An Agronomic and Economic Profile
of Florida’s Sod Industry in 2007
L.N. Satterthwaite, A.W. Hodges, J.J. Haydu and J.L. Cisar
Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
Florida Cooperative Extension Service
Food & Resource Economics Department
Mid-Florida Research and Education Center
February 2009
An Agronomic and Economic Profile of Florida’s
Sod Industry in 2007
L.N. Satterthwaite, A.W. Hodges, J.J. Haydu and J.L. Cisar
University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Mid-Florida Research and Education Center, Apopka, FL,
Food and Resource Economics Department, Gainesville, FL,
Planet First Resources, Tampa, FL
and Ft. Lauderdale Research and Education Center, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
ABSTRACT
Information is presented on production, employment, marketing, product quality and price as a
result of a mail and internet survey of the Florida sod industry for the year 2007, the fifth in a
series of surveys since 1992. Total sod production in Florida was estimated to be 103,923 acres
in 2007. Fifty-one percent of Florida sod acreage was St. Augustinegrass of which 81 percent
was the Floratam variety, while Bahiagrass comprised 33 percent of sod in production and
bermudagrass and zoysiagrass were at 7 percent and 5 percent, respectively. The majority of sod
production was in central Florida. Harvested sod accounted for 60 percent of the sod in
production and small-sized farms harvested the highest percentage of their production acres
(72%). The in-field value for all varieties totaled $514 million, while harvested sod was valued
at $320 million, based on industry-average prices. Levels of mechanization increased for all
farm sizes and full-time employment decreased over the last three years for all farm sizes. The
survey showed that while 70 percent of all producers expected to maintain or increase current sod
production, some producers from every size group intended to decrease their sod production.
Total economic impacts of sod production in Florida, including multiplier effects for local supply
chain purchases and consumer spending by employee households, were estimated at $703 million
in output or sales revenues, $416 million in value added (personal and business net income), $22
million in indirect business taxes to state and local governments, and 5,633 jobs.
KEY WORDS: sod production, Florida, harvested sod, farm size, mechanization, farm income,
farm expenses, marketing, shipping, employment, economic impacts
Acknowledgements: This research was sponsored by a grant from the Florida Sod Growers
Cooperative, Labelle, FL. The authors wish to recognize the cooperation of the many Florida sod
grower firm owners and managers who responded to the survey and shared their information.
The economic impact analysis was conducted by Dr. Thomas J. Stevens at the University of
Florida.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
METHODOLOGY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Business Tenure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Sod Area Grown and Harvested. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Farm Size and Varietal Comparisons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Regional Production in Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acres Harvested. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Production of Specific Turfgrass Varieties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Sod Prices and Harvest Value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Marketing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Harvesting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Shipping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Sod Distribution Channels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Costs of Producing and Marketing Sod. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Price Determination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Components of Farm Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Sod Quality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Employment and Mechanization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Firm and Industry Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE FLORIDA SOD INDUSTRY TO THE STATE. . . 23
CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Number of survey respondents, production acreage reported in each size group and
calculated expansion factors, 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Total area of sod grown in Florida in 2007, by farm size and grass variety. . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. Total production share of sod grown in Florida from 1987 to 2007, by grass variety. . . 6
Table 4. Sod area harvested in Florida in 2007, by farm size and grass variety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 5. Area of sod grown and harvested, by farm size, in 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 6. St. Augustinegrass production in 2007, presented by farm size and grass varieties.. . . 10
Table 7. Production acreage and share of varieties of major grass types grown in Florida in 2007
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 8. Sod farm acreage, percent harvested, price per square foot, and harvest value in Florida
in 2007 — by major grass variety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 9. Average percent of total expenses per acre attributed to specific activities in 2007. . . 15
Table 10. Full-time, part-time, seasonal and total employment figures for various-sized sod
farms in 2007.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 11. Summary of economic contributions of the sod industry in Florida, 2007.. . . . . . . . . 24
Table 12. Economic contributions of the Florida sod industry in 2007, by aggregate industry
group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Types of grasses grown in Florida in 2007 — as a percent of total production.. . . . . . 4
Figure 2. Reported acres of sod production in various regions in Florida in 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 3. Varietal percent shares of St. Augustinegrass total production in Florida in 2007. . . . . 9
Figure 4. Sod roll, sod slabs and a truck loaded with sod ready for shipping.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 5. Depiction of to whom Florida sod producers sold their product in 2007. . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 6. Considerations made by Florida sod producers in 2007 when determining the selling
price of sod.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 7. Partitioning of farm income by Florida sod producers in 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 8. Weighted responses of survey participants when asked about the three most important
problems faced by the respondent’s business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 9. Weighted responses of survey participants when asked about the three most important
problems facing the sod industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
iii
An Agronomic and Economic Profile of Florida’s
Sod Industry in 2007
L.N. Satterthwaite1, A.W. Hodges2, J.J. Haydu3 and J.L. Cisar4
INTRODUCTION
Results of a comprehensive economic impact study of the environmental horticulture or
“green” industry in the United States in 2002 (Haydu et al., 2006) underscored the diversity and
magnitude of the sod industry. This study considered all aspects of the turfgrass industry —
including sod production, lawncare services, lawn and garden retail stores, lawn equipment
manufacturing and golf courses, a major industry that relies on managed turfgrass. Turfgrass
industry employment was 823,000 jobs, of which the sod production industry contributed about
17,000 (2%). Expressed in 2005 dollars, U.S. turf industry total output revenues were $57.9
billion (B), value added impacts were $35.1 B, labor income impacts were $23.0 B and indirect
business tax impacts to local and state governments were $2.4 B. Total employment impacts of
the turfgrass industry in Florida were 83,944 jobs, and value added impacts were $3.3 B, which
were second only to California in the U.S.
Florida remained the fourth most populous state in the U.S. with 18.2 million people in 2007
(Infoplease, 2008), but its growth rate has slowed to nearly one-half of that of four years ago
(American FactFinder, 2008). Coupled with the economic conditions facing most of the country
in 2007, this caused a decrease in the housing market in Florida
In 2008 the fifth in a series of University of Florida surveys on sod production and marketing
was completed. The purpose of this study was to provide sod businesses, allied firms, industry
leaders, university researchers and specialists, and state policy makers with current agronomic
and economic information on this important agricultural sector. This report begins with a
discussion of the methodology employed in the survey and then examines research findings in
the areas of production, employment, marketing, product quality/price information and perceived
firm- and industry-level problems. The report concludes with an analysis of the total economic
impacts of sod production in Florida.
1
2
Senior Statistician, Mid-Florida Research and Education Center, Apopka, FL, 2725 Binion Road, Apopka, FL
32703-8504, tel (407) 884-2034, fax (407) 814-6186, email [email protected]
Extension Scientist, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Food and Resource
Economics Department, Gainesville, FL 32611, tel (352) 392-1881, fax (352) 392-3646, email
[email protected]
3
Senior Partner, Planet First Resources, 10040 Brompton Dr., Tampa, Florida 33626, tel (352) 483-1052, email
[email protected]
4
Professor, Ft. Lauderdale Research and Education Center, tel (954) 475-8990, fax (954) 475-4125, email
[email protected]
METHODOLOGY
The population of grower firms for the <Florida Sod Production Survey–2007’ was
constructed from several sources — the Florida Turfgrass Association membership, members of
the Florida Sod Growers Cooperative, names provided by County Extension Agents, and a
compilation from previous lists of sod producers. The objectives were to develop as complete
and accurate a list as possible and to obtain information from a statistically representative sample
of firms.
Due to the quantity of information requested, mail surveys were the instrument of choice;
however, because of previous requests, this year the survey was also presented on-line for those
who wished to complete it in that manner. Three mailings were conducted, at roughly twomonth intervals beginning in March 2007. One hundred thirty-nine questionnaires were sent in
the first mailing; however with numerous additions and subtractions to the mailing list, the
number of actual sod producers on the list was reduced to 107. The most common reasons for
elimination from the list were firms had gone out of business, addresses were undeliverable
(addressee unknown or forwarding order expired), or respondents did not fit our definition of a
sod producer — they were plug producers or in a business related to sod such as distribution,
landscape services, or a nursery business that sold sod. A total of 59 completed surveys were
eventually returned (either on-line or by postal delivery) by firms that were currently producing
sod, representing a 55 percent response rate from the mailing list.
To facilitate comparisons over time, the survey was designed to be consistent with three
earlier surveys; however, this year, some previous questions were replaced with new questions
that might shed light on other important aspects of the sod industry. The questionnaire was
divided into four major sections — production, marketing, product quality, and firm and
industry problems. Based on acres in production, sod farms were grouped into four size
categories — small-sized farms produced 1 to 499 acres, medium-sized farms produced 500 to
999 acres, large-sized farms produced 1,000 to 1,999 acres and very large-sized farms produced
2,000 or more acres.
Results of the 2007 survey indicate that 59 growers produced approximately 73,000 acres of
sod in 2007 (Table 1). However, since the survey responses did not represent total industry
production, several procedures were used to develop an industry-wide estimate. First, as in
previous years, we assumed that our mailing list was only partially complete, by previous
estimations, probably only about 85% complete — allowing for an additional 18 ‘missed’
growers, which would bring the total number of growers to 125. Second, by comparing returned
questionnaires with the population lists, it was determined that nine of ten producers in the ‘very
large’ category — those with more than 2,000 acres of sod — were included within the survey
sample. These growers are also commonly known by other producers and state trade associations
who further confirmed numbers in this class. With the very large group accounted for, the
remaining 65 non-responding or non-contacted producers were assumed to comprise 44 small
(68%), 17 medium (26%) and 4 large-sized firms (6%). This assumption was based on the
authors’ working knowledge of the industry, input from producer associations, and recognition
that in most agricultural sectors, larger-sized firms tend to produce the majority of output.
Adding the non-responding farms to each size category (e.g. small firms: 34 + 44 = 78), then
dividing by the number of original respondents in each farm size, an expansion factor was
generated for each group (e.g. small: 78 producing farms ÷ 34 responding farms = 2.29). These
2
figures were then used to expand the sample aggregates for all major variables estimated (i.e. the
total reported for each farm-size category (small, medium, large, and very large) was multiplied
by its respective expansion factor (2.29, 3.125, 1.50 and 1.11) to ascertain the overall total for
each farm-size category (reporting firms plus non-reporting or non-contacted firms). For
example, small-sized farms reported 8,059 acres in production; multiplying that number by the
expansion factor of 2.29 gives an expanded production acreage for small-sized farms of 18,455
acres (see total for small-sized firms in Table 2).
Table 1. Number of survey respondents, production acreage reported in each size group
and calculated expansion factors, 2007.
Acreage
reported
Number of
respondents
Number of farms
Expansion
factor
Small (1–499)
8,059
34
78
2.29
Medium (500–999)
5,128
8
25
3.125
Large (1000–1999)
9,919
8
12
1.50
Very large ($2000)
49,603
9
10
1.11
72,709
59
125
Farm size (acres)
Total
To ensure that only active sod producers would provide survey information and so others did
not spend their time needlessly filling out the survey instrument, the first question asked if the
firm was currently active in producing sod in Florida. In the on-line survey, only two firms
responded with a ‘no’. With the hardcopy survey, we had no way to tell whether the nonrespondents were firms who were not actively engaged in sod production in Florida and did not
return the survey or whether they simply did not wish to participate.
RESULTS
Business Tenure
Survey results indicated that 41 percent of the respondents had been in business at least 20
years, ranging from 20 to 57 with an average of 27 years. Forty-three percent of the remaining
respondents had been in business for 6 to 10 years, thirty-one percent for 11 to 19 years and
twenty-three percent for 1 to 5 years.
Sod Area Grown and Harvested
Producers were asked to present production and harvest acreages for both 2006 and 2007 and
their plans regarding production in 2008. Results showed that 2007 production had increased by
nine percent over production in 2006, but harvested area in 2007 had decreased by 17 percent
from 2006. While 60 percent of growers were not going to change their production acreage, ten
percent planned to increase their acres in production by an average of 34 percent (ranging from
3
6.9% to 100%). This group included no producers from the large or very large-size categories.
Thirty percent intended to decrease their production acreage by an average of 29 percent (ranging
from 8.5% to 89%). Producers in all size categories were in this group, which included 56
percent of the very large-sized farms, 38 percent of both the large- and medium-sized firms and
21 percent of the small-sized enterprises.
Information on Florida sod production by grass type in 2007 is shown graphically in Figure 1.
More detailed information is presented in Table 2 on total sod acreage, farm size and grass
varieties. Using the appropriate expansion factors, total sod produced in Florida in 2007 was
estimated to be 103,923 acres. Of this total, 51 percent (52,937 acres) was comprised of St.
Augustinegrass — targeted primarily for the homeowner market. The market share of St.
Augustinegrass has declined from about 64 percent in 2000 and 2003 and from 72 percent in
1996 (Haydu, et. al., 1998, 2002, 2005).
Bahiagrass production, at 33 percent (34,104 acres), increased nearly ten percent from the 24
percent share it held in 2003, at least partially due to the continued construction of new roads and
the refurbishment of existing roads and highways by Florida’s Department of Transportation.
Bahiagrass is useful as a roadside cover because it is highly drought-tolerant, requires little
maintenance and, with its deep root system, offers effective erosion control.
Bermudagrass and centipedegrass, commonly used for sports and athletic fields, represented
seven percent (7,663 acres) and three percent (3,244 acres), respectively. Zoysiagrass comprised
five percent (5,249 acres) and, though it holds a minor share of the market, has replaced
centipedegrass as the fourth most produced grass in Florida in 2007. Finally, the production area
of seashore paspalum (686 acres), used primarily for golf courses, was just under one percent.
Figure 1. Types of grasses grown in Florida in 2007 — as a percent
of total production.
4
Table 2. Total area z of sod grown in Florida in 2007, by farm size y and grass variety.
Acres in production
Farm size
St.
Augustine
Bahia
Bermuda
Centipede
Zoysia
Seashore
Paspalum
Other
Total
Share
Small
9,713
672
4,495
1,963
1,000
611
0
18,454
18%
Medium
10,850
3,016
1,250
219
691
0
0
16,026
15%
Large
7,495
3,806
698
1,062
1,743
75
0
14,879
14%
Very large
24,879
26,609
1,221
0
1,816
0
39
54,564
53%
Total
52,937
34,103
7,664
3,244
5,250
686
39
103,923
100%
Share
50.9%
32.8%
7.4%
3.1%
5.1%
0.7%
0. 0%
100.0%
z
y
estimates represent expanded values from survey sample.
small: 0–499 A; medium: 500–999 A; large: 1,000–1,999 A; very large: $2,000 A.
Farm Size and Varietal Comparisons. Farms comprising the largest size category (2,000
acres or more) continued to increase their share (53%) of total industry output in 2007, up from
less than a third in 2000 and just under one-half in 2003. All other size classes continued to
reduce their share of total production.
The large farm size category (1,000–1,999 acres), whose production fell from 29 percent in
2000 to 16 percent in 2003, slowed its decline but still lost another two percent of production
share in 2007. Market share for medium-sized firms was reduced by two percent also, while
share for the smallest class of producers showed the smallest reduction during the period from
2003 to 2007 and lost only one percent.
For the smallest farms, the share of St. Augustinegrass of their total grass production
remained at nearly one-half (53%), from which it deviated only in 2000 when its share reached
65 percent. Bahiagrass’ production share by the small farms (4%) reached a low never reported
since these surveys began. Bermudagrass share increased to 24 percent in 2007, up from 15
percent in 2003 and centipedegrass declined to 11 percent of production share in 2007.
For medium-sized firms, St. Augustinegrass production at 68 percent returned to ‘normal’
from its peak at 87 percent in 2003. Bermudagrass production share remained nearly the same
(8%) as it had been in 2003. A dramatic increase occurred in the production share of bahiagrass
for this size category as it rose to 19 percent in 2007 from one percent in 2003 and the share of
zoysiagrass production nearly doubled to four percent in 2007 from just over two percent in
2003.
Firms in the large category also experienced notable changes in the share of grass varieties
grown. St. Augustinegrass — production of which grew from 59 percent in 2000 to 80 percent in
2003, which was nearly back to its 1996 level of 83 percent — continued its back and forth and
dropped to 50 percent of production in 2007. Bahiagrass production, which was not reported
from any growers in the large size category in 2003, was reported at 26 percent, very near the
reported production share of 33 percent in 2000. Bermudagrass production remained low (5%),
while centipedegrass fell to seven percent in 2007.
Finally, the share of St. Augustinegrass by the largest producers declined to 46 percent, after
peaking at 73 percent in 2000. On the other hand, bahiagrass production continued to increase
5
and reached 49 percent in 2007. This is up from a mere 15 percent in 1996. Other grass varieties
for producers in this category have remained insignificant over the past 20 years.
The percent share of each grass produced by the industry over the past 20 years is shown in
Table 3. Since St. Augustinegrass is primarily used for home lawns, it is not surprising that it
has held the largest share of production since inception of these surveys. With the decline in the
housing market in 2006, there was a large downturn in production share of St. Augustine, with an
increase in share of bahiagrass, which is often produced as bahiagrass pastures and is harvested
for sod less frequently. Other grass varieties hold a much lower percentage share of the market
and remain relatively steady with only slight fluctuations through the years.
Table 3. Total production share of sod grown in Florida from 1987 to 2007, by grass variety.
Year of
sod survey
Share of production
St. Augustine
Bahia
Bermuda
Centipede
Zoysia
Seashore Paspalum
Other
1987
55.6%
40.3%
2.5%
1.0%
0.2%
n/a
n/a
1996
72.1%
10.3%
7.8%
9.2%
0.5%
n/a
n/a
2000
65.4%
22.6%
5.7%
3.7%
1.9%
n/a
0.6%
2003
64.2%
23.6%
5.8%
4.6%
1.3%
n/a
0.4%
2007
50.9%
32.8%
7.4%
3.1%
5.1%
0.7%
0.0%
Regional Production in Florida. Placement of sod farms in the state was obtained by
asking survey respondents to note in which of eight map regions, roughly based on telephone
area codes, their farms were located. Unexpanded acreage located by this procedure is shown in
Figure 2 and suggests that nearly half (49%) of the total production occurs on the Florida ridge
down the middle of the south half of the state. This would allow fairly rapid transport to the
growing populations along both coasts in the southern part of the state. Another 20 percent of
reported production occurs in the rapidly growing ‘407' area in the east-central region of the
state.
Acres Harvested. Acres of sod harvested in 2007 by grass type and farm size are presented
in Table 4. Nearly 63,000 acres of sod were harvested of which just over half (57 percent) was
St. Augustinegrass. Knowledge of acres harvested is useful for calculating turnover rates, or the
relationship between sales and inventory (ratio of harvested to produced acres) for a given year.
Production efficiency is related to two factors, net area stocked per acre (gross area minus areas
taken up by roads, drainage ditches/canals and grass left in ribbons for re-propagation) and the
amount sold relative to the amount produced as influenced by market demand. Strictly from a
technical standpoint, net production area per acre should be relatively constant from year-to-year,
except during extended periods of high rainfall or drought. The former could impair harvesting
activities and the latter could negatively impact both the supply and demand for sod. Market
demand also influences quantities harvested in a given year. During periods of strong demand,
the total harvestable area should be harvested and sold.
6
Figure 2. Reported acres of sod production in various regions in Florida in 2007.
Table 4. Sod area harvested in Florida in 2007, by farm size and grass variety.
Acres Harvested
Farm Size (acres)
St. Augustine
Bahia
Bermuda
Centipede
S. paspalum
Small (0–499)
7,849
620
3,568
579
360
398
13,374
Medium (500–999)
6,123
2,453
898
109
0
425
10,008
Large (1,000–1,999)
4,510
3,390
401
538
35
1,175
10,049
Very large ($2,000)
17,022
10,226
830
0
0
1,063
29,141
35,504
16,689
5,697
1,226
395
3,061
62,572
67%
49%
74%
38%
58%
58%
60% z
Total
Harvested Percent of
Production
z
Zoysia
Total
Total percent of production (60%) is weighted by multiplying the percent of production
harvested for each type of grass by the percent of total production planted in that particular
type of grass.
7
Given the costs of producing sod, farmers should strive to maximize inventory turnover to
reduce unit costs, increase profitability, and avoid the risk of compromising product quality. For
example, most St. Augustinegrass varieties in Florida can be produced and ready to sell within 9–
12 months. However, an inability to sell sod that has reached a marketable stage increases
expenses through costs imposed by routine maintenance — such as fertilization, weed and pest
control, irrigation and mowing. This is particularly true for St. Augustinegrass, which is
susceptible to root decline (Turgeon, 1985). This root “die-back” adversely affects the visual
quality of St. Augustinegrass and, therefore, the grass is generally not sold until new root growth
begins in the spring, implying a 3- to 4-month dormancy period. Consequently, sound
management practices would encourage a timely and thorough harvesting of mature sod fields to
avoid unnecessary maintenance costs.
Farm Harvesting Efficiency. Overall, 60 percent of all sod that was grown was harvested,
although the percentage varied considerably across varieties. Centipedegrass was harvested at
the lowest rate, 38 percent of production, followed by bahiagrass, which was harvested at 49
percent. However, bahiagrass was the only grass that showed an increase in harvest percent of
production — more than doubling the harvest percent (24%) of 2003. Most farms tend to focus
on St. Augustinegrass, which has a broad-based market for new home construction and resodding existing homes, enjoys a fairly stable price and is relatively easy to sell. St.
Augustinegrass also has the highest harvest rate (67%), ranging from 81 percent of total
production for small-sized farms to 56 percent of total production for medium-sized farms,
which had the highest harvest rate of production (87%) in 2003. Zoysiagrass — while only 5
percent of production — is also harvested at a fairly high rate (58%). Seashore paspalum was
also harvested at 58 percent of production, but it comprises just under one percent of the total
production in Florida. Although these grasses have a much narrower market, they are the highest
priced grasses grown in Florida.
To better understand harvesting practices of producers, respondents were asked what percent
of each acre of sod grown was harvested. For all grass varieties, growers indicated they
harvested an average of 77 percent, down slightly from the 80 percent of 2003, but the same as
the 78 percent average in both 2000 and 1996. In terms of specific grasses, they harvested
approximately 88 percent of each acre of bermudagrass, 80 percent of each acre of zoysiagrass,
77 percent of each acre of St. Augustinegrass, and 70 percent of each acre of centipedegrass and
bahiagrass, leaving the remaining sod for regeneration of later crops.
Harvest ratios (Table 5) for various-sized farms had a narrower spread (53%–72%) than they
did in 2003 (58%–80%), but still are not so narrow as they were in 2000 (63%–75%). From
conversations with industry leaders, a 75 percent harvest rate is considered reasonable from an
efficiency standpoint. None of the farm sizes were able to achieve that ratio in 2007, but the
small-sized farms approached it with 72 percent harvest ratio. The very large farms, which
achieved only 58 percent harvest rate in 2003, declined even further to 53 percent in 2007,
continuing a decline from 75 percent in 1996.
Because sod is such a perishable crop, it is harvested on an as-needed basis. Since the demand
has been reduced by the economic situation, Florida’s sod farms are holding their sod in the field
longer, putting less acreage back into production, and going to other crops to supplement their
income.
8
Table 5. Area of sod grown and harvested, by farm size, in 2007.
Acres grown
Farm size
Total
Acres harvested
Average per
farm
Total
Average
per farm
Acres harvested/
Acres grown
Small
18,454
237
13,374
171
72%
Medium
16,026
641
10,008
400
62%
Large
14,879
1,240
10,049
837
68%
Very large
54,564
5,456
29,141
2,914
53%
103,923
831
62,572
501
60%
Total/All
Production of Specific Turfgrass Varieties. St. Augustinegrass is the most widely used
grass in Florida and, consequently, the most economically important for the industry. A varietal
breakdown of St. Augustinegrass is presented as a pie chart in Figure 3 with details shown in
Table 6. Floratam was the most dominant variety produced in 2007, comprising 81 percent
(42,908 acres) of total St. Augustinegrass production. Far down the scale, Classic was the
second most popular variety representing just six percent (3,100 acres), followed by Palmetto
with five percent (2,643 acres) and Seville with four percent (1,882 acres). Bitterblue rounded
out the top five St. Augustinegrass varieties with just two percent (1,322 acres), a decline from
its five percent share in 2003 with 2,773 acres. Classic replaced Common, which had been
second with nine percent in 2003, and Seville surpassed both Bitterblue and Raleigh. Raleigh
dropped from three percent in 2003 to only one percent in 2007, its share status in 2000.
Figure 3. Varietal percent shares of St. Augustinegrass total
production in Florida in 2007.
9
Table 6. St. Augustinegrass production in 2007, presented by farm size and grass varieties.
Acres in production
Farm size
Bitterblue
Small
Classic
Floratam
Palmetto
Raleigh
Sapphire
Seville
Other
372
175
8,502
338
0
94
199
30
62
0
9,934
505
0
188
161
0
Large
263
17
5,166
611
535
205
653
46
Very large
625
2,908
19,306
1,189
0
173
869
35
1,322
3,100
42,908
2,643
535
660
1,882
111
Medium
Total
New in this year’s survey was the inclusion of questions to determine how much of the more
popular varieties of the other major grasses were being grown. Production acreage and share of
the varieties for each major grass type grown in Florida in 2007 are given in Table 7. The size of
the ‘other’ category in both seashore paspalum and zoysiagrass indicates that the survey omitted
some important varieties in those grasses.
Table 7. Production acreage and share of varieties of major grass types grown in Florida in
2007.
Grass type/
Variety
Acres
produced
Share of
grass type
Bahiagrass
Grass type/
Variety
Acres
produced
Share of
grass type
St. Augustine
Argentine
27,607
84.0 %
Bitterblue
1,322
2.5 %
Pensacola
5,213
15.9 %
Classic
3,100
5.8 %
132
0.1 %
Floratam
42,908
80.7 %
Palmetto
2,643
5.0 %
other
Bermudagrass
Celebration
1,615
21.3 %
Raleigh
535
1.0 %
Common
1,395
18.4 %
Sapphire
660
1.2 %
Tifdwarf
312
4.1 %
1,882
3.5 %
4,276
56.2 %
111
0.2 %
4,229
81.0 %
Tifway
Seville
other
Centipedegrass
Common
Hammock
Zoysiagrass
3,203
98.7 %
Empire
42
1.3 %
Jamur
419
8.0 %
Meyer
3
0.1 %
Seashore paspalum
Aloha
68
9.9 %
Ultimate
401
7.7 %
Seaisle 1
15
2.2 %
other
168
3.2 %
Seaisle Supreme
60
8.7 %
Seadwarf
289
42.0 %
other
255
37.2 %
10
Sod Prices and Harvest Value
Farm gate sod prices received by producers in 2007 are shown in Table 8. Average prices,
weighted by production volume, ranged from a low 6.4¢ a square foot for bahiagrass to a high of
27.9¢ a square foot for seashore paspalum. The price of St. Augustinegrass was in the middle of
this range at 12.9¢ per square foot. In general, sod prices were higher than those received in
2003.
Average prices were used to calculate the value of the sod harvested in 2007. Harvest value,
the quantities actually sold in 2007, was estimated at $320 million, up from $307 million in
2003. Sixty-two percent of harvest value was attributable to St. Augustinegrass ($199 million),
quite a decrease from its 85 percent share in 2003 and its 81 percent share in 2000 and 1996.
This is most probably linked to the housing market decline and its concomitant decrease in
demand for St. Augustinegrass since it is the most widely used for home lawns. Bahiagrass
market share jumped from a three percent share in 2003 to a 15 percent share in 2007, bumping
bermudagrass to third with an 11 percent share; in 2003 bermudagrass was the second most
valuable sod variety with a six percent market share. Zoysiagrass more than tripled its 2003
market share of two and a half percent and accounted for eight percent of the 2007 market share;
most likely attributable to the fact that some new development restrictions require ‘Empire’
zoysiagrass. Centipedegrass market share was two percent and seashore paspalum, contributed
one and a half percent market share in 2007.
Table 8. Sod farm acreage, percent harvested, price per square foot, and harvest value in
Florida in 2007 — by major grass variety.
Total acres (A)
in
production
Percent of
production
acres harvested
Range of
prices/ft2
St. Augustine
52,937
67%
$0.07–$0.30
$0.129
$199.3
Bahia
34,104
49%
$0.025–$0.10
$0.064
$46.6
Centipede
3,244
38%
$0.125–$0.20
$0.146
$7.8
Bermuda
7,663
74%
$0.065–$0.75
$0.147
$36.3
Zoysia
5,249
58%
$0.12–$0.35
$0.187
$24.8
686
58%
$0.19–$0.35
$0.279
$4.8
Turfgrass
varieties
S. paspalum
Total
z
103,883
Harvest value z
Average
price/ft2
$ millions
$319.7
Harvest value assumes percent of gross production acres sold based on results of this study,
calculated as [(production acres (A) × percent area harvested) × (43,560 ft2/A × price/ft2)].
Given the price differentials across varieties, one might expect producers to concentrate on
the highest-priced grasses; however, little zoysiagrass and seashore paspalum were produced
even though their unit values exceeded St. Augustinegrass by nearly 45 and 116 percent,
respectively. The answer essentially lies with basic economics — supply and demand, and
potential market share. From the demand side of the equation, St. Augustinegrass has been the
preferred grass for home lawns. St. Augustinegrass, and particularly Floratam, has dominated the
11
market because it is perceived to have desirable product attributes, such as visual attractiveness,
good recuperative potential, a certain degree of utility — conserving the soil, allowing infiltration
of water and filtering of pollutants — and easy maintenance. Although St. Augustinegrass is not
a perfect variety, it has provided these features more consistently over time than other grasses,
hence it has succeeded in preserving its “market share”. Producers will naturally be drawn to the
grass that is easiest to sell while still providing a reasonable and steady profit.
On the supply side of the equation, yield, costs and profitability are the critical variables.
Grass varieties differ in yields, but yield effects on profitability can be offset by other factors.
The sod production period is from harvest-to-harvest. A fast-growing grass such as
bermudagrass has high variable costs due to the extensive use of inputs (fertilizer, pesticides,
mowing, etc.) over a short time frame. Sometimes two harvests of bermudagrass are achievable
within a year, as opposed to one for St. Augustinegrass, bahiagrass and zoysiagrass. The interval
of sod production also affects fixed costs (e.g., land, buildings, and overhead or administrative
costs). Generally speaking, shorter production periods imply higher inventory turnover, implying
further that fixed costs on a unit basis (square feet or yards) will be reduced. Exceptional species
such as zoysiagrass, which often requires more intensive management because of greater
susceptibility to pest and diseases, in the long term will generally be more expensive to produce.
Hence, price is only one aspect regarding the economic feasibility of sod production.
Marketing
Harvesting. In 2007, sixty-four percent of harvested sod was machine-stacked, mostly (58%)
using a combination of machine and hand-stacking. While 26 percent of the large producers’
harvest was accomplished automatically, only two percent of the very large producers’ harvest
was automatic. All farm sizes used the combination method for about half (ranging from 45% to
64%) of their harvest. Some of the larger producers prefer to use large teams of manual labor for
stacking sod. Their reasoning is that, for large-scale operations, current farm equipment is not
cost-effective — large labor teams can stack and move sod more quickly than most automatic
harvesters (Cisar and Haydu, 1991). In addition, labor often offers more working flexibility.
Since many workers are seasonal, the farm does not incur so high an annualized cost of
production as it does with automatic harvesters. Purchased machinery becomes part of a firm’s
fixed costs; thus, even when the equipment is not in use, the owner is still paying for it. On the
other hand, growers can employ seasonal labor, as a variable cost of production, only when
needed. Only the small-sized farms used hand-stacking for the majority (54%) of their harvest.
A new question on the survey asked what type of harvest was used — big rolls, mini-rolls or
slabs (Figure 4). Ninety-five percent of the harvest was slabs, with 37 percent of all growers
using slabs exclusively. Big rolls represented four percent of the harvest with 52 percent of them
from very large farms and 39 percent from small farms.
12
Figure 4. Sod roll, sod slabs and a truck loaded with sod ready for shipping. (left to right)
Shipping. Once sod is cut and stacked, 90 percent of it is shipped to its destination the next
day, with the remainder being shipped in two days. Only a fraction of a percent takes longer to
be shipped. This practice is due to the highly perishable nature of cut-sod. Sod’s vulnerability
may also explain the relatively high incidence of truck ownership — 41 percent of respondents
indicated that they own their own transportation equipment, down from 60 percent in 2003.
However, two-thirds of those responding indicated that there was a problem obtaining trucks for
sod delivery when they were needed, up from only half in 2003. Scheduling difficulties would
likely arise during the peak selling months of spring and summer when transport demand is high
for other agricultural products as well.
Distance to markets is a critical factor for producers to consider. Sod is a heavy, bulky item
that requires prompt attention. These factors greatly impact the potential risk to both buyer and
seller. The more distant the markets, the more expensive sod is to ship and the greater the
potential for post-harvest losses. Consequently, producers located close to key markets have a
clear strategic advantage over producers located farther away. In 2003, 75 percent of the growers
reported that their markets were staying approximately the same distance from them and half of
the remaining growers’ markets were moving closer and the other half were moving farther
away. Survey respondents in 2007 reported that 48 percent of their markets are within 50 miles
(down from 59%) and another 34 percent of the markets (up from 29%) are between 50 and 100
miles away. In other words, most growers are still positioned only a few hours from the majority
of their markets. Consistent with the 2003 results, only 3 percent of sales were reported as being
shipped out of Florida in 2007.
Sod Distribution Channels. The distribution of buyers of Florida sod is presented in Figure
5. Forty-four percent of sales were made to landscape services, 21 percent were made to rewholesalers, 15 percent were made to commercial and residential developers, and six percent
were made to brokers. Sports-related activities, independent garden centers, and homeowners
each consumed about four percent of the sod sold, while farm-to-farm and big box garden center
sales were each about one percent of total sod sales. When asked whether the market demand in
their area for turfgrass had changed since 2005–2006 and, if so, how, 82 percent of respondents
reported a decrease in demand.
13
Figure 5. Depiction of to whom Florida sod producers sold their product in 2007.
Costs of Producing and Marketing Sod
In order to better understand costs of being in the sod business, without asking producers to
spend extensive time reviewing financial records, respondents were asked to estimate the
percentage of total costs per acre that are attributable to various growing-, marketing- and sod
installation-related activities. Principal costs associated with these activities include materials,
labor and equipment. The average percent of expenses attributed to production-related
activities was seventy-two and a half. Production activities are the largest share because they
represent on-going work that begins after planting and continues until harvest, a period of 6–12
months, depending on the grass variety. While 88 percent of respondents attributed some
expenses to administration, sales and marketing activities, the average percent was only 20
percent. Thirty-six percent of respondents had expenses related to sod installation activities and
the average percent of their total expenses was twenty-seven.
Further details were requested in each of the three major categories by asking respondents to
delineate their expenses in several named categories and an ‘other’ category that could be
specified by the grower. Table 9 provides dollar amounts and percent share attributed to each of
the detailed expenses in the three major expense categories.
14
Table 9. Average percent of total expenses per acre attributed to specific activities in 2007.
Expense category/
Detailed expenses
Dollar share
Percent share
$226,025,309
74.0
Labor (full, part-time and seasonal for all production-related activities)
$56,506,327
25.0
Production (mowing, fertilizing, pesticides/herbicides, etc.)
$44,753,011
19.8
Harvesting (equipment operating costs, pallets, etc.)
$26,670,986
11.8
Irrigation (water/pumping costs–e.g. maintenance + fuel/electricity)
$21,020,354
9.3
Manager/owner salaries (related to production activities)
$20,568,303
9.1
Land preparation (weed control, cultivation, harrowing, etc.)
$16,951,898
7.5
Planting (sod &/or seed + equipment operating costs)
$15,369,721
6.8
Office expenses related to production
$9,267,038
4.1
Fumigation
$6,780,759
3.0
Contracting costs (associated with production/harvesting activities)
$2,938,329
1.3
Royalties
$2,486,278
1.1
Other production-related expenses
$3,164,354
1.4
$58,763,891
19.0
Labor (full, part-time and seasonal for all adm/sales/market activities)
$21,801,404
37.1
Manager/owner salaries (related to admin/sales/marketing)
$12,399,181
21.1
Transportation
$7,933,125
13.5
Marketing/admin (sales, collections, phone/fax, supplies, etc.)
$6,522,792
11.1
Advertising
$3,760,889
6.4
Contracting (transport, etc.)
$3,173,250
5.4
Other administrative/sales/marketing expenses
$3,173,250
5.4
$21,870,358
7.0
$13,625,233
62.3
Manager/owner salaries (related to sod installation activities)
$2,558,832
11.7
Landscape design/installation
$2,318,258
10.6
Office expenses related to sod-installation activities
$2,165,165
9.9
Landscape maintenance
$634,240
2.9
Other landscape activities
$743,592
3.4
Production-related expenses
Administrative/Sales/Marketing-related expenses
Sod installation-related expenses *
Labor (full, part-time and seasonal for all sod install-related activities)
* Not all respondents had this type of activity
15
Production-related labor accounted for one-quarter (25%) of total production-related costs.
Field maintenance expenses followed closely with a 20 percent share. Harvesting expenses were
moved to the production phase expenses on this survey (on the previous two surveys, it had been
included under marketing as an ‘after growth’ expense) and placed number three in cost with a
12 percent share of production expenses. Other principal tasks consist of fertilization, pest and
weed control, mowing and irrigation.
Not surprisingly, the majority of administration/sales/marketing-related expenses (only 20%
of the total expenses) were attributed to salaries — 37 percent to labor and 21 percent to
managers/owners. Transportation accounted for another 13.5 percent and sales and marketing
(including collections of accounts receivables) averaged 11 percent of these types of costs.
For the 36 percent of respondents who had sod installation-related expenses, labor accounted
for almost two-thirds (62%) of those expenses. Manager/owner salaries (12%), design/
installation (11%) and office expenses (10%) required another third of this type of expense.
Not surprisingly, the largest farm group had the most expenses. However, because of the
number of small farms, that group had the second largest total amount of expenses.
Price Determination
Producers were asked how they determine the price they charge for their product. They were
given five considerations plus an open-ended “other” category and asked to rank their top four
considerations in order of importance. A first-choice ranking was given four points, secondplace ranking received three points, third place was two points and fourth choice was scored as
one point; then total number of points for each choice by all respondents was added to determine
the ‘weight’ assigned to that choice (Figure 6). Interestingly, fewer producers (26%) indicated
the “selling price of other producers” as the principal pricing method, but so many ranked it as
second (23%) or third (25%) that it achieved the highest ranking overall (total weighted ranking
of 134). “Quality of my sod” was classified first by 30 percent of growers and 21 percent ranked
it as second so overall weighted ranking was 125. The “highest price market will bear” category,
newly added to the survey this year, received the highest percent (32) of first rankings, but fewer
second and third considerations and ranked third in total weighted points (120). “Cost of
production” was ranked first by 23 percent of producers and had a total weighted points of 101.
The other newly added consideration — “availability” — had a total weighted ranking of 77
points. Seven percent of growers ranked “other” considerations in their top four for a weighted
total of only 9 points. These “other” considerations included the location of the field to the job
and the order size and ability of the customer to pay quickly. Given these results, it is apparent
that sod producers use several inter-related methods to arrive at prices for their products.
16
Figure 6. Considerations made by Florida sod producers in 2007
when determining the selling price of sod.
Components of Farm Income
In 2007, only 21 percent of producers reported that their sole source of income was sod
production, compared to 46 percent in 2003 and 47 percent in 2000. The percent of income
derived from sod production in 2007 was 61 percent, compared to 73 percent in 2003 (Figure 7).
Roughly one-third of earned income was from related or alternative agricultural business
activities. Food production (cattle, citrus, dairy and vegetables) continued to maintain
approximately the same percent of alternative income with 15 percent, compared to 13 percent in
2003 and 14 percent in 2000. Sod-related services continued its steady rise as an income
alternative, reported at 16 percent in 2007, compared to 12 percent in 2003 and nine percent in
2000. These activities included shipping (5%), landscape contract and/or maintenance services
(10%), and farm supplier of equipment, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. at just under one percent.
Ornamental plant production, which fell from three percent in 1996 to one percent of income in
2000 and just under one percent in 2003, maintained its level at just over one percent. An
“others” category that included land leasing, sugar cane production, sales of silage feed, pine
straw, etc. and real estate/developer/commercial properties increased from just over two percent
in 2003 to nearly seven and a half percent in 2007.
17
Figure 7. Partitioning of farm income by Florida sod producers in 2007.
(Data not weighted by farm size.)
Sod Quality
Although turfgrass quality is difficult to measure, Beard (1973) states that characteristics of
high quality turfgrass have been established over the years. The six basic components of
turfgrass quality he identifies are: uniformity, density, texture, growth habit, smoothness and
color. Beard notes that the relative importance of these features will vary according to the
purpose for which the turf is to be used.
In a more general sense, turfgrass quality can be affected at any one (or all) of five major
stages: turfgrass breeding, which determines the inherent physical characteristics of the variety;
production and cultural practices employed by the grower; harvesting and stacking; shipping and
unloading; and after the buyer receives it. In this study, we were interested in factors other than
physical properties. In particular, from the producer’s perspective, was quality compromised at
some point on the farm or after the product was sold and delivered? Moreover, if damage did
occur prior to receipt by the buyer, at what stage(s) did it take place (during production, during
harvesting and stacking, or during shipping and unloading)?
Although no aspect of the sod production/sales cycle is without potential quality-reducing
damage, in 2007 growers believed that 45 percent (down from 51%) of the damage occurred to
sod after the buyer received it, leaving an opportunity for the growers/shippers to improve sod
quality for about half the damaged product. Growers responded that 22 percent of the damage
occurred in the field. This slight (3%) increase in in-the-field damage may reflect slightly more
severe weather conditions than were experienced in much of Florida in 2003. Damage occurring
18
previous to the buyers’ receiving it through harvesting and stacking (17%) increased only two
percent from reported damage in 2003 and shipping and unloading damage increased to 15
percent, returning to approximately the same as in 2000 after a decrease in 2003 to 12 percent.
These results indicate that both producers and consumers are responsible for reducing turf
quality. But more importantly, it suggests that because growers, by their own admission, cause
nearly half of all damage to the turfgrass they sell, significant room for improvement still exists.
Astute growers can distinguish themselves in a competitive market by addressing some of these
quality-compromising issues.
Perhaps an indicator of the need for improvement both before and after the consumer
receives the product is the guarantee/quality assurance policy offered. Thirty-nine percent of
respondents offer a policy that guarantees the sod to be free of defects, including being
reasonably free of weeds and pests, and is guaranteed to grow if maintained properly by the
customer. Problems must be reported within 15 days. In the event of a problem, the farm’s
responsibility policy covers product only. Thirty-two percent of respondents gave the same
guarantee but allowed only 24 hours after delivery and/or installation for notification to the
company. Sixteen percent of respondents offered no guarantee and 14 percent offered the same
guarantee as the most popular 15-day notification policy above except that the farm replacement
policy covered product, freight and labor.
Employment and Mechanization
As farms become larger in response to increasing pressures to reduce production costs,
agriculture continues to shift towards greater mechanization. This is due to the fact that labor in
agriculture normally accounts for a significant share of total cash expenses. This share can vary
from 15 percent to 30 percent, depending on the size of firm and type of commodity being
produced (USDA/ERS, 1997). Mechanical devices in agriculture are generally designed for
specific functions and for specific crops. For example, wheat harvesters cannot be used for corn
and tomato harvesters cannot be used for cotton. Additionally, this specialized equipment is also
very expensive. To reduce capital costs per unit of output, large-scale farms emphasize monocultural production systems that can efficiently use this specialized equipment.
Labor tends to be much more versatile than machinery and is used for more complex tasks.
Hence, labor use per acre will be significantly less for a large wheat farm than for a smaller farm
producing small quantities of diversified products. Since sod is a monocultural crop, one would
anticipate that there would be a significant substitution of capital for labor in its production.
Interestingly, this is not the case. Results of this study indicate that labor remains a critical
resource in Florida’s sod production industry.
Unlike fruit and vegetable producers who employ large numbers of seasonal workers, sod
farms have year-round production and maintenance activities and rely on permanent labor.
Reporting farms employed 855 permanent workers, averaging 14 full-time employees per farm.
One hundred and thirteen part-time workers were employed by 43 percent of reporting firms, an
average of 4.3 part-timers for each firm with part-time help. As in 2003, twelve firms reported
the use of seasonal labor. However, seasonal labor in 2007 totaled 74 people, only 60 percent of
the number reported in 2003. In terms of farm size, the average use of permanent labor ranged
from a low of five persons for small farms to a high of 41 employees for the very largest farms.
Only the large-sized farms reported using more full-time employees in 2007 than they had in
2003. All sizes of farms employed part-time and seasonal help in 2007, a change from 2003
19
when the large-sized farms did not employ any part-time or seasonal help. When expanding the
employment figures to encompass the complete sod industry, the numbers reflect a slightly
different pattern as seen in Table 10. The total number of full-time employees was 1,426 and the
average number of full-time employees was eleven. Total employment, including part-time and
seasonal employees, was estimated at 1,800 persons. The greatest number of people (30%) were
employed by the small-sized farms, which make up 62 percent of the total number of farms in the
industry. Medium-sized farms employed about one-fifth of the workers and the large- and very
large-sized farms each employed about 25 percent of the work force.
Table 10. Full-time, part-time, seasonal and total employment figures for various-sized sod
farms in 2007.
Average number of workers employed
Farm size
Full-time
Part-time
Seasonal
Total
Small
345
125
78
548
Medium
309
44
19
372
Large
366
51
22
439
Very Large
406
13
22
441
Total for industry
1,426
233
141
1,800
Average per farm
11.4
1.9
1.1
14.4
To obtain a more complete picture of the substitution of capital for labor, a question was
asked whether the level of mechanization had changed since 2003. Almost one-third (32%) of
all surveyed firms indicated their farms were more mechanized now, while the remaining twothirds stated that the level of mechanization had not changed. In 2003, 67 percent of the largesized farms reported an increase in mechanization and while they are still becoming more
mechanized, the percentage of firms doing so was considerably less. Thirty-eight percent of both
the large-sized farms and the medium-sized farms reported the use of more mechanization over
the last few years. As in 2000 and 2003, no respondent reported a decrease in mechanization in
2007.
Firm and Industry Problems
In this last section of the survey, five broad areas that affect individual businesses and the
entire industry were listed and producers were asked to identify the three most serious problems
they face as an individual business and the three most serious challenges that the industry faces.
These broad categories had been identified from previous surveys as financial, productionrelated, regulatory/environmental, personnel, and marketing. Each respondent’s most important
problem counted as 3 points, second most important problem was weighted as 2 points and the
third most important problem was given 1 point. Points scored for each problem were then
summed to give a weighted ranking. Of the five broad classifications, the most prominent (a
weight of 147) related to financial concerns such as fuel and insurance costs, excessive labor
20
Figure 8. Weighted responses of survey participants when asked about
the three most important problems faced by the respondent’s
business.
costs, prohibitive equipment costs, fly-by-night competition and taxes (Figure 8). This was also
the primary concern regarding individual businesses of growers three, seven and ten years ago.
Marketing or economic concerns continued as a clear second-place problem (85 accumulated
points) as it was in 2003; in 2000, it nearly tied for second place after being fifth-ranked in 1996.
Some marketing or economic problems included availability of product, distribution/delivery
problems, answering questions and educating the public and government, and reliable service
such as on-time delivery and loading of delivery trucks when they arrive. With a weight of 51,
50 and 50, production-related, personnel-related and regulatory/environmental issues,
respectively, were nearly equally of less concern to the individual firms. Production
considerations were second in 2000, but dropped to fourth in 2003. Typical production issues
were weeds, mole crickets and insects, weather and maintenance of sod in the field. Personnelrelated issues involved problems like deficient production skills of workers and their inability to
hire enough employees with a legal status. Regulatory or environmental type concerns ranked
last in both 2003 and 2000, a far cry from its “tied-for-second” position in 1996. Whether this is
from resignation or enlightenment, it may indicate a capacity to work within the system.
Regulatory issues included the loss of methyl bromide, water restrictions at the receiving end and
dealing with government agencies.
21
The five categories identified for firms are the same as the industry because of the interrelated nature of the issues; however, the delineation of the lower category rankings differ
slightly from those of individual business concerns (Figure 9). There were significant changes in
rankings in 2007 when compared to 2003, the most obvious being the leap of financial concerns
from its third-place ranking in 2003 (with a score of 55) to its overwhelming first-place rank in
2007 with a point accumulation of 201. Marketing issues moved from first in 2003 to second
rank in 2007 while maintaining nearly the same number of points accumulated (94 vs. 98 in
2003). Marketing issues included overproduction, price undercutting, lack of advertising and
competition. Regulatory/environmental issues moved from second to third because of the
financial worries facing the industry; regulatory/environmental issues included concerns about
restricted sod usage because of water shortages. Personnel concerns moved from fifth place in
2003 to fourth place in this survey with accumulated points of 38, just ahead of the 30 points
accumulated by production issues. This last place position for production issues, which ranked
first in 2000 and 1996 and fourth in 2003, indicates that production is no longer a big concern for
the industry.
Figure 9. Weighted responses of survey participants when asked about the
three most important problems facing the sod industry.
22
ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE FLORIDA SOD INDUSTRY TO THE STATE
To evaluate the economic contribution of Florida’s sod industry to the State’s economy, the
revenues and employment associated with the industry were applied to an input-output model of
the State using the IMPLAN® economic modeling system (Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.).
IMPLAN is a system of computer software and databases that can be used to construct
mathematical models of regional economies, ranging from individual counties to multiple states.
These models describe the relationships and interactions between various industries and
institutions of an economy, and can be employed to predict how a change in one sector will
impact other industries and institutions in the economy, and for the economy as a whole. This
process is often referred to as economic impact analysis.
Usually, economic impact analysis is used to estimate the consequences of a change of “new”
dollars entering an economy. This may occur, for example, when tourists spend money for local
amenities or when a new local industry exports its products outside the region. These new
dollars generate multiplier effects for a local or regional economy when directly affected
businesses purchase inputs from the local supply chain and when employees and owners of
affected businesses spend their earnings inside the region. In cases where the importance of an
existing industry is being evaluated, it is necessary to reframe the context of the analysis in terms
of the losses to the economy that would occur if the industry disappeared. Since sod and most
sod installation services are a necessary input for the construction and landscape trade, the loss of
this industry would likely result in sod being imported from outside the State or a reduction in the
value of new real estate and recreational areas. If that were to occur, then the dollars used to
purchase non-local sod would leave the State’s economy or the value of real estate sale would
decline, thus reducing gross state product and jobs. When the economic importance of an
industry or activity is evaluated under these assumptions, it is more appropriate to refer to the
results as economic contributions instead of economic impacts (Watson et. al., 2007).
To estimate the economic contributions of Florida’s sod industry for 2007, $320 million (M)
in revenues was applied to sector six (Greenhouse, Nursery and Floriculture Production) of an
IMPLAN model of the State. Based on an estimated employment of 1,800 full and part-time
workers that year, the annual output (sales) per worker in the IMPLAN model was increased
from $102,631 to $177,778, while annual earnings per worker were held at $32,585. Because
the IMPLAN data set used for this analysis was for the year 2007, no deflation or inflation of the
input values or results was necessary. The regional purchase coefficient for the sector evaluated
was set to zero to avoid overestimation of impacts due to forward-linked sectors (Steinback,
2004). All other parameters for the IMPLAN model were left at their default settings.
Results of the IMPLAN analysis are provided in Tables 11 and 12. Direct, indirect, induced
and total economic contributions to the State’s economy in 2007 are presented in Table 11, for
output, value added, labor income, other property income, indirect business taxes, and
employment. In Table 12, the estimated contributions generated by the sod industry are
presented for 20 aggregated industry groups defined according to the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS).
23
Table 11. Summary of economic contributions of the sod industry in Florida, 2007.
Activityeffect level
Output
Total value
added
Labor
income
Other
property
type
income
Indirect
business
taxes
Employment
Jobsz
Million $
Direct
320.00
184.45
58.65
122.28
3.52
1,800
Indirect
61.72
38.17
27.27
7.77
3.13
977
Induced
321.47
193.38
125.15
52.54
15.69
2,856
703.20
416.01
211.08
182.59
22.34
5,633
Total
z
Estimated jobs includes full-time, part-time and seasonal positions.
Direct contribution effects represent the additional revenues, value added, income, taxes and
jobs generated directly by industry activity within a study area. Indirect and induced effects
result from subsequent rounds of local spending created as a consequence of the initial (direct)
sales. Indirect effects occur as businesses purchase inputs from local suppliers, which generates
additional revenues, income, and jobs for the State’s economy. Induced effects occur when the
households of employees and business owners spend their earnings for consumer goods and
services in the local economy, thereby generating additional economic activity.
Output represents the total value of sales or revenues generated directly and indirectly by an
industry. The direct output contribution of the sod industry for 2007 is equal to industry sales of
$320 million. Indirect output contributions were estimated at nearly $62 million, and induced
output contributions were valued at $321.5 million. The total output contribution of Florida’s
sod industry is the sum of the direct, indirect and induced effects and is estimated to be $703.2
million (Table 11).
Value added contributions represent labor income, business profits, other property type
income and indirect business taxes that are generated directly and indirectly by industry-related
activity. The value added impact for the sod industry on Florida was estimated to total $416
million. The difference between output and value added contributions is the value of
intermediate inputs of goods and services used to produce sod, such as water, fertilizer,
pesticides, fuel, etc. Labor income is the component of value added that represents earnings by
employees and owners of businesses in or affected by the sod industry and was estimated to
equal $211 million Other property type income consists of rents, royalties, interest, dividends,
and corporate profits; activities related to the sod industry generated $182.6 million of these
types of contributions for Florida in 2007. Indirect business tax contributions are estimates of
how much excise, property and sales taxes, as well as business and licensing fees, are generated
by Florida’s sod industry. This does not include taxes on income or profits. It is estimated that
over $22.3 M in indirect business tax revenues were generated by the sod industry in 2007.
Employment contributions estimate the number of full, part-time, and seasonal jobs that are
created annually by an industry or activity. These estimates are based on national industry24
average output per worker statistics. For 2007, a total of 5,633 jobs are estimated to have been
created in Florida through the direct, indirect and induced effects of the State’s sod industry.
The distribution of economic contributions across twenty aggregate industry groups in
Florida is presented in Table 12. Not surprisingly, nearly half of the total output, value added
and employment contributions accrued to the group that includes Agriculture, with $334 million
in annual output, $196 million in value added, and 2,483 jobs. Real Estate captured the second
largest contribution in output, value added and other property income, while the Government
sector had the second largest employment contribution (455 jobs). These second ranking
contributions were considerable smaller than agriculture’s, all individually representing less than
10 percent of the total. Other sectors that ranked in the top five in one or more categories
included Construction, Retail Trade, and Health and Social Services.
Table 12. Economic contributions of the Florida sod industry in 2007, by aggregate industry
group.
Total value
Output
added
Industry Group
Labor
income
Other
property
income
Indirect
business
taxes
Million $
Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries
Employment
Jobs
334.34
195.76
71.23
120.78
3.75
2,483
Mining
1.45
0.32
0.15
0.15
0.03
4
Utilities
8.44
5.39
1.65
2.87
0.87
13
Construction
41.08
17.08
14.13
2.67
0.28
293
Manufacturing
24.01
6.68
4.33
2.03
0.32
68
W holesale Trade
24.81
16.11
Retail Trade
28.33
Transportation & W arehousing
11.38
Information
Finance & Insurance
9.48
3.07
3.55
142
12.30
3.02
4.37
426
5.43
4.02
1.15
0.26
99
11.81
5.50
2.77
2.23
0.49
42
30.30
15.51
9.81
5.09
0.61
158
Real Estate & Rental
48.99
34.64
3.98
25.22
5.44
174
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services
24.10
14.92
12.72
1.92
0.28
204
3.67
2.08
1.68
0.37
0.03
17
Management of Companies
Administrative & W aste Services
9.63
5.63
4.54
0.94
0.15
150
Educational Services
3.50
1.98
1.81
0.14
0.03
58
Health & Social Services
31.12
19.29
16.46
2.58
0.25
372
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
3.90
2.48
1.54
0.62
0.32
54
Accommodation & Food Services
14.15
7.44
5.10
1.50
0.84
226
Other Services
11.61
6.11
4.59
1.04
0.49
196
Government & non-classified
36.58
33.98
28.79
5.18
0.00
455
703.20
416.01
211.08
182.59
22.34
5,633
Total
25
CONCLUSIONS
T Florida sod production area has grown since 2003, but harvested area has
remained steady.
T Nearly half of sod production occurs in the south-central region of Florida.
T A large majority of growers report reduced demand for sod in 2007.
T All firm sizes experienced a reduction in harvest ratios.
T Market share has increased for bahiagrass and zoysiagrass, and decreased for
St. Augustinegrass and centipedegrass.
T Sod prices received have increased for bahiagrass, centipedegrass and
bermudagrass, but have decreased for zoysiagrass.
T Harvest value of sod reached $320 million in 2007.
T Large and very large sod farms have increased market share.
T Sod-related services and other (non-sod) production activities represent an
increasing share of total income.
T Total economic impacts of sod production in Florida in 2007 included $736
million in output, $435 million in value added, and 5,891 jobs.
REFERENCES
American FactFinder. 2008. Population growth rates in the United States. Available at
<http://factfinder.census.gov>, Oct. 2, 2008.
Beard, James B. 1973. Turfgrass Science and Culture, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.
Cisar, J.L. and J.J. Haydu. 1991. Adjustments in market channels and labor in the Florida sod
industry. Journal of Agribusiness 9(2): 33–40.
Haydu, J.J., A.W. Hodges and C.R. Hall. 2006. Economic impacts of the turfgrass and lawncare
industry in the United States. University of Florida/IFAS Extension Publication FE632.
Available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE632.
Haydu, J.J., L. N. Satterthwaite and J.L. Cisar. 1998. An economic and agronomic profile of
Florida’s sod industry in 1996. Economic Information Report EI 98-7, Food & Res. Econ.
Dept, IFAS, UF.
Haydu, J.J., L. N. Satterthwaite and J.L. Cisar. 2002. An economic and agronomic profile of
Florida’s sod industry in 2000. Economic Information Report EIR 02-6, Food & Res. Econ.
Dept, IFAS, UF.
Haydu, J.J., L. N. Satterthwaite and J.L. Cisar. 2005. An economic and agronomic profile of
Florida’s sod industry in 2003. Food & Res. Econ. Dept, IFAS, UF.
Infoplease. 2008. Population by State, 1790 to 2007. © 2000–2007 Pearson Education,
publishing as Infoplease. Oct. 2008. Available at
<http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html>.
26
Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). 2007. IMPLAN Professional V2, Economic Impact and
Social Accounting Software, and Data for Florida Counties. Stillwater, MN.
www.implan.com
Steinback, S. 2004. Using ready-made regional input-output models to estimate backwardlinkage effects of exogenous output shocks. Review of Regional Studies, 34 (1): 57–71.
http://www.economy.okstate.edu/rrs/issue.asp?volume=34&issue=1
Turgeon, A. J. 1985. Turfgrass Management. Reston Publishing Co., Reston VA.
USDA/ERS. 1997. Financial Performance of U.S. Commercial Farms, 1991–94. Agricultural
Economic Report Number 751.
Watson, P., J. Wilson, D. Thilmany, and S. Winter. 2007. Determining economic contributions
and impacts: What is the difference and why do we care? Journal of Regional Analysis and
Policy 37 (2): 140–146. http://www.jrap-journal.org/pastvolumes/2000/v37/F37-2-6.pdf
APPENDIX
The following pages are the mail survey instrument.
27
Dear Florida Sod Producer**:
Good day to you!
This survey is being conducted by the University of
Florida/IFAS to provide economic information for the
Florida sod industry and is sponsored by the Florida Sod
Growers Co-op. This survey is also available on the
web. If you would prefer to respond via the on-line
internet survey, please send an email to Loretta
Satterthwaite at [email protected] to request that option.
In this survey, questions are asked about your
FLORIDA sod production operation in 2007, unless
otherwise noted. Please limit your responses to Florida
only, even if you have operations out-of-state. All
individual responses will be kept strictly confidential;
only averages or totals for all survey respondents will be
disclosed
Please answer the questions to the best of your
ability. Your participation is voluntary. There is no
compensation nor anticipated risks for participating in
this survey. If you have your financial and management
records at hand, the survey should take no longer than
one-half hour.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. We
appreciate it and look forward to receiving your
completed survey in the near future.
**If you are not a sod producer, please inform us of
such in the comments area (inside back cover) and
mail this back to us or send an email to Loretta at
[email protected], and we’ll remove your name
from the mailing list. Thanks, we appreciate your
assistance.
-1-
#
5.
How many acres of sod did you harvest in Florida in 2006?
acres harvested
Florida Sod Production in 2007
6.
How many acres of sod did you harvest in Florida in 2007?
John J. Haydu and John L. Cisar
University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Mid-Florida and Ft. Lauderdale Research and Education Centers
acres harvested
7.
you had in sod production in Florida in 2007?
Please circle the letter or fill in the blanks as appropriate for
each item. When completed, use tape to seal the booklet, and drop
it in the mail (postage is provided). Thank you for your time and
comments.
Yes, change acreage _____
8.
1.
In 2008, do you plan to change the number of acres that
Is this business currently active in producing sod in
No, stay the same
_____
If yes, how do you plan to change the number of acres that
you have in sod production in Florida in 2008?
Florida?
Increase acreage by _______________ acres
Yes
______
No** ______ ** See introduction
OR
2.
production business?
9.
4.
What percentage of your total production is each of
these major grass types (enter percentage for those that
apply; answers must sum to 100%).
Grass
Florida Production
3.
Decrease acreage by ______________ acres
How many years has this company been in the sod
Percent
Bahia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
How many acres of sod did you have in production in
Bermuda. . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
Florida in 2006?
Centipede.. . . . . . . . . . . .
%
Seashore Paspalum .. . . .
%
St. Augustine. . . . . . . . . .
%
How many acres of sod did you have in production in
Zoysia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
Florida in 2007?
other.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
acres produced
acres produced
100%
-2-
-3-
10. If you grow Bahiagrass, what percent of it is each of the
following cultivars? (Enter percent for those that apply;
answers must sum to 100%.) In the price column, please
enter your average farm gate selling price (in cents) per
square foot (e.g. if 6 cents, enter <6’; if 8.5 cents, enter
<8.5’).
12. If you grow Centipedegrass, what percent of it is each of
the following cultivars? (Enter percent for those that
apply; answers must sum to 100%.) In the price column,
please enter your average farm gate selling price (in
cents) per square foot (e.g. if 6 cents, enter <6’; if 8.5
cents, enter <8.5’).
Bahiagrass Type
Centipedegrass Type
Percent
Avg. price
Percent
Avg. price
Argentine . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Common. . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Pensacola. . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Hammock. . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
other. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Tifblair .. . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
other. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Bahiagrass total
100%
Centipedegrass total
100%
11. If you grow Bermudagrass, what percent of it is each of
the following cultivars? (Enter percent for those that
apply; answers must sum to 100%.) In the price column,
please enter your average farm gate selling price (in
cents) per square foot (e.g. if 6 cents, enter <6’; if 8.5
cents, enter <8.5’).
13. If you grow Seashore Paspalum, what percent of it is
each of the following cultivars? (Enter percent for those
that apply; answers must sum to 100%.) In the price
column, please enter your average farm gate selling
price (in cents) per square foot (e.g. if 6 cents,enter <6’; if
8.5 cents, enter <8.5’).
Bermudagrass Type
Sea. Paspalum Type
Percent
Avg. price
Percent
Avg. price
Celebration.. . . . . . . .
%
¢
Aloha. . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Common.. . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Salam. . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Tifdwarf . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Seadwarf . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Tifeagle . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Seaisle 1. . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Tifsport . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Seaisle 2000. . . . . . . .
%
¢
Tifway .. . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Seaisle Supreme. . . . .
%
¢
other. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
other. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Bahiagrass total
100%
-4-
Sea. Paspalum total
100%
-5-
14. If you grow St. Augustinegrass, what percent of it is each
of the following cultivars? (Enter percent for those that
apply; answers must sum to 100%.) In the price column,
please enter your average farm gate selling price (in
cents) per square foot (e.g. if 6 cents,enter <6’; if 8.5
cents, enter <8.5’).
15. If you grow Zoysiagrass, what percent of it is each of the
following cultivars? (Enter percent for those that apply;
answers must sum to 100%.) In the price column, please
enter your average farm gate selling price (in cents) per
square foot (e.g. if 6 cents, enter <6’; if 8.5 cents, enter
<8.5’).
St. Augustine Type
Zoysiagrass Type
Percent
Avg. price
Percent
Avg. price
Bitterblue. . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Cashmere. . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Classic. . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Empire. . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Delmar . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Jamur . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Floratam . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Meyer . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Palmetto . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Palisades. . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Raleigh . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Ultimate. . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Sapphire . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
other. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Seville . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
Zoysiagrass total
other. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
¢
St. Augustine total
100%
100%
-6-
-7-
16. What percent of your total Florida sod farm acreage is
located in each map area (enter percentage for each that
applies; answers must sum to 100%). [These ‘area’ codes
are merely used to designate regions and are not the only
area codes in the map regions shown.].
17. How many people work for you in a turfgrass-related
capacity in each of the following categories?
a) Full time
b) Part time
c) Seasonal
18. In general, is your farm becoming more mechanized?
a) Yes, more mechanized
b) Staying the same
c) No, less mechanized
Harvesting/Marketing:
19. FOR EACH ACRE (43,560 ft2) of the following grass
types that you produce, roughly how many square feet
are sold (per acre) at each harvest, and how many
harvests are made per year?
Harvested ft 2
Grass Type
Harvests/yr.
Bahia.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Percent of
Map area
Bermuda. . . . . . . . . . . .
total acreage
Centipede .. . . . . . . . . .
850. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
904. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
352. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
407,321, 772.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
727,813.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
863. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
Totally automatic machine stacked
_______ %
941, 239. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
Semi-automatic (machine + hand stacked)
_______ %
561, 954, 305, etc.. . . . . . . . . . .
%
Hand stacked
_______ %
Total acreage of sod farms
-8-
St. Augustine . . . . . . . .
Zoysia . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20. What percent of your harvested sod is stacked by each of
these methods? (Answers must sum to 100%.)
100%
100 %
-9-
21. What percent of your sod is harvested in each of the
following ways? (Answers must sum to 100%.)
Big rolls (6 ft)
______ %
Mini-rolls (4 ft)
______ %
Slabs
______ %
25. What percent of your total sales from production in Florida
is shipped out of state?
_________ %
26. What percent of your total market is located in each of the
following distances from you? (Answers must sum to
100%.)
100 %
22. To whom do you sell your sod? (Please specify
percentages for those that apply. Answers must sum to
100%.)
Sales Category
Percent
a) Within 50 miles
%
b) 50 to 100 miles
%
c) Over 100 miles
%
Farm-to-Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27. After cutting and stacking, when is your sod shipped to its
destination? (Please indicate the percentage of total
shipments in each category. (Answers must sum to 100%.)
Broker (calls & arranges sales). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Re-wholesaler (takes delivery/redistributes). . . . . .
Commercial or residential developers . . . . . . . . . .
a) Shipped same day
%
b) Shipped next day
%
c) Shipped in 2 days
%
Independent retail garden centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Big box store garden centers
Landscape services (installation/maintenance)
Golf courses and/or sports/athletic fields
d) Delayed more than 2 days
Homeowners
Total
100 %
24. Compared to 2005–2006, has the market demand for
turfgrass in your area ....
a) Increased
_________ %
28. Do you own your own truck(s) for shipping sod?
a) Yes
b) No
If no, or if yes and you also hire other trucks, is it difficult
to obtain a truck when you need it?
b) Stayed the same
a) Yes
c) Decreased
-10-
b) Sometimes
-11-
c) No
Pricing/Quality
33.
31. What percent of quality-reducing damage occurs to sod at
each of the following locations? (Answers must sum to
100%.)
In the field
%
Harvesting/stacking
%
Shipping/unloading
%
After buyer receives it
%
a) No guarantee is offered. Once the sod is loaded on the
truck or delivered to the customer, the farm’s
responsibility ends.
b) The sod is guaranteed to be free of defects, including
being reasonably free of weeds and pests. Problems
must be reported within 24 hours of delivery and/or
installation. In the event of a problem, the farm’s
replacement policy covers product only.
100%
32. How do you determine what price to charge for your sod?
Please rank your top four considerations from 1 to 4. (1 =
used most often, 2 = used second most often, etc.)
Availability
_______
Cost of production
Highest price market will bear
Selling price of “others”
Which of the following statements best characterizes your
answer to the question “Do you offer your customers any
type of guarantee or quality assurance policy?”?
_______
c) The sod is guaranteed to be free of defects, including
being reasonably free of weeds and pests, and is
guaranteed to grow if maintained properly by the
customer. Problems must be reported within 15 days.
In the event of a problem, the farm’s responsibility
policy covers product only.
d) The sod is guaranteed to be free of defects, including
being free of weeds and pests, and is guaranteed to
grow if maintained properly by the customer.
Problems must be reported within 15 days. In the
event of a problem, the farm’s replacement policy
covers product, freight, and labor.
Quality of my sod
Other (please specify below)
-12-
-13-
Revenue and Expenses
34.
35. Which category best describes your total FLORIDA farm
gate TURF sales in 2006? (Choose appropriate range.)
Please indicate the percentage of your business’ total
annual sales generated by the following categories.
(Please specify percentages for those that apply.
Answers must sum to 100%.)
Percent of
Total Sales
Enterprise
Sod production.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
Sod-related distributor (shipping)
Sod-related farm supplier (equip.,
fert., pesticides, etc.). . . . . . . . . .
%
Sod-related landscape contract
services (install/maintenance,
etc.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
Food production (cattle, citrus, dairy,
vegetables, etc.).. . . . . . . . . . . . .
a)
Less than $100,000
b)
$100,000 – $249,999
c)
$250,000 – $499,999
d)
$500,000 – $999,999
e)
$1,000,000 – $1,999,999
f)
$2,000,000 – $3,999,999
g)
$4,000,000 – $5,999,999
h)
$6,000,000 – $7,999,999
i)
$8,000,000 – $9,999,999
j)
$10,000,000 or more; please specify the amount (rounded
to the nearest million).
%
Ornamentals production (bedding
plants, foliage, woodys, cut
foliages, etc.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
Other (please specify). . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
100%
-14-
-15-
Expense Information:
These next few items will be divided into three major categories:
1) Production Expenses;
2) Administration/Sales/Marketing Expenses; and
3) Sod Installation (Landscape) Expenses.
The total expenses from these three sections will add up to 100%.
Each of these categories is further divided into subcategories;
percentages of the subcategories will equal 100% of the total
percent that the category contributes to total expenses [e.g. as
shown below, Admin/Sales/Marketing is 35% of total (100%)
expenses; its subcategories add up to 35% of the total, but will add
up to 100% for the admin/sales/marketing portion.]
-16-
36. What percent of your business’ total costs PER ACRE are
attributable to each of these three major categories? (Total
must sum to 100%.)
_____ % PRODUCTION EXPENSES
(production-related salary, labor & office costs;
land preparation; fumigation; planting;
maintenance; irrigation; harvesting; contracting
associated with production/harvesting; royalties;
other production-related expenses)
_____ % ADMINISTRATION /SALES/MARKETING EXPENSES
(admin/sales/marketing salaries & labor; related
office expenses; advertising; transport; contracting;
other related expenses)
_____ % SOD INSTALLATION EXPENSES
(sod/landscape services-related salary, labor &
office costs; design & installation; maintenance;
other related costs)
-17-
37. Please estimate, as closely as possible, the percent of your
business’ total PRODUCTION -RELATED EXPENSES attributable
to each of the following activities. (DO NOT include initial site
preparation, e.g. stump removal, ditch construction, irrigation
and pump installation, etc.) Include all materials, supplies and
machinery costs – lease cost, capital cost, depreciation and
equipment operating costs (e.g. fuel, oil, maintenance &
repair). The total must equal 100%.
_____ % MANAGER/OWNER SALARY for production activities
38. Please estimate, as closely as possible, the percent of your
business’ total ADMINISTRATIVE /SALES-RELATED EXPENSES
attributable to each of the following activities. Include all
materials, supplies and machinery costs – lease cost, capital
cost, depreciation and equipment operating costs (e.g. fuel, oil,
maintenance & repair). The total must equal 100%.
_____ % MANAGER /OWNER SALARY for
Administration/Sales/Marketing
_____ % All LABOR costs (full, parttime & seasonal) for all
production activities such as those listed in the next
10 items
_____ % All LABOR costs (full, parttime, & seasonal) for all
administration/sales/marketing activities such as
those listed in the next 5 items.
_____ % Land preparation (weed control, cultivation,
harrowing, etc.)
_____ % Marketing & Administration (sales, collections,
phone/fax, office supplies, etc.)
_____ % Fumigation
_____ % Advertising
_____ % Planting (sod &/or seed + equipment operating
costs)
_____ % Transport costs
_____ % Production maintenance (mowing, fertilizing,
pesticides, herbicides, etc.)
_____ % Irrigation (water/pumping costs – e.g. maintenance
+ fuel/electricity)
_____ % Contracting costs (transport, etc.)
_____ % Other administration/sales/marketing activities
expenses (please specify)
_____ % Harvesting costs (equipment operating costs,
pallets, etc.)
_____ % Contracting costs associated with
production/harvesting activities
_____ % Royalties
_____ % Office expenses related to production
_____ % Other production activities expenses (please
specify)
-18-
-19-
39. Please estimate, as closely as possible, the percent of your
business’ total SOD INSTALLATION -RELATED expenses
attributable to each of the following activities. (Include all
materials, supplies and machinery costs – lease cost, capital
cost, depreciation and equipment operating costs (e.g. fuel, oil,
maintenance & repair). The total must equal 100%.
Individual Business Problems
_____ % MANAGER/OWNER SALARY for sod installation
Problem areas
40. Please rank the 3 most serious problems facing your
individual business. (Mark only 1 per column.)
Most
serious
_____ % All labor costs (full, parttime & seasonal) for sod
installation activities such as those listed in the next
4 items
FINANCIAL PRESSURES (e.g. fuel
_____ % Landscape design & installation
LABOR ISSUES (e.g. deficient
_____ % Landscape maintenance
_____ % Office expenses related to sod installation services
_____ % Other landscape services activities expenses (please
specify)
costs, insurance costs, labor
costs, taxes, etc.)
production skills, inability to
hire enough workers, etc.)
MARKET -RELATED PRESSURE
(e.g. distribution/delivery
problems, fly-by-night
competition, consumer
knowledge/awareness, etc.)
PRODUCTION -RELATED (e.g.
weeds, mole crickets/insects,
weather, maintenance of sod
in field, etc.)
REGULATORY /ENVIRONMENTAL
(e.g. loss of methyl bromide,
water restrictions on
producers/consumers,
dealing with government
agencies, etc.)
-20-
-21-
Second
most
serious
Third
most
serious
Industry Problems
You have completed the survey. Thank you! Your cooperation is
greatly appreciated.
41. Please rank the 3 most serious problems facing the
FLORIDA TURFGRASS INDUSTRY . (Mark only 1 per
column.)
Most
serious
Problem areas
Second
most
serious
Third
most
serious
If you have questions that you would like to have considered for
the next survey or comments that you would like to make, please
indicate them below.
FINANCIAL PRESSURES (e.g.
insurance costs, production
costs, economic slowdown,
low market prices, increase
in number of farms, etc.)
Thank you for your participation!
LABOR ISSUES (e.g. lack of
skilled labor, general
availability of workers, etc.)
MARKET -RELATED PRESSURE
(e.g. overproduction, price
undercutting, lack of
advertising, transportation,
consumer education, etc.)
PRODUCTION -RELATED (e.g. sod
quality, state certification,
need drought-resistant
grasses, insects and weed
controls, etc.)
REGULATORY /ENVIRONMENTAL
(e.g. water issues, loss of
land, pesticide labeling,
environmental concerns, etc.)
-22-
-23-