center for Rural Affairs resources for
beginner farmers (http://www.cfra.org/resources/beginning_farmer), and Marketing Strategies
for Farmers and Rancher from the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension program
(http://www.sare.org/publications/marketing/resource.htm)
76

any future plans, the objective of this question was to observe the farmers’ perception about the
business environment in their local markets, and whether or not they had plans for adding any
new marketing strategies, such as retail and food service, as options for marketing their products.
In order to simplify the analysis, answers were divided into three groups, depending on
whether farmers expressly said they would be improving their farm outputs and, thus, their
viability (i.e., improve marketing situation), those who answered their farms would remain the
same (i.e., no change of marketing situation), and those who based their marketing goals and
plans for the future on factors such as better prices, or more production (i.e., marketing situation
depends on other factors).
In total, 42 percent of the farmers believed they could improve their farming situation
(Table 20). However, none of these farmers mentioned having any specific marketing plan to
achieve this goal. Most farmers in this group (12 farmers) responded they would increase
production, but they did not mention specific markets they were targeting for their products.
Some fruit growers were already planting new trees or bushes that would be ready to harvest in
five years. In this same group, six farmers expected to add more land and diversify production,
but they had not given much thought to their long-term market strategy.30 As Escalante and
Turvey (2006) found, this lack of attention to future marketing situations may jeopardize the
viability of their operations because farmers do not have a clear plan to deal with market changes
(Escalante and Turvey 2006).

30

Adding more land implied buying more farmland or using land that was currently not in
production. Diversification of products meant planting different varieties or different crops.
77

Although most farmers did not specifically mention marketing plans as ways to
improving their farm viability, 12 farmers provided marketing examples of what they could do to
remain successful. For three farmers, becoming full-time farmers would help them improve the
production and marketing opportunities, as they could dedicate more time to their farm business.
Similarly, two farmers mentioned they would like to sell to supermarkets in the future. Farmers
also mentioned that improving their farms meant buying new machinery to plant and harvest,
investing in storage buildings to sell products out of season, advertising their farms with a
specific logo, and using new labels such as organic, free range and humane (Table 20). Although
these can be considered marketing activities, there was no clear strategy mentioned that would
help improve their current marketing situation.
For eight farmers, their marketing plan was to remain the same (Table 21). Out of these
farmers, four stated that they could not quit their full-time jobs because it was a secure source of
income, whereas farming was not; thus, farming would continue to be an added activity. Three
farmers did not want to change because depending on their farms alone as a source of income
was too risky. A farmer expressed his concern about keeping up with all the governmental
regulations (e.g., GAP certification) that some packing companies required. Similarly, two
farmers said they were just fine with the way they were marketing their products. Finally, two
farmers described their farms as a “hobby” or a “leisure” activity (Table 21). It can be suggested
that for these farmers, having a farm represented mostly a secondary activity, and marketing to
increase their income from farming was not a priority.
Finally, eight farmers said they did not know what would happen to their farms in five
years (Table 22). For six of these farmers, to continue farming meant depending on markets and
78

prices. For some blueberry farmers, prices were extremely low and they were pessimistic about
harvesting in the future. Others were afraid of not finding markets for their products. Only two
farmers expressed the concern that financial support would determine if they continued farming.
In these cases, farmers did not consider having a marketing plan or goal an important factor in
improving their perceptions for the future.
In addition to a farmer’s personal goals, this paper also analyzed whether or not farmers
had a business environment conducive of entrepreneurship to maintain farm viability (Dinis
2006). The assumption was that a successful business environment represented one that allowed
farmers to pursue a market diversification strategy. In this case study, market diversification was
important because farmers who used it as a strategy were more likely to explore new strategies to
maintain viability such as trying to sell to retail and food service. However, market
diversification alone should not be considered a solution to increase farmer’s viability,
particularly when there is no market for a particular products, or the market has little growth
opportunities (McNally 2001).
As mentioned before, Hispanic farmers who followed a market diversification strategy
were more likely to gain experience, and learn different marketing skills. In addition, market
diversification is as strategy small-scale farmers utilize to reduce the risk of depending too much
on one product or market (McElwee 2006). Increasingly, farmers need to evaluate and develop a
portfolio of many different outlets for their products in order to remain viable (Park and Lohr
2006).
Following this, it was expected that farmers would adopt a market diversification strategy
dependent upon the difficulty they had in selling their products in different markets, the
79

experience gained in Michigan over the years, and the kind of products they were growing. The
results showed that blueberry growers and the level of difficulty finding new markets for
products were significantly correlated with farmer’s decision to diversify market channels (Table
23). Recall from the marketing skills section that blueberry farmers in this sample were less
likely to diversify market channels, whereas other producers who were not selling blueberries
were more open to explore market diversification. In addition, farmers reported that the most
difficult transaction cost variables were finding new markets for their products around their area
of production, and trusting new buyers to sell their products.
These results suggests that growers who find it easy to locate new markets for their
products were 16 times more likely to also follow a market channel diversification strategy than
those farmers who find it difficult to find new markets (Table 24). The results show that the
estimates of the coefficient for finding new markets (2.78, p=0.04) is statistically significant at 5
percent significance level. Blueberry farmers were less likely to diversify their market channels
than other farmers. The odd of a farmer who produces blueberries to use different markets was
0.14 times less than a farmer who does not produce blueberry. The estimate for blueberry (-1.96,
p=0.09) was statistically significant at 10 percent significance level. These results might also
reflect the lack of alternative markets for these growers to use market diversification as a
strategy. This result further implies that in general Hispanic farmers do not have a business
environment which can be conducive to use diversification as a marketing strategy.
Summary and Discussion
This research analyzed Michigan Hispanic farmers’ marketing experience, skills and
goals in accessing and participating in different markets. Using the number of years farming in
80

Michigan and markets they currently use for their products as indicators of experience,
marketing strategies and the ability to deal with transaction costs in their markets as indicators of
skills, plans for their farm future and factors affecting market diversification as indicators of
goals for the future, the most important outcomes of this research can be summarized as follow:
i) Hispanic farmers in this study have limited marketing experience that could help them
significantly improve their farm viability. The majority of farmers have been farming in
Michigan for less than 15 years (40 percent have been farming for less than 5 years). Regardless
of the number of years farming, Hispanic farmers still struggle with some basic marketing issues
(e.g., supply effect on prices, coordination with buyers). Hispanic farmers in Michigan will
benefit from more outreach programs designed to address their specific marketing needs. For
example, farmers now have field days to learn about soil testing, fertilizer and pesticide use,
which can be combined with marketing education, and possibly field marketing days when they
can actually interact with buyers.
ii) In terms of marketing strategies, blueberry growers showed heavy reliance on market
specialization, particularly fruit packers. Despite the importance of this market for farmers, they
still struggle with coordination issues with these buyers. For example, they do not communicate
with fruit packers about the expected volume during the season, or even the variety of fruits they
were willing to accept. While this market is convenient for farmers, not having an alternative
strategy can represent significant losses for these farmers, in the event that these markets face
structural changes (e.g., packers’ decision to accept production from large-scale farmers only).
Again, more support to coordinate activities with fruit packers can be beneficial for farmers.
Increasingly, more packers are open to organizing meetings with farmers, as reported by
81

participants in this research. Hispanic farmers who depend on this channel need to take
advantage of this opportunity and find ways to communicate and cooperate with packers.
iii) Hispanic farmers did not use direct-to-consumer channels, despite the growing
opportunities that lay within this strategy. Only 22 percent of farmers used some form of direct
sales or farmer’s markets. None of the farmers knew about community supported agriculture.
This result suggests that these farmers have limited knowledge of available marketing
alternatives. Farmers who are very small in scale (e.g., fruit production less than 5 acres) could
benefit from direct-to-consumer marketing arrangements. For middle size farmers it also
represents a useful practice to learn first-hand about the demand in their markets or outside their
communities.
iv) Hispanic farmers have developed important marketing skills. When presented with a
list of common transaction costs, Hispanic farmers did not find it difficult to deal with getting
payments for their products, being trusted by buyers, finding price information or finding quality
information. However, they rated finding new markets, dealing with oversupply of products in
their markets, meeting with new buyers, and accessing existing markets with their products as
difficult. Further analysis show that Hispanic farmers still find it difficult to deal with rapid
fluctuation of prices during the season, see quality standards as barriers to obtain better prices,
and lack leadership skills to coordinate transactions with buyers. Understanding the transaction
costs that are more important and specific to Hispanic farmers can also help develop programs to
deal with those issues.
iv) Market diversification has helped farmers developed useful skills. Thirty two percent
of Hispanic farmers use this marketing strategy. While farmers who diversified markets were
82

more likely to have approached a retail or food service to sell their products, none of the
Hispanic farmers had experienced selling to mainstream retail and food service channels, which
can be a barrier in future involvement with these markets. Hispanic farmers who are interested in
market diversification will benefit from accessing current programs aimed at coordinating
farmer-buyer business relationships, and more exposure to programs geared to created more
connections with these type of buyers. Other marketing strategies could include partnerships to
participate in farm-to-school programs, participation in producer associations, and partnerships
with other growers in different community programs.
vi) Regarding their farming future, Hispanic farmers were positive about the
improvements and growing perspectives of their farms. Only 12 percent said they would quit
farming if prices did not improve, and four percent would quit if they did not receive assistance.
Although 24 percent cited the desire to increase their production in the future, none of these
farmers had a specific marketing plan for the future. While community organization and
Extension programs need to assist all farmers, it is also important to carefully identify farmers
with a desire to increase the viability of their farm from those who see farming as leisure activity,
and develop an appropriate program for each group. Defining their specific plans for the future
can help promote programs for these farmers.
vii) Marketing programs with community food systems emphasis will benefit Hispanic
farmers and the opportunities to increase their farm viability. For example, access to
conventional retail and food service channels, while challenging, could represent an alternative
marketing strategy for farmers. Retail and food service companies are progressively and
proactively seeking to partner with local farmers, which represent an opportunity for small-scale
83

farmers to gain the benefits associated with this channel. However, Hispanic farmers still need
leadership support that could guide them to successfully partner with these important buyers.
The exploratory nature of this case study provides limited answers to address the
marketing needs and opportunities of Hispanic farmers in Michigan. As previously mentioned,
the results of this research are applicable only to this case study. However, this research offers
some important findings that will help Hispanic farmers, and those working with them, assess the
opportunities and barriers they need to consider when evaluating marketing strategies.
While this study covers a significant number of farmers, the type of sampling methods
and the lack of better information about Hispanic farmers represented barriers to including more
farmers. The need to focus on Hispanic farmers is increasing, given their growing number in
Michigan and the Midwest. Hispanic farmers are becoming more important in Michigan and in
U.S. agriculture, and their success will only contribute to the prominent role of agriculture as an
industry in the state. A more general study will efficiently target more pressing issues facing
these farmers, given the limited Extension resources in Michigan.
While this project allowed for outreach outcomes from its beginning, outreach activities
were limited. More participatory-action research will only benefit Hispanic farmers who usually
do not use Extension channels. Programs designed to collect information while encouraging
farmers to learn more about their markets can be cost-effective and beneficial. For example, the
experience of selling to a retail and/or food service market cannot be taught in classrooms or
seminars, it requires field experience. During this research, some farmers were already learning
about programs and agencies that could help them with their farms. In some cases, farmers also
learned of and started to participate in the Michigan Hispanic Farmers Association and the
84

cooperative “Farmers on the Move,” which was funded to help marketing and production need of
Hispanic farmers. However, a more systematic assessment of how successful these types of
outreach are is needed.
Areas for future research include an assessment of participation in research and outreach
programs. While this research is the first to explore marketing needs among Hispanic farmers in
Michigan, and the number of farmers participating exceeded original expectations, more
participants need to be included for two main reasons. First, Hispanic farmers have been
historically underserved by different outreach programs in the U.S. and the Midwest, and
increasing the number of participants will assure that most farmers are aware of the services
available to them and know how to get these services. Second, increasing the number of
participants in research studies will only provide more information about this group of farmers,
and at the same time it will increase generalizations and allow for significant comparisons that
can be made when using larger sample size.
In the Midwest, there have been efforts to support Hispanic farmers. However, Hispanic
farmers do not seem interested in participating. It is important to investigate reasons beyond the
language barriers that prevent farmers from participating in programs designed to help them. It is
also important for research scientists to collaborate in order to leverage the limited resources
available to develop outreach programs for Hispanic farmers.
Another area for future research includes new partnerships with food distribution
companies. Companies and independent buyers need to be included in programs aimed at
helping Hispanic farmers. Models of best business partnerships need to be developed with
farmers and companies or buyers, interested in being supplied by these farmers. This inclusion
85

can help define a more effective way of measuring what constitutes success factors, with respect
to access to and participation in these channels. In addition, it is important to assess whether
cooperatives, associations or other collective action efforts are adequate for farmers and
companies.
Finally, Hispanic farmers and agents working with them need to conduct a holistic
assessment of benefits and costs of farming. The number Hispanics entering farming in Michigan
and the Midwest is growing. However, research shows that Hispanics tend to follow the path of
people who migrated before them. Also, in some cases, it is believed that farming provides a
better quality of life for farmers. However, there is a need to carefully assess the social and
economic benefits that entering into farming represents to these farmers and communities.
Hispanics can benefit from this type of research by making more informed decisions about their
future.

86

Table 12. Land Use for Fruit and Vegetable Production and Number of Hispanic Principal
Operators in the Midwest
Land Use for Vegetables,
State
Hispanic principal operator
Fruits and Berries
------------Acres ------------

--Farms--

--Acres---

Average
--- farm size---

Illinois

75,639

325

57,506

177

Indiana

39,413

217

35,333

163

Iowa

11,423

346

103,666

300

9,854

555

335,823

605

Michigan

308,860

615

54,795

89

Minnesota

247,519

296

101,372

342

Missouri

38,257

444

76,492

172

Nebraska

24,812

166

157,066

946

North Dakota

94,592

92

149,958

1,630

Ohio

57,399

302

44,549

148

1,805

116

87,645

756

321,427

245

29,732

121

Kansas

South Dakota
Wisconsin
Source: U.S. NASS 2009

87

Table 13. Years Farming in Michigan
Years

Participants

Percent

1 to 5

21

42

6 to 15

22

44

16 to 30

3

6

more than 30

4

8

50

100

Total

Table 14. Years Farming in Michigan by Origin
Origin
Years

Mexico and Latin
America

U.S.

-----------Number------------1 to 5

15

4

6 to 15

17

2

16 to 30

2

1

More than 30

0

4

N=45
Chi-square: 14.603 (p=0.002)

88

Table 15. Examples of Participants Previous Experience Farming
•

Farming in country of origin

They have experience as farmers in Mexico
He has never done anything with blueberries before.
In Mexico he planted corn but they left it because it
was expensive
He used to live in Mexico where everything was
organic and without chemicals, without fertilizers,
everything was ‘wild’
When he was in [his country] they used to have
pineapple plantations and all sort of animals
“I have it in my blood to be a farmer” I always
farmed and I like to do it

•

Knowledge from their farm

His dad was a migrant worker and he bought the

work background

land from the farm owner
He started over 30 years ago. They arrived in 1952.
He and his family were farm workers
She was born in Mexico, moved to Texas, grew in
Indiana, Michigan is now where she is from
He comes to Michigan during summer season to take
care of his farm. During winter he takes cares of his
farm in Texas. He also take farm workers to North
Carolina

89

Table 16. Sales by Market Channels
Direct
from

Farmer’s

Wholesale Local Store -

Farm

Markets

- Brokers

Supermarket Packers

Participants
------------------------------------ number -----------------------------Total selling to

6

5

15

5

34

Fruit producers

1

3

9

1

33

5

2

6

4

1

Non-fruit
producers

------ -------------------------------- (%) -------- ----------------------

Sales
Average

42

61

49

46

93

Minimum

10

1

4

1

40

Maximum

100

100

100

90

100

Table 17. Use of Multiple Market Channels by Type of production
Use multiple market channels
Production
Yes

No

Chi square

Fruits

8

30

8.72

0.003

Vegetables

8

4

Only one product

6

26

7.172

0.007

10

8

Less than 5 acres

7

14

0.03

0.863

5 acres or more

9

20

More than one product

90

P-value

Table 18. Intention to Sell to Supermarkets (SM) and Restaurants by Type of Production
Have tried to sell to SM or
Restaurant

Production
No

Total
Yes

---------------------------number -----------------Fruits

35

6

11

40

Total

38

5

Non fruits

3

9

49

Chi-square 12.382 (p=0.000)

Table 19. Difficulty Dealing with Transaction Costs Variables
Level of difficulty
Statement (How difficult is for you to..)

No
answer

Not
difficult
---------------Respondents----------------

Difficult Neutral

Find new markets for your products
Find price information for your products
Find quality standards information
Access existing markets with products you
currently grow
Trust people who buy products from you

19
10
7

5
3
2

22
32
29

1
2
9

14
4

4
8

26
25

3
10

Be trusted by buyers/customers
Get promptly payment
Meet new buyers in your local markets
Deal with oversupply of products in your
market
Negotiate agreements/contracts to sell your
products

7
5
14

2
0
7

34
39
25

4
3
4

19

4

21

3

11

-

26

10

31

Cronbach's Alpha = 0.796

31

Cronbach's Alpha measures the internal consistency a set of items are as a group. A "high"
value of alpha is often used as evidence that the items measure an underlying construct.
91

Table 20. Hispanic Farmers’ Expected Improvements for the Future
Plans for the future

Respondents

Increase farm production

12

Add more land

6

Diversify products

6

Become a full time farmer

3

Sell to supermarkets/stores

2

Better machinery and buildings

2

Advertisement of their farm

2

Use labels (e.g., organic, free range)

2

Hire workers

1

Table 21. Hispanic Farmers’ Reasons to Continue the Same in the Future
Plans for the future

Respondents

Continue working part-time

4

Continue with same production strategy

3

Continue with same marketing strategy

2

Continue as a hobby farmer

2

Table 22. Hispanic Farmers’ Reasons Quitting Farming in the Future
Plans for the future

Respondents

Quit farming if markets and prices do not improve

6

Quit farming if financial help is not available

2

92

Table 23. Correlation Results for Sales to Different Markets
Variables

Statistics

Description

Name

Chi-Sq

Probability

Producers of Blueberry a

Blueberry

14.60

0.000

Find new markets for your products b

NewMkt_2

3.72

0.054

Trust people who buy products from you b

Trust_2

1.14

0.285

Years farming in Michigan c

Years_MI2

1.12

0.291

Access_2

0.92

0.337

Oversupply_2

0.52

0.471

Quality_2

0.31

0.580

Payment_2

0.09

0.766

Find price information for your products b

PriceInfo_2

0.05

0.818

Meet new buyers in your local markets b

NewBuyer_2

0.01

0.923

Negotiate_2

0.01

0.927

Trusted_2

0.00

0.959

Access existing markets with products you
currently grow b
Deal with excess supply of products in your
market b
Find quality standards information b
Get promptly payment

b

Negotiate agreements/contracts to sell your
products b
Be trusted by buyers/customers

b

a

1=produces blueberry; 2= does not produce blueberries

b

1=difficult; 0=not difficult

c

1=established farmer; 0= new farmer

93

Table 24. Table Exact Logistic Regression Results
Variable

Coefficient

p-value

Odds Ratio

Blueberry

-1.96

0.09

0.14

Newmkt2

2.78

0.04

16.07

Trust2

-2.08

0.27

0.13

Years_mi2

-1.84

0.16

0.16

Goodness of fit test: Model Score=20.453; Pr>=score = 0.0001
Outcome variable: Use diversified market channels (yes/no)

94

Experience
•Years of farming
• Experience farming
• Markets

Current
Marketing
Strategy

Skills
•Use of different market
channels
• Ability to deal with
transaction costs

New
Marketing
Strategy

Marketing Environment
•Business environment
• Personal goals

Figure 2. Indicators to Measure Hispanic Farmer’s Marketing Experience and Skills

95

References

96

References

Buck, D., Getz, C., and Guthman, J. 1997. “From Farm to Table: The Organic Vegetable
Commodity Chain of Northern California.” Sociologia Ruralis. 37(1):3-20.
Butler-Flora, C. 1992. “Reconstructing Agriculture: The Case for Local Knowledge.” Rural
Sociology. 57(1):92-97.
Campbell, T., and Barret, H. 2008. “Increasing Entrepreneurship in Agriculture in an
Economically Depressed Region.” Journal of Extension 46(5).
Clark, J. 2009. “Entrepreneurship and Diversification on English Farms: Identifying Business
Enterprise Characteristics and Change Processes.” Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development. 21(2):213-236.
Coase, R. H. 1937. “The Nature of the Firm.” Economica, 4(16):386-405.
DeWalt, K. M. 2002. Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press.
Dinis, A. 2006. “Marketing and Innovation: Useful Tools for Competitiveness in Rural and
Peripheral Areas.” European Planning Studies. 14(1):9-22.
Escalante, C. L., and Turvey, C. G. 2006. “Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Rural
Communities: Early Business Survival Challenges for the Agribusiness Entrepreneur.”
Paper presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings,
Orlando FL, 5-8 February
FACT, Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. 1990. Title SEC. 2501
“Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers.” Available at:
http://national4-hheadquarters.gov/about/offices/legis/25fact.html.
Feder, J., and Cowan, T. 2010. Garcia v. Vilsack: A Policy and Legal Analysis of a USDA
Discrimination Case. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Fonte, M. 2006. “Slow Food’s Presidia: What do Small Producers Do with Big Retailers?” In T
Marsden and J. Murdoch, eds. Research in Rural Sociology and Development. Amsterdam:
Elsevier Ltd. Vol 12 pp. 203-240.

97

Gale, F. 1997. “Direct Farm Marketing as a Rural Development Tool.” Rural Development
Perspectives. 12(2):19-25.
Garcia, V., Lopez-Ariza, B., and Marinez, J. 2008. “Exploring Undercounts in the Agriculture
Census: An Alternative Enumeration of Hispanic Farmers in Southwestern Michigan.”
The Journal of Latino-Latin American Studies, 3(2):47-58.
Green, J. J. 2001. “Developing Programs from the Grassroots: Assessing the Needs and Interests
of Limited Resource Farmers. A Report on Focus Group Research.” Working Paper, Dept.
of Rural Soc., University of Missouri-Columbia.
Hassanein, N. 1999. Changing the Way America Farms: Knowledge and Community in the
Sustainable Agriculture Movement. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.
Hirji, K. F., Mehta, C. R., and Patel, N. R. 1987. “Computing Distributions for Exact Logistic
Regression.” Journal of the American Statistical Association. 82(400):1110-1117.
Hobbs, J. E. 1997. “Measuring the Importance of Transaction Costs in Cattle Marketing.”
American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 79(4):1083-1095.
Hoppe, R.A. and Korb, P. 2005. Large and Small Farms: Trends and Characteristics.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ESCS for Agric. Info Bul. 797, March.
Hoppe, R. A., Korb, P., O’Donoghue, E. J., and Banker, D. E. (2007). Structure and Finances of
U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report, 2007 Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, ESCS for Econ Info Bul. 24.
Hoshide, A. K. 2007. Values-Based and Value-Added Value Chains in the Northeast, Upper
Midwest, and Pacific Northwest. Ames, IA: Ag of the Middle Project.
Hosmer, D. W., and Lemeshow, S. 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York,
Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Tokio: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hoy, F. 2007. “Hispanic Entrepreneurship in the United States.” In L.P. Dana, ed. Handbook of
research on ethnic minority entrepreneurship: a co-evolutionary view on resource
management. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 177-194.
Ilbery, B., Mayea, D., Kneafseya, M., Jenkinsb, T., and Walkley, C. 2004. “Forecasting food
supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK.” Journal of
Rural Studies. 20: 331-334.
Kalleberg, A. L., and Leicht, K. T. 1991. “Gender and Organizational Performance:
Determinants of Small Business Survival and Success.” The Academy of Management
Journal. 34(1):136-161.
98

Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S. and Teddlie, C. 2003. “Mixed Methods Sampling Strategies in
Social Science Research.” In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, eds. Handbook of mixed
methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage
Publications, pp 273-296
King, R. P., Gómez, M. I., and DiGiacomo, G. 2010. “Can Local Food Go Mainstream?”
Choices. 25(1).
Kirschenmann, F., Stevenson, G. W., Buttel, F., Lyson, T., and Duffy, M. 2008. “Why Worry
about the Agriculture of the Middle?” In T. A. Lyson, G. W. Stevenson, and R. Welsh, eds.
Food and the mid-level farm: renewing an agriculture of the middle. Cambridge, MA and
London, UK: The MIT Press, pp. 3-22.
Kloppenburg, J. 1991. “Social Theory and the De/Reconstruction of Agricultural Science: Local
Knowledge for an Alternative Agriculture.” Rural Sociology. 56(4):519-548.
Lopez-Ariza, B. 2007. “A case study of Hispanic farmers in four southwestern Michigan
counties.” PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University.
Loscocco, K. A., and Robinson, J. 1991. “Barriers to Women’s Small-Business Success in the
United States.” Gender and Society 5(4): 511-532.
Loscocco, K. A., Robinson, J., Hall, R. H., and Allen, J. K. 1991. “Gender and Small Business
Success: An Inquiry into Women’s Relative Disadvantage.” Social Forces. 70(1):65-85.
Maxwell, J. 1996. Qualitative Research Design An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
McInnis, B. 2003. “Transaction Costs and Organic Marketing: Evidence from U.S. Organic
Produce Farmers.” Paper presented at AAEA annual meeting, Denver, CO, 1–4 August
McElwee, G. 2006. “Farmers as Entrepreneurs: Developing Competitive Skills.” Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship. 11(3):187-206.
McNally, S. 2001. “Farm diversification in England and Wales -- what can we learn from the
farm business survey?” Journal of Rural Studies. 17(2):247-257.
Millar, J., and Curtis, A. 1997. “Moving farmer knowledge beyond the farm gate: An Australian
study of farmer knowledge in group learning.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and
Extension. 4(2):133-142.
Newton, D. J., and Hoppe, R. A. 2001. “Financial Well-Being of Small Farm Households
Depends on the Health of Rural Economies.” Rural America.16(1).
99

North, D. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, New
York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Park, T., and Lohr, L. 2006. “Choices of Marketing Outlets by Organic Producers: Accounting
for Selectivity Effects.” Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 4 (1):4.
Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 3rd ed. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Peterson, H.C., Knudson, W.A. and Abate, G. 2006. The Economic Impact and Potential of
Michigan’s Agri-Food System. Lansing MI: Michigan State University Product Center
Report 1-1606.
Renting, H., Marsden, T., and Banks, J. 2003. “Understanding alternative food networks:
exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development.” Environment and
Planning, A 35(3):393-411.
Richards, S. T., and Bulkley, S. 2007. Agricultural Entrepreneurs: The First and the Forgotten?
Washington, DC: Hudson Institute Research Paper No. 07-01.
Ross, R. B., and Westgren, R. E. 2006. “Economic Returns to Entrepreneurial Behavior.”
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 38(2):403-419.
Rubin, H., and Rubin, I. 2005. Qualitative Interviewing. The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Santos, M. J., and Castro-Escobar, A. Forthcoming. Increasing Knowledge and Networking
Opportunities for Small-Scale Mexican Growers in Southwest Michigan. R. Martinez ed.
East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Sattler-Weber, S. 2007. “Saving St. James: A case study of farmwomen entrepreneurs.”
Agriculture and Human Values, 24:425–434.
Schnell, S. M. 2007. “Food with a Farmer’s Face: Community-Supported Agriculture in the
United States.” Geographical Review. 97(4):550-564.
Shane, S. 2000. “Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities.”
Organization Science. 11(4):448-469.
Siemens, L. 2009. “Framework for Success in the Constrained Rural Environment: Case Studies
in Rural Vancouver Island, British Columbia.” Entrepreneurial Practice Review. 1(1), 4053.

100

Starr, A., Card, A., Benepe, C., Auld, G., Lamm, D., Smith, K., and Wilken, K. 2003.
“Sustaining local agriculture Barriers and opportunities to direct marketing between farms
and restaurants in Colorado.” Agriculture and Human Values. 20(3):301-321.
Stiglitz, J. E. 1989. “Incentives, information, and organizational design.” Empirica. 16(1):3-29.
Swisher, M.E., Brenna, M., and Shah, M. 2007. “Hispanic-Latino Farmers and Ranchers Project.
Final Report.” Washington DC: Dept. of Fam., Youth and Comm. Sciences, University of
Florida.
U.S. NASS National Agricultural Statistical Service. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture.
Washington DC
U.S. NASS National Agricultural Statistical Service. Information on Census of Agriculture:
Glossary. Retrieved from http://agcensus.mannlib.cornell.edu/glossary.php.
Yin, R. K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, London,
New Delhi, Singapore: Sage Publications, Inc.

101

CHAPTER 4

MICHIGAN HISPANIC FARMERS’ USE OF SOCIAL NETWORKS TO ACCESS
MARKETING INFORMATION

Introduction
In recent years, Hispanics have increasingly gained attention from federal, state and
community-based organizations, as they have become the fastest growing population in rural
areas, and are likely to be beginning farmers (Kandel and Cromartie 2004; Fry 2008; Ahearn and
Newton 2009). Hispanic farmers are also more likely to be limited resource and socially
disadvantaged farmers (Dismukes et al., 1997; Kleiner and Green 2008). Despite growing efforts
to assist new, as well as the more established farmers, Hispanic farmers still cite limited access to
marketing information as one of the most serious barriers they face in competing for markets and
improving their farm viability.
In general, marketing information is very important for farmers and farm management.
Essentially, marketing information represents an ‘aid to decision-making’ (Gofton 1997).
Farmers use it to identify opportunities and problems, to evaluate actions, monitor performances
and improve the understanding of markets and marketing processes. More importantly,
information reduces the risks of not making the right management decision (Gofton 1997). Thus,
for limited resource and socially disadvantaged farmers with limited access to marketing
information, finding the right mechanisms to access such important information is necessary to
succeed in the highly competitive agro-food system.
102

Although social networking has gained consideration as a tool to facilitate and supply
marketing information (Wilkinson 2006), there have been limited studies analyzing it among
limited resource and socially disadvantaged farmers, especially Hispanic farmers. Studies on
migration and ethnic entrepreneurship suggest that Hispanics have been particularly successful at
using their social networks to increase social capital and access important market information
when they first move to new places (Tienda and Raijman 2004; Hoy 2007; Holguin et al., 2007).
Thus, it is possible that these farmers might also benefit from using their social networks as a
means to increase access to marketing information and successfully compete in market ventures.
This paper illustrates the importance of the various social networks used by Hispanic
farmers, and their potential to be used to access more information and increase the
competitiveness among Hispanic farmers in Michigan. Finally, this paper analyzes barriers and
offers key recommendations farmers and agents should consider for future marketing outreach.
Background
In the U.S., Hispanics32 continue to be the fastest growing population in non-metropolitan
areas, and their presence in rural areas has important economic implications for these
communities (Kandel and Cromartie 2004; Fry 2008). In the 1990s, they represented 25 percent
of non-metro population growth outside the Southwest, and by 2000, around 50 percent of all
Hispanics who migrated to non-metro areas lived in the Midwest and Southeast (Kandel and
32

According to the U.S Census, “Hispanic” is a label used to group individuals living in the U.S.
who have some background or are from Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. The U.S.
census considers Hispanics all who indicate their origin as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban,
Central or South American, or some other Hispanic origin. Hispanics can be of any race (Hoy
2007; U.S NASS). In this paper, Hispanic farmers include newcomers (e.g., immigrants from
other countries) and/or established individuals whose families have farmed from generations and
are originally from the U.S. (Swisher et. al. 2007).
103

Cromartie 2004). This influx of Hispanics into the Midwest and Southeast is said to have
prevented the rapid depopulation of several non-metro counties and its negative economic effect
(Kandel and Cromartie 2004).
When Hispanics migrate to non-metro areas, they are more likely to be beginning farmers
(Ahearn and Newton 2009). As an example, in the 1990s, the number of Hispanics becoming
farmers in the Midwest grew very rapidly, particularly in Michigan. Currently, Michigan ranks
number one in the number of Hispanic principal operators33 (U.S. NASS 2009). Hispanic farmers
are also likely to be involved in the production of specialty crops. In Michigan, Hispanic farmers
produce crops, such as blueberries, apples and various vegetables, in which Michigan currently
ranks among the top twenty in the country in production and sales (U.S. NASS 2009). As a
result, Hispanic farmers’ economic performance is important for Michigan’s economy,
especially since agriculture and related agro-food and energy system contributes around $64
billion and supports more than 1 million jobs in the state (Peterson et al. 2006).

33

The U.S. Census of Agriculture defines principal operators as people “primarily responsible
for the on-site, day-to-day operation of the farm or ranch business. This person may be a hired
manager or business manager” (U.S. NASS)
104

Despite the contributions that Michigan Hispanic farmers could potentially provide to
sustain the competitiveness of Michigan’s agricultural industry, they continue to struggle to
maintain farm viability and competitiveness. Hispanic farmers in Michigan remain limited
resource34 and socially disadvantaged farmers.35 Compared to other farmers, Hispanics generally
operate smaller farms and their sales of agricultural products are below the average in the state
(U.S. NASS 2009). More than 50 percent report sales of $5,000 or less during a year, and there is
no official record of off-farm household income (U.S. NASS 2009).
With the passage of the federal Outreach and Technical Assistance Program for Socially
Disadvantaged Farmers in the 1990s, more targeted efforts were developed to promote and
establish marketing and production systems that could improve viability for Hispanic and
minority farmers (Kleiner and Green 2008), Hispanic farmers still cite limited access to
marketing information36 as one the most serious constraints they face to compete in their markets
(Swisher et al., 2007). In the most recent study on behalf of the National Institute for Food and
Agriculture (NIFA), Swisher et al. (2007) found that most Hispanic farmers did not know where
to look for relevant marketing information for their farms. Moreover, those who had access to
information from Extension services mentioned that the information available was not
34

According to the Census, limited-resource farms have “market value of agricultural products
sales of less than $100,000, and total principal operator household income of less than $20,000”
(U.S. NASS 2009).
35
Socially disadvantaged farmers is a label used by the United Stated Department of Agriculture
(USDA) to indicate certain minority farmers who, because of their social, cultural, customs or
language barriers, their minimal awareness of the USDA programs, limited management skills,
and their level of formal education usually below county averages, were prevented from
accessing resources available to improve the viability of their farms (FACT 1990; Dismukes et
al. 1997).
36
Marketing information is the result of marketing research activities. According to the
American Marketing Association, marketing research is “the function that links the consumer,
customer, and public to the marketer through information” (AMA 2008)
105

appropriate for their type of farm operations (Swisher et al., 2007). 37 In addition, some of the
best marketing information was available on the Internet, but Hispanic farmers generally did not
use the Internet to access marketing information (Swisher et al., 2007). As a result, the available
outreach information did not improve farmers’ ability to compete with other well-established
farmers.
While Hispanic farmers generally do not use traditional information channels, such
Extension services and the Internet, they do seem to rely on their social networks for information
and support. In Michigan, Santos and Castro-Escobar (forthcoming) and Lopez-Ariza (2007)
noted that Hispanic farmers who did not know much about agricultural production when they
arrived based their decision to invest in agriculture largely on what they observed from their
relatives, friends or “paisanos”38 who ventured to the state before them (Lopez-Ariza 2007;
Santos and Castro-Escobar forthcoming). While this was a very important source when they
arrived in Michigan, little is known on how best to access marketing information, and if social
networks are a relevant method.39
Given the importance of marketing information in increasing farm viability, and the
difficulties Hispanic farmers have had accessing this information, the objective of this study is to
37

According to Swisher et al., (2007), Hispanic farmers complained that most of the available
information is usually designed to help large-scale farmers.
38
“Paisano” is a Spanish word to indicate a person from the same community. Paisano networks
were formed in rural America when Hispanics from main cities moved to rural areas where they
found jobs. Since most migrants kept connections with old ties in their country of origin, they
were able to inform some of these people about job opportunities, which promoted more
migration. Later, the new migrants followed similar pathways which made this migration very
dynamic (Durand and Massey 1992; Massey and Espinosa 1997; Winters et al., 2001).
39
For example, Swisher et al., al., (2007) found that many times established farmers who sought
help from other farmers did not receive accurate marketing information (Swisher et al., 2007).
However, the research did not address whether or not this was due to the lack of information, or
farmers’ interest in keeping valuable marketing information secret.
106

analyze whether Hispanic farmers’ social networks could represent a channel to access timely
and accurate marketing information, thus building their competitive advantage.
Conceptual framework
Social networks are sets of relationships linking social actors or social ties which
originate through society. Social network theory studies connections among people, such as
collaborations between friends and family, and the influence people have on other people
(Wasserman and Faust 1994). Social networks are important to access and share quality
marketing information. Wilkinson (2006), based on the work of Granovetter (1974), identified
social networks as conductors or “vectors” through which market information is shared in agrofood networks. Wilkinson explained that social connections are important because they influence
the development of marketing skills and the conditions to access market opportunities
(Wilkinson 2006).
Social networks also facilitate the flow and quality of economic information (Granovetter
2005). Granovetter illustrated this point by analyzing the importance of acquaintances to find
information about employers, employees and jobs (Granovetter 2005). Similarly, Mattson (2003)
suggests that in different markets (not just labor markets) people also exchange information to
coordinate activities and perform transactions (Mattsson 2003).
Social networks are different depending on the strength of relationships among members.
Granovetter (1973) identified two main networks: “strong” and “weak” ties. Strong ties are
especially close relationships, such as family and friendship, whereas weak ties are said to be
emotionally distant relationships (e.g., acquaintances) (Granovetter 1973; Burt 1997). Interaction
107

among members in strong ties is very frequent, usually daily, whereas in weak ties, networking is
relatively infrequent (Burt 1997) (Figure 1). In addition, the length of relationships in strong ties
usually extends for long periods of time, while in weak ties they seem shorter (Burt 1997).
Although both weak and strong networks are useful to share information, they are useful
for different types of marketing information exchange. Burt (1997) found that the level of
proximity or emotional closeness among members with strong ties was faster, and the speed of
communication contributed to an increased competitive advantage among members in this
network (Burt 1997). In addition, strong network ties are good in creating trust and enforcing
obligations (Granovetter 1973; 1983). For marketing purposes, trust is important because it
reduces the cost of finding information (Granovetter 2005).
On the other hand, the weak ties or extended relationships people develop outside their
strong networks ties are important to access new information and to pursue resources for market
transactions (Granovetter 1973; Burt 1997). An example of this is the work of Holguin et al.
(2007), who found that entrepreneurs who join business or community organization networks are
more likely to form new links with new people who are potential customers, gain more
knowledge about current market trends, and, most importantly, receive up-to-date information
which is fundamental to maintain competitiveness (Holguin et al., 2007). In contrast, Atterton
(2007) found that rural networks of small-business owners in Scotland were less likely to be
open to new information from outside their rural setting, a situation that prevented them from
accessing new and relevant marketing information (Atterton 2007).
In addition to weak and strong tie networks, Burt (based on Granovetter’s network
theory), found that the indirect connections in social networks, which he called “structural
108

holes,” provided not only new sources of information but also prevented the overlapping or
redundancy of information that tends to flow in networks (Burt 1997; 2002). People closely
connected (i.e., cohesive contacts), as in the case of strong ties, would likely have access to the
same information. Similarly, people who share contacts in weak network ties, which Burt calls
“structurally equivalent” contacts (e.g., a store manager for two different farmers), also have
redundant information because they share the same contact. However, people who are indirectly
connected to different groups are able to ‘bridge’ to more information because they have more
indirect connections and, in addition, they receive diverse information with less probability of
being repetitive or redundant (Burt 2002).
With regard to the type of social networks Hispanics have developed, there is extensive
documentation that they have been good at developing and keeping strong ties, while struggling
to form weak ties. Studies on migration and settlement in rural areas found that for Hispanic
migrant family and “paisano” networks were important to generate information about jobs and
help newcomers settle in rural America (Durand and Massey 1992; Massey and Espinosa 1997;
Winters et al., 2001; Massey 2008). In Iowa, Lewis (2009) observed that some Hispanic
immigrants decided to become farmers as a way to interact with other farmers and neighbors
(Lewis 2009). In Michigan, migrant networks are also believed to have helped Hispanics
purchase land to begin farming (Lopez-Ariza 2007; Garcia et al., 2008; Leach and Bean 2008;
Santos and Castro-Escobar forthcoming). 40 Despite the benefits of strong network ties, Garcia et
al. (2008) also found that Hispanic farmers widely used of “Presta Nombres,” a common practice
40

Similar studies of Hispanic small businesses and ethnic entrepreneurship have shown that social connections were
a source of social capital which have helped Hispanic business owners remain competitive in urban areas (Tienda
and Raijman, 2001; 2004; Holguin et al., 2007; Hoy 2007; Menzies et al., 2007). In cities, Holguin (2007) found
that an advantage for Hispanics entrepreneurs was their heavy reliance on their family networks which was helpful
particularly when firms were starting up (Holguin et al., 2007).

109

of lending a name to a family member or friend so these people can conduct businesses, which
lead to informal farming arrangements to maintain farm viability, and possibly contributed to
increasing the isolation of certain farmers when they arrived to their new communities (Garcia et
al., 2008).
Strong ties to friends and family represent an important source of information for
entrepreneurs; however, the reliance on strong ties alone can prevent growth and expansion.
Rauch (2001) and Tienda and Raijman (2001) found that strong networks of friends and kin (i.e.,
informal networks) within ethnic communities in main U.S. cities helped Hispanic entrepreneurs
find appropriate and reliable retail outlets for their products, given that they had limited
knowledge about markets when they first arrived (Rauch, 2001; Tienda and Raijman, 2001).
However, lack of weak ties and well-organized networks (e.g., Rotary Club, business
association) was detrimental for business expansion. Hispanic entrepreneurs who, for the most
part, were not affiliated with formal institutions that would help them connect with new
customers, were more likely to struggle with business growth and expansion, and more likely to
remain isolated (Rauch 2001; Tienda and Raijman 2001; 2004; Holguin et al., 2007). Moreover,
Holguin et al., (2007) found that Hispanic business owners had harder time accessing relevant
marketing information for their businesses than other ethnic owners (Holguin et al., 2007).
Considering the information presented above, this paper anticipates that similar findings
may be found for Hispanic farmers in Michigan. It is expected that Hispanic farmers have
developed and maintained extensive strong network ties. However, excessive reliance on this
type of network has prevented them from accessing new quality marketing information. In
addition, Hispanic farmers face difficulties developing weak ties and particularly indirect
110

connections, or ‘bridges’, which would give them more new and useful marketing information to
increase their competitive advantage.
In order to address the importance of social networks in obtaining marketing information,
this paper seeks to illustrate the social network of Hispanic farmers in Michigan, including the
strong and weak ties they have formed in their communities and outside, and analyze the type of
marketing information and support they obtain from these networks. The results of this analysis
are expected to explore the benefits of social networks to access marketing information and
ultimately, contribute to providing farmers and organizations working with them with
information to develop policies and programs that meet their marketing needs.
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis
This paper uses case study approach (Yin 1998; 2009). A case study approach represents
a particularly useful tool because it offers a means to explore new issues, such as the social
networks among Hispanic farmers in Michigan, and the role of these networks in accessing
marketing information and increasing farm competitiveness.41
The selection of cases considered the Hispanic farm population in Michigan. According
to the U.S. Census, there are 615 Hispanic principal farm operators in Michigan. Only farmers
producing fruit and vegetables were selected. They use marketing channels that are specific to
these crops, and are different from the marketing channels used by field crop or dairy farmers.

41

According to Yin (1998, 2009), case studies provide a framework to gain more knowledge
about a specific group and the issues affecting this group. Case study research focuses on
answering question related to “the ‘how’ or ‘why’ some social phenomenon work” (Yin 2009,
p.4). In addition, case study allows for building new theories (Eisenhardt 1989)
111

There are approximately 166 Hispanic farmers in Michigan who are producers of fruit,
vegetables and berries. From this population, two methods were used to identify and recruit
participants. First, key informants from different groups currently working with Hispanics in
Michigan provided the names and contact information of some potential participants. Second,
snowball sampling, in which one participant yielded a new set of contacts, provided additional
potential participants. These two methods to identify Hispanic farmers were used to prevent
missing farmers who do not frequently interact with other farmers, in which case snowball
sampling would have only provided a limited number of farmers. After these contacts were
made, a total of 50 Hispanic farmers in Michigan were identified and agreed to participate in this
study from July 2009 to May 2010.
The study used a mixed-method data collection strategy to collect information from
participants. It included structured in-depth interviews and group meetings, surveys of farm and
demographic characteristics and participant observation during seminars, meetings and a farm
conference.42 All participants followed the same line of inquiry to ensure that results could be
compared from different people and groups (Patton 2002). The interviews and group sessions
were audio-recorded only when farmers agreed to it. Follow-up interviews were conducted as
necessary to clarify concepts and themes (Rubin and Rubin 2005).
In order to describe their social network, farmers were asked to identify and name people
they recognized as influential in providing marketing information, as well as the frequency of
their interaction with these people (e.g., daily, weekly, every other month), the specific
relationship with these people (e.g., family members, neighbors), and the place where they
42

Appendix A of this dissertation contains an example of the survey questionnaire.
112

usually interacted (e.g., church, family reunion, central market). Similarly, farmers were asked to
provide information about people who would come to them asking for marketing information.
With this information, strong and weak network ties were built based on farmers’ ranking
of the top three people who provided marketing information. For the purpose of this research, the
network farmers primarily belonged to was the first person they named as important for
marketing purposes. However, each identified group was not mutually exclusive because in some
cases farmers belonged simultaneously to all networks.
All the information collected was entered into the computer using NVivo software for the
analysis. Since all participants followed a structured interview, the first set of codes was based
on the interview questions. Next, a sub-coding was constructed to account for emerging themes
that resulted from answers farmers originally provided (Rubin and Rubin 2005). For example,
farmers first provided the name of the person from whom they received marketing information;
then a marketing information code was created to include the type of marketing information they
received. Among other things, farmers cited situations in which other farmers or friends gave
them information on markets where they could sell their products, kinds of varieties that should
be planted to obtain better prices, information about prices a packing company was paying that
day, or volume a broker was willing to buy, or similar information. A different sub-code was
marketing support, which included references to situations in which people would collaborate
with each other to sell a bigger load, or they would provide products to a family member so he or
she could fulfill a delivery, or such similar answers.43

43

Appendix B of this dissertation contains a table with codes and sub-codes used.
113

Four different social networks were identified among Hispanic farmers in Michigan
(Figure 2) based on Granovetter’s (1974) and Burt’s (1997) categorization of different social
networks, based on the level of emotional closeness, frequency of interaction and duration of
relationship (Granovetter 1973; Burt 1997).
Results
Hispanic farmers in Michigan have built mostly strong ties, comprised of family and
friends. However, these farmers have also developed a rich network of local buyers, which
represent important examples of weak network ties. On the other hand, farmers seem to be less
likely to form extended networks outside their communities, or ‘bridges’, which would increase
their connections to indirect sources of information, and are very important to access new and
relevant marketing information (Burt 2002).
Family networks
In total, 38 percent of farmers (19 farmers) indicated family networks were the main
source of marketing information and support, confirming the importance of these types of ties
for farmers. In this network, a father would provide information or advice to sons and daughters,
or older brothers would advise younger family members. Information also tended to flow from
men to women. The relatively vertical structure of information sharing among members implied
that, in some cases, older family members would not listen to younger family members who
could have had some business ideas for the family farm, which represented a barrier to expand
their entrepreneurship. During an interview with a son and father, the son expressed his desire to
diversify production to reach different markets, such as selling directly to supermarkets, but his
father did not considered that a good business idea and, thus, they would not pursue that strategy.
114

As Lopez-Ariza (2007) and Santos and Castro-Escobar (forthcoming) found, most
information shared within family networks was about production practices and, with regard to
marketing, farmers would be likely to imitate other family members (Lopez-Ariza 2007; Santos
and Castro-Escobar forthcoming). For example, farmers would sell their products to the same
fruit packer their family members used before. In many cases, some farmers would grow
products assuming that they would be able to use the same distribution channel of other family
members, without researching their marketing opportunities before starting to farm. This
situation created some risks for farmers, particularly when markets were saturated and not
accepting more products.
The most important information shared in the family network involved market
information (where farmers could sell their products) and current prices. The main advantage of
using this network was the speed at which they share information (Burt 1997). Once a family
member knew about current prices, he or she would rapidly call or send a text message to other
family members, spreading the news very quickly. Similarly, farmers delivering to fruit packers
(e.g., blueberry, apple) would also know about which markets were open to receive products.
This represented an important advantage for farmers relying on family members for marketing
information.
Given the level of emotional closeness among members – which is said to increase the
level of trust and reduce the risks of cooperating among members in social networks
(Granovetter 1985; McLaren 1999; Batt 2003) – it was expected that more farmers would be
supportive of other family members, particularly to increase their competitiveness in local
markets. However, only one farmer indicated that he and his sons were planning to register their
115

farm as a corporation in the future to increase their competitive advantage. Other Hispanic
farmers did not report communicating with family members about potential market or
alternatives to accessing new markets, nor did they plan to collaborate in an effort to increase
their competitive advantage, such as combining loads of harvest production to negotiate better
prices with buyers.
As close as family ties were among Hispanic farmers, participants had a hard time
trusting other family members. For example, four farmers mentioned some form of collaborative
marketing with other family members, but the relationship resembled a broker/farmer situation,
where the farmer produced and the broker sold the harvest production for a commission. Of these
four farmers, only two knew where their family member was selling their products.
In many cases, family networks did not work well for marketing purposes. During a
follow-up meeting, a farmer expressed his frustration with the price he was receiving from his
broker/brother and was thinking about breaking away from this deal. In addition, a different
farmer commented that he and his brothers started their farm together when they moved to
Michigan. Later, his brothers did not work as hard as he did, so he decided to break away from
his brothers and start his own farm. Now, he feels his brothers are just benefiting from the good
reputation he has given to their last name.
As Granovetter suggested, the fact that Hispanic farmers had strong ties with their family
members did not mean the absence of wrongdoing among members, nor did it mean that they
would automatically work together. A farmer commented that she no longer wished to sell her
farm production to a family member because she suspected this relative was paying her a very
low price for her products.
116

Friend Network
The next strong-tie network for Hispanic farmers was the friend network. In total, 30
percent of farmers cited their friends as their main source of marketing information. As
previously reported, in some cases Hispanic farmers ventured into farming because a person
before them migrated to Michigan and helped them establish their own farms (Garcia et al.,
2008; Santos and Castro-Escobar forthcoming). While not all friends were farmers, Hispanics
trusted the production and marketing expertise their friends had acquired from living in
Michigan many years before they arrived. New farmers found the information they received
from these friends to be very valuable when they established their farms.
In this network, the relationships among participants were relatively close. Farmers
usually met with their friends weekly. Usually, they tended to have their farm near these friends,
and would interact with them at different venues (e.g., church, off-farm job). While Hispanic
farmers would consult with their friends about production practices, they were less likely to
share marketing information which, to some extent, was expected, since marketing information
is usually a decision-making tool used to compete in markets (Gofton 1997). However, given
that, culturally, Hispanic farmers had established close relationships with their “paisanos,” it was
expected that more farmers and friends would support, or even collaborate with each other to
increase their competitiveness in local markets. 44 Farmers explained that the marketing advice

44

Paisanos were an important influence in migrating to rural areas (Massey and Espinosa 1997;
Winters et al., 2001) and start farming in Michigan (Lopez-Ariza 2007; Garcia et al., 2008)
117

they received from their friends was a one-time help upon arrival in Michigan; after that, most
farmers would observe and imitate their friends’ marketing strategy. 45
“Imitators” created a barrier for some farmers to share marketing information. More than
10 farmers responded that they were not sharing marketing information with anybody. One
farmer explained that he did not want to share this information time he would change markets,
other farmers would try to imitate him; later, everybody would take their products to the same
market, which made prices decrease and thus, affecting his income. Another farmer said that he
was “selfish” with his marketing information. In the words of one farmer, marketing is “a big
great secret” among Hispanics in general.
In addition to issues surrounding the imitation of their marketing practices, farmers also
perceived that they were isolated from their friends’ groups, and would not share anything with
them. In one case, two farmers, they felt that their “paisanos” did not see it with “good eyes”
when they were successful in their farm endeavors, so they did not want to share their successes.
One farmer felt “discriminated” within the same Hispanic community because he was not from
the same region as other Hispanic farmers. Similarly, another farmer explained that he
sometimes received incorrect information from some friends, or they tell him to do exactly the
opposite of what was supposed to be done. Though later this farmer acknowledged that this
misinformation was a result of his friend’s lack of knowledge on the matter, he was still doubtful
about talking to friends about marketing and marketing information. This situation contributed to

45

This finding is consistent with Lopez-Ariza and Santos and Castro-Escobar who also reported
that most Mexican farmers coming to Michigan would imitate the marketing and production
strategy their friends followed when they arrived to Michigan (Lopez-Ariza 2007; Santos and
Castro-Escobar forthcoming)
118

the decrease in trust among farmers and their friends, and competition rather than cooperation
was most likely to occur.
Despite the negative views about their friends, or “paisanos,” Hispanic farmers in
Michigan were already experiencing the need to collaborate with other farmers in their
communities. During a group interview three participants mentioned that they had decided it was
time to join efforts because they felt mistreated by the packing company to which they were
delivering. These farmers expressed their frustration when other farmers with larger loads
delivered their products and received better treatment from buyers. On the other hand, a different
farmer said that she wanted to join an association because she felt MSUE programs were not
delivering the kind of information small-scale farmers needed. This farmer expressed her
frustration at getting attention from Extension agents because of the size of her farm. She
acknowledged the need for better communication and collaboration among farmers, otherwise
they would not receive the attention that large-scale farmers would get. 46

46

During data collection stage, a new cooperative of Hispanic farmers was formed with support
from a USDA grant. The main purpose of the cooperative was to help farmers on different
aspects of farming, including marketing. However, participants interviewed in this study were
not sure how this cooperative would function or even how having a cooperative could be
beneficial for their farms. Some farmers showed interest in this new venture mainly because of
the information and marketing opportunities they thought they would be able to receive. Two
farmers were thinking they could develop a label together and be able to buy packing materials,
using the cooperative name. In addition to the cooperative, an association of Hispanic farmers
was registered with the Michigan Department of Agriculture. However, during two different
participant-observations conducted during meetings of the association and the cooperative,
farmers did not seem to understand what exactly their participation entitled or what they needed
to do. For example, farmers did not take notes during the meetings; the main board members did
not participate in these meetings, and there was no decision about future meetings. During
interviews with some participants after the meetings, they were not sure about the difference
between an association and a cooperative. Although it goes beyond the objective of this research
to analyze the benefits and barriers of the cooperative and the association, they exemplify the
119

Local Buyer Networks
The local buyer network represents a form of weak network tie for Hispanic farmers.
This network includes buyers, brokers, packing company managers, farmer’s market managers
and store owners who were not family members or close friends. In this network, interaction was
infrequent, usually limited to meetings during harvest time and in few cases (e.g., vegetable
growers) before harvest, only when buyers organized these meetings. For 30 percent of the
farmers, this network represented the most important connections from which they received
marketing information.
Local buyers provided farmers with very important marketing information such as quality
specifications, documentation requirements (e.g., pesticide application sheets), and regional and
global marketing trends, among other things. As expected from a weak network tie, this
relationship with buyers was helping farmers gain some competitive advantage and increase their
marketing information access. For example, some blueberry growers communicated with the
supervisor or manager who received their products in the packing warehouse about quality
specification for their fruits, payment terms, and information about production practices. They
learned from this network about quality grading and marketing practices in the industry. For
instance, as a result of the requirements of some of these packing companies, three farmers had
decided to apply and obtain their good agricultural practices (GAP) certifications. Although the
process of getting this certification was long and expensive, these farmers did not complain
about what they were required to do, because they were already practicing most of the

limited information and knowledge Hispanic farmers have about different forms of business
collaborations and the need for more outreach and education in this area.
120

requirements in their farms in order to sell to their buyer. One farmer expressed her support for
this type of certification, because it was making her access other markets too.
Farmers learned about marketing coordination with local buyers. Some local buyers were
more open about sharing information concerning delivery times and product specifications from
supermarkets or food service companies. In some cases, farmers grew specific products based on
the requirements of these buyers. One farmer said he knew that he needed to deliver a specific
size of vegetable that would fit standard boxes. In turn, other buyers would also take his product
because he was providing the right sized vegetable to fit this standard box.
As result of this apparent open and coordinated relationship with local buyers, it was
expected that farmers would work more closely, or develop formal agreements, with these
buyers or, at least, coordinate more marketing activities together. However, none of the
participants of this research had any form of formal or informal agreement with local buyers. The
relationship was of power and compliance (i.e., vertical) (Granovetter 2002). Farmers explained
that local buyers would only share specific information that would be beneficial for their
businesses or companies. A farmer explained that, with local buyers, “everything is very private”
after farmers were told what it was required from them.
In this aspect, Hispanic farmers were not different from other small-scale farmers
regarding the relatively distant and vertical relationship they had with members in this network.
However, the main difference could be their concerns about developing more close relationships
with these buyers. For example, three farmers were skeptical of signing contracts with local
buyers. They thought that signing contracts with local buyers could be “dangerous.” These
farmers were afraid that if they were not able to fulfill the contract, these buyers had the power to
121

take them to court. On the other hand, other farmers explained that even if they wanted to sign
contracts or marketing agreements with local buyers, the lack of a close relationship with these
companies made it impossible to talk to the manager and request an agreement.
Although seven farmers felt it was better to rely on verbal agreements with their buyers,
based on a relationship of trust, reputation and mutual respect for each other. Other respondents
discussed different issues they usually face when using verbal agreements when they try to sell
their products to local buyers, which is similar to what other farmers who do not coordinate
marketing activities with marketers’ experience47. For example, five farmers noted that
occasionally their fruits will be rejected or get lower grades, depending on who had received
their fruit. Given the type of distant relationship they developed with these buyers, these farmers
had no alternative but to accept whatever grade their fruits received. With vegetables, often local
buyers were not sure about the standards they needed and their specifications were not clear. A
farmer pointed out that her local buyer told her they wanted spicy jalapeño peppers, but when the
buyer came to pick up the load, he said also wanted jalapeños with stripes. Thus, he rejected the
load. This lack of clear expectations from buyers represented a serious risk for farmers.
The excessive reliance on local buyers, and the limited information they received from
this network, prevented farmers from exploring other marketing opportunities. For example,
farmers did not receive advice on marketing in other places when current markets were saturated,
or potential partnerships with their companies that would help farmers increase their
competitiveness and viability. Constant changes in connections also complicated relationships
47

For example, Brown et al. (1992) presented a list of coordination issues African American
farmers had with conventional buyers (Brown et al., 1992). Similarly, Buck et al. (1997) found
that organic farmers with more resources would be able to coordinate more complicated and
extensive supply chain distribution than farmers with fewer resources (Buck et al., 1997)
122

between local buyers and farmers. One farmer explained that previously, the local store he
supplies to changed its manager, the deliveries were easy and fast, however, he did not have a
good relationship with the new manager, and was encountering problems with deliveries and
payments.
Outside buyer network
This network represents a weak network tie that Hispanic farmers have developed with
buyers from markets, and store and restaurant managers in Chicago for the most part, but also in
cities nearby their farms. This network also includes connections to farmers’ groups, Extension
agents, and other agents who were helpful providing marketing information. This network can be
considered the closest to indirect connections Hispanic farmers have developed. Only four
farmers mentioned having these types of connections, and two farmers cited this network as a
main source of marketing information, which illustrates the difficulties Hispanic farmers have in
bridging networks outside their local markets.
In terms of emotional closeness, farmers and outside buyers were very distant, but these
ties, as in the local buyer network, were the result of relationships that extended for a long period
of time. While communication with outside buyers was limited to before and during harvest
time, or even less frequently, farmers would consult with these connections whenever they had
an important marketing decision to make.
Like the local buyer network, besides sharing important marketing information – such as
price and quality standards – this network was promoting competitive advantages for Hispanic
farmers. The main difference between this and the local buyer network was the kind of
123

marketing coordination and support they received from it. For example, two farmers working
with their contacts in Chicago would coordinate delivery of products, quality specifications,
payment terms and other marketing activities. In addition, a farmer explained that he changed
from selling exclusively to packers to selling different products to different markets, thanks to
what he learned during interactions with these buyers. The other farmer explained that his
decision to farm from the beginning was guided by what his connections demanded. Thus, he
always had a market for the products he was growing. In general, these farmers would have a
marketing plan that was useful to make decisions about their farm management.
The level of trust among participants was relatively high for a weak network. One of the
farmers explained that when he started marketing his products, he decided to leave products with
the store manager in Chicago as free promotional items; later, they negotiated the terms of
payments and delivery times with this manager. After this agreement, he would leave the
products and was assured of receiving his payments. As a result of this trusting relationship,
when this farmer decided to increase his production capacity, he invited the store manager to
visit his new farm to see what was being produced and give advice to the farmer.
Based on the responses, farmers seemed to have access to new marketing information in
this type of network. A farmer mentioned that he really liked working with a wholesale buyer,
even though he was not paid well, because of the ideas and information this buyer was willing to
share with him. He said that this connection mentioned opportunities to sell in other states. He
added that he would like to work with other farmers to have the volume and quality of products
these buyers needed, but could not do it alone.

124

In addition to connections to markets outside their communities, some farmers were very
active and well-respected among different groups within their communities. Though it was hard
to establish whether they participated in community activities to increase their farm viability or
simply because they were engaged citizens, their involvement with community, state and federal
organizations helped them increase their connections and gain more marketing information from
other sources.
Despite the importance of these connections for farmers, a very limited number of
farmers were actually benefiting from using this weak network tie. Those who were using this
network provided some evidence of how important ties outside local markets are for Hispanic
farmers to access marketing information and to learn about opportunities to maintain their farm
viability.
Summary and Discussion
Hispanic farmers in Michigan and around the country are categorized as limited resource
and socially disadvantaged farmers. Limited access to marketing information is often cited as
one of the many limitations they face in their communities and markets. To offset this barrier,
different research in entrepreneurship and economic sociology suggests the use of social
networks as an alternative. The results of this research suggest that Hispanic farmers who already
have an extensive social network could use it as a feasible alternative to overcome marketing
limitations. However, there some key issues they need to address to fully benefit from the rich
network they have built in their communities and outside their markets.

125

Hispanic farmers maintain two important strong networks in Michigan: the family and
the friend networks. The main marketing benefits obtained from the family network were
learning about main markets in their communities and obtaining pricing information. Due to the
emotional proximity in this network, information was generally shared quickly almost
immediately among members. The friend, or “paisano,” network was very useful in helping
farmers establish their farms and find information about markets when they moved to Michigan.
However, most of the information farmers gather today from their friend network is, in many
cases, reduced to imitating marketing strategies that seem to work well for these friends.
From the interviews, it is possible to suggest that Hispanic farmers do not trust their
family and friends when it comes to more coordinated efforts to improve access to marketing
information. Social network theory suggests that strong ties are particularly good to share
information rapidly. However, Hispanic farmers did not share important marketing information
within these strong networks (they would only share some price information). This lack of trust
represents a barrier to accomplishing collective marketing goals, and rather than cooperating,
farmers compete for their already limited markets in Michigan. In the future, it is expected that
farmers who are dedicated to increasing their farm incomes or even maintaining farm viability
would likely join forces with other family members and friends, particularly to access
information and support from federal, state and community-based organizations.
Hispanic farmers have built a relatively important local buyer network in their
communities. From this network, they receive important marketing information, which is helping
them learn about markets and increase their knowledge about industry practices. In a few cases
farmers and buyers were able to coordinate marketing activities. However, the weak ties they
126

have developed are not always helping them with more marketing information and coordination
that can significantly improve their competitive advantage. While the local buyer network was
one of the most important networks for Hispanic farmers, the type of relationship vertical
relationship developed in this network prevented farmers from exploring other alternatives to
increasing their competitive advantage. Hispanic farmers still need support in establishing direct
communications with more buyers in ways that could benefit both farmers and buyers, and
coordinate more efficient marketing channels. It is possible that a new role for Extension or
community-based organizations could be facilitating this kind of interaction, where agents could
work as a ‘bridge’ to facilitate business communication.
Hispanic farmers struggle to develop weak ties outside their local markets and
communities that can help them access new and non-overlapping information. The number of
weak ties outside their local market proved to be benefiting those farmers who had access to this
type of network. Specifically, farmers who had some business connections outside their
communities were able to receive and observe more marketing information, and were even
willing to collaborate with other farmers because there was more demand than they were able to
fulfill with their limited production capacity. Farmers and the agents (e.g., Extension and NGO
agents) working with them should find opportunities to develop more ties outside their
communities, as well as learn better marketing practices in the industry.
Hispanic farmers face numerous challenges in using social connections for marketing
purposes, including a lack of understanding of its benefits. It was observed during this research
that farmers lacked important information about what collaboration with other farmers entailed,
and the various forms of collaborative efforts beyond traditional cooperatives. Thus, it is
127

important that besides promoting more connections among farmers and marketers, farmers also
understand the benefits of social networking and how they could maximize the opportunities that
these connections represent.
Identifying various social networks can be useful for Extension agents to develop more
targeted and efficient communication with Hispanic farmers, given the difficulty in accessing
these farmers. For example, in the family and friend networks, identifying the leaders of these
groups can facilitate and speed up the flow of information to other members. Considering that
many farmers imitate the marketing strategy of other farmers, any activity that shows
improvements will be beneficial for these farmers. However, it is also important to consider that
just promoting weak ties connections would not always represent the best alternative. As
mentioned before, lack of trust among farmers in weak ties implies that some farmers would not
share the most important information.
In local buyer networks, Hispanic farmers value and trust the information they received
from these connections. In addition, the marketing information is relevant and helps farmers
learn about market requirements. It is increasingly important to work with company leaders and
promote the benefits of more collaborative efforts with these farmers. This is an area where
Extension and community-based organizers have a competitive edge that can help Hispanic
farmers.
Business partnerships, like a values-based value chain approach, or strategic
collaboration with suppliers, can increase market access and viability of farms. However,
Hispanic farmers need support from more experienced agents to assess the benefits and costs of
networking with other farmers and companies before engaging in these kinds of commitments.
128

Exploring the benefits and costs of this type of strategy with Hispanic farmers can yield
important developments towards a more connected strategy to market access in the future.
Social networks can be an important tool for Hispanic farmers to increase their marketing
knowledge and access to information. However, they require some specific institutional and
farmer’s support to actually work effectively. First, many efforts to increase social networking
need support from institutions such as Extension offices and NGOs. Besides issues of budget
constraints and restructuring affecting the system of Extension, it primary focus has not been
small-scale minority farmers such as Hispanic farmers. Similarly, most NGOs have not made
explicit in their objectives to work with minority and socially disadvantaged farmers. This
situation creates barriers to effectively use these institutions to build social networks that could
benefit Hispanic farmer’s competitive advantage. For both, Extension and NGOs, it is important
to introduce targeted and explicit objectives to include Hispanic farmers in their business
networking programs. By introducing this kind of objective, they are more likely to understand
the specific limitation Hispanic farmers face and address this issue more effectively.
Farmer’s support is the most important factor that can make social networking work
effectively. However, during this research, 14 farmers said that, in general, they would not talk
about marketing with other people because they did not believe other farmers would know more
than they already knew about markets. A farmer said “So what is the point of changing if you are
already used to the system?” As Atterton found with rural entrepreneurs in Scotland (Atterton
2007), this kind of reaction indicates how some farmers tend to be closed to new marketing
information and even working with other farmers. This barrier is very important to acknowledge
and perhaps it is the most difficult to overcome.
129

Strong ties

Emotional
closeness:
Especially tied
(e.g., father and
son)
Frequency of
interaction: Daily
Duration of
interaction: Known
for long period of
times
Information
flow: Vertical (e.g.,
from father to son)

Weak ties

Emotional closeness:
close (e.g., friend who
migrated before them)
Frequency of
interaction: Weekly,
monthly
Duration of
interaction: Known for
long period of times
Information flow:
Optional vertical
(e.g., the ‘paisano’ is
the one with expertise
and who gives the
information to the
newcomer)

Emotional
closeness: distant
Frequency of
interaction: Annual
Duration of
interaction: more
than a year
Information flow:
Vertical (e.g., from
buyer to farmers)

Figure 3. Strength of Relationships based on Burt (1997)

130

Emotional closeness:
very distant (e.g.,
buyers from central
markets, manager from
stores)
Frequency of
interaction: monthly,
annual
Duration of
interaction: more than a
year
Information flow:
Horizontal (e.g.,
Farmers find their own
information and manage
their connections)

Strong ties

Family
-Specially close
relationship such as
parents and children,
brothers and sisters
-Daily interaction
-Known for long
period
-Information flows
from family members,
usually in a vertical
way (e.g., from father
to son and daughters)

Weak ties

Friend

Local buyer

- Close relationship
with people who
migrated before
them (Paisano);
usually neighbors
-Daily sometimes
weekly interaction
-Known for long
time
-The ‘paisano’ is the
one with expertise
and who gives the
information to the
newcomer

-Distant relationship
with people whom they
usually deliver products
-Annual interaction
around planting or
harvest time
-Usually known from
more than a year
-Information flows from
buyers, in a vertical
way. Buyer only gives
information that is
pertinent to their
business

Figure 4. Strength of Relationships among Hispanic Farmers

131

Outside buyer

-Distant relationship with
different buyers outside
their communities (e.g.,
buyers from central
markets, manager from
stores) and with people
such as extension agents,
community leaders
-Interaction usually before
and during harvest time
-Usually known from more
than a year
-Farmers received
information and manage
their connections

References

132

References

Ahearn, M., and Newton, D.J. 2009. Beginning farmers and ranchers. Washington DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, ESCS for Econ Inform Bul. 29, May.
AMA. 2008. Dictionary of Marketing Terms: Marketing and Marketing Channel. American
Marketing Association. Retrieved from http://www.marketingpower.com/mgdictionaryM.php.
Atterton, J. 2007. “The “Strength of Weak Ties”: Social Networking by Business Owners in the
Highlands and Islands of Scotland.” Sociologia Ruralis, 47(3).
Batt, P. J. 2003. “Building trust between growers and market agents.” Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal. 8(1):65-78.
Brown, A., Dagher, M., and McDowell, D. 1992. “The African American Farmer: Meeting the
Production, Marketing, and Policy Challenges.” American Journal of Agricultural
Economics. 74(3):820-825.
Buck, D., Getz, C., and Guthman, J. 1997. “From Farm to Table: The Organic Vegetable
Commodity Chain of Northern California.” Sociologia Ruralis. 37(1):3-20.
Burt, R. S. 1997. “A Note on Social Capital and Network Content.” Social Networks. 19: 355373.
–––. 2002. “The Social Capital of Structural Holes.” In M. F. Guillen, R. Collins, P. England,
and M. Meyer, eds. New Directions in Economic Sociology. New York NY: Russell Sage
Foundation, pp. 201-247
Dismukes, R., Harwood, J.L. and Bentley, S.E. 1997. Characteristics and Risk Management
Needs of Limited-Resource and Socially Disadvantaged Farmers. Washington DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, ESCS for Agric. Infor. Bull. 733, April
Durand, J., and Massey, D. S. 1992. “Mexican Migration to the United States: A Critical
Review.” Latin American Research Review. 27(2):3-42.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” The Academy of
Management Review. 14(4):532-550.
FACT, Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. 1990. Title SEC. 2501
“Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers.” Available
at: http://national4-hheadquarters.gov/about/offices/legis/25fact.html.
133

Fry, R. 2008. Latino Settlement in the New Century. Washington DC: Pew Hispanic Center
Report.
Garcia, V., Lopez-Ariza, B., and Marinez, J. 2008. “Exploring Undercounts in the Agriculture
Census: An Alternative Enumeration of Hispanic Farmers in Southwestern Michigan.”
The Journal of Latino-Latin American Studies, 3(2):47-58.
Gofton, L. 1997. “Marketing Research.” In D. I. Padberg, C. Ritson, and L. M. Albisu, eds. AgriFood Marketing Oxon and New York: CAB International, pp. 225-252.
Granovetter, M. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” The American Journal of Sociology.
78(6):1360-1380.
–––. 1983. “The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited.” Sociological Theory.
1:201-233.
–––. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” The
American Journal of Sociology. 91(3):481-510.
––– . 2002. “A Theoretical Agenda for Economic Sociology.” In M. F. Guillen, R. Collins, P.
England, and M. Meyer, eds. New Directions in Economic Sociology. New York NY:
Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 35-60
–––. 2005. “The Impact of Social Structure on Economic Outcomes.” Journal of Economic
Perspectives. 19(1):33-50.
Holguin, J., Gamboa, E., and Hoy, F. 2007. “Challenges and opportunities for Hispanic
entrepreneurs in the United States.” In L.P. Dana, ed. Handbook of research on ethnic
minority entrepreneurship: a co-evolutionary view on resource management.
Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 195
Hoy, F. 2007. “Hispanic Entrepreneurship in the United States.” In L.P. Dana, ed. Handbook of
research on ethnic minority entrepreneurship: a co-evolutionary view on resource
management. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 177-194.
Kandel, W. and Cromartie, J. 2004. New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ESCS for Rur. Develop. Res. Rep. 99,
May.
Kleiner, A. M., and Green, J. J. 2008. “Expanding the Marketing Opportunities and Sustainable
Production Potential for Minority and Limited-Resource Agricultural Producers in
Louisiana and Mississippi.” Southern Rural Sociology. 23(1):149-169.
Leach, M. A., and Bean, F. D. 2008. “The Structure and Dynamics of Mexican Migration to New
Destinations in the United States.” In D. S. Massey, ed. New Faces in New Places: The
Changing Geography of American Immigration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation,
pp. 51-74.
134

Lewis, H. 2009. “From Mexico to Iowa: New Immigrant Farmers’ Pathways and Potentials.”
Community Development. 40(2):139-153.
Lopez-Ariza, B. 2007. “A case study of Hispanic farmers in four southwestern Michigan
counties.” PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University.
Massey, D. S. 2008. “Assimilation in a New Geography.” In D. S. Massey, ed. New faces in new
places: the changing geography of American immigration. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation Publications, pp. 343.
Massey, D. S., and Espinosa, K. E. 1997. “What’s Driving Mexico-U.S. Migration? A
Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Analysis.” The American Journal of Sociology.
102(4):939-999.
Mattsson, L.G. 2003. Understanding Market Dynamics: Potential Contributions to market(ing)
studies from Actor-network Theory. Paper presented at IMP Group, Lugano, Switzerland,
4-6 September.
McLaren, J. 1999. “Supplier relations and the market context: A theory of handshakes.” Journal
of International Economics. 48:121-138.
Menzies, T., Filion, L. J., Brenner, G., and Elgie, S. 2007. “Measuring Ethnic Community
Involvement: Development and Initial Testing of an Index.” Journal of Small Business
Management. 45(2):267-282.
Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 3rd ed. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Peterson, H.C., Knudson, W.A. and Abate, G. 2006. The Economic Impact and Potential of
Michigan’s Agri-Food System. Lansing MI: Michigan State University Product Center
Report 1-1606.
Rauch, J. E. 2001. “Black Ties Only? Ethnic Business Networks, Intermediaries, and African
American Retail Entrepreneurship.” In J. E. Rauch and A. Casella, eds. Networks and
Markets. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 270-309.
Rubin, H., and Rubin, I. 2005. Qualitative Interviewing. The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Santos, M. J., and Castro-Escobar, A. Forthcoming. Increasing Knowledge and Networking
Opportunities for Small-Scale Mexican Growers in Southwest Michigan. R. Martinez ed.
East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Swisher, M.E., Brenna, M., and Shah, M. 2007. “Hispanic-Latino Farmers and Ranchers Project.
Final Report”. Washington DC: Dept of Fam, Youth and Comm Sciences, Univ of
Florida.

135

Tienda, M., and Raijman, R. 2001. “Ethnic Ties and Entrepreneurship: Comment on “Black Ties
Only? Ethnic Business Networks, Intermediaries, and African American Retail
Entrepreneurship.” In J. E. Rauch and A. Casella, eds. Networks and Markets. New York,
NY: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 310-327.
Tienda, M., and Raijman, R. 2004. “Promoting Hispanic Immigrant Entrepreneurship in
Chicago.” Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship. 9(1):1-21.
U.S. NASS National Agricultural Statistical Service. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture.
Washington DC.
U.S. NASS National Agricultural Statistical Service. Information on Census of Agriculture:
Glossary. Retrieved from http://agcensus.mannlib.cornell.edu/glossary.php.
Wasserman, S., and Faust, K. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkinson, J. 2006. “Network Theories and Political Economy: From Attrition to Convergence?”
In T Marsden and J. Murdoch, eds. Research in Rural Sociology and Development.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd. Vol. 12 pp. 11-38.
Winters, P., De Janvry, A., and Sadoulet, E. 2001. “Family and Community Networks in
Mexico-U.S. Migration.” The Journal of Human Resources. 36(1):159-184.
Yin, R.K., 1998. “The Abridged Version of Case Study Research: Design and Method.” In L.
Bickman and D. J. Rog, eds. Handbook of applied social science research methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 229-259.
–––. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, London, New
Delhi, Singapore: Sage Publications, Inc.

136

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Hispanic farmers in Michigan continue to struggle with low farm viability and
marginalization. They are categorized as limited resource, due to the small-scale of production
and very low farm income. Their low level of education coupled with limited access to
resources, contributes to their economic marginalization. Despite the barriers Hispanic farmers
face in achieving production success, there are factors that can contribute to improve their farm
viability.
This dissertation explores three contributing factors to improve farm viability. First, it
explores access to, and participation in, government and NGO programs designed to support
agriculture, marketing and farm management. Second, it analyzes marketing experience, skills
and future planning, which are important resources to access markets. Finally, it explores
farmers’ use of social and business connections to access relevant marketing information for
improved farm management.
The results indicate that Hispanic farmers in Michigan face unique challenges in order to
assimilate and participate in agriculture and farming programs that are designed to support
farmers and improve their farm viability. In this research, almost 60 percent of participants stated
their need for any type of assistance. Fifty-four percent indicated their need for financial
assistance. Farmers also needed production and marketing support, but the study showed that
more than 70 percent of Hispanic farmers do not participate in any federal or state programs, 48

137

percent was not aware of NGO groups working with Hispanic farmers, and 54 percent did not
participate of any local farmers groups.
Regarding the level of farmers’ marketing experience, skills and future planning, the
results suggest that, while over the years Hispanic farmers have gained important marketing
experience and skills to access current markets, they continue to struggle and would benefit from
additional support in accessing new markets and discontinuing their reliance on single market
strategies. Hispanic farmers in this study have been farming in Michigan for less than 15 years;
40 percent have been farming for less than 5 years. Hispanic farmers who specialized in
blueberry production rely heavily on market specialization, selling only to fruit packers. Despite
the importance of this market for farmers, farmers and packers do not coordinate marketing
activities. Hispanic farmers have limited knowledge of available marketing options. Only 22
percent of farmers used some form of direct sales or farmer’s markets. None of the farmers knew
about community supported agriculture. In addition, Hispanic farmers do not have experience
selling to mainstream retail and food service channels, which can affect their future participation
in these markets. On the other hand, market diversification has helped some farmers develop
useful skills. This strategy was used by 32 percent of Hispanic farmers. Farmers who diversified
markets were also more likely to have approached a retail or food service to sell their products.
Finally, when asked about their expectations for the future, most Hispanic farmers have not
clearly defined a marketing objective that would guide their efforts to improve farm viability.
Though 24 percent cited increasing their production as a future goal, none of these farmers had
developed a specific marketing plan for the future.
Finally, the third essay illustrates the importance of developing social and business
connections as a means for Hispanic farmers to access more marketing information. Hispanic

138

farmers who already have an extensive social network could use it as a method to overcome
marketing limitations. However, limited connections outside their local markets and lack of trust
among farmers are issues that need to be addressed to fully benefit from this rich social network.
Hispanic farmers have built a relatively important and extensive local buyer network in their
communities. From this network, they receive necessary marketing information that increases
their knowledge about markets and industry practices. In some cases farmers and buyers were
able to coordinate marketing activities. However, Hispanic farmers struggle to develop weak ties
outside their local markets and communities that can build their knowledge and information
base. Specifically, farmers who had some business connections outside their communities were
receiving more marketing information and were more willing to collaborate with other farmers
because there was production demand that they were not able to fulfill.
In order to deal with current barriers to improve their farm viability, Hispanic farmers
need innovative outreach and extension support that government and NGO groups can, and in
some cases, already provide. Based on the results in this dissertation, some of these key
initiatives include:
a) Targeted training sessions with relatively small groups of farmers. These sessions
should be short presentations in combination with other training materials, such as pictures, or
short videos. Training days in the field are also recommended, because they expose farmers to
hands-on activities and have shown success, as in the case of IPM training. An important
consideration element in involving more Hispanic farmers in education and training is to
schedule training sessions, farm meetings or field days at times other than regular business hours,
so that farmers who work other jobs during those times can participate.

139

b) Bilingual sessions could help farmers get more acquainted with farm management
jargon and specific information, and also increase farmers’ participation in different programs.
Spanish-only sessions are not recommended, even when most Hispanic farmers have low
English proficiency, because it can further marginalize Hispanic farmers from other farmers
groups. In addition, most business and marketing transactions are conducted in English, and
farmers need to be more confident to establish these types of relationships that are so important
for their farm business.
d) Leadership and support from government and NGOs to identify new markets. Despite
being small-scale producers, the results of this research indicate that those farmers who diversify
market channels are more prepared to reach out to other market segments and generally have
more skills to help them access these markets. However, limited market exposure outside their
local communities represents barriers for these farmers.
e) Careful analysis and planning before investing in new farming endeavors. In this and
previous research, results indicate that Hispanic farmers generally decide to invest in farming
based on what other family or friends have done before them. A careful analysis and marketing
plan can help Hispanic farmers make more informed decisions. At the same time it can help
farmers develop business plans which are useful to seek financial support.
f) More support in coordinating with local buyers and outside business networks. Local
buyers and business connections provide important market information. In many cases, power
relationships between buyers and farmers limit the possibilities to explore better business
coordination or win-win models that could farmers and marketers alike. Support in building
outside networks is important for Hispanic farmers, who generally deal with local markets only,
and are less likely to learn new and non-redundant marketing information.
140

The results of this research have important policy implications for farmers, extension
agents, university investigators and others currently working with Hispanic farmers. The policy
implications suggested here are intended to increase the awareness of and support for Hispanic
farmers in Michigan, while increasing their farm competitive advantage.
Need for a Hispanic farmer’s research agenda: MSU researchers and educators needs to
take the lead and develop a research agenda that specifically targets minority and limitedresource farmers, such as Hispanic farmers in Michigan. As a leading land grant institution with
prominent research institutes capable of addressing issues affecting Hispanic farmers, MSU has
the capacity and the opportunity to lead this type of research effort. While there have been some
studies addressing Hispanic farmers’ conditions in Michigan and the Midwest, most information
is reduced to cases studies and isolated research. There is need for a more comprehensive study
of Hispanic farmers, their issues and potential opportunities. The leadership of scientists and
educators is necessary to secure research funding currently available through various USDA
NIFA programs. More research can only help Hispanic farmers and contribute to improving their
farm viability.
Extension service focus on Hispanic farmers: Extension services need to incorporate
programs that address minority and limited-resource farmers’ challenges. Given the current
restructuring of MSUE, it is important to seriously consider and include minority and limitedresource farmers, whose numbers are growing statewide, and who could eventually become
important contributors of agricultural outputs and revenues. The well-being of these farmers will
only benefit the agriculture industry as a whole. In addition, participants cited Extension
programs as important sources for production and management information. While isolated

141

efforts to help Hispanic farmers are currently led by different MSUE agents, these efforts remain
isolated and do not involve most Hispanic farmers in Michigan.
Coordination among institutions providing support for Hispanic farmers: coordinated
outreach programs are fundamental to effectively reach to Hispanic farmers. For example, MDA
and MSUE already coordinate some training for pesticide certification and production
management (Santos and Castro-Escobar forthcoming). MSUE and MIFFS regularly coordinate
information and training sessions; however, coordination of these efforts between other
institutions has been difficult. Particularly in these times of limited funding, cost-efficient
information delivery is important to reach farmers. Careful consideration of issues affecting
Hispanic farmers can help increase participation. Listening sessions or interviews with key
informants can provide important feedback in the development of programs for Hispanic
farmers.
Constant awareness of diversity and cultural differences when working with Hispanic
farmers: The success of any program that serves Hispanic farmer is centered on the awareness of
cultural differences. While Hispanic farmers need to integrate with other farm groups, it is also
important to remember that limited awareness of issues affecting minority groups has been the
main reason behind their being disadvantaged. Extension and community-based programs need
to specify in their objectives social targets to measure inclusion of Hispanic farmers, particularly
those farmers who need it most. It is also important to include community leaders training and
mentoring programs, which have been successfully used by other small-scale farmers, and could
potentially be a method to reach to other Hispanic farmers. Though farmers were reluctant to
work closely with other farmers in some cases, others had started an association and a
cooperative, because they believe these organizations could increase the level of necessary
142

marketing information. These efforts support and encourage Hispanic farmers and help give
them more of a voice.
This dissertation has some important limitations worth mentioning. First, due to the
methodology used in this research, this case study provides limited answers. Results should be
interpreted in the context of this study alone. However, the finding in this exploratory research
offer some important guidelines to help assess the opportunities and barriers Hispanic farmers
and those working with them need to consider to increase farm viability.
While this study covers a significant number of farmers, lack of reliable information to
locate Hispanic farmers represented a barrier to increase the number of study participants. In
Michigan, there are numerous barriers to identifying and working with Hispanic farmers. In
addition, limited funding for this research prevented the use of more traditional and costeffective methods to reach them, though traditional methods do not work well with Hispanic
farmers. In many cases, limited time to conduct the surveys and in-depth interviews imply that
more detailed information was sacrificed in order to work with more farmers. In addition, the
farmers’ own time limitations did not allow for more in-depth interviews.
Other farmers and key stakeholders were not included in this research. This situation
limited the number of comparisons that could have been useful to understand what barriers
Hispanic farmers face, and what barriers are structural and faced by all farmers. In addition,
business and market managers were not included in this research, which could have contributed
to a more holistic analysis of market issues. While conversations with other stakeholders (e.g.,
MSUE, NGO and USDA) were conducted as a preliminary assessment for this dissertation, their
views and comments were not included in this dissertation.

143

Work with Hispanic farmers is increasing, and there are opportunities for future
investigation, some of which can be summarized as follows:
a) Cost-effectiveness of participatory-action research and programs designed to collect
information, while encouraging farmers to learn more about their markets
b) Assessment of the best outreach programs that address Hispanic farmers needs and
opportunities
c) Development of educational and technical support considering Hispanic farmers
limitations and needs
d) Comprehensive study of Hispanic farmer’s challenges and opportunities in Michigan
and the Midwest
e) Survey of Hispanic and non-Hispanic farmers to compare opportunities and barriers in
Michigan and the Midwest
f) Assessment of business opportunities in local and regional markets
g) Assessment of adoption of environmental and sustainable practices

144

Appendix

145

Appendix A. Survey Questionnaire
Farm Characteristics
How would you like to answer the questions?
Spanish
English
In which county do you farm?
______________________________
Which of the following describes your farm operation? (Please check only one)
Family farm
Corporation
Other (please explain)

______

How many acres do you
Own

_____________

Rent

_____________

How many acres do you cultivate?
________________________
Do you farm? (please check only one)
Full-time
Part-time
Other (please explain)

___________

Approximately, what percentage of your total income comes from farming? (please check
only one)
1 to 25%
26% to 50%
51% to 75%
76% to 100%

146

Do you hire labor?
Yes
No
Number of hired managers and/or workers
________________________
Who performs the main daily functions of the farm? (Please check only one)
Myself
My spouse
Other (please
explain)

________________

What do you raise on your farm? (check all that apply)
Field crops
Tree fruits
Fruits
Vegetables
Livestock
Other (please list)

____________________

Marketing
What are your main markets in terms of sales for your products? Please rank your most
important markets
Farm stand
CSA
Supermarket chain
Restaurant
Farmer’s market
Wholesale/broker
School/institution
Other (please list)

____________________
2

147

What percentage of your sales go to the first three markets you mention above? For
example 75% to first market, 25% to second market
1st most important market

_________

2nd most important market

_________

3rd most important market

_________

If you are not currently selling to a supermarket, restaurant, or wholesaler, have you ever
tried?

What are your biggest challenges or hurdles when you try to sell your products? How do
you overcome them?
The following questions are about your marketing experience.
Do you consider each of the following to be a serious constraint, moderate constraint, small
constraint or not a constraint to marketing your products?
Extent to which situation is a constraint to marketing
Serious
1

Moderate
2

3

Find new markets
Find the price for your products
Find information about quality
standards
Access existing markets with
the products you currently grow
Trust people who buy products
from you
For buyers/customers to trust
you and your products
Get payments
Deal with excess supply of
148

Not a
constraint
4

5

products in your markets
Meet new buyers
Negotiate agreements/contracts
Where do you see you and your farm 5 years from today?

The following questions are about your connections to perform marketing tasks.
Please list the most important people you have asked for information about markets, or
people whom you usually consult when you have a marketing question
1
2
3

How frequently have you interacted with each person?
Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Yearly

Person 1
Person 2
Person 3
Where do you know the people mentioned before from? (for example, extension office,
supermarket buyers)
Person 1

_______________________________

Person 2

_______________________________

Person 3

_______________________________

Please list the most important people who have asked you for information about markets,
or people who usually consult YOU when they have a marketing question
1
2
3

How frequently have you interacted with each person?
Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Yearly

Person 1
Person 2
149

Person 3
Where do you know the people mentioned before from? (for example, extension office,
supermarket buyers)
Person 1

_______________________________

Person 2

_______________________________

Person 3

_______________________________

Assistance
I would like to know more about the types of assistance you are interested in for your farm
and the types of farm programs you have participated in
Do you need assistance on your farm that an agriculture agency or organization may be able to
help with?
Yes
No
What kind of assistance do you need?
Have you ever received assistance from any organization?
Yes
No
Have you ever been denied any assistance?
Yes
No
Do you participate in any federal or state programs?
Yes
No
Have you heard of any non-government group, association or cooperative that works with
farmers in Michigan?
Yes
No
150

Do you participate in any group, association or cooperative?
Yes
No
Do you need financial assistance?
Yes
No
Farmer Characteristics
Approximately, how many years have you been farming? (please check only one)
1 to 5
years

6 to 15
years

16 to 30
years

Over 30
years

Where are you originally from?
What is your age range?

35 or
younger

36 - 65

66 or older

What is your gender?
male
Female
What is the highest level of education completed?
Some high school
High school
Some college
Bachelor’s degree
Some graduate
school
Graduate school
Other

______________
151

Appendix B. Dissertation Coding Scheme
Table 25. Codes used for Assistance and Support from Federal, State and NGO groups
Code

Sub-code

Characteristics

Example

Farmers’ opinions
about their need for
assistance in their
farms

All answers to the
question: What kind
of assistance do you
need?

Financial

Farmers who answer
needing financial
support

“I need help. For
example, I need
financial help”

Marketing

Farmers who needed
marketing support

“He needs
information about
where to sell, some
requirements what
exactly he need to do
to sell".

Production

Farmers who needed
production support

“So we can learn
about production,
about how to set a
trap, trim, how do we
work with fertilizers”

Problems

Issues farmers
suggested as related
to assistance
available for farmers

“The only thing is that
there is not the needed
help that we need to
in our farms”

Opinions about need
for financial
assistance

All answers to the
question: Do you need
financial assistance?

Issues concerning
lack of access or
knowledge about
access to financial
assistance

“We don’t know
where to look for
financial assistance.
That would be a good
thing to get trained on
that kind of things.
We need a guide”

Need

Financial

Lack

152

Table 25. cont’d
Code

Sub-code
Institutions

Received

Characteristics

Example

Institutions cited by
farmers as their
source for financial
assistance
Farmer’s opinions
about the assistance
they have or have not
received

All the answers to the
question: Have you
ever received any
assistance?

Have not tried

Farmers who have
not tried to look for
assistance and the
reasons they provide
to explain it

“He has never asked
for any assistance
from anyone. He
doesn’t even know
who could help him”

Institutions

Institutions which
have provided some
assistance to farmers

Denied

Opinions about not
accessing assistance

All the answers to the
question: Have you
ever been denied any
assistance?

Have not tried

Farmers who have
not been denied
assistance because
they have never
looked for assistance

“We haven’t looked
for help, so we can’t
be denied”.

Reasons

Farmers perceptions
about why they were
denied assistance

“I have never met
anyone who would
tell me here I am, I am
a representative from
the government and I
am here to help you, I
have never met that
kind of person”.

153

Table 25. cont’d
Code

Sub-code

Example

Farmer’s opinions
about participating in
programs to help
improve the viability
of their farms

Participation

Characteristics

All answers to the
question: Do you
participate in any
federal, state or other
program?

Federal

Farmers participating
in federal programs

State

Farmers participating
in State sponsored
programs

Farmer’s group

Farmers participating
or knowing about
farmer’s associations
or groups

NGO program

Farmers participating
in NGO programs

Table 26. Codes used for Marketing Experience, Skills and Expectations for the Future
Code

Sub-code

Location

Answer Example

Farmer’s description
of markets were they
sell their products

Main markets

Characteristics

Answer to the
question: What are
your main markets
in terms of sales for
your products?

Markets they are
selling and their
location with respect
to the farm

“100 percent of their
production goes to
processors in the
area”

154

Table 26. Cont’d
Code

Sub-code

Characteristics

Answer Example

Farmers opinions
about selling or not
using these channels

Answer to the
question: If you are
not currently selling
to a supermarket,
restaurant, or
wholesaler, have
you ever tried?

Opportunities

Farmers who have
tried to sell to SWFS
and what they have
experienced

“she asked once in
Meijer, but Meijer
had its own broker
and you need to
contact this broker
to sell”

Barriers

Farmers who have
not tried to sell and
their reasons why
they have not

“He has some idea
of what they
wanted. He once
heard that Walmart
was looking into
buying products
from the area, but he
has never spoken to
anyone from the
store”

Farmer’s opinion
about what represent
difficulties when
selling their products

Answer to the
question: What are
your biggest
challenges or
hurdles when you
try to sell your
products? How do
you overcome
them?

Sales to Stores,
Wholesale or
Food service
(SWFS)

Challenges

155

Table 26. Cont’d
Code

Sub-code

Characteristics

Answer Example

Farmer’s goals for
the future of their
farms and different
alternatives to
achieve these goals

Answer to the
question: where do
you see you and
your farm 5 years
from today?

Growth

Positive answers
about prospective to
continue farming and
growing

“I will like to
improve. My
objective is to make
my farm 100%
productive maybe
later add more”.

Equal

Farmers who were
not thinking about
changing their
farming management
or production and
remain as they were
today

In five years he
seems himself the
same. He doesn’t
think he would grow
more, maybe he
would have more
volume because the
bushes he has now
are developing and
in 5 years they will
be in full
production”.

Quit

Farmers who would
quit farming unless
some market
conditions improved

“In my case, I
bought my land as a
wooden land. If the
market is good I will
plant more. But if
the market goes this
bad I am not going
to continue”.

Expectations

156

Table 26. Cont’d
Code

Sub-code

Characteristics

Answer Example

Opinions about
finding new markets
for their products

Answer to the
question: Do you
consider finding
new markets for
your products to be
a serious constraint,
moderate constraint,
small constraint or
not a constraint to
marketing your
products?

Knowledge

It includes farmers
who mentioned or
knew markets where
they could sell their
products

“During the
blueberry season
there are several
places, it’s not just
one. All of them
have the same price.
So if you go with
one or the other
there is no
difference. There
are several places to
take”

Not looking

It includes farmers
who were not
looking for new
markets

“He thinks it is not a
constraint, but he
hasn’t tried to find
new markets”.

Opinions about
difficulty to find
price information
before they take
products to markets

Answer to the
question: Do you
consider finding
price information
for your products to
be a serious
constraint, moderate
constraint, small
constraint or not a
constraint to
marketing your
products?

New Markets

Price
information

157

Table 26. Cont’d
Code

Characteristics

Answer Example

Discovery

How farmers find
about prices before
they take their
products to markets

“It is not difficult to
know because you
know people who
can tell you about
prices. People tell
other people. You
only see on the
blackboard and
everybody can tell
you too. Prices are
all similar.
Sometimes the
difference is 10 c or
5c from one place to
the other.”

Issues

Quality
standards

Sub-code

Farmer’s opinions
about what they see
as an issue with price
information

“I think this is a
problem. We should
know or at least
have access to the
prices that these
people manage. We
only see the prices
they decide to pay
us, we don’t know
any other price”.

Farmer’s opinions
about quality
requirements to sell
their products

Answer to the
question: Do you
consider finding
information about
quality standards for
your products to be
a serious constraint,
moderate constraint,
small constraint or
not a constraint to
marketing your
products?

158

Table 26. Cont’d
Code

Sub-code

Characteristics

Answer Example

Access

Opinions about
difficulty to access
existing markets with
products they already
grow

Answer to the
question: Do you
consider access to
existing markets
with products you
currently grow to be
a serious constraint,
moderate constraint,
small constraint or
not a constraint to
marketing your
products?

Trust buyers

Farmer’s opinions
about people who
buy their products
and their business
relationships with
these buyers

Answer to the
question: Do you
consider trust people
who buy your
products to be a
serious constraint,
moderate constraint,
small constraint or
not a constraint to
marketing your
products?

Trusted

Farmer’s opinions
about what other
people think of their
products or their
reputation in the
market.

Answer to the
question: Do you
consider for
buyers/customers to
trust you and your
products to be a
serious constraint,
moderate constraint,
small constraint or
not a constraint to
marketing your
products?

159

Table 26. Cont’d
Code

Sub-code

Characteristics

Answer Example

Length

Farmers who
answered that people
trusted them because
of the length of their
relationship

“Trust it is not
difficult to gain trust
because people
already know them
and they have been
in certain farmers
markets for a long
time”.

Relationships

Farmers who
expressed that the
type of relationship
developed influence
trusted market
exchanges

“Sometimes the
same people from
the packing facility
would tell him
whether he needs to
fertilize more the
fruit to make it
better, and when
they see his fruits
they would accept
it”.

Products

Farmers who
mentioned trust is
built through product
quality

“His customers
know he will deliver
good quality eggs.
They also know he
is not ‘running after
money’”

Opinions about the
speed to get
payments after they
deliver they products

Answer to the
question: Do you
consider get
payments to be a
serious constraint,
moderate constraint,
small constraint or
not a constraint to
marketing your
products?

Situations in which
farmers found issues
with getting their
payments on time

“They always had
some issues paying
him on time.
Particularly this
year”.

Payments

Exceptions

160

Table 26. Cont’d
Code

Sub-code

Characteristics

Answer Example

Opinions about
volume delivered to
markets that can
affect their chances
to sell products

Answer to the
question: Do you
consider deal with
excess supply of
products in your
markets to be a
serious constraint,
moderate constraint,
small constraint or
not a constraint to
marketing your
products?

Farmers who did not
know what to do
when facing this
kind of situation

“They never had
any problems with
oversupply of
products. But if they
had any issue, they
would just leave the
fruit on the bush and
not pick them”

Opinions about
meeting new buyers
whom they can trust
and sell their
products

Answer to the
question: Do you
consider meet new
buyers to be a
serious constraint,
moderate constraint,
small constraint or
not a constraint to
marketing your
products?

Concerns

Farmer’s negative
view about new
buyers

“It is easy to meet
people, he just don’t
trust new buyers
because of his bad
experience”.

Issues

Farmer’s lack of
business connections
to allow them to
meet new buyers

“He thinks this is
going to be difficult
because he doesn’t
know many people”.

Excess supply

Lack of strategy

New Buyers

161

Table 26. Cont’d
Code

Sub-code

Characteristics

Answer Example

Opinions about
having agreements or
contracts to sell their
products

Answer to the
question: Do you
consider negotiate
agreements or
contracts to be a
serious constraint,
moderate constraint,
small constraint or
not a constraint to
marketing your
products?

Relationships

Description of the
type of relationship
they have developed
with their buyers

“We need to be
registered, they
don’t ask much to
be registered, and it
doesn’t mean we
have to sell
everything to them”

Perceptions

Farmer’s negative
perceptions about
contracts with buyers
or their lack of
knowledge about
contracts

“It is difficult to
negotiate
agreements with
buyers. He doesn’t
want to sign a
contract with a
buyer because it is
dangerous”.

Negotiate

162

Table 27. Codes used for Use of Social Networks to Access Marketing Information
Code

Sub-code

Characteristics

Answer Example

Communicate

Farmer’s answers
about the people they
would contact with
questions about
marketing

Answer to the
question: Please list
the most important
people you have
asked for
information about
markets, or people
whom you usually
consult when you
have a marketing
question.

Advice

People who would
likely come to
farmers and ask for
marketing advice

Please list the most
important people
who have asked you
for information
about markets, or
people who usually
consult YOU when
they have a
marketing question

Family

References to family
members and the
type of marketing
support they provide

“Three families all
related said that
their brother was the
marketer, he had the
connections and he
knew about where
to sell their stuff.
They trusted this
brother to sell their
products”

Division of labor
among family
members

“she would consult
with her mum
before making any
decision”

Farm
management

163

Table 27. Cont’d
Code

Sub-code

Characteristics

Answer Example

Local Buyer

References to local
buyers who are
helpful source of
marketing
information

“He only talks to the
buyer”.

Outside

Reference to people
or buyers outside
their communities
who are good
sources for
marketing
information

“Usually he calls
them before the
harvest begins and
the talk about
markets maybe once
a year or so. He
knows them from
the market in
Chicago”

Paisano

Reference to friends
or people from their
country or region of
origin who provide
marketing
information

“He talks to Mr. M,
they help each other.
Whenever he has
any doubt he asks
him where he takes
his fruits, whenever
he has a question
about production or
marketing”.

No Network

People who stated
not connecting with
anyone

“He doesn’t really
talk to anyone, he
doesn’t speak to any
other person about
his farm or
marketing”

164