A SNAPSHOT OF TENNESSEE

AGRITOURISM: 2013 UPDATE

BY 

Kim Jensena, Megan Bruchb, Jamey Menarda, and Burt Englisha 

a Agri‐Industry & Modeling Analysis Group|AIM‐AG, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, The University of Tennessee, b Center for Profitable Agriculture, University of 

Tennessee Extension   

June 2013

ii

   

iii

Executive Summary 

This study used results from a statewide survey conducted in early 2013 to create a current

profile of agritourism, as well as potential issues that agritourism businesses face in startup or

daily operations. A total of 171 firms responded to the survey, most of which were operational

agritourism businesses.

Among agritourism firms, the most common types of businesses were on-farm retail markets,

school field trips/tours, event hosting, pick-your-own operations, hayride or wagon rides, farm

tours other than school field trips, on-farm gift shops, weddings, other family fun activities, and

pumpkin patches. In October, over 74 percent of the agritourism businesses were open, while in

January, only about 32 percent were open reflecting the seasonal nature of many agritourism

attractions. About 63 percent of the firms had less than $50,000 in sales in 2012. Agritourism

firms employ a combination of full- and part-time employees as well as both seasonal and year-

round employees. Many of the agritourism operations derived income from other farm sources

and also from off-farm sources. The median number of visits per farm in a year was 1,000 visits.

The mean expenditures per visit as estimated by the agritourism operators was $35.12, while the

median was $20. Visitor expenditures included admission, purchases of products, concessions,

souvenirs, and other expenditures.

The most commonly used methods of promotion included websites, Pick Tennessee

Products, Facebook business pages, road signs, brochures, email, and the TN Vacation Guide.

Among firms that had used Pick Tennessee Products, the Tennessee Vacation Guide and/or the

Tennessee Farm Fresh program, they believed it had increased their agritourism sales by over 9.3

percent.

The most cited types of business problems faced by these businesses included deciding how

to promote business, capital for infrastructure, staying current with new promotion, developing

advertising, identifying target customers, attracting customers to visit, keeping and evaluating

records, and finding employees.

Nearly 63 percent of the business operators had attended an agritourism or direct marketing

workshop, conference or tour sponsored by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Center for

iv

Profitable Agriculture and/or Tennessee Farm Fresh Program in the last three years. Among

those attending, the average estimate of their agritourism sales in 2012 that were influenced by

the information and/or assistance they obtained from the educational events they attended in the

last three years was a 19.9 percent increase.

When asked about their views on agritourism, most had the goal of attracting new customers

over the next two years, were optimistic about the future of the industry, and expected their sales

to increase in the future. Examples of limiting factors noted by the respondents were personal

characteristics, such as their age or lack of family members to pass the business on to, or

business issues such as profits, cash flow, or rising costs.

For the visitor expenditures at agritourism attractions, the direct estimated statewide

economic impacts were over $34.4 million, and with multiplier effects, over $54.2 million. These

visitor expenditure impacts only represent a portion of the economic impacts that may result

from these farms since many of the operators also relied on other sources of farm income.

This study was funded in part by grants and gifts from the Tennessee Agritourism Association, Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Farm Credit Mid-America, Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation, and USDA Rural Development.

v

 Table of Contents 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 

Survey Methods and Data ............................................................................................................... 2 

Results ............................................................................................................................................. 3 

Current Status of Businesses ........................................................................................................... 3 

Types of Agritourism and Sales ...................................................................................................... 6 

Land Use and Farm Products Sold ............................................................................................... 10 

Estimated Visits and Visitor Expenditures .................................................................................... 13 

Promotional Methods Used .......................................................................................................... 15 

Problems Faced by Agritourism Businesses ................................................................................. 18 

Workshops, Conferences, and Tours Attended by Agritourism Business Operators .................... 19 

Views by Agritourism Business Operators ................................................................................... 21 

Projected Economic Impacts from Agritourism ........................................................................... 22 

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 27 

References ..................................................................................................................................... 29 

Appendix A: Survey Instrument ................................................................................................... 30 

Appendix B: Answers to Text Questions..................................................................................... 40 

vi

List of Tables 

Table 1. Number of Full-, Part-Time, Seasonal, and Year Round Employees .............................. 5 

Table 2. Types of Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012 ......................................................... 7 

Table 3. Share of Estimated Sales From Type of Agritourism Business, 2012 ............................ 10 

Table 4. Farm Products Produced for Income on Agritourism Businesses, 2012 ....................... 12 

Table 5. Visitor Expenditures Across Type of Agritourism Businesses, 2012 ........................... 14 

Table 6. Promotional Methods Used by Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012 .................... 16 

Table 7. Types of Business Problems Faced by Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012 ........ 18 

Table 8. Ratings of Problems Faced by Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012 .................... 19 

Table 9. Views by Business Operators about Agritourism Business........................................... 21 

Table 10. Projected Visitor Expenditures at Tennessee Agritourism Venues, 2012 ................... 23 

Table 11. IMPLAN Sectors for Visitor Expenditures at Agritourism, 2012 ............................... 24 

Table 12. Relative Share of Sales by Type of Agritourism and IMPLAN Sector ...................... 25 

Table 13. Direct Values from Product Purchase by Visitors in IMPLAN Based on Relative

Income Shares and Expenditures .................................................................................................. 25 

Table 14. Projected Economic Impacts from Visitor Expenditures at Tennessee Agritourism

Sites, 2012 ..................................................................................................................................... 27 

vii

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Status of Tennessee Businesses Contacted, 2012…………………………………... 3

Figure 2. Percentage of Tennessee Agritourism Businesses Open by Month, 2012…………. 5

Figure 3. Percentages of Businesses Open in January, by Type of Agritourism Attraction…. 6

Figure 4. Percent of Operations Having Agritourism Type, Ten Most Common Types, 2012 8

Figure 5. Gross Sales Revenues from Agritourism Businesses, 2011-2012………………….. 9

Figure 6. Sources of Income, 2012……………….……………….……………….…………. 9

Figure 7. Acreage Use on Agritourism Farms……………………………………………….. 10

Figure 8. Acreage Dedicated to Agritourism and All Farm Acres……………………………. 11

Figure 9. Average Visitor Expenditures on Tennessee Agritourism Operations as

Estimated by Business Operators, 2012…………………………………………………….....

13

Figure 10. Helpfulness of Workshops, Conferences, or Tours……………………………….. 20

viii

1

Tennessee Agricultural Enhancement Program (TAEP), Producer Diversification   TAEP is a cost share assistance program for long term investments in Tennessee’s livestock and farming operations. Cost share assistance is offered to Tennessee farmers, agricultural organizations and public farmers’ market entities.  Agritourism is one focus area of the TAEP Producer Diversification Program. The program is administered by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture. From 2005 to 2012, 188 agritourism projects received $1,362,572 in funding from the program.  http://www.tn.gov/agriculture/enhancement/prod_divers.shtml 

A SNAPSHOT OF TENNESSEE AGRITOURISM: 2013 UPDATE

Introduction

Tennessee is in a unique position to participate in the agritourism industry with both the

agriculture and tourism industries contributing greatly to the state’s economy. Agritourism

provides Tennessee farmers a chance to build and diversify farm income by bringing the public

to the farm to purchase farm products and to learn about agriculture and enjoy recreational

activities. It also provides rural communities with the opportunity to gain additional economic

activity from tourism spending in their areas.

In 2003-2004, the University of Tennessee and the

Center for Profitable Agriculture, with support from the

Tennessee Agritourism Initiative partners, conducted a

survey of agritourism operators to obtain a snapshot of the

industry in the state (Jensen et al., 2005). Since that time,

the landscape and state of agritourism in Tennessee has

evolved. Resources have been invested in educational

programs, the Tennessee Agricultural Enhancement Cost-

Share Program (TAEP), and promotional programs to

potential consumers. In addition, changes in legislation and

lawsuits have altered the legal environment for agritourism

operators. New agritourism operations have been developed

and some existing operations have expanded or closed. As

agritourism operators and the Tennessee agritourism

industry partners plan for the future, it is important to have

an updated picture of where the industry stands now, almost

10 years from the previous study.

This study used results from a statewide survey

conducted in early 2013 to create a current profile of

2

agritourism, as well as potential issues that agritourism businesses face in startup or daily

operations. This information will be helpful in understanding the number and types of

agritourism enterprises that exist, challenges faced, assistance needed and ideas for future

programs. Based on the types of industries represented, economic impacts from visitor

expenditures at the agritourism operations across the state will also be projected. 

Specific objectives of this study are to:

• Provide industry information needed for individual business planning and development,

local and state policy development and enforcement, and resource allocation;

• Identify impacts and evaluate effectiveness of existing educational, cost-share, technical

assistance and promotion programs; and

• Identify needs for future educational and technical assistance programs.

SurveyMethodsandData

Existing and potential Tennessee

agritourism businesses were identified

through the Tennessee Department of

Agriculture’s Pick Tennessee Products

listings and/or referrals from County

Extension agents across the state. A total of

450 contacts identified for the survey. The

first survey mailing occurred January 4,

2013, with a follow up reminder postcard

mailed January 15, 2013. A second mailing to those contacts who had not responded was

conducted January 24, 2013. Of the contacts, 9 percent were bad addresses or the contact was

deceased or out of business, leaving 429 viable contacts. In total, 171 responded, for an overall

response rate of 39.9 percent.

3

83.0%

3.6%6.7% 6.7%

Currently OperateAgritourism Business

Do Not Currently OperateAgritourism, But Plan to inFuture

Do Not Currently OperateAgritourism, Did in Past

Do Not Currently OperateAgritourism, Do Not Planto in Future

A copy of the survey instrument can be found in the Appendix A of this document. The

survey contained questions about several topics. The respondents were asked about their

current agritourism status and information regarding the characteristics of the agritourism

operations. They were also asked about estimates of visitor expenditures at their operations and

their overall income, including agritourism based, other farm based, and non-farm

income. Respondents were asked about how they market their agritourism attraction and types

of challenges they face. The data are summarized with mean responses for continuous

questions such age, while categorical responses, such as types of agritourism attractions are

summarized with percentages. Throughout this document, the letter “N” denotes the number of

responses to a particular question or set of questions.

Results

CurrentStatusofBusinesses

To discover the percentage of businesses contacted that were still operating as agritourism

businesses, the respondents were asked about the current status of their agritourism operations.

Figure 1 displays information about the current business status of the respondents contacted.

The majority contacted, 83.0 percent, were currently operating an agritourism business. Another

3.6 percent currently did not

operate an agritourism business

but planned to in the future. An

additional 6.7 percent had

operated an agritourism

business but were no longer

doing so. About 6.7 percent

did not operate an agritourism

business and had no plans to do

so.

(N=165) 

Figure 1. Status of Tennessee Businesses Contacted, 2012 

4

For those who were no longer in the agritourism business, they were asked why they had left

agritourism. The reasons why former agritourism operators were no longer in business included

that:

they just wanted to do something else,

they could not attract enough customers or make enough sales,

liability was too big of a risk,

they didn’t have enough help or cooperation from family,

illness, and

their local school systems stopped field trips.

A total of 10 cited some reason why they left agritourism, with these reasons being

distributed widely across the reasons above. However, the most common response (30%) was

that they could not attract enough customers or make sales. Among those currently operating an

agritourism business, they had been in business for an average of 11.4 years, while the median

was 9 years (N=132).

The average numbers of employees on agritourism operations, by employee type, are shown

in Table 1. Among all firms there was an average of 1.7 seasonal full-time employees, 4.5

seasonal part-time employees, 2.3 year round full-time employees, and 2.0 year round part-time

employees. The second column provides these averages only for the agritourism operations that

have these types of employees. For these operations, there was an average of 5.5 seasonal full-

time employees, 7.7 seasonal part-time employees, 3.7 year round full-time employees, and 4.8

year round part-time employees. Most firms appeared to use a combination of seasonal part-time

employees and year round full-time employees. If we assume part time employees work about 20

hours a week and use the information that the average operation is open 180.9 days per year,

then the average number of employees on a full-time equivalent basis would be 5.3=

5

31.8%34.1%

41.5%

57.0%60.7%64.4%

62.2%59.2%

71.1%74.8%

62.2%

51.9%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

Jan FebMar AprMay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

[(1.7+4.5*.5)*180.9 + (2.3+2.0*.5)*365]/365. Across the 510 agribusiness firms statewide

according to the 2007 Census, this would be about 2,703 employees statewide.1

Table 1.  Number of Full‐, Part‐Time, Seasonal, and Year Round Employees 

On average, the firms were open 180.9 days per year (N=130). Figure 2 shows the percent of

the firms that were open in particular months of the year. The month in which the highest

percentage of agritourism

operations was open was

October at 74.8 percent--

likely reflecting importance of

Fall-oriented activities and

school field trip visits. Not

surprisingly, January was the

month with the lowest

percentage of businesses

being open (31.8 percent).

1 The 2007 Census of Agriculture reports a total of 510 farms providing agritourism and recreational services. The 2012 Census is ongoing and economic impacts projections could change with the new estimates of the number of agritourism operations when available.

  Average Number of Employees   

 Employee Type 

 All Operations 

(N=125) 

Operations with Employee 

Type 

Percent with Employee Type 

(N=125) Seasonal Employees       

Full time  1.7   5.5 (N=39)  31.2% Part time  4.5  7.7 (N=73)  58.4% 

Year Round Employees       Full time  2.3  3.7 (N=77)  61.6% Part time  2.0   4.8 (N=53)  42.4% 

Figure 2. Percentage of Tennessee Agritourism Businesses Open by Month, 2012 

6

Whether the attraction was open in January was compared across types of attractions. Those

businesses for which at least 25 percent were open in January are shown in Figure 3. Notably,

those with wineries, music, bed and breakfasts, horseback riding were most likely to be open.

Figure 3.  Percentages of Businesses Open in January, by Type of Agritourism Attraction 

TypesofAgritourismandSales

As seen in Table 2, among the firms currently operating an agritourism business, the most

common types of businesses were on-farm retail markets, school field trips/tours, event hosting,

pick-your-own operations, hayride or wagon rides, and farm tours other than school field trips,

on-farm gift shops, weddings, other family fun activities, and pumpkin patches. The

percentages of farms having one or more of the ten most common types of businesses are shown

in Figure 4. Over 40 percent of the firms had on-farm retail businesses and/or hosted school

field trips. Some of the least common types of agritourism businesses were on-farm fee fishing,

horseback riding, music/theatre, and ziplines. Over 30 percent had event hosting and/or pick-

your-own operations. Among other types of attractions reported that were not listed as options in

25.0% 27.3% 29.8% 30.3% 31.3% 31.8%38.7%

42.9% 44.4%50.0%

64.3% 66.7%

87.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

% Open in

 Jan

Type of Agritourism Attraction N=132 

7

the survey question were historical settlements, Amish stores, bakeries, dinners, gardens,

greenhouses, guest ranches, museums, grain mill and museum, playgrounds, and traveling zoos.

On average, the respondents had 4.7 types of attractions. The median number of attractions was

4 (N=134). The percentages in Table 2 are similar to those found in the 2003/2004 study of

Tennessee agritourism (Jensen et al. 2005).

Table 2.  Types of Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012  

Type of Agritourism Business Percent of Respondents 

(N=134) 

On Farm Retail Market (Offering Farm Products)  43.3% 

School Field Trips/Tours  41.8% 

Event Hosting – Birthday Parties, Corporate Event, Etc.  35.8% 

Pick‐Your‐Own Operation  32.8% 

Hayride Or Wagon Ride  29.1% 

Farm Tours Other Than School Field Trips  26.1% 

On‐Farm Gift Shop  24.6% 

Event Hosting – Weddings  23.9% 

Other Family Fun Activities  20.9% 

Pumpkin Patch  20.1% 

Farm Animal Exhibit  19.4% 

On‐Farm Food Service, Concessions, Café, Or Restaurant  17.9% 

On‐Farm Workshops Or Classes  16.4% 

Maze (Corn, Sorghum, Hay)  14.9% 

Farm Animal Petting  14.9% 

Other Major Attraction  14.9% 

Winery  12.7% 

On‐Farm Bed & Breakfast Or Other Lodging    11.2% 

Cut‐Your‐Own Christmas Trees   9.7% 

Haunted Attraction  6.7% 

Day Camp  6.7% 

On‐Farm Camping  6.0% 

On‐Farm Fee Fishing  6.0% 

On‐Farm Horseback Riding  5.2% 

Music Concerts Or Contests, Theatre Shows, Plays, Etc.  4.5% 

Zipline  2.2% 

8

Figure 4.  Percent of Operations Having Agritourism Type, Ten Most Common Types, 2012 

The percentages of businesses that had sales within the given sales categories for 2011 and

2012 are shown in Figure 5. For both 2011 and 2012, over 14% had sales of less than $2,500. A

group of firms constituting about 18-20% of firms have sales of $10,000-$24,999. About 14-

15% of firms have $250,000 or more in sales. Comparing 2012 with 2011, the percent in the top

two largest sales categories fell, while the percentages in the smallest and moderate size

($10,000-$24,999) rose. If the mid-points of the sales categories are used as sales estimates and

$1,000,000 is used as the top category, the average sales is projected at $135,302.70, while the

median value is $17,500 reflecting the large number of relatively small operations.

43.3% 41.8%

35.8%32.8%

29.1%26.1% 24.6% 23.9%

20.9% 20.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

(N=134)

9

Figure 5. Gross Sales Revenues from Agritourism Businesses, 2011‐2012 

 

The businesses surveyed received

about 40.8 percent of their income from

agritourism (Figure 6). While over 26

percent was derived from other farm

sources, and nearly 31.0 percent was

derived from off-farm sources. Only

about 16.0 percent of the respondents

relied solely on income from agritourism.

        

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

13.6%

7.2%

10.4%

19.2%

12.0%

5.6%4.8%

11.2%

16.0%14.8%

6.3%

10.2%

20.3%

11.7%

4.7% 6.3%

10.9%

14.8%

2011 2012

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Agritourism Other FarmSources

NonfarmSources

40.8% 26.8% 30.9%

Percent of Income

(N=119) 

(N=125 for 2011, N=128 for 2012) 

Figure 6. Sources of Income, 2012 

10

Agritourism, 42.5, 16.8%

Other Uses, 208, 83.2%

Table 3. Share of Estimated Sales From Type of Agritourism Business, 2012   

Survey respondents were asked to

indicate what percentage of their sales

came from each attraction type in their

agritourism enterprise. As can be seen

in Table 3, those with wineries

estimated that 87.1 percent of their

sales came from the winery itself. For

Christmas tree operations, the share from Christmas trees was 75.0 percent. On-farm retail

markets estimated sales from the market part of the operation was 46.2 percent. Operations with

pick-your-owns indicated 44.8 percent of sales came from that activity. Pumpkin patches, corn

mazes, other family fun, school trips, on-farm food, classes, gift shops, hayrides, tours, and event

hosting all appeared to be part of more diversified operations sales-wise. Attraction types with

less than ten enterprises responding were not included in Table 3.

LandUseandFarmProductsSold

The average number of acres per farm involved in

agritourism businesses were 42.0 acres and the median

number of acres was 12 acres (N=115). The average

number of all acres on farms involved in agritourism are

250.0, while the median farm acres was 73 (N=115).

Type of Business 

Percent of Sales Among those With Business Type 

Winery (N=16)  87.1 Christmas Trees (N=10)  75.0 On‐Farm Retail Markets (N=48) 

46.2 

Pick‐Your‐Own (N=30)  44.8 Pumpkin Patch (N=10)  28.3 Corn Maze (N=10)  28.3 Other Family Fun (N=11)  22.2 School Field Trips (N=37)  19.3 On‐Farm Food (N=16)  16.8 Classes or Workshops (N=12)  15.8 Weddings (N=20)  13.7 Gift Shop (N=20)  13.8 Hayride (N=16)  10.1 Tours (N=22)  9.4 Event Hosting (N=30)  7.1 

Figure 7.  Acreage Use on Agritourism Farms 

(N=115) 

11

Using the average number of acres per farm and the average number of acres involved in

agritourism, the number of acres directly involved in the agritourism portion of the farms

represented 16.8 percent of total acres (Figure 7).

The acreage dedicated to agritourism and all farm acreage were classified into size categories

and percentages in each size category were calculated as shown in Figure 8. Notably, many

producers had more than 105 acres on their farm (43.9 percent), but many also dedicated 15 or

less acres to agritourism (51.6 percent). Farms with less than 15 total acres accounted for 12.2

percent of respondents. The average share of acres on farms dedicated to agritourism is 63.1

percent, but the median was much lower at 20 percent (N=115).

Most agritourism operators, 81.0 percent, produced and sold a product from their farm for

income purposes (N=133). As shown in Table 4, a variety of farm products were produced on

the farm for income. Most common agricultural crops produced were berries (other than

strawberries) at 27.1 percent, pumpkins (24.8 percent), vegetables (20.3 percent), and corn (19.5

percent). For livestock, about one fifth of the farmers sold cattle and calves for income. Other

12.2%

51.6%

8.9%

16.9%12.2%

8.9%12.2%

4.8%3.3%2.4%1.6% 2.4%

5.7% 3.2%

43.9%

9.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Total Acres Agritourism Acres

Percent in Acreage Category

<15 15 to 29 30 to 44 45 to 59

60 to 74 75 to 89 90 to 104 105 and greater

Figure 8. Acreage Dedicated to Agritourism and All Farm Acres

12

products constituted about 15.0 percent. Other products not provided in the list of choices on the

survey included alpacas, broom corn, daylilies, fish (for example trout or salmon), herbs,

flowers, loufah sponges, milo, pheasants, rabbits, sweet sorghum, stone ground corn meal, value-

added soap and candles, wheat straw, and wine. This was followed by eggs at 9.8 percent and

goats at 8.3 percent.

Table 4.  Farm Products Produced for Income on Agritourism Businesses, 2012 

Crops % Producing (N=133)  Livestock and Other 

% Producing (N=133) 

Blueberries, Blackberries or Raspberries 

27.1%  Cattle and Calves  21.8% 

Pumpkins  24.8%  Other   15.0% Vegetables  20.3%  Eggs  9.8% 

Corn  19.5%  Goats  8.3% 

Grapes  15.8%  Timber  7.5% 

Hay  14.3%  Sheep  6.8% 

Greenhouse/ Nursery Plants  12.8%  Honey  6.0% 

Soybeans  10.5%  Poultry  6.0% 

Strawberries  9.8%  Hogs  4.5% 

Apples  9.0%  Dairy Products  3.8% 

Christmas Trees  8.3%     

Wheat  8.3%     

Other Fruit  6.7%     

Peaches  5.3%     

Cotton  2.3%     

Tobacco  2.3%     

       

13

13.4%

63.4%

3.1%

4.2%15.9%

Admission Purchases of Products

Concessions Souvenirs

Other

Figure 9. Average Visitor Expenditures on Tennessee Agritourism Operations as Estimated by Business Operators, 2012

EstimatedVisitsandVisitorExpenditures

As part of the survey, the agritourism

business operators were asked about their

estimates of how much visitors spend, on

average, at their attractions. On average,

overall expenditures by visitors were

$35.12 per visit (N=105). Expenditures

over $1,000 were omitted since the

majority of the expenditures represent

smaller amounts. The percentages of

visitor expenditures by type are shown in

Figure 9. Over 63 percent of expenditures

by visitors were estimated to come from

purchases of products from the farm.

Admissions accounted for 13.4 percent of

expenditures, while souvenirs were about

4.2 percent, and concessions were around

3.1 percent. Other types of expenditures

were about 15.9 percent. Other

expenditures encompassed activities not included in admission, lodging, additional trips, and

workshop fees. The median expenditure was $20. About 36.2 percent of the firms charged an

admission fee. Among those charging admission fees, the average expenditure was $20.19, while

among those not charging admission fees, the average expenditure was $43.59. For those

businesses charging an admission, average admission expenditure was about $12.95 or 64.2% of

visitor expenditures. Among those businesses that did not charge admission, about $32.56 or

74.7% of visitor expenditures were on purchases of products, while this number was $4.08 or

20.2% for those charging admission.

Expenditure values can be compared with the 2003 study of agritourism businesses. Using

those with estimated expenditures of less than $75 which was 90 percent of the 2003/2004

  Overall Charge 

Admission 

Do Not Charge 

Admission

 

Admission $4.69 $12.95  $0.00   

Purchases of Products

$22.25 $4.08  $32.56   

Concessions $1.10 $1.47  $0.89   

Souvenirs $1.48 $1.54  $1.44   

Other  $5.60  $0.15  $8.70   

Total   $35.12  $20.19  $43.59   

14

sample, the average expenditure was $18.45. Using these same criteria, the average expenditure

among those spending less than $75 (86.0 percent of the sample), was $19.49 very similar to the

value of the prior study.

As can be seen in Table 5, if an agritourism business had a certain type of business, this

tended to influence the level of visitor expenditure. For example, venues with on-farm fee

fishing, other attractions, classes or workshops, bed and breakfasts or lodging, other family fun,

or event hosting tended to have higher average per visitor expenditures as estimated by the

business owners. Among those with the lowest visitor expenditures were corn mazes, ziplines,

haunted attractions, and petting zoos. It is important to note that many agritourism businesses

included several types of attractions, so these averages simply represent those across whether or

not they had that type of attraction. As an example, on average visitors spent $66.53 per person

at agritourism businesses which offered on-farm classes, while on average visitors spent $30.12

at agritourism businesses which did not offer on-farm classes.

Table 5.  Visitor Expenditures Across Type of Agritourism Businesses, 2012     Expenditure per Visitor Across 

Whether Business Has Type of Attraction (N=103) 

Type of Attraction    Yes  No 

On‐Farm Fee Fishing    $122.17  $30.05 

On‐Farm Workshops or Classes    $66.53  $30.12 

Other Attractions  $64.17  $30.90 

On‐Farm Bed and Breakfast/Lodging  $56.43  $33.89 

Other Family Fun Activities  $41.00  $33.82 

Event Hosting‐Birthdays, Corporate Events, Etc.  $38.83  $33.43 

On‐Farm Retail Market    $36.30  $34.70 

Event Hosting ‐Weddings    $34.90  $35.59 

On‐Farm Camping  $34.80  $35.45 

Pumpkin Patch  $34.02  $35.82 

Winery    $31.91  $36.02 

Music Concerts or Contests, Theatre Shows, Etc.  $27.80  $35.81 

Cut‐Your‐Own Christmas Trees  $26.30  $36.40 

On‐Farm Gift Shop  $23.23  $39.54 

School Field Trips/Tours  $21.86  $39.77 

Day Camp  $18.30  $36.50 

15

Table 5. Continued. 

  Expenditure per Visitor Across Whether Business Has Type of 

Attraction (N=103) Type of Attraction  Yes  No 

Pick‐Your‐Own Operation  $17.36  $44.72 

On‐Farm Food Service,  Concessions, Etc.  $17.31  $39.52 

Farm Animal Exhibits  $17.04  $40.41 

Horseback Riding  $14.86  $36.25 

Petting Zoo  $14.05  $39.64 

Corn Maze    $12.24  $40.33 

Zipline  $12.00  $35.88 

Haunted Attractions  $11.25  $37.46 

Overall, the business operators estimated they had 15,932 visits per operation per year

(N=110). Across the responding operations, the total visits is 1,752,520 (N=110). The median

number of visits was 1,000 visits per year, suggesting that the majority of operations fell toward

the smaller number of visits. The median of 1,000 visits per year is the same as that from the

prior study in 2003/2004 (Jensen et al., 2005). If the number of visitors is compared across

whether the operations were open more than 180 days out of the year, those open fewer days had

5,434 visitors on average, while those open more than 180 had an average of 30,537 visitors.

If the average number of visitors are multiplied by the average expenditure in Figure 9, then

the overall expenditures per operation can be estimated (15,932 x $35.12= $559,531.80 per

operation). If the median number of visitors (1,000) and median expenditure per visitor ($20.00)

are used then the estimate of overall expenditures per operation at the medians is $20,000 per

operation.  

PromotionalMethodsUsed

As can be seen from Table 6, the most commonly used forms of promotion were a business’s

website, followed by use of the Tennessee Department of Agriculture’s Pick Tennessee Products

program, a business’s Facebook page, road signs, brochures, email, the TN Vacation Guide,

newspaper, and the local Chamber of Commerce.

16

Table 6.  Promotional Methods Used by Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012 

Promotional Method  Percent Using (N=133) 

Website  82.7% Pick Tennessee Products  65.2% Facebook Business Page  60.2% Road Signs  56.4% Brochures  53.4% Email  45.9% TN Vacation Guide  42.9% Newspaper  42.1% Chamber of Commerce  41.4% Festivals  36.8% 

Regional, county or local tourism guides or websites 30.8% Radio Advertising  25.6% 

Tennessee Agritourism Association Membership  24.4% Tennessee Farm Fresh Program  23.3% News Releases  20.3% Coupons  18.8% Other  16.5% Billboards  15.8% 

On‐line deals (Groupon, Social Living) 15.8% Point of Sale Samples  13.5% Mailings  12.8% Television Advertising  12.0% Twitter  10.5% 

Agritourismsworld.com  9.8% 

Sponsorships/partnership marketing 9.8% Facebook Ads  6.8% Google Ads  6.0% Pinterest  6.0% Blogs  5.3% Media Days  3.8% 

Other forms of promotion listed by the business operators were word of mouth, Local Table,

food fairs, wine trail, local festivals, local farmers markets, hosting free events such as Vietnam

Veterans Memorial Wall, Christmas tree growers associations, AHS website advertising,

festivals, magazines, American Herbalist Guild listing, vacation lodging sites, movie theater

video commercial ad that ran before every movie, and NC and Appalachian Trail courses.

17

Pick Tennessee Products                                                                                                      The Pick Tennessee Products program is administered by the Tennessee  Department of Agriculture.  The program assists farmers/producers as well  as manufacturers/processors that produce fresh agricultural products or food products with promotion and marketing under the Pick Tennessee Products logo. http://www.picktnproducts.org/index.html  Tennessee Farm Fresh                                                                                                                 Tennessee Farm Fresh is a specialized program in cooperation with the Tennessee Farm Bureau and the Tennessee Department of Agriculture. This program is in place o assist producers market their Farm Fresh products and to assist in educating consumers on how to find them. http://www.tnfarmfresh.com/

Tennessee Agritourism Association                                                               The mission of the Association is to promote quality growth and  development of agritourism inTennessee. The Association arose  through the Tennessee Agritourism Initiative spearheaded by the  Tennessee Departments of Agriculture, Tourist Development, and Economic and Community Development, University of Tennessee Extension and the Tennessee Farm Bureau federation. The members of this association have voluntarily associated themselves together in an organization to carry out the following purposes a) Provide informational, networking, educational, and other activities that support agritourism operations, and b) Promote the growth of agritourism throughout the State of Tennessee. http://tennesseeagritourism.org/TNFarms/. 

The businesses were asked if their venue was promoted by Pick Tennessee Products, the

Tennessee Vacation Guide and/or the Tennessee Farm Fresh program, by what percent they

estimate the promotional assistance influenced their agritourism sales in 2012. About 79.7

percent had used one or more of these services. The average change in sales was a 9.3 percent

increase in 2012 (N=104). Using the midpoint of the 2012 sales category (for example $25,000

to $49,999 is $37,500) and multiplying each by the estimated percent change provides an

estimate of change in sales. The estimated average change in sales due to the promotion is

$13,435.60 (N=102) and the median is $1,031.25. If the value of $13,435.60 is used along with

79.7 percent of firms using these services, across the 510 agritourism businesses statewide (2007

Census of Agriculture) the projected 2012 sales impact is about $5,461,168.

18

ProblemsFacedbyAgritourismBusinesses

Table 7 displays results regarding which issues were considered to be problems faced by the

agritourism businesses. Problems experienced by at least half the businesses included attracting

customers to visit, deciding how to promote business, capital for infrastructure, staying current

with new promotion, developing advertising, identifying target customers, and keeping and

evaluating records.

Table 7.  Types of Business Problems Faced by Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012 

Issue  N Percent Considering  Issue as a Problem 

Attracting customers to visit  125  71.2 Deciding how to promote business  128  71.1 Capital for infrastructure  132  68.2 Staying current with new promotion  126  66.7 Developing advertising  128  60.1 Identifying target customers  125  57.5 Keeping and evaluating records  132  53.0 Finding employees  128  48.4 Dealing with increased competition  129  45.0 Obtaining liability insurance   130  43.1  Obtaining permission for roadside signage  131  40.5 Maintaining visitor safety  131  40.5 Training and managing employees  128  38.3 Understanding labor regulations  128  32.8 Scheduling tours  128  30.5  Obtaining financing   128  29.7 Scheduling employees  127  29.9 Obtaining required permits  126  27.8 Providing excellent customer service  138  25.0 Facing challenges with local zoning  129  20.2 Meeting health department requirements  128  18.0 Maintaining good relationships with neighbors  130  17.7 Working with family members  129  16.3 

In Table 8, results are presented regarding the seriousness of the problem believed by

those to be an issue. The issue which rated as a moderate to serious problem was obtaining

permission for roadside signage. This was followed by obtaining financing, liability insurance,

capital for infrastructure, and finding employees. Examples of additional problems not on the

19

list provided in the survey included access to resources, such as county water, additional land,

road access, building cash flow during off season, competing with large retailers, a slowed

economy, weather issues, and wildlife issues. For a listing of additional problems, see Appendix

B at the end of this document.

 Table 8.  Ratings of Problems Faced by Tennessee Agritourism Businesses, 2012 

Issue  N Rating (1=somewhat, 

2=moderate, 3=serious) 

Obtaining permission for roadside signage  53  2.2 Obtaining financing   38  1.9 Obtaining liability insurance   56  1.9 Capital for infrastructure  90  1.8 Finding employees  62  1.8 Attracting customers to visit  89  1.7 Deciding how to promote business  91  1.7 Developing advertising  77  1.7 Obtaining required permits  35  1.6 Facing challenges with local zoning  26  1.6 Identifying target customers  73  1.5 Training and managing employees  49  1.5 Dealing with increased competition  58  1.4 Understanding labor regulations  42  1.4 Scheduling tours  39  1.4 Scheduling employees  38  1.4 Meeting health department requirements  23  1.4 Staying current with new promotion  84  1.3 Keeping and evaluating records  70  1.3 Maintaining good relationships with neighbors  23  1.3 Working with family members  21  1.3 Maintaining visitor safety  53  1.3 Providing excellent customer service  32  1.2 

 

Workshops,Conferences,andToursAttendedbyAgritourismBusiness

Operators

Nearly 63 percent of the business operators had attended an agritourism or direct marketing

workshop, conference, or tour sponsored by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Center for

20

Profitable Agriculture and/or Tennessee Farm Fresh Program in the last 3 years (N=132). All

respondents who attended found the workshop, conference, or tour helpful on some level. As

shown in Figure 10, about 59.8 percent found the events very helpful, while 31.7 percent found

them somewhat helpful (N=82). Among those attending, the average estimate of percent of their

agritourism sales in 2012 that were influenced by the information and/or assistance they obtained

from the educational events they attended in the last 3 years was a 19.9 percent increase (N=77).

Using the midpoint of the 2012 sales category (for example $25,000 to $49,999 is $37,500) and

multiplying each by the estimated percent change provides an estimate of change in sales. The

estimate of the change in sales due to workshop participation is $23,516.67 on average (N=72).

The median value is $3,500. If the mean value of $23,516.67 is multiplied by 63 percent

attending and the 510 farms reported to be in agritourism (2007 Census of Agriculture), the total

projected value to agritourism operators from workshop participation would be about

$7,555,906.

When asked how they would use information learned from workshops, conferences, or tours,

a variety of responses were provided. These are listed in detail in Appendix B of this document.

However, many cited being more capable to

deal with business issues, such as marketing,

online/social networking presence, hiring and

managing employees, logistics management,

signage development and permission,

obtaining insurance, and dealing with laws,

regulations, and taxes.

Figure 10. Helpfulness of Workshops, Conferences, or Tours 

59.8%31.7%

8.5% Very helpful

SomewhathelpfulSlightlyhelpful

(N=82)

21

The respondents were also asked about suggestions for future educational events. A detailed

listing of these responses is also provided in Appendix B. Examples of some of the responses

included, understanding new health insurance changes, serving bus tours, festivals setup and

management, having more local speakers and leaders in specific segments of the industry,

breakout sessions according to level of experience, laws and regulations compliance, help

applying for grants, facilities tours, and industry segment specific information.

ViewsbyAgritourismBusinessOperators

As shown by level of agreement with statements about agritourism in Table 9, the agritourism

operators appeared to be optimistic about the future of agritourism, planned to attract more

customers, and expected to increase sales. The respondents somewhat disagreed with the

statement that they would exit agritourism in the next 5 years.

Table 9.  Views by Business Operators about Agritourism Business 

Statement About Agritourism Business  Agreementa 

My goals include attracting more customers over the next 2 years (N=133)  4.6 

I am optimistic about the future of the agritourism industry in Tennessee (N=134)  4.5 

I expect my sales to increase in the future (N=133)  4.5 

My agritourism operation is successful (N=133)  4.3 

I plan to expand the number of products (N=133)  4.3 

My agritourism operation is profitable (N=128)  3.8 

I expect to hire more employees in 2013 than I did in 2012 (N=133)  3.8 

I plan to exit the agritourism business in the next 5 years (N=132)  2.6 a Strongly Disagree=1, Somewhat Disagree=2, No Opinion=3, Somewhat Agree=4, Strongly Agree=5 

Agritourism Education Educational programs for farmers interested in agritourism and agritourism have been held frequently in Tennessee since 2003. The educational programs have been made possible through the funds and efforts of the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, the Center for Profitable Agriculture, the Tennessee Farm Bureau, USDA Rural Development, the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development, Tennessee Agritourism Association and other supporting organizations. Seven multi‐day, state‐wide conferences have been held in various parts of the state, and two, three‐day tours of operations in multiple states have been offered. In addition, many regional and local workshops and tours focusing on issues important to the success of agritourism and direct marketing operations have been held. Educational publications related to agritourism and direct marketing have also been developed. For more information about educational opportunities for agritourism operators visit https://ag.tennessee.edu or contact the Center for Profitable Agriculture at cpa@utk.edu.  

22

The respondents were asked

what the most limiting factors that

may prevent them from reaching

goals for their agritourism

operations were. A detailed listing

is provided in Appendix B. Some

cited personal characteristics, such

as their age or lack of family

members to pass the business on to,

others cited business issues such as profits, cash flow, or rising costs. Others listed issues

particular to their local area such as competition, school trip policies, lack of community

support, and being located in very rural areas away from large populations. Others cited

natural events, such as weather and pests.

The respondents were also asked what one resource, information, or assistance they would

most need to reach their goals for their agritourism operation. A detailed listing is provided in

Appendix B. Several listed additional promotional assistance, additional TAEP grant money,

horticultural Extension assistance, business training such as record and bookkeeping, managing

labor issues, and financial help, such as low interest loans to develop new attractions.

ProjectedEconomicImpactsfromAgritourism

The 2007 Census of Agriculture reports a total of 510 farms providing agritourism and

recreational services and is used in making statewide economic impacts projections. Because the

medians and means for visits per operation and expenditures per operation differ widely, it was

decided to break down the firms into those falling at or above the median of 1,000 visits and

those have below 1,000 visits. As shown in Table 10, mean expenditures by category were

calculated for these two sizes of firms. The 510 firms was then multiplied by the percent falling

at or above 1,000 visitors (60.6 percent) and below 1,000 visitors (39.4 percent ) to project 309

23

firms falling in the larger visits category and 201 in the smaller visits category. The median of

visits among the firms with at least 1,000 visits was 5,000, while the median of visits among

firms with less than 1,000 visits was 200. The projected number of firms in each category and

the median number of visits were used for each category, along with the mean expenditures for

both categories of firms to arrive at estimates of statewide expenditures for both firm categories.

Table 10.  Projected Visitor Expenditures at Tennessee Agritourism Venues, 2012 

  Per Person Expenditures Statewide Total Expenditure 

Projections  

Type of Expenditure  ≥1000 Visits  <1000 Visits  ≥1000 Visits  <1000 Visits  All Admission  $3.70  $6.17  $5,716,500  $248,034   $5,964,534  

 

Purchases of Products 

$12.83  $36.38  $19,822,350  $1,462,476  

 

$21,284,826  

 Concessions  $1.23  $0.92  $1,900,350  $36,984   $1,937,334  

 Souvenirs  $1.48  $1.48  $2,286,600  $59,496   $2,346,096  

 Other  $1.42  $11.88  $2,193,900  $477,576   $2,671,476  

 Total  $20.66 

$56.83 

 $31,919,700  $2,284,566   $34,204,266 

*Per person expenditures multiplied by median number of visitors for each size category (5,000 visitors and 200 visitors) and projected number of firms (309 firms and 201 firms).

In order to project the economic impacts of these visitors’ on-site expenditures, the total

expenditures and expenditures by category were used with IMPLAN. As shown in Table 11,

admission or user fees expenditures were classified as IMPLAN sector 410, Other Amusement

and Recreation. Other food and drink was classified as sector 413, Food Service and Drinking

Places, and non-food souvenir items as sector 329, Retail Stores-General Merchandise. Because

many of the respondents indicated that their other expenditures were for games and activities

inside the venue, other was classified as 410, Other Amusement and Recreation.

 

24

Table 11.  IMPLAN Sectors for Visitor Expenditures at Agritourism, 2012 Type of Expenditure  IMPLAN Sector 

Admission  410, Other Amusement & Recreation Purchases of Products  See Table 12 Concessions  413, Food Service And Drinking Places Souvenirs  329, Retail Stores ‐ General Merchandise  Other  410, Other Amusement & Recreation Total   

Purchases of specific types of products were not asked in the survey. However, the farm

operators were asked about the shares of sales they derived from various types of agritourism

operations (See Table 3). These values were re-calculated for all firms, not just those with that

type of operation, and then across firms with at least 1,000 visits and those firms having less than

1,000 visits.

Those firms with at least 1,000 visits had about 18.8 percent of their sales from on-farm retail

markets, 6.1 percent from pick-your-own, 6.8 percent from cut-your-own Christmas trees, 4.8

percent from corn mazes, 4.4 percent from pumpkin patches, and 20.9 percent from wineries.

The shares relative to each other (found by summing to get a total from these types of products

and taking the share to each specific type of product) are calculated and are in the third column

of Table 12. Those firms with less than 1,000 visits had about 25.6 percent of their sales from

on-farm retail markets, 19.8 percent from pick-your-own, 9.5 percent from cut-your-own

Christmas trees, .6 percent from corn mazes, 2.0 percent from pumpkin patches, and 4.6 percent

from wineries. The shares relative to each other (found by summing to get a total from these

types of products and taking the share to each specific type of product) are calculated and are in

the fourth column of Table 12.

Based upon the relative sales shares, direct total industry output shares were assigned for

products purchased from on farm-retail markets (half assigned to fruit farming, IMPLAN sector

4, and half assigned to vegetable farming, IMPLAN sector 3), wineries (sector 72), pick-your-

own (assigned to fruit farming, IMPLAN sector 4), cut-your-own Christmas trees (sector 6),

pumpkin patches (assigned to vegetable farming, sector 3), and corn mazes (sector 2, grain

farming). The relative shares to each of these sectors is multiplied by the projection of statewide

25

expenditures on product purchases to get the projected amount allocated to each type of

purchased product, shown in Table 13.

Table 12.  Relative Share of Sales by Type of Agritourism and IMPLAN  Sector   Share of All 

Sales Relative Shares   

Type of Business ≥1000 Visits 

<1000 Visits 

≥1000 Visits 

<1000 Visits  IMPLAN Sector Allocation 

On‐Farm Retail Market 

18.8%  25.6%  30.4% 41.2% 50% to 4, Fruit Farming & 50% to 3, Vegetable & Melon Farming 

Pick‐Your‐Own  6.1%  19.8%  9.9% 31.9% 4, Fruit Farming 

 Christmas Trees  6.8%  9.5%  11.0% 15.3% 6,  Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production  

Corn Maze  4.8%  0.6%  7.8% 1.0% 2, Grain Farming 

Pumpkin Patch  4.4%  2.0%  7.1% 3.2% 3, Vegetable & Melon Farming 

Winery  20.9%  4.6%  33.8% 7.4% 72, Wineries 

Percent of Overall Sales 

61.8%  62.1%  100.0% 100.0%  

       

  IMPLAN Sector Shares IMPLAN Sector   ≥1000 Visitors  <1000 Visitors 

2, Grain Farming  7.8%  1.0% 

3, Vegetable & Melon Farming  22.3%  23.8% 

4, Fruit Farming  25.1%  52.5% 

6,  Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production  11.0%  15.3% 

72, Wineries  33.8%  7.4% 

 Table 13.  Direct Values from Product Purchase by Visitors in IMPLAN Based on Relative Income Shares and Expenditures 

 

IMPLAN Sector  ≥1000 Visits <1000 Visits  All 

2, Grain Farming  $1,546,143  $14,625  $1,560,768 

3,  Vegetable & Melon Farming   $4,420,384  $348,069  $4,768,453 

4, Fruit Farming  $4,975,410  $767,800  $5,743,210 

6,  Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production 

$2,180,459  $223,759  $2,404,217 

72, Wineries  $6,699,954  $108,223  $6,808,178 

       Products Purchases Total  $19,822,350   $1,462,476  $21,284,826 

26

The direct value of output by Tennessee agritourism firm generated from visitor expenditures

is then projected using an economic input/output model for Tennessee. Each projected statewide

expenditure type, as assigned in Tables 12 and 13 are input into the IMPLAN economic

input/output model for the state. IMPLAN employs a regional social accounting system and can

be used to generate a set of balanced economic/social accounts and multipliers. Output from the

model includes descriptive measures of the economy including total industry output,

employment, and value-added for over 400 industries in the Tennessee economy.

Total industry output is defined as the value of production by industry per year. Employment

represents total wage and salary employees, as well as self-employed jobs in a region, for both

full-time and part-time workers. Total value added is defined as all income to worker paid by

employers; self-employed income; interests, rents, royalties, dividends, and profit payments; and

excise and sales taxes paid by individuals to businesses. Labor income includes employee

compensation and proprietor income. Employee compensation is the total payroll cost of the

employee paid by the employer and includes wage and salary, all benefits and employer-paid

payroll taxes. Proprietor income consists of payments received by self-employed individuals and

unincorporated business owners.

Direct effects measure the response for a given industry given a change in final demand for

that same industry. Indirect effects represent the response by all local industries from a change in

final demand for a specific industry. Induced effects represent the response by all local industries

caused by increased (decreased) expenditures of new household income and inter-institutional

transfers generated (lost) from the direct and indirect effects of the change in final demand for a

specific industry. Total effects are the sum of direct, indirect, and induced effects.

The direct total industry output measures derived from the last column of Table 10 are

inputted for direct total industry output for each industry, with their total being in the first

row/column under the output heading of Table 14. The IMPLAN model is then used to

estimate indirect and induced effects for output, as well as employment, labor income, and

value-added and results displayed in Table 14.

27

Table 14.  Projected Economic Impacts from Visitor Expenditures at Tennessee Agritourism Sites, 2012 

Impact Type  Output*  Employment       Labor Income        Value Added 

Direct Effect  $34,204,266  521.6  $6,667,271  $16,453,265 Indirect Effect  $11,110,860  110.6  $3,825,647  $5,976,994 

Induced Effect  $8,919,503  71.8  $3,101,216  $5,306,751 

Total Effect  $54,234,629  704.0  $13,594,135  $27,737,011 

*Based on visitor expenditures as estimated by the business operators.

As can be seen in Table 14, the on-site visitor expenditures at agritourism businesses directly

contribute $34.2 million to the state’s economy. When multiplier effects are included, these on-

site visitor expenditures contribute $54.2 million. These estimates are larger than those derived

from an earlier study of Tennessee agritourism visitor expenditure impacts, with between $16

and $17 million in direct effects estimated as part of that study (Jensen et al., 2006). The industry

employs 522 directly due to visitor expenditures, and with multiplier effects, the employment

increases to 704 jobs. Expenditures at agritourism facilities generate about $6.7 million in labor

income directly and $13.6 million with multiplier effects included. These expenditures generate

$16.4 million in value-added directly and $27.7 million with multiplier effects. It is important to

note that, as shown in Figure 5, only about 40.8 percent of the owners’ incomes were generated

from agritourism sources. Moreover, 27 percent of their income was derived from other farm

sources. This means that economic impacts from visitor expenditures are really only part of the

economic impacts that accrue from the farming operations at which agritourism attractions are

held.

SummaryandConclusions

The purpose of this study was to provide an updated snapshot of the Tennessee agritourism

industry. To obtain data for the analysis, agritourism operators were surveyed by mail in early

2013. A variety of agritourism attractions were represented, from on-farm retail markets, to

school tours, to weddings, and to wineries. The business operators promoted their venues in

several ways, including online and through social media, as well as signs and print methods such

as brochures and newspapers. Many agritourism operators had participated in state-sponsored

28

promotion and assistance and promotion programs and they projected this assistance helped their

sales by over 9.3 percent. Many had also participated in workshops or conferences and believed

this assistance has helped boost their sales by nearly 20 percent.

The most cited types of business problems faced by these businesses included deciding how

to promote business, capital for infrastructure, staying current with new promotion, developing

advertising, identifying target customers, attracting customers to visit, keeping and evaluating

records, and finding employees.

When asked about their views on agritourism, must had the goal of attracting new customers

over the next 2 years, were optimistic about the future of the industry, and expected their sales to

increase in the future. Examples of limiting factors noted by the respondents were personal

characteristics, such as their age or lack of family members to pass the business on to, or

business issues such as profits, cash flow, or rising costs.

The visitor expenditures at agritourism attractions have projected statewide economic

impacts of over $34 million directly, and with multiplier effects, over $54 million. These visitor

expenditure impacts only represent a portion of the economic impacts that may result from these

farms since many of the operators also relied on other sources of farm income.

29

References

Jensen, K., G. Dawson, M. Bruch, J. Menard, and B. English. 2005. Agri-tourism in Tennessee:

Current Status and Future Growth, 2003-2004. Report to the Tennessee Agri-Tourism

Steering Committee. Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of

Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. Internet site: http://aimag.ag.utk.edu/pubs/agritour.pdf.

Jensen, K., C. Lindborg, B. English, and J. Menard. 2006. Visitors to Tennessee Agri-tourism

Attractions: Demographics, Preferences, Expenditures, and Projected Economic Impacts.

Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville,

Tennessee. Internet site:

http://web.utk.edu/~aimag/pubs/research%20report%20visitors%20surveys3.pdf.

United States Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007. 2007

Census of Agriculture: Tennessee. Internet site:

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_St

ate_Level/Tennessee/tnv1.pdf

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

AppendixA:SurveyInstrument

 

 

   

31

Calling All Tennessee Agritourism Operators –  

Help Create a New Snapshot of Tennessee Agritourism  

The purpose of this survey is to create a current profile of Tennessee agritourism. This information will be helpful in understanding how many and what types of enterprises exist, the economic impact to the state, challenges faced, assistance needed and ideas for future programs. 

You were identified as a Tennessee agritourism operator. Please take approximately 10 minutes to complete this survey and return it by mail in the postage paid envelope. The survey must only be completed by an individual 18 years old or older. Participation is voluntary, and participants will not be identified. Responses are confidential and will not be connected with specific individuals or operations. Data provided will be summarized by researchers involved in the study and reported as summary statistics. 

Support for this study has been provided by: 

Center for Profitable Agriculture 

Farm Credit Mid America 

Tennessee Agritourism Association 

Tennessee Department of Agriculture 

Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation 

University of Tennessee, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics 

USDA Rural Development  

If you have questions regarding the study, please contact Ms. Megan Bruch, Marketing Specialist with the Center for Profitable Agriculture, at (931) 486‐2777 or mlbruch@utk.edu or Dr. Kim Jensen, University of Tennessee, at (865) 974‐7231 or kjensen@utk.edu. 

Please reply by January 21, 2013 for your information to be most helpful. 

 

   

An agritourism operation could be described as a farm combining primary elements and 

characteristics of agriculture and tourism and providing members of the general public a 

place to purchase farm products and/or enjoy a recreational, entertaining or educational 

experience. Common agritourism operations or attractions are listed in Question 9.

32

1. Please select the option that best describes your current situation.  

___  I currently operate an agritourism business (Please skip to Question 4.) ___  I do not currently operate an agritourism business but plan to in the future  

(Thank you, please place the survey in the postage paid envelope and return by mail.) ___  I do not operate an agritourism business but did in the past. (Please go to Question 2.) ___  I do not operate an agritourism business and do not plan to in the future  

(Thank you, please place the survey in the postage paid envelope and return by mail.)  

2. Which ONE of the following options best describes the reason you are no longer in the agritourism business?  

___  I retired from working. ___  I just wanted to do something else. ___  I could not attract enough customers or make enough sales. ___  The costs of operating the business were too high. ___  There were too many regulatory issues. ___  Liability was too big of a risk for me to take. ___  I didn’t have enough help or cooperation from my family. ___  Other (Please specify.) _________________________________________________________  

3. How long was your agritourism operation open?    

______ years  (Thank you, please place the survey in the postage paid envelop and return by mail.)  

4. How many years has your agritourism operation been in business?  

_______ years  5. Please indicate the number of acres involved in your agritourism operations and the total number of 

acres in your farm(s). (Include all acres of your operation whether they are owned or rented.)  

_____ acres involved in agritourism operations _____ total acres of your farm (include those in agritourism and other farming operations)  

6. In each blank, provide the number of people who were employed by your agritourism operation in 2012 for each category of employment (including owners, managers, etc. that worked for the operation)? 

 

_____ Full time seasonally  _____ Full‐time year‐round _____ Part time seasonally  _____ Part time year‐round 

 7. About how many days was your agritourism operation open in 2012?    

_______ # of days  

8. What months was your agritourism operation open in 2012? (Circle the months.) Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun    Jul  Aug  Sept  Oct  Nov  Dec 

    

33

9. Please check each type(s) of agritourism attractions that best describe your operation and, if possible, indicate what percentage of your sales in 2012 were earned by that attraction. 

ATTRACTION TYPE 

This describes my agritourism operation (check if you host this attraction) 

% of sales that come from this part of my agritourism operation(for example 25%; numbers should add to 100%) 

a. On farm retail market (offering farm products)   

b. Pick‐your‐own operation 

c. Cut‐your‐own Christmas trees  d. School field trips/tours  e. Farm tours other than school field trips 

f. Day camp 

g. Maze (corn, sorghum, hay) 

h. Haunted attraction 

i. Hayride or wagon ride 

j. Pumpkin patch  k. Farm animal exhibit 

l. Farm animal petting  m. Zipline  n. Event hosting – weddings 

o. Event hosting – birthday parties, corporate event, etc. 

p. On‐farm fee fishing 

q. On‐farm camping  r. On‐farm food service, concessions, café, or restaurant  s. On‐farm horseback riding 

t. Music concerts or contests, theatre shows, plays, etc. 

u. Winery 

v. On‐farm workshops or classes  w. On‐farm bed & breakfast or other lodging  x. On‐farm gift shop 

y. Other family fun activities 

z. Other major attraction: please specify ______________ 

aa. Other major attraction: please specify ______________   

(Please continue to the next page.)    

34

 

10. Please indicate which of the following agricultural products you produce for income? (Please check the box for each selection that applies.) 

 

  Apples  Wheat 

Blueberries, Blackberries or Raspberries Soybeans 

Grapes  Cotton 

Peaches  Tobacco 

Strawberries  Hay 

Other Fruit  Sheep 

Vegetables  Goats 

Pumpkins  Cattle and Calves 

Christmas Trees  Hogs 

Greenhouse/Nursery Plants  Dairy Products 

Honey  Poultry 

Eggs  Timber 

Corn  Other (specify) ________________ 

11. What were the gross sales revenues from your agritourism business in 2011? (Please check the best answer.) Remember, individual responses are held confidential and are not connected with an individual or operation. 

 

  Less than $2,500  $75,000 ‐ $99,999 

$2,500 ‐ $4,999  $100,000 ‐ $249,999 

$5,000 ‐ $9,999  $250,000 ‐ $499,999 

$10,000 ‐ $24,999  $500,000 ‐ $749,999 

$25,000 ‐ $49,999  $750,000 ‐ $999,999 

$50,000 ‐ $74,999  $1,000,000 or greater  

12. What were the gross sales revenues from your agritourism business in 2012 (or your best estimate for sales for 2012 if actual data is not yet available)? (Please check the best answer). Remember, individual responses are held confidential and are not connected with an individual or operation. 

 

  Less than $2,500  $75,000 ‐ $99,999 

$2,500 ‐ $4,999  $100,000 ‐ $249,999 

$5,000 ‐ $9,999  $250,000 ‐ $499,999 

$10,000 ‐ $24,999  $500,000 ‐ $749,999 

$25,000 ‐ $49,999  $750,000 ‐ $999,999 

$50,000 ‐ $74,999  $1,000,000 or greater 

    

35

13. For 2012, please estimate the percentage of your total income that came from agritourism, other farm income, and other non‐farm/agritourism income. 

 

______ % income from agritourism ______ % income from other farm sources ______ % of income from non‐farm/agritourism _100__ % TOTAL (The numbers on the 3 lines above should sum to 100%.)  

14. On average, how much do you estimate each visitor spent per visit in 2012?  (consider each visitor individually, not a group or a family as a whole) $______  per visitor per visit  This amount was spent on…. (Place the estimated $ amount by each category of expenditures. These items added together should equal the total $ you estimated in the blank above.) $________   Admission or user fees  $________   Purchasing products produced on the farm (fruit, vegetables, wine, cheese, meat, plants, 

cornstalks, etc.) $________   Other food and drink (concessions – meals, snacks, beverages)  $________   Non‐food souvenir items  $________   Other (Please describe: ____________________________________________) 

 15. About how many visits did your agritourism operation attract in 2012? (count each visitor individually 

for each time he/she visited)   ________ visits 

 16. How did you promote your agritourism operation in 2012? (Please check all that apply.)  

  Website  Pick Tennessee Products (PickTnProducts.org) 

Facebook business page  TN Vacation Guide/TNVacation.com 

Facebook ads  Tennessee Farm Fresh Program 

Twitter  Tennessee Agritourism Association membership 

Google ads  Regional, county or local tourism guide or website 

Blog  Chamber of Commerce 

Email or e‐newsletter list  Sponsorships/partnership marketing 

Pinterest  Direct mail 

Newspaper advertising  Coupons 

Business brochures  On‐line deals (Groupon, Social Living) 

Television advertising  News releases 

Radio advertising  Media days 

Road signs  Special events or festivals 

Billboards  Point of sale samples 

Agritourismsworld.com  Other (specify) ___________________ 

  

36

17. If your venue was promoted by Pick Tennessee Products, the Tennessee Vacation Guide and/or the Tennessee Farm Fresh program, by what percent would you estimate the promotional assistance influenced your agritourism sales in 2012?  

 

__________  % change in sales (if no change, please indicate with “0%”) 

 18. Please describe any suggestions or ideas you may have for future agritourism promotion efforts by the 

groups such as the Tennessee Departments of Agriculture, Tourist Development and/or the Tennessee Farm Fresh Program. 

 

________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________  

19. The following is a list of potential issues you may have faced in the start‐up or operation of your agritourism business. Please rate each issue based on how much of a problem it has been for you over the last three (3) years. Possible ratings are “Not a Problem,” “Somewhat of a Problem,” “A Moderate Problem,” or “A Serious Problem.” If the issue does not apply to your venue, please check the “Not Applicable” option. 

 

 Not a 

Problem Somewhat of a Problem 

A Moderate Problem 

A Serious Problem 

Not Applicable to My 

Operation 

a. Obtaining permission for roadside signage 

b. Obtaining liability insurance 

c. Obtaining financing 

d. Facing challenges with local zoning 

e. Dealing with increased competition 

f. Identifying target customers 

g. Deciding how to promote the business to target customers 

h. Developing advertising and promotion materials 

i. Attracting customers  j. Providing excellent 

customer service 

k. Staying current with new promotion methods 

l. Obtaining required permits or licenses 

37

m. Finding/hiring employees  n. Training and managing 

employees 

o. Scheduling employees  p. Scheduling groups for 

tours or parties 

This list continues on the next page, at Question 20. 

20. The following is a list of potential issues you may have faced in the start‐up or operation of your agritourism business. Please rate each issue based on how much of a problem it has been for you over the last three (3) years. Possible ratings are “Not a Problem,” “Somewhat of a Problem,” “A Moderate Problem,” or “A Serious Problem.” If the issue does not apply to your agritourism venue, please check the “Not Applicable” option. 

 

 Not a 

Problem Somewhat of a Problem 

A Moderate Problem 

A Serious Problem 

Not Applicable to My 

Operation 

q. Having enough capital for infrastructure, operation and marketing 

r. Maintaining visitor safety 

s. Meeting health department requirements 

t. Understanding labor regulations 

u. Keeping and evaluating records 

v. Maintaining good relation‐ships with neighbors 

w. Working with family members    

21. What other issues, if any, not listed in Questions 19 and 20 have been “A Serious Problem” for your operation in the last three (3) years?  

 

_________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________  

22. Have you attended an agritourism or direct marketing workshop, conference or tour sponsored by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Center for Profitable Agriculture and/or Tennessee Farm Fresh Program in the last three (3) years?  _____ Yes (Go to question 23)    _____ No (Skip to question 27)   _____ Don’t Know (Skip to question 27) 

      

38

 23. For my business, the information from this workshop, conference or tour was…. (Check one answer) 

_____ Very Helpful _____ Somewhat Helpful _____ Slightly Helpful  _____ Not Helpful At All 

  

24. How did you use the information learned at the workshop(s), conference(s) and/or tour(s)? 

_________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 

25. By what percent would you estimate the information and/or assistance you obtained from the educational events you attended in the last 3 years influenced your agritourism sales in 2012? 

 

_____________  % change in sales (if no change, please indicate with “0%”) 

 26. What suggestions do you have for future educational events? 

 

______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

27. Please rate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.  

  Strongly Disagree 

Somewhat Disagree 

No Opinion 

Somewhat Agree 

Strongly Agree 

Don’t Know 

I am optimistic about the future of the agritourism industry in Tennessee. 

I plan to exit the agritourism business in the next 5 years. 

I plan to expand the number of products, attractions or services offered at my business in the next 2 years. 

My goals include attracting more customers to my enterprise over the next 2 years. 

I expect to hire more employees in 2013 than I did in 2012. 

I expect my sales from agritourism to increase in the future. 

My agritourism operation is successful. 

My agritourism operation is profitable. 

    

39

 28. What are the two most limiting factors that may prevent you from reaching your goals for your 

agritourism operation?  

1. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________________________________________ 

 29. What ONE resource, information or assistance do you most need to help you reach your goals for your 

agritourism operation?  

1. ________________________________________________________________________________    

Thank you for your assistance in completing this survey!  Please return your completed survey in the business reply envelope. Replies received by January 21, 

will be most helpful.  If you would like to receive additional information or agritourism resources, please complete the 

enclosed orange postcard and return it by mail. 

40

              

    

AppendixB:AnswerstoTextQuestions

41

                                                                               Q21 What other issues, if any, not listed in Questions 19 and 20 have been “A Serious Problem” for your operation in the last three (3) years?                                                           

Access to county water                                                          

Additional space to grow                                                                   

Building inspectors and architects understanding what we are trying to do. 

Cash flow during off season 

Competition with big box stores 

Demand exceeding capabilities                                                     

Economic downturn 

Figuring out advertising costs, what percent should be spent 

Finding employees  

Finding proper assistance 

Having enough time/man power                                                    

How to grow and pay for it   

Startup issues      

Insurance costs 

Keeping up with internet marketing budgets for marketing 

Lack of funding/capital                                                                 

Locational demographics                                                         

Logistics                                                          

Marketing is a foremost obstacle 

Obtaining signs and sign vandals and theft 

People realizing we have quality zoos and livestock exhibits available in state  

Pricing issues 

Public driveway access 

Rebuilding customer base after an incident with adjacent farm  

Schools are doing away with fall field trips  

This operation is funded by money appropriated by Congress. Funding shortages.  

Weather   

Wildlife eating products 

 Q24 How did you use the information learned at the workshop(s), conference(s) and/or tour(s)? 

Allowed me to post info on TN tourism website                                   

Bookkeeping skills, Quicken 

Focusing business and business strategy 

Hiring and employee management          

Implementing ideas on their individual operations 

Improved understanding of regulations, safety issues, ADA requirements                                                      

Improving quality and service 

Logistics 

Logo development 

Marketing/advertising ideas and skills 

42

Networking 

New product ideas 

Signage tips 

Social media, websites, Facebook, online presence 

Stay informed 

Understanding tax regulations 

Workshop needed to complete qualifications for TAEP.        

Q26 What suggestions do you have for future educational events? Assistance understanding how affordable care act affects agriculture and seasonal employees 

Attracting and serving bus tours                                                       

Breakout sessions for beginning, intermediate, expert levels on certain topic  

Co‐operative marketing and industry marketing                                   

Drought management strategies                                                                   

Festivals setup and management    

Have more local agritourism speaker at events 

Hear from top leaders in each sector of agritourism 

How to apply for grants 

How to attract new customers                                  

Law/regulation/tax compliance  

Laws and health regulations                     

Looks for more low‐cost options to improve fruit production                     

Marketing classes for direct sales  

Marketing strategies                                                 

More on licenses, business vs tax licenses, more on TAEP                         

New ideas/attractions to draw in more people                                    

Online marketing                                                                

Problems for small startups           

Safety 

Scheduling off‐season field trips                   

Signage  

Smaller workshops 

Social media marketing 

Tours of other agritourism businesses  

Transition of family business  

Winery specific information                                   

   

43

Q28 What are the two most limiting factors that may prevent you from reaching your goals for your agritourism operation? Access to farmers markets                                                       

Access to infrastructure                                                        

Access to land                                                                  

Adequate parking                                                                

Advertising   and advertising costs                                                                  

Age 

Attracting new customers 

Cash flow 

Cohesive network of producers not in place                                      

Community acceptance and support                                                             

Competing attractions 

Competing products 

Construction development                                                        

Cost of product vs cost of purchase                                             

Demand growing faster than supply 

Difficulty growing own products‐weather, plant diseases                                   

Feed and fuel costs up 

Finding labor 

Government regulation                                                           

Grant funding 

Growing business while maitaining existing 

Health 

Health 

Insufficient income 

Insurance 

Keeping aware of new laws and regulations 

Keeping sufficient variety of stock 

Labor‐Dependable and costs 

Liability uncertainty 

Limited land 

Location in very rural area 

Location/access/parking                                                         

New attraction ideas 

No family coming into operation 

Not enough state support for promoting wine trails 

Obtaining financing 

Operating capital, obtaining capital 

School policies on tours 

Signage and signs from main roads 

Slowed economy 

State/federal regulations, laws, taxes, permits, fees, and processes                 

Sufficient income from operation 

Technical knowledge and support 

Three tier system for selling wine                                    

44

Weather 

Weeds and pests 

Working off the farm and managing business 

 

Q29 What at ONE resource, information or assistance do you most need to help you reach your goals for your agritourism operation? Additional  TAEP Grant Money                                                                

Additional  UT Extension Horticulture assistance              

Adequate stock 

Ads/Promotion letting people know about business                                            

Advertising 

Better connections with local government 

Better cooperation among state agencies                                                   

Business bookkeeping and tax information                                        

Business training                                                               

Continuing educational programs 

Cooperatively advertising (50/50 share) 

Cost sharing and assistance from USDA                                           

Dealing with weather problems 

Developing a marketing plan 

Extension research/knowledge on pumpkin production, mums, vegetable crops, etc.  

Financial assistance 

Finding and retaining labor 

Having a TN Agritourism category for organics or herbs                          

Help with codes/regulation/zoning                                               

How to obtain financial help 

Information on inclusion in the trails and byways program and welcome centers  

Information on TN laws regarding farm agritourism                              

Insurance                                                                          

Irrigation system                                                               

Less regulation 

Liability insurance and available labor pool for small operations.              

Lobbying to counter liquor lobby                                                

Low interest loans to develop attractions                                         

Marketing grants/for things such as radio, billboards, etc mailouts             

Methods to directly reach schools and teachers in general area                   

Recordkeeping                                                                         

Reform of state laws and tax breaks                                             

Regulations employment, licensing, permits  

Signage                                                       

Social networking help   

State assistance in promoting wine trails in the state                          

To be allowed to direct sell outside of winery and festivals  

Weed control methods