4 results
Farmer perspectives of Farm to Institution in Michigan: 2012 survey results of vegetable farmers
- Colleen Matts, David S. Conner, Caitlin Fisher, Shakara Tyler, Michael W. Hamm
-
- Journal:
- Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems / Volume 31 / Issue 1 / February 2016
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 12 January 2015, pp. 60-71
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
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.
Regional self-reliance of the Northeast food system
- Timothy Griffin, Zach Conrad, Christian Peters, Ronit Ridberg, Ellen Parry Tyler
-
- Journal:
- Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems / Volume 30 / Issue 4 / August 2015
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 February 2014, pp. 349-363
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Farms producing similar products have become increasingly concentrated geographically over the past century in the United States (US). Due to the concentration of food production, a disruption in key production areas may reduce the availability of certain foods nationwide. For example, climate change poses such a threat, with projections of altered precipitation patterns, increased temperature and pest outbreaks, which may result in reduced crop yields and geographic shifts in crop adaptation. Analyses of the degree to which US regions can satisfy the food needs of their resident populations—a concept we refer to as regional self-reliance (RSR)—are therefore warranted. We focus on the Northeast region because of its high population density and declining agricultural landbase. Our objectives are to: (1) determine how agricultural land is used in the Northeast region; (2) determine the variety and amount of foods produced; and (3) analyze the relationship between food consumption and agricultural output. Annual (2001–2010) data on land area, yield and output of all crops and major livestock categories, as well as seafood landings, were catalogued. National annual (2001–2009) data on food availability were used as a proxy for estimates of food consumption, and these data were downscaled to a regional level and compared with regional production data in order to estimate RSR. In the Northeast region, approximately 65% of land in farms contributed directly to the food supply from 2001 to 2010, although this varied significantly across states. Just over one-half of all land in farms in the region was devoted to the production of livestock feed. The region produced >100 food crops annually from 2001 to 2009, and vegetables represented the majority of food crop production by weight. Chicken accounted for the largest weight of meat products produced. Compared to the Northeast region's share (~6%) of total land in farms in the nation, it accounted for disproportionately higher amounts of the national production of dairy (16%), eggs (13%), chicken (9%), lamb (7%) and vegetables (7%). However, the region accounted for ~22% of the national population and therefore produced a disproportionately low share of food on a per capita basis. RSR for plant-based foods was lowest for pulses (7%) and highest for vegetables (26%). There are four specific factors in the RSR in our analysis, each of which could result in substantial shifts (upward or downward) of the RSR in the future: land used for agriculture, crop (or animal) productivity, population and dietary preferences.
A capacity assessment of New England's large animal slaughter facilities as relative to meat production for the regional food system
- Chelsea Bardot Lewis, Christian J. Peters
-
- Journal:
- Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems / Volume 27 / Issue 3 / September 2012
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 22 July 2011, pp. 192-199
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Demand for locally and regionally produced meat has stimulated increased interest in livestock production among New England farmers. The region's livestock producers lament lack of access to slaughter and processing infrastructure. However, there is very little research on New England's slaughter industry to document this perceived problem. For this reason, we tested the hypothesis that a shortage of slaughter and processing infrastructure constrains the production of livestock for meat in New England. The region's large animal slaughter facility owners and managers were surveyed to determine current slaughter and processing capacity and identify challenges facilities face in meeting increased producer demand. The estimates of current capacity were then compared to USDA data on livestock slaughter and large animal marketings. The region's existing abattoirs could slaughter 63–84% of all animals marketed, but could process only 29–43%. New England's infrastructure for slaughter operated at only 38% of total physical capacity in 2009, while on-site processing infrastructure operated at 66% of total physical capacity (78% if only on-site inspected capacity is considered). Moreover, surveys with facility operators showed that the primary constraints faced by existing slaughterhouses are a shortage of skilled labor and the seasonality of the livestock industry, with periods of very high demand for slaughter in the fall and very low demand in the spring and early summer. Additional infrastructure, particularly for processing, would be needed were regional livestock production to increase. However, simply increasing physical capacity will not address the issues of labor availability and demand seasonality expressed by slaughter facility owners.
Mapping potential foodsheds in New York State by food group: An approach for prioritizing which foods to grow locally
- Christian J. Peters, Nelson L. Bills, Arthur J. Lembo, Jennifer L. Wilkins, Gary W. Fick
-
- Journal:
- Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems / Volume 27 / Issue 2 / June 2012
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 23 May 2011, pp. 125-137
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Public interest in local food continues to grow, but few analyses have examined the capacity for the US population to be supplied through local and regional food systems. This paper extends earlier work that demonstrated a method for mapping potential foodsheds and estimating the potential for New York to meet the food needs of the state's population centers. It provides a methodology for addressing the question, ‘If land is limited, which foods should be grown locally?’ A spatial model was developed to allocate the available agricultural land of New York State (NYS) to meet in-state food needs for six distinct food groups (grains, vegetables, fruits, dairy, meat and eggs) across the eight largest population centers. An optimization routine was used to allocate land to maximize economic land use value (LUV). Eleven scenarios were examined, ranging from a baseline level of consumption of New York produced foods to a 100% local diet. Across the 11 scenarios, the amount of food supplied, the LUV attained, and the area of land allocated increased as the ‘willingness’ to consume local products increased. This approach dictated that land was preferentially devoted to higher-value food groups relative to lower-value groups, and no scenario used all available land. Under the 100% local scenario, 69% of total food needs (on a fresh weight basis) were supplied in-state with an average food distance of 238 km. This scenario provided food from only four of the six groups, namely, dairy, eggs, fruit and vegetables. These results suggest that a much larger proportion of total food needs (on a weight basis) might be provided from in-state production than was found in previous work. LUV serves as a compelling optimization function, and future work should investigate the degree to which maximizing returns to land complements or conflicts with social and environmental goals of local and regional food systems.