Hostname: page-component-7dc689bd49-sqk25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-03-21T02:18:34.343Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Farmer perspectives of Farm to Institution in Michigan: 2012 survey results of vegetable farmers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2015

Colleen Matts*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems, Natural Resources Building, 480 Wilson Rd., Room 311C, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA.
David S. Conner
Affiliation:
Department of Community Development and Applied Economics, University of Vermont, 205H Morrill Hall, 146 University Place, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA.
Caitlin Fisher
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, 615 N Wolfe, Room 7010, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA.
Shakara Tyler
Affiliation:
Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems, Natural Resources Building, 480 Wilson Road, Room 303, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA.
Michael W. Hamm
Affiliation:
Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, Natural Resources Building, 480 Wilson Rd., Room 312B, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA.
*
*Corresponding author:matts@msu.edu

Abstract

Local food purchasing programs at institutions such as K-12 schools, colleges and hospitals offer benefits including supporting farms and local economies, encouraging more healthful eating habits of patrons and fostering closer connections between farmers and consumers. Increasing in number and expanding in breadth, Farm to Institution (FTI) markets are promising outlets that may fulfill social and economic motivations for farmers. However, significant challenges and barriers have kept many from participating; farmers interested in this market will incur transaction costs, with high negotiation costs in particular due to product differentiation (in this case, by provenance) and less established markets and terms. Researchers have just begun to study farmers’ perspectives on FTI and, to date, have primarily done so through convenience sampling. By utilizing a representative farmer sample, this study provides a major contribution to FTI research. This survey study was designed to better understand Michigan vegetable farmers’ interest and willingness to participate in institutional markets and to identify perceived barriers and opportunities. Michigan is an ideal location for this research as it boasts one of the most diverse sets of agricultural crops in the US, has an economy highly reliant on the food and agriculture industry and has thriving FTI activity with extensive, ongoing outreach, education and research. Results of this survey study showed that half (50%) of the respondents (n = 311) reported interest in selling to at least one institution type (of K-12 schools, colleges and hospitals), but only a small percentage (7%) had yet sold produce to institutions. The most frequently reported motivators to sell to institutions were supplying healthy foods to customers (77%), fair, steady prices (77%) and supplying local food to consumers (76%), indicating that farmers’ motivations are largely based in social values. Smaller scale farmers (less than 25 acres) were significantly less likely to rate economic factors and help in meeting logistical challenges as important, which suggests that they see more potential social value in FTI markets while larger farmers will seek to minimize their transaction costs related to this market. This research can inform the development of scale-appropriate farmer education to foster this market opportunity and its contribution to regional food system development. As demand for local food increases, it is critical to further examine the viability of FTI markets and continue to understand the opportunities and challenges to farmers of different types and scales to participate.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

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

References

1King, R., Hand, M., DiGiacomo, G., Clancy, K., Gomez, M., Hardesty, S., Lev, L., and McLaughlin, E. 2010. Comparing the Structure, Size, and Performance of Local and Mainstream Food Supply Chains. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service ERR-99.Google Scholar
2Vogt, R.A. and Kaiser, L.L. 2008. Still a time to act: a review of institutional marketing of regionally-grown food. Agriculture and Human Values 25(2):241255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service. 2013. Food expenditures: Table 10 – food away from home as a share of food expenditures. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Food_Expenditures/Food_Expenditures/table10.xls (accessed September 28, 2014).Google Scholar
4Hardesty, S., Allen, P., Feenstra, G., Ohmart, J., Perkins, T., and Perez, J. 2010. Institutional food distribution systems: bringing students, farmers and food service to the table. Journal of Food Distribution Research 41:5863.Google Scholar
5USDA Food and Nutrition Service. The Farm to School Census: National Overview. Available at Web site http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/census#/ (accessed September 1, 2014).Google Scholar
6Izumi, B.T., Alaimo, K., and Hamm, M.W. 2010. Farm-to-school programs: perspectives of school food service professionals. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 42(2):8391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Goodman, D. 2004. Rural Europe redux? Reflections on alternative agro-food networks and paradigm change. Sociologia Ruralis 44(1):316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Izumi, B.T., Wright, D.W., and Hamm, M.W. 2010. Market diversification and social benefits: motivations of farmers participating in farm to school programs. Journal of Rural Studies 26(4):374382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Gregoire, M.B., Arendt, S.W., and Strohbehn, C. 2005. Iowa producers' perceived benefits and obstacles in marketing to local restaurants and institutional foodservice operations. Journal of Extension 43(1):1RBI1.Google Scholar
10Conner, D., King, B., Kolodinsky, J., Roche, E., Koliba, C., and Trubek, A. 2012. You can know your school and feed it too: Vermont farmers’ motivations and distribution practices in direct sales to school food services. Agriculture and Human Values 29(3):321332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Starr, A., Card, A., Benepe, C., Auld, G., Lamm, D., Smith, K., and Wilken, K. 2003. Sustaining local agriculture: barriers and opportunities to direct marketing between farms and restaurants in Colorado. Agriculture and Human Values 20(3):301321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Berkenkamp, J. 2011. Grower Perspectives on Farm to School: A Survey of Interested Farmers, Ranchers and other Producers. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
13Berkenkamp, J. 2012. Grower Perspectives on Farm to School: A Survey of Interested Farmers, Ranchers and other Producers. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
14Markley, K., Kalb, M., and Tedeschi, S. 2005. Linking Farms with Colleges: A Guide to Understanding Farm-to-College Programs for Farmers, Food Service and Organizers. Community Food Security Coalition. Available at Web site http://www.farmtocollege.org/Resources/LinkingFarmstoColleges.pdf (accessed December 23, 2014).Google Scholar
15Colasanti, K.J.A., Matts, C., and Hamm, M.W. 2012. Results from the 2009 Michigan Farm to school survey: participation grows from 2004. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 44(4):343349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Vallianatos, M., Gottlieb, R., and Haase, M.A. 2004. Farm-to-school – strategies for urban health, combating sprawl, and establishing a community food systems approach. Journal of Planning Education and Research 23(4):414423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy with the Minnesota School Nutrition Association. 2012. Farm to School in Minnesota: Fourth annual survey of school food service leaders. Available at Web site http://www.iatp.org/files/2012_03_19_FoodServiceLeadersSurvey_0.pdf (accessed November 20, 2014).Google Scholar
18Oklahoma Food Policy Council. 2003. The Oklahoma Farm-to-School Report. Available at Web site http://www.kerrcenter.com/ofpc/publications/Farm-to-School_report.pdf (accessed April 30, 2014).Google Scholar
19Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. 2005. Healthy food, healthy hospitals, healthy communities: Stories of health care leaders bringing fresher, healthier food choices to their patients, staff and communities. Available at Web site http://www.iatp.org/documents/healthy-food-healthy-hospitals-healthy-communities-stories-of-health-care-leaders-bringing (accessed April 30, 2014).Google Scholar
20Izumi, B.T., Wright, D.W., and Hamm, M.W. 2010. Farm to school programs: exploring the role of regionally-based food distributors in alternative agrifood networks. Agriculture and Human Values 27(3):335350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Izumi, B.T., Rostant, O.S., Moss, M.J., and Hamm, M.W. 2006. Results from the 2004 Michigan farm-to-school survey. Journal of School Health 76(5):169174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Feenstra, G., Allen, P., Hardesty, S., Ohmart, J., Perkins, T., and Perez, J. 2011. Using supply chain analysis to assess the sustainability of farm-to-institution programs. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems and Community Development 1(4):6985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Berkenkamp, J. 2006. Making the farm/school connection: Opportunities and barriers to greater use of locally-grown produce in public schools. Available at Web site https://www.leopold.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/pubs-and-papers/2006#01-making-farm-school-connection-opportunities-and-barriers-greater-use-locally-grown-produce-public-sc.pdf (accessed April 30, 2014).Google Scholar
24Graham, H., Feenstra, G., Evans, A., and Zidenberg-Cherr, S. 2004. Davis school program supports life-long healthy eating habits in children. California Agriculture 58(4):200205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Johnson, D.B. and Stevenson, G.W. 1998. Something to Cheer about: National Trends and Prospects for Sustainable Agriculture Products in Food Service Operations of Colleges and Universities. The Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
26Hobbs, J.E. 1997. Measuring the importance of transaction costs in cattle marketing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(4):10831095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Facts about Michigan agriculture. Available at Web site http://www.michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-1572-7775--,00.html (accessed September 1, 2014).Google Scholar
28USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2014. Ranking of market value of Ag products sold: Michigan. Available at Web site http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Rankings_of_Market_Value/Michigan/index.asp (accessed September 28, 2014).Google Scholar
29Matts, C. and Smalley, S.B. 2014. Farm to School in Michigan: Still going Strong. Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems. Available at Web site http://foodsystems.msu.edu/resources/mi-fts-going-strong (accessed December 23, 2014).Google Scholar
30Conner, D.S., Knudson, W.A., Hamm, M.W., and Peterson, H.C. 2008. The food system as economic driver: strategies and applications for Michigan. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition 3(4):371383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Conner, D.S. and Levine, R. 2007. Circles of association: the connections of community-based food systems. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition 1(3):525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32USDA NASS. 2014. Table 55. Selected operator characteristics for principal, second and third operator: 2012. Available at Web site http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/Michigan/st26_1_055_055.pdf (accessed September 28, 2014).Google Scholar
33USDA NASS. 2014. Table 55. Selected operator characteristics for principal, second and third operator: 2012. Available at Web site http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_055_055.pdf (accessed September 28, 2014).Google Scholar
34USDA NASS. 2014. Table 38. Vegetables, potatoes, and melons harvested for sale: 2012 and 2007. Available at Web site http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/Michigan/st26_1_038_038.pdf (accessed September 28, 2014).Google Scholar
35USDA NASS. 2014. Table 38. Vegetables, potatoes, and melons harvested for sale: 2012 and 2007. Available at Web site http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_038_038.pdf (accessed September 28, 2014).Google Scholar
36Fischer, M., Hamm, M., Pirog, R., Fisk, J., Farbman, J., and Kiraly, S. 2013. Findings of the 2013 National Food Hub Survey. Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems. Available at Web site http://foodsystems.msu.edu/resources/2013-food-hub-survey (accessed December 23, 2014).Google Scholar
37Feenstra, G., Visher, D., and Hardesty, S. 2011. Developing Values-Based Distribution Networks to Enhance the Prosperity of Small and Medium Sized Producers: Full Study. Sustainable Agriculture and Research Education Program, Agricultural Sustainability Institute, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
38Joshi, A. and Beery, M. 2007. A Growing Movement: A Decade of Farm to School in California. Center for Food & Justice, Urban and Environmental Policy Institute, Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar