United States Department of Agriculture
Proceedings of the 4th National Small Farm Conference Proceedings of the Fourth National Small Farm Conference October 16 - 19, 2005 Koury Convention Center Greensboro, NC
Edited By:
Denis Ebodaghe, Managing Editor USDA-Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service Washington, DC
Co-Editors
Patricia McAleer USDA-Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service Washington, DC
Daniel Lyons North Carolina A&T and State University Greensboro, NC
Edwin Jones North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC
August, 2006 Preface
"Enhancing Opportunities for Small Farmers and Ranchers," summarizes the main goal of the 4th National Small Farm Conference. To enhance economic opportunities and the quality of life for small farmers and ranchers, our role as professionals is to facilitate programs and services by providing financial and technical assistance and ensure that research is conducted for successful development of alternative enterprises or creating new crops and special niches. Bringing together approximately 750 professionals from throughout the nation encourages dialogue and the exchange of ideas that will trickle down to small farmers and ranchers. This train-the-trainer conference which was held in Greensboro, North Carolina on October 16-19, 2005, provided a venue for national, state, and local small farm program managers from land-grant universities, community- based organizations, and other public and private sector organizations to learn about successful programs they can take home to their constituents for program enrichment. Special attention was paid to programs that had the potential to be replicated elsewhere.
This conference provided a forum for the development of strategies to maximize existing resources for the prosperity of small farmers and ranchers; enhance the ability of producers to maximize marketing opportunities; provide an effective and adequate income safety net for small farmers and ranchers; develop and strengthen programs to meet small farm specific needs; enhance the development and use of risk management tools; provide support for agricultural research, education, and outreach; and promote programs designed to maximize results and emphasize measurable outcomes. The conference focused on the following six tracks: 1) alternative enterprises, (2) marketing strategies, (3) risk management, (4) bridging gaps in programs and services, (5) organic agriculture, and (6) professional/program development.
Posters, exhibits and educational tours were also built into the conference functions to promote partnership and collaboration among conference participants. The educational tours provided included an alternative enterprise tour, a very diversified tour, and two organic tours as well as a winery tour and an urban horticulture tour.
As a train-the-trainer, we hope you will find these proceedings helpful in strengthening your programs and services to enhance the economic opportunity and quality of life for the small farmers and ranchers you serve in your area. Acknowledgements
On behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its stakeholders, including land- grant university partners, community-based organizations, foundations, farmers and ranchers, and other public and private sector organizations, we would like to thank Dr. Daniel M. Lyons, Sr. of North Carolina A&T State University and Dr. Ed Jones of North Carolina State University and their administration, faculty and staff for hosting the Fourth National Small Farm Conference in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Great thanks to the following for sponsoring the conference: The Cooperative Extension Program at North Carolina A&T State University, North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service, Pioneer Community Investment-Dupont Agriculture & Nutrition, Farm Foundation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Ag. Center, United States Department of Agriculture: Agricultural marketing Service, Agricultural Research Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Cooperative State Research, Education & Extension Service-Economic and Community Systems, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, Farm Service Agency, Foreign Agricultural Service, Forest Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Risk Management Agency, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Outreach, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rural Development.
Great appreciation if offered to Drs. Colien Hefferan and Frank Boteler for their administrative and program support. We would like to thank Ms. Patricia McAleer for her role in coordinating the topic submissions, and to Ms. Alicia Simon, Dr. Elizabeth Tuckermanty, Ms. Katrina Hanks, Ms. Priscilla Johnson, Mr. John Snyder, Ms. Nan Sargent, Ms. Adelaide Conaway, Ms. Gwynne Manty, and Ms. Stephanie Koziski, all of USDA-CSREES, for their program support.
We wish to acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Alfonzo Drain, Director of USDA Small Farm Coordination and the assistance of USDA Small Farm Coordination, the conference Steering, Program, Exhibit, Poster committees; conference track and Chairs and Co-Chairs; the educational tours committee under Dr. Keith Baldwin’s leadership, and the local planning committee for their patience and resilience during conference planning, and to conference sponsors for providing the resources to support this conference. To the oral, exhibit and poster presenters, and to all conference participants, and our stakeholders, we thank you for your contributions in making this conference a success. This conference will not have taken place and be as successful without your contributions and hard work.
Many thanks to Dr. Robin Adams and her Communications staff at North Carolina A&T State University and North Carolina State University for the design, layout and printing of the conference agenda and proceedings. Our thanks go to Dr. Sheilda Sutton, Ms. Tiffany Slade and Ms. Tina Foxx for their hard work and great success with conference logistics.
Many others provided assistance to the overall success of the conference who we are unable to mention, and to all of you, we express our sincere appreciation.
Denis Ebodaghe National Program Leader for Small Farms USDA-Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Washington, DC 20250-2215 Steering Committee
Desmond Jolly Marion Simon Edmund Gomez Mickie Swisher Daniel Lyons Stephan Tubene Denis Ebodaghe Lorette Picciano Edwin Jones Debi Kelli Al Drain Dyremple Marsh Jorge Comas Denny Johnson Rita Stevens Carmen Humphrey Elizabeth Tuckermanty Arnold Foudin Alicia Simon Deborah Cavanaugh-Grant Priscilla Johnson Edgar Lewis Geraldine Herring Sharon Hestvik Patricia McAleer Evert Byington Adolfo Perez
Program Committee
Denis Ebodaghe Rufus Jones Jerry Dewitt Jana Beckman Ginah Mortensen Mickie Swisher Dennis Lamm Dorathy Barker Stephan Tubene Al Drain Lorrette Picciano Geraldine Herring Roy Bullock Alicia Simon Desmond Jolly Cheryl Bailey Daniel Lyons Sharon Hestvik Ed Jones Patricia McAleer Debbie Cavanaugh-Grant Dorathy Barker Robert Zabawa Doris Newton Chongo Mundende
Poster Committee
John Paul Owens Kim Bradford Mary Mafuyai-Ekanem Stephan Tubene Millie Worku Robin Brumfield Bill Buchanan Godfrey Gayle Iris Cole-Crosby Exhibit Committee
John Paul Owens Kim Bradford Mary Mafuyai-Ekanem Stephan Tubene Millie Worku Robin Brumfield Bill Buchanan Godfrey Gayle Iris Cole-Crosby
Local Planning Committee
Communication and Marketing: Transportation: Robin Adams Arthur Purcell Cathy Grant-Hill Registration: Farm Tours: Alice Pennix Keith Baldwin Anita Wright John O’Sullivan Deborah Alston William Wickliffe Helena Poole Arthur Purcell Tiffany Slade Bobby Edwards Donna Holland Donald Cobb Sheilda Sutton Grace Summers Tina Foxx
Food, Beverages and Breaks: Door Prizes and Gifts: Sarah Williamson Nelson Brownlee Patricia Lynch Travella Free Wilda Wade Martin Brewington Rosa Purcell Denise Humphrey Arthur Purcell James Hartsfield Theresa Nartea Entertainment: Morris Dunn Marcie Kirkpatrick Jimo Ibrahim David Jones D. Wayne Rowland Tiffany Slade DeShon Cromartie Tamara Cole Claude Deyton James A. Davis, III Marshay Privott Carl Niedziela Dale Roark Larry Wright Exhibits and Posters: Stephen Greer John Owens Della King Mary Mafuyai-Ekanem Millie Worku Bill Buchanan Iris Cole-Crosby Kim Bradford Stephan Tubene Robin Brumfield Godfrey Gayle Conference Sponsors
The Cooperative Extension Program at North Carolina A&T State University
North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service
Pioneer Community Investment - Dupont Agriculture & Nutrition
Farm Foundation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Ag. Center
United States Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Marketing Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service Economic and Community Systems Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program Farm Service Agency Foreign Agricultural Service Forest Service National Agricultural Statistics Service Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Office of Outreach Rural Development Natural Resources Conservation Service Risk Management Agency Table of Contents Page
Opening Session – October 16, 2005
Welcome Remarks : Small Farms are Fundamental to our Culture and Foundation as a Free Society Frank E. Boteler ...... 1
General Session I – October 17, 2005
Helping Small Farms Help the Land Carolyn Adams ...... 3
General Session II – October 17, 2005 Farm Policy Panel Discussion
Introduction Alfonzo Drain ...... 6
Making Minority and Small Farmers Count Joseph T. Reilly ...... 8
Government Payments and Small Farms Neil Conklin ...... 14
Concurrent Sessions – October 17 – 18, 2005
Track 1 – Risk Management
Cultivating Success: Sustainable Small Farming and Ranching Education Program Marcy Ostrom, Malaquias Flores, Cinda Williams, Theresa Beaver ...... 21
What Are Animal Feeding Operations? Do The New Regulations Affect My Farm? Gregory Beatty ...... 23
Are Managed Onsite Wastewater Systems a Permanent Element of Wastewater Infrastructure or Can You Keep an Onsite Wastewater System Smelling Sweet? A. R. Rubin ...... 28
Children’s Health: Are Your Children at Risk from their Environment? Lisa McKinley ...... 32
LPES Small Farms Fact Sheet Series Mark Rice ...... 34
Finally, Revenue Insurance for Small Farm Families Thomas R. McConnell ...... 37
Constructing Small Farm Enterprise Budgets Shannon Potter ...... 40 Risk-Assessed Business Planning for Small Producers Marion Simon, Louie Rivers, Jr., Daniel Lyons, Nelson Daniels, Allen Malone, Jeff Kock ...... 42
Latino Farmers: Characteristics and Risk Management Education Programs in the Midwest José L. García ...... 45
The Movable School Approach to Farm Futures (Ethiopia's Teff) Edgar Hicks ...... 48
Agricultural Law: What Every Small Farmer/Rancher Needs to Know Janie Simms Hipp Rogers ...... 50
PACA – A Tool for Growers Basil Coale ...... 57
Heart of the Farm; Women in Agriculture Joy Kirkpatrick, Carol Roth ...... 59
Crop Insurance Overview Laurence M. Crane ...... 64
Track 2 – Bridging Gaps in Programs and Services
Opportunities & Challenges for Refugees & Immigrants Larry Laverentz ...... 69
New Entry Sustainable Farming Project Hugh Joseph ...... 71
Immigrant/Refugee Farming Projects Chris Morton ...... 73
ISED Solutions, Refugee Rural Initiative (RRI) Ben Turner ...... 75
Native Women in Agriculture Vicki LeBeaux, Polly Hayes, Jeannie Benally, Janie Hipp Rogers ...... 77
Outreaching to Socially Disadvantaged Farmer & Ranchers along the Texas Mexico Border Omar Garza ...... 81
Bridging Communication Gaps in Programs and Service Jorge O. Comas ...... 83
An Innovative Approach for Meeting the Needs of Underserved Populations Stephan L. Tubene, Okarsamaa B. White, Mark Rose ...... 86
Grow Wisconsin Farmers Gwen Garvey, Joy Kirkpatrick ...... 89
Recordkeeping and Financial Management for Small and Limited Resource Farmers in Alabama Charlotte Ham ...... 92 Track 3 - Marketing
How to Start a Cooperative Edgar Lewis ...... 97
How to Start a Farmers Market Denny N. Johnson ...... 99
Marketing Natural Meats: Targeting Consumer Segments in your Marketing Plan Dawn D. Thilmany, Wendy Umberger ...... 103
Using the Web to Connect Buyers and Sellers of Small Ruminants Susan Schoenian ...... 106
Accessing New Markets: Challenges for Small Farmers Monika Roth ...... 109
Evaluation of Three Small Farm Feeding Regimens for Beef and Small Ruminant Relative to Market Value Ray Mobley ...... 113
Making Educational Sense of Market Planning for Small Farmers with “P”, “C” and “Z”! Dr. John M. O’Sullivan ...... 116
Using GIS Tools to Improve Agricultural Marketing and Local Food System Mapping Duncan Hilchey ...... 119
Assessing Direct Marketing Options for Small Farms in the Pacific Northwest Marcy Ostrom, Garry Stephenson, Cinda Williams ...... 122
What Does it Take to be Successful at Marketing? Mary Holz-Clause, Reg Clause ...... 124
Profit-Directed Marketing Strategies for Small Farmers through Group Action Magid A. Dagher, Dovi Alipoe, Wes Miller ...... 128
Maine Highlands Farmers Joining Together To Enhance Marketing Efforts Donna Coffin Lamb ...... 133
TEACH: Teaching Educators Agriculture and Conservation Holistically Valentine A. Thompson ...... 136
Track 4 – Organic Agriculture
Biological Control for Insect Management on Small Farms David Orr, Mike Linker ...... 139
Organic Programs at the Center for Environmental Farming Systems Nancy Creamer, Mary Barbercheck, Melissa Bell, Cavell Brownie, Alyssa Collins, Ken Fager, Bryan Green, Joel Gruver, Shuijin Hu, Lisa Jackson, Nick Kuminoff, Mike Linker, Frank Louws, Susan Mellage, David Monks, Paul Mueller, Phil Rzewnicki, David Orr, Michelle Schroeder, Cong Tu, Ada Wossink, Steve Koenning, Michael Wagger, Robert Walters ...... 142 Experiences And Lessons Learned While Providing Outreach To Latino Farmworkers And Farmers On Organic Agriculture And Related Topics Martin Guerena ...... 148
The Economics of Organic and Grazing Dairy Farms Tom Kriegl ...... 152
Genetic Diversity in Watermelon Possible Future Benefits for Organic and Small Farmers Amnon Levi, Judy Thies and Alvin Simmons ...... 156
Enhancing Research and Extension to Serve Organic Agriculture: The NEON Experience Anusuya Rangarajan ...... 157
Organic Research and Demonstrations at Kentucky State University Michael Bomford ...... 161
Organic Seed Production Emily Skelton, Emily Gatch, Adam Smith ...... 163
Track 5 – Alternative Enterprises
The Small Farms Industry Clusters (SFIC) Project S.J. Goetz, K.Brasier, T. Kelsey and W. Whitmer, A. Rangarajan, D. Smith, T. Gabe, D. Kuennen, F. Mangan ...... 167
Big Ideas for Small Farm Profitability; Strategies for Increasing Small Farm Profitability Joan Scheel, Brad Zumwalt, Mark Hutchison, Marilyn Schlake ...... 171
Contributions and Challenges of Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Lessons from Iowa Corry Bregendahl, Cornelia Flora, Jan Libbey, Karen Joslin ...... 174
Assessment of the Current Meat Goat Industry in the United States Sandra G. Solaiman ...... 179
Development of a Task Force to Provide Education and Leadership to an Emerging Meat Goat Industry L. Tony Nye, Jeff Fisher and David Mangione ...... 186
Diversified Species Grazing for Brush and Pasture Management An Peischel ...... 188
A Place at the Table: Explorations in Heritage Harvest Areas Development Duncan Hilchey ...... 191
REDTT Project Overview Dora Dominguez and Deb Franzoy ...... 194
Working Trees for Livestock: Silvopasture: Agroforestry Systems that Combine Timber and Livestock Production Richard Straight ...... 196
Forest Certification for Landowners Alyx Perry, Harry Groot, Kathryn Fernholz ...... 198 Specialty Niche Crop Profiles Richard Molinar ...... 199
Blackberry and Raspberry Production Opportunities for the Southeastern United States Gina E. Fernandez and James R. Ballington ...... 205
Growing Blueberries for Local Markets Bill Cline ...... 206
Information Resources for Alternative Enterprises Robert Hochmuth ...... 211
Niche Market Opportunities: a Consumer-driven Approach Stephan L. Tubene ...... 213
Innovative Production: Taking the First Step: Farm and Ranch Alternative and Agritourism Resource Guide Mark Rose ...... 217
Helping Small-scale and Part-time Farmers Evaluate Alternatives; The Agricultural Alternatives Project at Penn State Lynn F. Kime ...... 219
Track 6 – Program / Professional Development
Small Farm Teaching Activities Shannon Potter ...... 221
Tips for Early Career Success in Programming for Small Farmers and Ranchers David L. Marrison ...... 222
Growing Places: Developing Informed Decision-Making for Beginning Farmers Mary L. Peabody ...... 226
Developing Community Supported Agriculture Production & Marketing Tools for Extension-based Education to Limited Resource Small Farmers Theresa J. Nartea ...... 228
Typology of America’s Small Farms: Characteristics in 2003 Doris Newton and Robert A. Hoppe ...... 231
Effective New Farmer Education Evaluation Alexandra Bell, Eileen Eckert ...... 234
Adding Value to Outreach Activities Eileen Eckert, Alexandra Bell ...... 240
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education : Supporting Diversity in American Agriculture Jill S. Auburn ...... 245
Sustaining Agriculture at the Community College Level Robin Kohanowich ...... 247 Programming and Support for Beginning Farmers Kathryn Ruhf, John Mitchell ...... 249
Expand Your Horizons: Small Business Innovation Research Charles F. Cleland ...... 253
Agricultural Wildcatters, Have They Hit A Gusher With Medicinal Plants? Randy Beavers ...... 256
USDA/CSREES National Research Initiative New Funding Opportunity: Agricultural Prosperity for Small and Medium-sized Farms Diana Jerkins ...... 257
Workshops
Getting Grants: Ten Things You Gotta Do To Get Money Mark R. Bailey ...... 259
Evaluating Your Small Farm Educational Program Paula B. Ford ...... 267
Funding Opportunities Bruce Pleasant ...... 270
Formal Dinner Remarks W. Thomas Phillips ...... 272
Farm Bill Listening Session ...... 275
Exhibit Abstracts ...... 276
Poster Abstracts ...... 294
Attendee List ...... 323 Small Farms are Fundamental to our Culture and Foundation as a Free Society
Franklin E. Boteler Deputy Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC
Welcome to the 4th National Small Farm is to improve the income levels and the Conference—Theme “Enhancing economic viability of small farm and ranch Opportunities for Small Farmers and enterprises through a partnership effort Ranchers.” This year 200 speakers and with the land grant university system, 720 registered attendees are gathered in public and private sectors, by encouraging Koury Convention Center. research, extension, and education programs that meet the specific needs of I hope you find your accommodations here small farmers and ranchers. at Sheraton Hilton, nearby Comfort Inn, or other area facilities to meet you needs in The CSREES and other USDA agencies the wonderful state of North Carolina—a provides a number of grants, loans, and land of significant mountain cultures, training programs to support small scale breathtaking seashores, and a very producers —many are reviewed as part of productive piedmont. this conference agenda and displays. Many are described in the small farms fact The Cooperative State Research, sheet which is available at our CSREES Education, and Extension Service Small Farms Program display. (CSREES) is pleased to cosponsor this conference with North Carolina A&T State The conference sessions include many University and North Carolina State notable speakers. There are national University. Many land grant universities, experts on dozens of factors affecting community-based organizations, small farm and ranch operations. Tracks foundations and other universities work to in concurrent sessions include alternative enhance the capacity of small farmers and enterprises, marketing, risk management, ranchers in remaining competitive in bridging gaps in programs and services, today’s economy. organic agriculture, and professional/ program development. I would also like to thank the farmers and ranchers who are taking the time to Small farms and ranchers are fundamental attend. I believe you will find the to our culture and foundation as a free conference speakers and presenters to society. Indeed, in his Pulitzer Prize- provide a significant amount of winning book Guns, Germs and Steel, information related to improving small Jared Diamond postulates that our ability farm / ranch operations. Sharing your to cultivate crops, and domesticate perspectives will enable us to better meet livestock, is the fundamental determinant the needs of small farmers and ranchers which leads to differences in the economic as we work in the future. status of the world’s continents and countries. CSREES, the agency I work with, functions to advance knowledge in agriculture, the As a large national scale trend, farms have environment, human health and wellbeing, leveled off in number to 1.9 million and and rural communities. The goal of the are generally getting larger and smaller in CSREES program for small farms/ranches size.
1 In a 2005 ERS Publication Robert Hoppe Perhaps the most significant recent and David Banker found that small family change with small farms/ranches is the farms own three-fifths of the farm and increase in the share of farms in the ranchland held by U.S. farms. Ninety two residential/ lifestyle category from percent (92%) of farms are small farms. 736,300 in 1993 to 943,200 in 2001. Farms with sales less than $10,000 now People are seeking to live on farms and account for half of all U.S. farms. Most ranches as a way of life. small farmers earn the majority of their income from off farm enterprises. Throughout your conference speakers will address these changes in small farms and Small farms and ranches make significant ranches and provide expert insights in contributions to the production of specific how to improve their profitability while commodities. For example, small farms conserving our environment. and ranches account for 74 percent of the value of production for oats, 67 percent I hope you will use this time to get to for tobacco, 60 percent for hay, 47 know one another, share your knowledge percent for wheat, 45 percent for with one another, and leave further soybeans, 39 percent for corn, and 38 enabled to support America’s small farm percent for beef cattle. Clearly small and ranch families. farms/ranches are also moving strongly into niche crop production and direct sales.
2 Helping Small Farms Help the Land
Carolyn Adams Director, East National Technology Support Center Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Greensboro, NC
Good morning, and thank you, Ray Every farm and every farmer should have (McKinnie). I am delighted to be with you a conservation plan. It’s a blueprint for this morning for the 4th National Small profitability and for protecting the Farm Conference representing Chief environment. These are goals that go Knight. I spent a few minutes with him in hand in hand. As Secretary Johanns told DC last week and he asked me to pass on participants at the White House his congratulations for putting on this Conference on Cooperative Conservation important conference. two months ago, “There is a powerful connection between sound, profitable Most of you are familiar with the Natural farming and effective conservation Resources Conservation Service, but I practices.” want to highlight for you this morning some of our programs that are particularly Last February, NRCS released a important to small-acreage farmers. And comprehensive policy for the Conservation I want to ask for your help in our efforts to Technical Assistance Program, setting reach out to these farmers and involve national priorities for the program. Our them in conservation. priorities focus on helping farmers and ranchers better prepare to successfully This year NRCS is celebrating its 70th apply for conservation programs and also anniversary. We’ve been a partner in get ready to meet environmental conservation since 1935. That’s seven regulations. decades of helping people help the land. A conservation plan helps landowners take NRCS has a broad portfolio of a comprehensive approach to managing conservation programs, and we are their farming operation and making wise committed to making sure that every land use decisions. All agricultural land is farmer in America can benefit from the eligible for conservation planning technical opportunities that are available. We assistance. appreciate all that you do as you work with producers on small farms to spread EQIP the word about our programs. I want to highlight for you this morning two major NRCS programs—EQIP and Conservation Technical Assistance CSP. As you may know, the The foundation of our conservation effort Environmental Quality Incentives Program is Conservation Technical is our largest voluntary conservation Assistance—available from every NRCS program. In FY 2005, we committed more office across the country. Through CTA, than $735 million for more than 40,000 we help landowners determine their new contracts for conservation practices conservation needs, create a conservation on over 24 million acres. plan and develop priorities for conservation activities. Then we look at EQIP offers up to 75 percent cost share to the conservation programs we can offer to help farmers and ranchers reduce soil help farmers meet their goals. erosion, improve water use, and protect grazing land. An important point: limited resource and beginning farmers may be 3 eligible for cost-shares up to 90 percent. of the beginning farmer contracts was This is part of our increasing effort to $92.2 million, an increase of $44.9 million. make sure that our programs work for both large and small farmers. At the same time our office here in Greensboro and our sister Technology Small-Scale/Limited Resource Farmer Support Center in Fort Worth, Texas have Initiative launched a companion Small Farm There are some special activities under Technology Initiative to make sure that EQIP that have particularly benefited our requirements for conservation small-scale farmers. The first is our practices include the breadth of materials Small-Scale/Limited Resource Farmer and techniques appropriate for small- Initiative announced last March. Under acreage farms and do not have biases this initiative, 11 states set aside up to $6 toward highly-capitalized large operations. million of their EQIP funds for small- scale/limited resource farmers focusing on Conservation Innovation Grants cost-effective and economical One of our goals at NRCS is to identify conservation practices such as: new conservation technologies and strategies and encourage widespread · Erosion control implementation of beneficial practices. · Water management Our Conservation Innovation Grants assist · Grazing land planting and in this effort. management · Livestock watering facilities One of our 2004 Conservation Innovation · Fencing, and Grants went to The United Christian · Irrigation systems Community Association and partners in Alabama. Its goal was technology The states included Alabama, Arkansas, transfer—specifically, developing several Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, demonstration farms to showcase Mississippi, North Carolina, South management intensive grazing. T-U-C-C- Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and the A aimed to reach 60-80 limited resource Caribbean Area. Under the initiative: farmers, most of whom are farming 50 acres or less to explain the benefits of · At least 10 percent of the overall management intensive grazing and cropland had to be planted to minimize the negative environmental alternative crops, impacts of over-grazing. · Producers could have 100 acres or less of cropland, In 2005, we announced $19 million in · Cost-share rates were up to 90 Conservation Innovation Grants for 54 percent for all practices, and projects. One of our 2005 grants went to · Contracts were limited to $10,000. Heifer International to encourage limited resource farmers across eight southern Preliminary FY 2005 EQIP contract states to adopt management intensive information shows that for Limited grazing. Another project in Arkansas will Resource Farmers and Ranchers we demonstrate low-cost drip irrigation approved approximately 62 percent of the systems for small producers. applications we received (1,601 out of 2,571) accounting for approximately In Pennsylvania, we funded a project to $29.9 million in contract obligations. This promote conservation tillage practices is an increase of over $11 million from last among Plain Sect—primarily year and approximately 500 more Amish—producers by demonstrating a contracts. horse-drawn no-till corn planter. A Georgia project will promote sustainability For EQIP beginning farmers, NRCS on small farms through solar power for approved 4,135 contracts, an increase of irrigation. Several projects involve almost 2,000 contracts. The total amount demonstrating ways to improve feed for 4 dairy cows to minimize excess nutrients staff have been reaching out to our that wind up in the watershed. customers to learn what they want to see in the next farm bill. If you know of new technologies that could better conserve natural resources for the USDA has held 33 listening sessions farmers you serve, you may want to already; 8 more have been consider applying for a Conservation scheduled—including two forums this week Innovation Grant to develop or in Florida and Georgia. demonstrate those technologies. The competition is usually announced early in As we look ahead to 2007, we already the year with awards in late summer. know we need to have conservation programs that are holistic, better 2007 Farm Bill integrated and more transparent. We In closing, I have to just briefly mention know we need programs that work for all the 2007 farm bill. As you know, producers, including small farmers. discussions are already in full swing. Secretary Johanns and other top USDA
5 Introduction to General Session II: Farm Policy Discussion
Alfonzo Drain Director, USDA Small Farms Coordination Office of the Under Secretary Research, Education & Economics (REE) U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC
Thank you Ray for that kind introduction. separate and distinct entities, but look at them for their role within the broad social, I also wish to say good morning to all of economic and environmental context. The you and welcome you to the 4th National evolving structure of agriculture needs Small Farm Conference. I especially want both large and small farms. It is to thank Dr. Denis Ebodaghe and Dr. Dan imperative that the small family farm Lyons and their steering and planning survive in 21st century agriculture. committees for all their dedication and hard work in planning this Conference. Small farms coordinators provide a focal point to coordinate small farm policy and This Conference is another demonstration programs within USDA. They are of USDA and its partners’ continuing responsible for planning, coordinating, and efforts to help small and limited resource the implementation of small farms policies farmers and ranchers meet the numerous and programs. challenges they face in 21st century production agriculture. I am indeed The focus on small farms at USDA evolved honored to be the moderator of this panel. from a February 1997 Civil Rights Action Team (CRAT) report which recommended Before we start with the panel, let me give that USDA change its management and you some brief background information on program practices to address long term the Small Farms program at USDA. The bias and discrimination against small focus on small farms at USDA evolved farmers and ranchers. from a February 1997 Civil Rights Action Team report which recommended that In September 1999, USDA issued USDA change its management and Departmental Regulation (9700-1) which program practices to address the needs of established a Small Farms Policy for the small farms and ranches. In September of Department. This policy included 1999, USDA issued a Departmental strategies, systems, and a Departmental Regulation which established a Small framework for achieving and maintaining Farms Policy for the Department. This the viability of small farms, ranches, and policy included strategies, systems, and a woodlots in the United States. This Departmental framework for achieving and regulation established an Office of Small maintaining the viability of small farms, Farms Coordination to provide a focal ranches and woodlots in the United States. point to coordinate USDA small farms policy and programs. The regulation also During the past few years, enhancing the established a Departmental-wide group of viability and economic livelihood of small farms coordinators which America’s small farmers and ranchers has represented each mission area, individual been on USDA’s list of top priorities. The agencies, the Offices of Outreach, Civil focus has been on the future of small Rights, Budget and Program Analysis, farms and ranches which is now Communications, Chief Economist, and the recognized as an issue of national General Council. importance. It is now time for USDA and America to look at small farms, not as 6 Small farms coordinators provide a focal normally be sold during the year. point to coordinate small farms policy and programs within USDA. They are The USDA’s National Commission on Small responsible for planning, recommending, Farms in its report A Time to Act, and the coordinating, and implementing small USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), farms policies and programs. This includes in its definitions of farm topology groups, promoting awareness, education, and/or define small farms as farms with less than participation in USDA’s programs serving $250,000 in gross receipts annually. small farms and ranches. Institutional farms, experimental and research farms, and Indian Reservations Definitions and Base Line Information are included in this definition. Since the Conference and workshop agenda uses the term small farm and According to the latest NASS data, the limited resource farmers and ranchers, I number of farms and ranches in the U.S. thought I should give you USDA’s official in the year 2004 totaled 2.11 million, 0.6 definition of a farm/ranch, so that we all percent fewer than in 2003. Small farms will be on the same page, as we spend the and ranches represented 92.2 percent of next few days talking about survival the total number of farms in the US. For strategies. 2004, small farms and ranches represented 92.5 percent. The total The USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics number of farms for previous years are: Service (NASS) defines a farm as any establishment from which $1,000 or more agriculture products were sold, or would
Year Number of Farms 2004 2,110.000 2003 2,126,860 2002 2,135,360 2001 2,148,630 2000 2,166,780 1999 2,187,280
The panel topic is Farm Policy farm and ranch operators. Census of Although, there are many policies vital to Agriculture information provides the basis or agriculture, rural American and global trade, base- line for Farm Policy. The second this topic will focus primarily on the panelist will comment on Farm Policy from a components of Farm Bill policy that USDA perspective. The third panelist will significantly impacts production agriculture. comment on Farm Policy from a This includes the 2002 Farm Bill and current Community- Based Organization projections of the contents of the 2007 Farm perspective. Bill. Emphasis will be placed on the direction signaled by the 2002 Farm Bill and Comments and discussion from this session the possible path the next Farm Bill may will help prepare constituents to be more channel. responsive to Secretary Mike Johanns various Farm Bill Forums which will be held The topic will be presented by three across the nation. panelists. The first panelist will cover the Census of Agriculture and plans to improve coverage of small and minority
7 Making Minority and Small Farmers Count; Finding them is the First Step to Serving Them
Joseph T. Reilly Associate Administrator USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service Washington, DC
NASS Mission: To provide timely, What Doesn’t NASS Do? accurate, and useful statistics in service to C Set policy U.S. agriculture C Regulate activities C Permit influence What Does NASS Do? C Disclose individual reports C Administer USDA’s Statistical C Favor any group above others Estimating Program and the 5-year Census of Agriculture Census of Agriculture: Farm Definition C Coordinate Federal/State A farm is any place from which $1,000 or agricultural statistics needs more of agricultural products were C Conduct statistical research for produced and sold, or normally would other Federal/State or private have been sold, during the census year. organizations and other countries C Statistical research Census of Agriculture: Methodology Changes What Does NASS Do? Supply C Inclusion of a “more than one race” Statistics category for operators who identify C We supply the statistics necessary themselves as being of multiple to manage USDA programs races C Our statistics help to improve C Incompleteness in the census mail efficiency of these programs list was measured by matching list C Facilitate in the development of new names against qualifying operations programs found through canvassing sample land areas throughout the Nation
Undercount for Minority Principal Operators Principal Operator Characteristics by Farm
2002* 2002 % Change % of Total Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino 50,592 28,767 + 43 2.4 Women……………………… 237,819 180,481 + 24 11.1 Asian………………………… 6,285 5,116 + 19 0.3 American Indian…………… 15,494 12,366 + 20 0.7 Black or African American… 29,090 16,328 + 44 1.4
* After adjusting for undercoverage
8 What Can You Do To Help? response rates of limited resource C Spread the word of the importance producers of information on limited resource producers in agriculture NASS Website Contact Information: C Identify limited resource producers Website: http://www.usda.gov/nass to be included in our list building Census Data: efforts http://www.nass.usda.gov/census C Work towards increasing the
9 10
11 12 13 Government Payments and Small Farms: Who Benefits and How Much?
Dr. Neilson Conklin Director, Markets and Trade Economics Division. USDA – Economic Research Service Washington, DC
Overview C Price support commodity programs C About 40 percent of all farms C Sugar received government payments in C Dairy 2004 C Conservation programs C Payments averaged $12,000 for C Programs on land used for those operations receiving payments agricultural production C The largest 10 percent of farms in C Land retirement terms of gross receipts received 56 C Conservation Reserve percent of all government payments Program C Crop insurance Key Programs C Disaster C Income support commodity C Credit programs C Indirect support C Marketing loans C Ethanol C Direct payments C Trade C Counter-cyclical payments C Extension/research C MILC payment
14 Share of county’s farms with less than $250,000 of gross receipts
ERS Farm Typology Small Farms Large Farms 1. Limited resource Operator household 6. Large family Farm sales are $250,000 income under the poverty level in both to $499,999. 2003 and 2004 or is less than half the 7. Very large family Farm sales are county median income in both years and $500,000 or more. gross sales under $100,000 8. Non-family Farms organized as non- 2. Retirement Operator's principal family corporation i.e., neither farming occupation is retired occupation nor retired. 3. Residential/Lifestyle Operator's or organized as a cooperative, principal occupation is 'other,’ or farm is run by a hired manager. 4. Farming occupation/Lower sales Operator's principal occupation is farming and farm sales are under $100,000 5. Farming occupation/Higher sales Operator's principal occupation is farming and farm sales are $100,000 to $249,999
15 Rural residence and intermediate farms get most of their household income from off-farm sources
Source: 2003 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Study. Economic Research Service, USDA.
Small farms are more likely to produce livestock rather than farm program crops
Source: 2004 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey. Economic Research Service, USDA.
16 Share of government payments varies by farm type
Source: 2004 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey. Economic Research Service, USDA
Average payments per farm are lower for small farms . . . .
Source: 2004 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey. Economic Research Service, USDA.
17 . . . . But government payments make up a larger share of gross receipts for small farms
Source: 2004 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey. Economic Research Service, USDA
Average mix of government payments per farm varies by farm type
Source: 2004 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey. Economic Research Service, USDA.
18 Concluding Comments Additional Resources C Larger farms tend to receive the Economic Research Service (ERS) web site largest benefits since most support is http://ers.usda.gov paid on the land use or the amount of production 1996 and 2002 Farm Bill side-by-side C The largest 10 percent of farms comparison in terms of gross receipts http://ers.usda.gov/Features/farmbill received 56 percent of all government payments in 2004. Farm Bill impacts C Government payments are important http://ers.usda.gov/briefing/FarmPolicy to small farms C Payments accounted for over 7 Farm policy, farm households, and the percent of gross receipts for rural economy small farms compared to 4 http://ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Adjustments/ percent for large farms in 2004
19 Track One
Risk Management
20 Cultivating Success: Sustainable Small Farming and Ranching Education Program
Marcy Ostrom and Malaquias Flores Washington State University Puyallup, Washington Cinda Williams and Theresa Beaver University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho
Cultivating Success is a collaborative needed to develop a whole-farm plan for educational program of Washington State an economically and environmentally University (WSU), the University of Idaho successful small acreage enterprise. (UI), and a non-profit, Rural Roots, Weekly evening course sessions cover designed to address the risk management such topics as goal setting, resource issues, and production, business and assessment, sustainable pest and soil marketing needs of beginning and existing management techniques, alternative farmers, as well as agricultural cropping and livestock systems, and professionals and students. The program marketing strategies. The course model consists of semester-long courses and encourages co-learning and interactive intensive short courses that are offered discussion among experienced farmer through Extension and on campus at both mentors, university agricultural WSU and UI. The goal of the program is to specialists, and students. Field trips are create and implement new educational taken to farms, value-added businesses programs that will increase the number and direct market outlets. By the end of and foster the long-term success of small the course students have completed a sustainable farmers and ranchers in whole-farm plan for their unique farm Washington and Idaho. With this goal in enterprise. mind, the courses utilize a community- based, experiential approach. Experienced A second course, Agricultural farmers, community resource people, and Entrepreneurship, focuses on farm university specialists are brought together business planning and the reduction of with students in the classroom and in the financial risks. Students gain knowledge of field. Farmer-student mentoring the business planning process, financial relationships are fostered. Since the management techniques, and successful program’s beginning in Fall, 2001 over marketing strategies. By the end of the 700 participants have taken one or more course, they are expected to have classes. completed a farm business plan and made a presentation on it to the rest of the Two of the courses developed as part of class. Topics covered include setting the Cultivating Success program have enterprise goals, planning and research, proven particularly useful in county regulatory and legal structures, insurance, extension settings and, to-date, have been market analysis, marketing strategies, offered through 14 county extension record-keeping, budgets & cash flow, offices in Washington and five in Idaho. financial statements, and federal farm The first, Sustainable Small Acreage programs and resources. Over 200 farm Farming and Ranching, was designed to business plans have been developed as a provide beginning and existing farmers result of students taking this course. with the planning and decision-making Student evaluations indicate that many tools and the knowledge of farm have improved or changed their farm production and management systems management strategies as a result of
21 course participation. Other positive planning and whole farm management are outcomes of course participation have being offered in cooperation with county included many new start-up farm extension offices in the form of courses, businesses, the diversification of existing workshops, farm walks, radio talks, and farm businesses, and strong farmer one-on-one counseling. Over 50 Latino networking. Over 80 percent of and 35 Hmong farmers have participated participants report having taken in these educational programs. advantage of additional educational Participants have gained knowledge about activities and public agricultural resources financial management and marketing, as a result of being introduced to them in alternative pest and soil management, the classes. drought mitigation, and federal assistance programs. New Programs for Immigrant Farmers Recently, the Cultivating Success Program Additional Educational Opportunities has expanded to include courses for Latino Annual workshops are held in Washington and Hmong audiences. Washington has and Idaho to train new course instructors growing numbers of immigrant farmers and extension educators to offer who need access to capital, land, and Cultivating Success courses in additional business management skills. Many formal counties. Student and instructor manuals extension formats have been a poor fit for are continually being improved to make it these audiences due to limited English and easy for such educators to adapt literacy skills and extremely low incomes. instructional materials to their unique Very little information exists on the actual audiences. New certificate programs in numbers of these farmers or the extent of Sustainable Small Acreage Farming and their needs and farming goals. While the Ranching have been approved at both 2002 Agricultural Census listed 1,821 Washington State University and the Latino-owned farms in Washington, a 14 University of Idaho for academic and percent increase from 1997, this was most continuing education (CEU) students. certainly an undercount. The last Courses can be taken individually or in a agricultural census missed all of series in designated topic areas to earn a Washington’s growing population of certificate in Sustainable Small Acreage Hmong farmers. Farming and Ranching. The certificate program includes a strong emphasis on New partnership agreements with the practical, on-farm experiences and farmer USDA Risk Management Agency and a mentoring relationships. With the help of grant from the Sustainable Agriculture Higher Education Challenge grants, many Research and Education program have new courses are under development for allowed us to conduct initial needs the certificate program, including courses assessments and begin developing and in sustainable livestock management, adapting our curricula for Latino and organic farming, and applied soil Hmong audiences. Listening sessions and management. Many of these courses will interviews with Hmong farmers in the be available for distance delivery. For Puget Sound area and Latino farmers in more information on the certificates, central Washington have helped to identify individual course offerings, or the educational and informational priorities. Cultivating Success Program, please visit Over 350 Latino farm families and 99 our website at Hmong farm families in need of assistance http://cultivatingsuccess.org have been identified. In accordance with the stated farmer needs, educational programs on various aspects of business
22 What Are Animal Feeding Operations? Do The New Regulations Affect My Farm?
Gregory Beatty U.S. EPA Washington, DC
Introduction CAFO program. Alaska, Idaho, On February 12, 2003, EPA published in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New the Federal Register revisions to the 25 Mexico, and Oklahoma are states that EPA year old regulations for concentrated has not approved to run the permitting animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The program for CAFOs. In those states, revised rule replaces 25 year old Tribal lands, and in all territories except technology requirements and permitting the Virgin Islands, EPA is the permitting regulations that did not address today’s authority and will issue NPDES permits for environmental needs and did not keep CAFOs. pace with growth in the industry. Effective manure management practices What are the CAFO Regulations? required by this rule will maximize the use For CAFOs and certain other industries, of manure as a resource for agriculture EPA has preset some of the minimum while reducing adverse impacts on the requirements that go into each permit in environment. regulations called “effluent limitations guidelines” (ELGs). When the permitting The new rule applies to about 15,500 authority issues a permit for your CAFO, it livestock operations across the country. does not set your permit requirements on Under the new rule all CAFOs were its own. Instead, it places the required to apply for a permit, submit an requirements of the ELGs directly into annual report, and develop and follow a your permit. These requirements may plan for handling manure and wastewater. consist of both limits on the amount of a However, following a court challenge to pollutant that can be discharged the revised regulations brought by both (numerical limits called “discharge limits”) industry and environmental petitioners, on and other ELG requirements (management February 28, 2005, the 2nd Circuit Court practices and record-keeping vacated the “Duty to Apply” and added the requirements). Your state permitting requirement that nutrient management authority may also set additional plans (NMPs) must be submitted with the requirements that are needed to protect National Pollutant Discharge Elimination water quality or other requirements that System (NPDES) permit application or apply under state or local law. notice of intent to provide for adequate public review. In addition, the court The ELGs for CAFOs include both required the terms and conditions of the discharge limits and certain management NMP become terms and conditions in the practice requirements. Note, however, NPDES permit. EPA is currently in the that for most animal types, the ELGs for process of revising the regulations to CAFOs apply only to large CAFOs. comply with the court decision. Permitting authorities will set effluent limitations for medium and small CAFOs EPA may approve states to run their own on a case-by-case basis depending on the regulatory and permitting programs for specific situation at the CAFO and based CAFOs. If EPA has approved your state, on the best professional judgment (BPJ) of the state is the permitting authority and the permitting authority. In many cases, will issue an NPDES permit for your CAFO. those requirements may be similar to the EPA has approved most states to run the requirements for large CAFOs.
23 The revised regulations focus on the For a facility to be a CAFO, it must first CAFOs that pose the greatest risk to water meet the regulatory definition of an AFO. quality. By regulating mainly large CAFOs A CAFO is an AFO that has certain and some smaller CAFOs that pose a high characteristics. There are two ways for an risk to water quality, EPA is regulating AFO to be considered a CAFO: close to 60 percent of all manure · An AFO may be defined as a CAFO generated by operations that confine or animals. · An AFO may be designated a CAFO. Do These Regulations Affect Me? These regulations apply to owners and An AFO can be defined as a CAFO if it has operators of animal feeding operations a certain number of animals and it meets (AFOs) that are CAFOs because they meet the other criteria contained in the certain conditions. If your animal regulations. The regulations set operation meets those conditions and thresholds for size categories based on the discharges or proposes to discharge to number of animals confined at the waters of the U.S., it is regulated and you operation for a total of 45 days or more in must apply for an NPDES permit. any 12-month period.
All concentrated animal feeding An operation is defined as a Large CAFO if operations, or CAFOs, are covered by it: these regulations. A CAFO is a specific · Meets the regulatory definition of kind of AFO. The regulations describe an AFO and which AFOs are considered CAFOs. To be · Meets the large CAFO threshold regulated as a CAFO, your operation must for that animal type. first meet the regulatory definition of an AFO. An operation is defined as a Medium CAFO if it: An AFO is an animal feeding operation · Meets the regulatory definition of that meets both of these conditions: an AFO; 1. The animals are confined for at least · Meets the Medium CAFO thresholds 45 days during any 12-month period. for that animal type; and · Meets at least one of the following The 45 days of confinement do not two criteria (called “discharge have to be 45 days in a row, and the criteria”): 12-month period can be any · A man-made ditch, pipe, or consecutive 12 months. similar device carries manure or process 2. Crops, forage growth, and other wastewater from the vegetation are not grown in the area operation to surface water where the animals are confined. or · The animals come into This does not mean that any contact with surface water vegetation at all in a confinement that runs through the area area would keep an operation from where they are confined. being defined as an AFO. For example, a confinement area like a The discharge criteria apply to only the pen or feedlot that has only “incident parts of the operation where you confine vegetation” (as defined by your animals, store manure or raw materials, permitting authority) would still be and contain waste. For example, if you an AFO as long as the animals are dig a ditch or install a pipe that drains confined for at least 45 days in any water from your confinement area into a 12-month period. stream or lake, your operation would meet the first discharge criterion. Open tile
24 drains in the areas where animals are permit. The general permit specifies what confined, wastes are collected and stored, kinds of operations can be covered. or raw materials are kept also meet the Owners and operators of eligible first criterion if the tile drains carry operations may then apply for coverage pollutants from these areas to surface under the permit. water. Your operation meets the second discharge criterion if a stream runs Operators of CAFOs that are eligible for through the confinement area and the coverage under a general permit may animals have direct access to the stream. notify the permitting authority that they want to be covered by submitting a Notice The second way for an AFO to be a CAFO of Intent (NOI). If an NPDES general is to be designated as a CAFO. If an AFO permit is available in your state and your does not meet the definition of a large or operation meets the eligibility medium CAFO but the permitting authority requirements, you must fill out an NOI finds it to be a significant contributor of and submit it to your permitting authority pollutants to surface waters, the to apply for coverage under the general permitting authority may designate that permit. The general permit will tell you operation as a CAFO. To designate an how to apply for coverage and when your AFO as a CAFO, the permitting authority coverage will become effective. must inspect the AFO and must find that the operation is a significant contributor of An NPDES individual permit contains pollutants to surface waters. requirements specifically for one CAFO. You must apply for an NPDES individual EPA has set thresholds for operations that permit if: confine different kinds of animals. · A general permit is not available Thresholds are used with discharge criteria · Your CAFO is not eligible to be to determine which AFOs are defined as covered under the general NPDES Large or Medium CAFOs and which should permit be designated as Medium and Small · You want an individual permit, or CAFOs. · Your permitting authority requires you to apply for an individual How Do I Apply for a Permit? permit. You must get the forms you need to apply for an NPDES permit from your permitting To apply for an individual permit, you authority. Under the federal NPDES must fill out either NPDES Forms 1 and 2B regulations, there are two kinds of or similar forms required by your state. permits—general permits and individual (Contact your permitting authority for the permits. Each permitting authority adopts proper forms). You must complete the its own rules about what types of permits forms and submit them to your permitting operations need, so you should contact authority. your permitting authority. When your permitting authority receives An NPDES general permit has one set of your permit application, it will use the requirements for a group of facilities. For information you have submitted to draft a example, all CAFOs or all poultry CAFOs in permit for your operation. Your permitting a particular area, such as an entire state authority will base your permit or watershed within the state, might be requirements on the unique conditions at covered under one general permit. The your operation. After a public comment permitting authority sets the permit period on the draft permit, your permitting conditions, issues a draft permit, and authority will modify the draft, if requests comments from the public. The necessary, and then issue your final permitting authority makes changes to the NPDES individual permit. draft permit based on the public comments and then issues the final
25 What Requirements Will my NPDES discharge of the manure, litter or process Permit Contain? wastewater that was generated while the Your NPDES permit will say what you have operation was a CAFO. This condition to do to comply. Certain minimum applies to CAFOs that are closing down requirements must be in every NPDES and to CAFOs that are downsizing or CAFO permit. Your permitting authority making other changes so that they will no may include more than the minimum longer meet the CAFO definition. If you requirements in your NPDES permit. Read are closing or downsizing your CAFO and your permit carefully to find out exactly your NPDES permit expires before the what you have to do to your CAFO. facility is properly closed or while the facility might still discharge CAFO- Your NPDES permit will have four main generated manure or wastewater you sets of requirements: must reapply for an NPDES permit. 1. Effluent limitations 2. Special conditions Additional special condition for large 3. Standard conditions CAFOs: Transfer of manure, litter, and 4. Monitoring, record-keeping, and process wastewater to other persons. If reporting requirements you own or operate a Large CAFO, your NPDES permit will have a special condition The CAFO regulations establish two special for transfers of manure, litter, or process conditions that must be included in all wastewater to other persons. NPDES CAFO permits and one additional condition for only large CAFOs. Your If you own or operate a large CAFO, and permitting authority may include other you transfer manure, litter or process special conditions in your NPDES permit as wastewater to other persons, you must: well. Remember to read your permit to · Give nutrient content information find out what you have to do, and contact to the recipient. If you give away your permitting authority if there is or sell manure, litter, or process anything in your NPDES permit that you wastewater from large CAFO, do not understand. before the transfer you must give the results of your most recent First special condition for all CAFOs: representative nutrient analysis to The terms and conditions of your nutrient the person who takes it away. management plan. If you own or operate · Keep records of your transfers. a CAFO of any size your NPDES permit will These requirements apply no matter how contain the terms and conditions of your much manure you sell or give away or nutrient management plan. The goal of who takes it. the nutrient management plan is to minimize your CAFO’s impact on water What Is the Compliance Assurance quality. Your plan must describe the Process? practices and procedures that will be For help in understanding the regulations, implemented at your operation to meet all permitting process, and permit of the production area and land application requirements, it is best to contact your area requirements that apply to your NPDES permitting authority. Even if you operation. do not have an NPDES permit, the permitting authority for CAFOs in your Second special condition for all state can explain what the regulations are CAFOs: Duty to maintain permit all about and whether you need an NPDES coverage. Every CAFO operator must permit. You can find contact information maintain coverage under an NPDES permit for your permitting authority on EPA’s Web until the CAFO is properly closed. In site at general, an operation is considered www.epa.gov/npdes/afo/statecontacts properly closed based on showing that there is no remaining potential for a
26 EPA can also help you understand the EPA’s National Agriculture Compliance regulations and permitting process. You Assistance Center, or Ag Center has can find contact information about the information on many topics, including best regulations (including animal sector- management practices, education and specific brochures, frequently asked training, laws, and research. questions, and the text of the regulations) on EPA‘s Web site at EPA’s National Agriculture Compliance www.epa.gov/npdes/caforule. Assistance Center 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS In addition, EPA plans to publish more 66101 information to help you use different 1-888-663-2155 technologies and management practices at E-mail: [email protected] your CAFO to comply with the regulations. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture
27 Are Managed Onsite Wastewater Systems a Permanent Element of Wastewater Infrastructure or Can You Keep an Onsite Wastewater System Smelling Sweet?
A. R. Rubin McKim and Creed Cary, North Carolina
Infrastructure constitutes those essential wastewater treatment system consisted of services and functions necessary to a tank followed by a soil absorption support a society or culture. Historically system. For many of these 100 years, we have considered the municipal water little time was required to develop any supply and wastewater system, the innovation to the traditional system. This transportation network, the power grid philosophy changed dramatically in the and communication network as essential 1970s as the Clean Water Act elements of infrastructure. These Amendments recognized the value of managed elements of our service innovative and alternative technologies to infrastructure provide the underlying address serious water quality and public framework or foundation for protecting our health issues. collective well being. Onsite wastewater treatment systems have been utilized To assure the sustainability of the onsite extensively for over 100 years and they and decentralized system as a permanent too are a part of infrastructure if managed element of the nation’s wastewater properly and professionally. infrastructure, those essential activities and practices listed previously must be To develop sustainability of the onsite implemented, operationalized, and wastewater system as a permanent sustained. These are not unique to the element of infrastructure we must begin wastewater industry, but necessary in any with a basic change in our mindset, the activity/service considered an essential mindset of the public served by element of infrastructure. wastewater systems, and by the elected and appointed officials supporting the To assure the sustainability of the development and proliferation of industry, practitioners must continue to wastewater systems. Our challenge as address: managers is to assure: 1. Analysis of wasteflows and quality, 1. Program Direction 2. Evaluation of site and soil limitations 2. Budget and operating capital and associated assimilative capacity, available 3. Available treatment and dispersal 3. Fiscal management adequate to technologies sustain system 4. Management Requirements 4. Maintenance Management a. Essential Management Issues 5. Operations Management 1. Permanence 6. Project Management 2. Sustainability 7. Comprehensive planning 3. Indispensability 8. Management Review and Program Modification/Modernization Wastewater Flow and Quality Onsite and decentralized wastewater For many of these years, the system was treatment systems were initially considered a temporary system, destined developed to accommodate the to fail and to be replaced by municipal wastewater generated at small, rural sewerage. The traditional onsite homesteads. Today, onsite and
28 decentralized systems are utilized to treat management, the slope and topography of wastewater generated in the traditional the site, and the landscape position rural homestead generating 50 to 60 occupied by the property. This gallons per person per day to the trophy assessment is essential to assure that the home containing over 10,000 square feet property is sufficiently large to host the of living space, employing a cadre of wastewater system and to insure that service providers and generating when installed, the onsite wastewater thousands of gallons of water per day; system is buffered adequately from wells, rural businesses and industries, and surface waters, and the adjoining community based systems generating property. many thousands of gallons per day. The soil evaluation is required to Critical to the development of the on site determine the soil properties deemed wastewater system as integral to critical for a properly functioning soil infrastructure is acceptance that these absorption system. The properties systems can cope with a wide range of evaluated include: depth to limiting layers waste volumes and qualities. Our task as or horizons (such as rock or shallow managers, designers, installers and groundwater) on the site, soil texture and operators is to assure that the clients - the structure, mineralogy and consistence, the landowner and the elected officials estimated permeability of soil on any responsible for the proliferation of onsite receiver site, and whether the native soil systems - are well acquainted with the is adequate to provide the necessary management requirements of the system treatment of wastewater applied. Each of developed for a specific site. these factors is critical in the design process. For example, states have specific Site and Soil Assessment regulatory requirements addressing Throughout the country onsite wastewater separation distance. In several states management systems are commonly used including North Carolina, wastewater in rural and urban fringe areas. Presently which has been treated to secondary many state laws (see for example Virginia levels can be in as little as 6 inches of Department of Health, 12 VAC 5 or North suitable soil. Carolina Laws and Rules for Onsite Sewage Disposal, 15A NCAC .1300) allow The selection of the wastewater a variety of onsite wastewater management option or alternative is management options and alternatives. dependent on maintaining the appropriate Prior to determining which of the options separation distance between the zone of to utilize on any parcel of land, the local waste application and any restriction that environmental health specialist will reduce treatment capacity of a site. accomplishes both a comprehensive State and Local rules must be consulted analysis of the wastewater to be treated prior to design and specification for any on the site and a site and soil assessment onsite wastewater treatment system. to determine the treatment potential of the proposed wastewater receiver. These analyses of the waste and the receiver are essential to assure that the system selected will protect public health, environmental quality, the homeowner investment in the property, local tax base and the community’s image and investment potential.
The site evaluation examines the area available on site for wastewater
29 Wastewater Treatment Options particularly sensitive, or where there are Maintenance of these separation distances sources of drinking water that may be is important. Where soil is deep, a impacted by onsite wastewater systems, conventional or traditional gravity dosed some form of advanced treatment may be soil absorption wastewater treatment required before liquid is placed into the system is often adequate. These soil for final treatment and dispersal. In traditional systems are typically placed in other instances, there may be no option a 30 inch to 36 inch wide by 30 inch to 36 available to repair an improperly operating inch deep trench. The trench is typically onsite wastewater system than a filled with approximately 12 inches to 18 mechanical treatment device. In either of inches of gravel, expanded polystyrene, or these examples, aerobic treatment units a chamber type system all of which serve or media filters may be employed to to support a trench type system and provide extensive pretreatment of the utilize gravity to facilitate the distribution wastewater before it is placed in the of wastewater to the soil. Soil material is receiver environment. In order for these used to fill and close the trench. These systems to function properly for the life of traditional systems require a soil at least the property, continuous, high level 42 inches in depth to maintain adequate operation, maintenance, and management soil cover over a system and adequate is essential. separation distances to a restriction. In some jurisdictions around the country, the These technically advanced wastewater soil depth required to install a traditional, treatment and dispersal systems will not gravity dosed wastewater soil absorption function in a sustainable manner without a system is as much as 6 feet. comprehensive management effort. Several states have now mandated Where the depth of the soil is restricted, essential management requirements one of the pressure dosed options may be associated with the use of advanced designated. The low pressure pipe (LPP) systems. Experience indicates that the system was developed in North Carolina in management may be either public or the late 1970s and more recently private, but it must be performed by drip/spray irrigation systems have been competent service providers. These utilized extensively where soil limitations requirements are contained in the USEPA exist. Voluntary Guidelines for Onsite and Decentralized Wastewater Treatment In areas where there are serious site or (2003). soil limitations, where the environment is
30 Management Management will be necessary to assure All onsite wastewater treatment systems any system is managed properly and in a will require routine and recurring sustainable manner. The technologies and inspection, operation and maintenance, management strategies are essential to and management. In order for a county to develop this infrastructure. issue a development or improvement permit which specifies one of these Conclusions mechanically intensive options, a public or Onsite wastewater treatment systems private, certified management entity must have been a part of the rural landscape for be available. This can be accomplished over a century. Since the early 1980s the either as contract or service agreement use of these systems has resulted in with a private management entity or development of millions of dwelling units through an agreement with a county throughout the country. On sites with few management entity. Both public and limitations, the conventional treatment private management entities are operating and dispersal technologies of a septic tank in North Carolina and throughout the and gravity dosed leach field are country. Recently the USEPA developed a appropriate. In areas with site or soil comprehensive set of management limitations, degree of technology guidelines which, although voluntary at employed to address site and soil this time, encourage local units of conditions becomes more complex. Today government to become much more on-lot wastewater treatment facilities are involved in the management of onsite and capable of producing high quality treated decentralized wastewater management liquid suited for unrestricted reuse. The systems. These systems are a permanent levels of treatment required on a specific part of the wastewater management site and the associated management are infrastructure and they must be managed the subject of the recent EPA Guidelines accordingly. The USEPA has proposed 5 and Strategy statement concerning onsite levels of management for onsite and and decentralized wastewater systems. community wastewater treatment The agency has concluded that these systems. Communities are strongly systems are a permanent element of encouraged to examine management infrastructure and must, like any element needs associated with onsite wastewater of infrastructure, be managed programs. comprehensively.
31 Children’s Health: Are Your Children at Risk from their Environment?
Lisa McKinley EPA, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia
Children’s Environmental Health (CEH) has grant universities to develop state been identified as one of the top priorities capacity in children's environmental by the U.S. Environmental Protection health. Land grant universities include: Agency (EPA). Children are often more Alabama Cooperative Extension heavily exposed to toxins in the System—Auburn University, Clemson environment. Pound for pound, children University, University of Georgia, breathe more air, drink more water, and University of Florida, University of eat more food than adults. Children’s Kentucky, Mississippi State University, behavior patterns, such as playing close to North Carolina A&T State University, North the ground and hand-to-mouth behavior, Carolina State University, and the increase exposure to potential toxics. In University of Tennessee. Through this addition, children may be more vulnerable partnership, EPA and CSREES have to environmental hazards; they are less conducted educational activities to able than adults to metabolize, detoxify, increase awareness of children's and excrete toxins due to developing body environmental health hazards. Education systems. Environmental risks to children and outreach material addressing health include asthma-exacerbating air pollution, hazards are being utilized and distributed lead-based paint in older homes, and in over 80 percent of the counties in the persistent chemicals resulting from region via programming and special multimedia exposures (air, soil, water) in education efforts. Special efforts have a variety of settings. Environmental risks included the promotion of Children’s include cancer and reproductive and/or Environmental Health Month (October), developmental changes. which collectively reached over 17 million people via conferences, health fairs, and The principal objective of the EPA Region 4 media programming. In addition to CEH Partnership is to develop capacity, serving as an education and outreach enhance communication, and facilitate resource, CSREES also provides coordination of partnership states to compliance assistance for EPA's lead reduce children’s exposures to program in each of the partnership states. environmental health hazards. Efforts to reduce children’s exposures to Each of the partnership states has environmental health hazards consist of a designated an extension professional, as variety of outreach efforts highlighting listed on the proposal cover page, to serve hazards, the effects of such hazards, and as the state contact to promote children’s practical ways to protect children from environmental health activities. To further exposure in home and school expand the level of expertise/resources for environments. the promotion of children’s environmental health, each state contact has established Beginning in 2000, EPA Region 4 a state-specific children’s environmental Children's Environmental Health Program health State Working Group. State- established a partnership with the U.S. specific working groups include Department of Agriculture Cooperative representation from the state level State Research, Education, and Extension organizations, including but not limited to Service (CSREES) through regional land the Departments of Agriculture,
32 Environment, and Health. Other examples Additionally, state-specific work groups of effective partnering include: include representation from local level organizations and movements. C Schools of Pharmacy. Cooperative efforts include addressing childhood EPA Region 4 CEH Partnership maintains asthma (three states have regular contact via conference calls, established this partnership). electronic/hard copy correspondences, and C 1890 - Traditional Black Land Grant regular meetings. An annual Institutions. Cooperative efforts meeting/training is held each year to include focusing on under-served share the past year’s accomplishments audiences (seven states have and determine the future direction of the established this partnership). program. Since 2001, annual meetings C Cherokee Indian Reservation. focusing on topics including but not limited Cooperative efforts include the to asthma, lead, mercury, mold, air development of materials specific for quality, and safe drinking water have Native American audiences. (NC has provided training to over 160 participants. established this partnership).
33 LPES Small Farms Fact Sheet Series
Mark Rice North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina
Practical, science-based fact sheets producers about environmental developed for small-scale animal stewardship and to equip the educators producers by 20 national experts from 12 who advise them with appropriate land-grant universities, EPA National Ag information. With this information, Assistance Center, MWPS, and USDA- producers are encouraged to practice CSREES: environmentally sound management with http://.lpes.org/Small_Farms.html the goal of increasing the success of their animal operations. Introduction Small-scale farms make up 92% of the Producers may prefer to use the Small farms in the United States. They Farms Fact Sheet series as a reference contribute significantly to the nation's food guide, viewing the online PDF files of each supply and to local economies. They fact sheet at www.lpes.org/SmFarms.html strengthen rural communities and The PDF files can also be printed or contribute to a diverse and pleasing rural downloaded for future reference. These landscape. files can be accessed at no charge.
Exceeding $100 billion annually, Educators may choose to purchase animals and animal products account unlimited access to the MS Word files. for the majority of U.S. agricultural By purchasing access to the materials, products. However, livestock and they can download the files and modify poultry farms, regardless of size, are them to meet their specific educational facing increasing attention about the needs. way they affect the environment. Many factors can affect a farm's impact on At present, the series consists of seven the environment. These factors include completed fact sheets that can be printed the animal type (kind), size, and as is or modified. Two of these fact sheets number; the distance to water; the soil are being translated into Spanish, and type; the weather; and the distance to additional fact sheets are being prepared. neighbors. Currently available fact sheets Good stewardship is important for include: everyone, including small-scale 1. Small-Scale Farmers and the farmers. Using best management Environment: How to be a Good practices can protect the environment. Steward These practices can also improve the 2. The ABCs of Pasture Grazing health and well-being of the animals 3. Manure on Your Farm: Asset or and increase farm profits. The first Liability? step is to evaluate individual farm 4. Protecting the Water on Your Small situations and then adopting best Farm management practices suitable for 5. Managing Animal Deaths: Your each farm situation. Options 6. Got Barnyard and Lot Runoff? Purpose 7. Good Stewardship Practices for The LPES Small Farms Fact Sheet Horse Owners series was prepared to inform the large, diverse population of small-scale animal
34 Summaries of Each Fact Sheet 5. Animals routinely die on a small 1. Good stewardship is important for farm. Selecting a method of disposing everyone, including small-scale of them is an important decision farmers. Using best management because it affects animal and human practices can protect the environment. health. Factors that should be These practices can also improve the considered include the number of dead health and well-being of your animals animals, use or destruction of the and increase your farm's profits. The nutrients contained in the dead first step is to evaluate your farm. By animals, farm location, soil type, labor adopting management practices suited available, cost, and availability of to it, you can protect your investments alternative options. Planning and as well as the environment. preparing for animal deaths, including deciding on the best method to use, 2. Well-managed pastures are Always developing the best setup, and the Best Crop for the environment, for ensuring that it meets local and state the grazing animal, and for you. A regulations, is very important. well-managed pasture is a dense, healthy crop of grass and legumes that 6. Uncontrolled runoff can contain can provide a security blanket for the nutrients and runoff from manure. If land, good nutrition for the animal, and allowed to enter nearby surface water more money in your pocket. Achieving like rivers and ponds, it can cause a well-managed pasture does not take significant harm. This fact sheet a big investment. It does require discusses ways to prevent or reduce animal and plant knowledge, the possibility that runoff from identification of your goals, some barnyards and open lots will pollute equipment, and practice. the surrounding environment.
3. If farm animals spend any part of 7. This fact sheet provides a brief the year in barns, stalls, pens, loafing overview of some good soil and water areas, or feeding areas, you will need stewardship practices for horse owners. It to deal with manure from those areas. focuses on basic pasture and paddock What do you think about that manure? management and on manure Do you view it as an asset? Or, do you management. Two manure treatment see that pile as being a liability? This options, composting and fertilizer nitrogen fact sheet compares the value of enhancement, are presented along with a different types of manure as sources of method to calculate the proper manure nutrients and organic matter. It application rate on pastures and crops. describes how to make manure on your farm an asset rather than a New Fact Sheets Under Development liability. Small-Scale Farmers and the Environment: How to be a Good 4. Groundwater such as wells and Steward (Spanish translation) surface water such as streams and ponds are important sources of water The ABCs of Pasture Grazing (Spanish for drinking and recreation in the translation) United States. In recent years, reports of bacteria, nitrogen, chemicals, and Nutrient Management Basics other pollutants in groundwater and surface water have increased concern Managing Runoff from Open Lot Livestock about its quality. What causes water Facilities with Vegetative Systems pollution? This fact sheet answers that question and discusses ways to protect The ABCs of Livestock Watering Systems water quality. The ABCs of Livestock Fencing
35 Manure Management for Small Swine Doug Hamilton, Oklahoma State Farms University Joe Harner, Kansas State University Modified Dry Litter System for Small Joe Harrison, Washington State University Swine Farms Chris Henry, University of Nebraska- Lincoln Animal Waste Management in Tropical Frank Humenik, North Carolina State Island Environments University Jimo Ibrahim, North Carolina A&T State Univeresity Small Farms Fact Sheet Team Randy James, Ohio State University Members Rick Koelsch, University of Nebraska A national team of 20 subject matter Ginah Mortensen, EPA National Ag experts from 12 land-grant-universities, Assistance Center the EPA’s National Ag Assistance Center, Marion Simon, Kentucky State University MWPS, and the USDA CSREES Glen Fukumoto, University of Hawaii collaborated in the development of the Jill Auburn, USDA CSREES Small Farms Fact Sheet series. Mark Risse, University of Georgia Tommy Bass, University of Georgia Project Co-Leaders Mark Rice, North Carolina State University Ben Bartlett, Michigan State University Obtaining Small Farms Fact Sheets The fact sheets can be obtained at the Project Manager LPES website: http://www.lpes.org , under Diane Huntrods, MWPS, Iowa State the “Educational Products” button. PDF or University WordÒ files are available. The PDF files are accessible free of charge; the WordÒ Project Members files, suitable for modification, can be Charlie Abdalla, Pennsylvania State downloaded for a one-time fee of $35.00. University Both MasterCard and Visa are accepted. Roy Bullock, Tennessee State University For More Information Craig Cogger, Washington State Contact Mark Rice, project co-leader, University NCSU Denis Ebodaghe, USDA CSREES E-mail: [email protected] Carl Evensen, University of Hawaii Phone: 919-515-6794 Carol Galloway, EPA National Ag Assistance Center
36 Finally, Revenue Insurance for Small Farm Families
Thomas R. McConnell West Virginia University Morgantown, West Virginia
There are five types of risk that farm that is completely different like sheep and families face. Human risk is related to the a market garden; where two enterprises personal aspects of agriculture like, do not follow the same market structure, retirement and health and health peak labor needs, or demand curves. Each insurance and the effect agriculture has on of these examples is normally profit driven them. Our effect (real or perceived) on the rather than risk inspired, but the end environment is becoming more result is the same that these options allow contentious every day and is recognized farm families to spread their marketing as risk for farm families. The fact that our and production risk. Many farmers have society is becoming more litigious and that engaged in production contracts and yet our trading partners operate at greater others have simply added a hay wrapping distances every day makes recognizing system to eliminate harvest (production) and managing legal risk more important. loss. There are many, many risk The last two types of risk - production and management strategies being used every marketing- have long been identified as day by many, many different farm families the only risk farm families face. The that are specific to their needs. These majority of the current risk management strategies for managing risk could be tools reflect that. classified as pro-active, as requiring increased marketing and production However, farm families must first learn to knowledge and effort. recognize the risk in their lives and then explore every opportunity to manage and One other strategy available to farm minimize risk. Luckily, today there are families is buying crop insurance. This is many risk management strategies and classified as passive risk management tools available. That’s good because every where after the policy is put in force the operation is different and every family’s insured has very little else to do, except set of resources, needs, and desires is report to the insurance agent. Many of the different too. early developed crop insurance products insure against production risk and others The agriculture service industry including against market risk. And now a new type the USDA have developed many tools to of policy called Adjusted Gross Revenue- help farm families minimize risk and many Lite can insure the family against individuals have developed and adopted decreases in gross revenue is available. both management and production strategies that are important, too. They It’s important to mention that a mix of might include crop diversification or simply pro-active and passive strategies would an irrigation system. Some farmers may allow the manager the broadest risk choose to specialize in one enterprise and management protection. Meaning crop be as efficient and aggressive as possible insurance should be added to the overall where another may choose to add value or risk management program because a well diversify within their segment of the understood crop insurance policy may industry. An example might be pre- cover all the unknown and un-anticipated conditioning feeder calves or feeding your events, as well as, the unintended cattle to a finished weight and marketing consequences of non-related events that them to townspeople and neighbors. happen to farm families throughout the Others may diversify to another enterprise production and marketing season.
37 Most small and diversified farm families Let’s assume your market garden has have no experience with crop insurance as an adjusted gross revenue of $17,100 there have never been products available per year based on a five year average. to match the agriculture they have. But Let’s also consider that your family that changed when the Federal Crop depended on the profit from this Insurance Corporation released a new revenue to be added to it’s off- farm policy- Adjusted Gross Revenue –Lite. It is income. You could buy coverage to now available to farm families in CT, DE, insure 80% of the adjusted gross ID, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT,WV, income at a “90 cents on the dollar” AK, NC, OR, WA, and VA. The problem is payback option. The premium for this farm families are limiting their risk coverage level at this gross revenue management options by not taking the would be $340 (There is variation of time to learn about this valuable tool. premium between states and counties Many different types of operations can within states) attain protection against declines in their adjusted gross revenue at an affordable Continuing with the example let’s price by using the AGR-Lite crop insurance assume that because of a drought the tool. You owe it to your family to carefully market garden grossed only $5000 for study Adjusted Gross Revenue – Lite. this insured year. What would happen? Without the insurance, the operation Grass based animal and vegetable, fruit, would obviously gross $5000. But with and vegetable, operations (including the AGR-lite coverage at the 80% level organic) appear to have found a special and a 90% payment rate the gross niche with Adjusted Gross Revenue-Lite as revenue would be different. First the premiums are affordable considering the farmer would receive the $5000, and level of coverage and just what is required then the additional would be derived to file a claim. The policy provides from the following breakdown. Eighty insurance against loss of revenue from percent of the difference between his any unavoidable natural peril or market coverage level and his actual gross fluctuation that causes a loss in revenue. income would be calculated as follows: Let’s review the facts. 1. Coverage level = $17,100 X 80% or AGR-Lite $13,680 called your target income · Insures against decreases in gross revenue of the farm based on a 5 year 2. Target Income $13,600 minus the average from the 1040 Schedule F actual gross income of $5,000 equals · Based on the level of diversification, $8680 which is called the income farm families may buy different levels deficit. of coverage to protect their gross farm income that range from 65 to 3. The indemnity payment is derived 80% and at different payment rates of by multiplying the income deficit by either 75% or 90% the repayment rate of $0.90. In this · The plan provides protection against example the computation would be low revenue due to unavoidable $8,680 times $0.90 equals $7,812 natural disasters and market when added to the original $5000 fluctuations that affect income during would gross the family $7,812 plus an insurance year. $5,000 or $12,812. · The government will pay a portion of the premium for the AGR-Lite policy So, in this case, the family has insured that ranges between 48% and 59% 80% of their gross income at a $0.90 based on the level of protection. on the dollar payment rate for a premium of $340. Every individual How it works: Small vegetable operation situation is different as there is example: variation between counties and
38 enterprises. Also, the family has revenue and, if severe enough, qualify insured gross revenue levels not profit. the policy holder for an indemnity This means though, that for operations payment. Obviously the farms that like vegetables where the margins are raise all their feed or those that graze generally higher than for livestock and thus have less dependence on enterprises by insuring 72% of the purchased feed will be able to consider gross revenue the family has indeed this opportunity with more insured a profit! enthusiasm. Secondly, unlike the vegetable operations, dairy farm Considering even larger operations margins are slim and the policy holder using the same crop mix but cannot insure a profit. This is not to considering a higher gross revenue of say that this type of policy cannot help $100,000 and the coverage level of with financial commitments and add to $72,000 the premium was $2,074. the farm’s financial stability. It should That makes sense for a high margin be considered by every family farmer. crop and the premium is considered an allowable expense by the IRS. To get started each farm family must evaluate their operations from a risk But if a dairy family was considering management point of view and this risk management strategy the determine what the effects of a major scenario would appear to be similar, reduction in income would mean. If the but the nature of the business would family farm income were reduced by cause the manager to take a closer 30% would the family have enough look. The premium for a small dairy money to buy food and could they buy with an adjusted gross income of insurance? If the average gross $90,000 and a 75% coverage level income were reduced by 25% could all with a 90% payment rate is calculated the bills be paid? Would there be at $2,488. That means that family can enough money to pay all the lenders? buy protection for $60,750 of their The list of financial responsibilities of average gross revenue of $90,000. As each individual farm can grow after their gross revenue falls below this consideration is given serious $67,500 the insurance company will study. Next the family should factor in pay an indemnity of $0.90 on each the bottom line with and without an dollar below the target. The manager AGR-Lite indemnity. To complete the must understand two points about this analysis call a crop insurance agent. product and its relationship with a All this information including the dairy operation. First, since this is location of insurance agents and the revenue insurance; what happens rate calculator can be accessed on the when the feed supply is reduced Risk Management Agency website at because of dry weather and the http://www.rma.usda.gov manager buys extra feed to get the cows and replacement through the If you live in a state that does not offer winter? The answer is, considering the AGR-Lite and you want to change that; AGR – Lite indemnity nothing. Because there is a process that can be followed. this policy insures only the gross First the interested party should appeal to revenue not the increased expenses their State Department of Agriculture to associated with buying feed crops apply to the Pennsylvania Department of (another policy may be available for Agriculture at 717-772-3094 (they own the feed crop protection-but not all the policy) to start the process. The feed crops have a back-up policy) that Federal Crop Insurance Corporation will reduced profit experienced by the approve the policy application after the droughty farm. So, replacement feed state that is applying has gathered much prices will not be covered, while low information so the product may be “rated” milk prices will affect the gross for use in that particular state.
39 Constructing Small Farm Enterprise Budgets
Shannon Potter Maryland Cooperative Extension Easton Maryland
Objectives practices required by an enterprise · What are enterprise budgets · Evaluate the efficiency of farm · Why use enterprise budgets enterprises · How to design your own budget for · Estimate benefits and costs for a new enterprise major changes in production · Budget tips practices · Provide the basis for a total farm What are Enterprise Budgets? plan · Enterprise budgets · Support applications for credit · An organized listing of your · Inform non-farmers of the costs estimated gross income and incurred in producing crops costs which can be used to · Not an exact science – Difficult to determine the expected net estimate drought, disease etc…. income for a particular enterprise 6 Parts of a Budget · Budget on a per unit basis – 1 · Investment acre or 1 animal · Gross Income · Sections include · Variable Costs · Income, Costs, Profit · Fixed Costs · Net Income What are Enterprise Budgets? · Traditional Crops Budget Suggestions · Very common · Should be prepared with specific · Very detailed, more accurate objectives · Livestock · Markets, establishment, soil · Dairy types · Beef · Receipts and costs are often · Forages difficult to estimate · Specialty crops and livestock · Numerous, variable ie rent · Less common land · Less detailed, less accurate · Be sure to have a column of your estimates Who can use these budgets? · Should contain receipts for every · Agricultural producers product and by product – · Extension specialists processing, stalks etc · Financial institutions · Prices used should reflect market · Governmental agencies values and productivity of · Advisors of food and fiber enterprise resources – i.e. land, labor, equipment Budgets are used for: · Itemize the receipts (income) received for an enterprise · List the inputs and production
40 Cost Components enterprise · Variable costs – · Vary because size, new, · These are expenses that vary used, field operations with output within a · Land should be valued production period · Feed · Marketing Income (receipts) · Fuel · Determine yield goals · Fertilizer/Lime · High, medium and low · Disease/Insect control · Prices · High, medium and low Variable Costs estimate · Some costs are easy to estimate · Seed, fertilizer, and chemicals Net Income (=Income-Cost) · Some costs are more difficult · Income over variable costs · Labor, repairs and machinery · Income over variable and fixed costs Cost Components · Decision making time…. · Fixed Costs · Fixed costs are expenses Tracking Enterprise Costs that do not vary with the · It is important to know the cost level of output. of each enterprise you have year · Building costs to year · Machinery costs · Can be by grain/livestock or · Taxes tomatoes/peppers · Insurance · This can easily be tracked in · Mortgage record keeping software
Fixed Costs Resources http://www.agnr.umd.edu · These can also be difficult FS-545 - Enterprise Budgets in Farm · Fixed costs need to be Management allocated over each
41 Risk-Assessed Business Planning for Small Producers
Marion Simon and Louie Rivers, Jr. Kentucky State University Frankfort, Kentucky Daniel Lyons North Carolina A&T State University Greensboro, North Carolina Nelson Daniels, Allen Malone and Jeff Kock Prairie View A&M University Prairie View, Texas
The Association of Extension livestock enterprises; 2) low literacy Administrators’ Small Farm Task Force educational materials, particularly for farm under the leadership of South Carolina financial management decisions; 3) State University received a competitive cooperatives, farmers markets, direct USDA-CSREES Risk Management National marketing, and marketing issues; 4) Project to develop an educational issues related to minority farmers; and 5) curriculum on risk management for low risk management education including literacy and small farmers. In 2002, this production and marketing risks. It project was revised with Prairie View A&M includes theory, lesson plans, overheads University (responsible for the for teaching, and a case study farm. development of educational materials), North Carolina A&T State University Justification: (responsible for facilitating the project), Agriculture varies throughout the states and Kentucky State University that have 1890 Land Grant Institutions. (responsible for education, promotion and Ranging from small farms on the eastern dissemination of the materials to 1890 seaboard, through the Appalachian and Land Grant Extension Programs) as the Ozark mountain regions, the Mississippi collaborators, and the USDA-CSREES River delta, the Gulf states, to the National Program Leader for Farm Southwest, agriculture crosses highly Business Management and the Southern erodible, karst areas, to productive Region Risk Management Education Center flatlands, to forestlands and woodlands, to (SRRMEC) as advisors. This team chose rangelands and prairies. Temperatures, to subcontract with Texas A&M University rainfall, and humidity range from the to convert the Texas Cooperative colder, temperate Northeast, through Extension’s “Tomorrow’s Top Agriculture areas with excellent rainfall and water Producer” educational materials to a resources, to the sub-tropical areas of manual suitable for small farmers, low Florida, to areas known for heat, drought, literacy farmers, and 1890 Extension rapidly decreasing water resources, and Programs. Prairie View A&M University near desert conditions. The agricultural worked closely with the Texas Cooperative enterprises in the region are quite diverse. Extension Service to develop the Enterprises range from forages, and materials. The resulting manual is entitled traditional row crops including rice, cotton, “Risk-Assessed Business Planning for tobacco, peanuts, grain sorghum, wheat, Small Producers.” The Risk-Assessed corn, soybeans to beef and dairy cattle, Business Planning for Small Producers hogs, sheep, goats, horses, aquaculture, manual targets small farmer education bees, and wildlife, and other livestock; needs including: 1) alternative farm forestry and agroforestry to urban enterprises, particularly vegetable and forestry, nurseries, and wood/forest
42 products; and the vast diversity of rice, cotton, and peanuts, risk-assessed horticulture crops from apples, grapes, farm planning is critical. These farmers, oranges, and other fruit crops to flowers, farm owners, and farm operators, were at vegetables, turf grasses, and ornamentals. risk of losing their primary, or only, source Evaluating the different climates, of farm income. Within these states, topographies, soil types, natural Extension staff needed to look at the resources, and the vast range of many facets of risk management, i.e., enterprises, make 1890 multi-institutional marketing, financial management, farm collaboration in the agriculture area both a management, production, alternative farm critical need and a major challenge. enterprises that were appropriate and affordable, enterprise diversification, The region’s demographics show rapidly value-added, farm safety, insurance for expanding diversity among its agricultural commodities and families, farm family population. The region is historically health and stress management, and known for its concentration of African- impacts on local communities and American farmers. However, it has rapidly economies. In August of 2002, Dr. Don expanding populations of Hispanic/ Latino, West (USDA-CSREES National Program Middle Eastern, and Asian immigrant Leader), Mr. Nelson Daniels (Prairie View farmers, along with populations of Native- A&M University, collaborator), Dr. Marion American farmers. The region has high Simon (Kentucky State University, Project percentages of women, tenant/ share- Developer/ Writer), Mr. Louie Rivers, Jr. cropping, and part-time farmers. The (Kentucky State University, collaborator), region includes the historically lowest Dr. Daniel Lyons (North Carolina A&T income, lowest literacy/educational State University, Project Director), and Dr. attainment populations in the mainland Kenneth Stokes (advisor and Director of U.S., most notably Appalachia, the the Southern Region Risk Management “Ozarks,” the “Black Belt,” and Native- Education Center, SRRMEC), met at American tribal nations. The rapidly Kentucky State University to outline the growing areas of immigrant farmers, initiative. particularly the Rio Grande Valley and southern Florida, are becoming low Objectives income/low literacy areas with language Objective 1: Small farmers make challenges and/or barriers. Small farms informed risk management decisions and comprise significant percentages of the plans for their farms thereby stabilizing farms in the region. The region has the their farm’s net income. top five states in the numbers of small farms and the contributions of small farms Objective 2: 1890 Extension professionals to their state’s economies. The numbers and paraprofessionals have a uniform, of small farms, the diversity of the farming system-wide curriculum for teaching risk populations, combined with the lowest management education to a diversity of literacy and income regions of the small farmers, with a particular emphasis mainland U.S. and limited or non-English on low-literacy farmers. speaking populations, make the need for Extension small farm educational Objective 3: New linkages and materials, particularly low literacy collaborations are developed within the materials, and the multi-state sharing of 1890 Extension System. experience and expertise of paramount importance for 1890 Small Farm Extension Objective 4: 1890 professionals and staff. institutions become more visible in the risk management area. Because many small farmers targeted by 1890 programs produced government Objective 5: 1862 and 1890 Extension supported crops that were coming under staffs use the curriculum in teaching small political scrutiny, particularly tobacco, farmers.
43 Outlined Overview of the “Risk- Step 4: Farm Business Transactions Assessed Business Planning for Small · Transactions are exchanges of Producers” curriculum manual resources Risk-Assessed Farm Business Planning · Cash or Non-cash Farm business planning develops a · Inflows into the operation or roadmap for the management of the Outflows from the operation operation that helps all parts of the farm · For the Farm business or Personal to flow smoothly. · Lead into Income Statement & Balance Sheet analysis The Roles of Farm Business Planning are: · Identify farm goals Step 5: Cash Transaction Logs for Farm · Inventory the farm resources Activities: · Assess the farm business & its · Profit Centers: Where direct costs environment and returns are recorded by · Analyze its past performance enterprise for products sold in the · Decide on actions (What to do now) production year, i.e., cow enterprise- · Implement strategies (How will you sell weaned calves; fresh market do it) sweet corn enterprise · Evaluate the farm plan (Is it · Support Centers: Where cost are working) compiled to be allocated back to the enterprises, i.e., tractor fuel, finance Step 1: Identify the Farm’s Business charges, labor, rent Goals: SMART · Cost Centers: Where the product is · Specific (in what it is), not sold in the production year, i.e., · Measurable (it can be measured and cow enterprise-sell stocker calves proven), · Attainable (realistic), Step 6: Information from the Transaction · Rewarding (it moves the operation Logs are used for financial analysis: along its expected path, and · Income Statements · Timely (there is a time limit to reach · Balance Sheets the goal). · Cash Flow Statements · Financial Ratio analysis Step 2: Create the Farm’s Resource · To determine the farm’s financial Inventory position · Human & Personnel · Soils, topography, water, annual Step 7: Enterprise Budgets from rainfall, land, buildings, fences, farm Transaction Logs show full cost accounting map · Income potential for the commodity · Equipment · Its Variable costs · Animals & Wildlife · Its Fixed Costs · Crops · Its Expected Net Income · Financial Resources · Its contribution to the farm
Step 3: SWOT Analysis Step 8: Evaluating Market Alternatives · Internal Strengths of the operation · Farmers Markets · Internal Weaknesses of the operation · Roadside Stands · Opportunities - the External business · Cooperatives environment · Retail Markets · External Threats to the operation · Brokers · Livestock Auctions · Retained ownership · Video/Tele-auctions
44 Latino Farmers: Characteristics and Risk Management Education Programs in the Midwest
José L. García University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri
Introduction farms in 1997. That number increased to The efforts of the Community Food 7,246 in 2002 (up to 3 operators per Systems and Sustainable Agriculture farm) operating 2.6 million acres. Program of the University of Missouri are Missouri, in particular, has experienced an to increase the number of Latino 87% Latino producers increase from 266 producers using Risk Management tools in 1992 to 444 in 1997; and by 2002 the and products. We wanted to share with number was close to 1,000. Despite the the audience and readers our experience increase in numbers, it is apparent that in planning and conducting three Latino producers are often isolated and workshops on managing risks of unaware of state and federal services and production, marketing, financial, and programs. legal, as well as the use of computers on the farm to manage risks. Additionally, A report of the Natural Resources we organized a visit with Latino farmers to Conservation Service of USDA (Buland & the Southwest Center experiment station Hunt) identified various trends in Latino of the University of Missouri to see operated farms including: examples of risk management strategies · Numbers are increasing faster than on production and marketing on the field. other demographic groups. We discuss the accomplishments and · Average sales increased faster than challenges that emerged in planning and most groups. conducting workshops and the strategies · Latino farmers with less than 5 years used in overcoming them. We also on the present farm have increased pointed out ideas and approaches in steadily. working with non-traditional audiences on · But many have not been on the farm risk management education. Finally, we long enough to establish long-term are using the workshop experience to relationships with USDA-programs. address the issue of a better · Distribution of Latino farms went understanding of Latino farmers and their from a regional to a national needs with our partners in Extension phenomenon. within the states and federal agencies. · 589 counties counted Latino farms in 1982. It changed to 1,775 counties Demographics and trends in 1997 The nation has experienced a steady · There were 2,289 rural counties with growth of Latino farmers in the last a Hispanic presence in 2000 (Kandel decades. According to Agriculture Census & Cromartie, USDA-ERS). Data, Latino farm operators increased · USDA program participation is low from 20,956 in 1992, to 33,450 in 1997, and to 72,329 (up to 3 operators/farm) in Issues Impacting Latino Producers 2002. On the other hand, the U.S. lost Latino farmers not only face the same over 86,000 main stream farmers between issues that their main stream peers face, 1997 and 2002. In the 12 states of the but also additional, more “distinctive” North Central Region of the Sustainable challenges. In a survey conducted in Agriculture Research and Education 2004 in Missouri, we concluded: Program (MO, IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, NE, · Latino farmers have little or no ND, OH, WI, SD) there were 3,636 Latino awareness about (and access to)
45 services and programs (federal, Latino producers are generally isolated state, extension). from state and federal agricultural · Latino farmers have a diversity of services, have no visibility, are not backgrounds and different needs. organized and have no political or · Their major concerns about farm economic leverage; hence are more and family include production, vulnerable to financial and production marketing and financial risks. risks than the main stream producer. In · Agencies and Extension are hardly talks with agencies and Latinos in various aware of Latino producers’ needs. regions of Missouri, it was apparent that · Latino producers may be less Latino producers are not targeted by organized than other groups. USDA or state programs, services, or even · Latino producers are harder to known by other Latinos. Information count because of little use of about Latino producers is minimal and federal and state services, low exists mostly as data tables in the response to agriculture census agriculture census website. Risk surveys, and different perceptions management needs, business and of what makes a Latino/Hispanic financial planning, production practices farmer. and farm and family priorities among In another survey conducted in Michigan, many others are examples of areas not some obstacles for Latinos to farming studied/researched by agencies and were: universities. · Purchasing a Farm (access to loans and capital) is a major issue. A typical Latino producer in Missouri · Infrastructure Development operates on small to mid size scale, is not · Technology Availability usually connected to services, nor is a · Familiarity with Crops member of producer organizations. · Language and Culture Further, his or her relations to other Latino · Participation in USDA Programs or main stream producers may be limited and because of these disconnections and University of Missouri Extension relative isolation, the risks on his or her Programs Supporting Latino Farmers farm and family are greater than on a University of Missouri Extension has main stream producer. The workshops various programs and projects that represent the opportunity to access support Latinos and other minorities in information and education on topics of Missouri and partners with other higher interest on their farms and families. education institutions to assist and Challenges such as language barriers and educate minorities connected to cultural differences that may prevent the agriculture. The University’s Community targeted producers to participate in this Food Systems and Sustainable Agriculture educational opportunity have been (CFSSA) Program serves Latino and other addressed. minority producers with training, education, information, and technical Objectives of the project assistance in all aspects related to The outcomes of this project are expected sustainable production and community to be Latino producers with an increased food systems. awareness, a new attitude, and a change of behavior towards the need of risk CFSSA launched new initiatives to serve management for their farms and families. Latinos in agriculture in 2004. One of The Community Food system and them is the “Empowering Latino Producers Sustainable Agriculture (CFSSA) Program Through Risk Management Education” set the following objectives for this Project funded by the North Central Risk project: Management Education (NC-RME) Center. · Latino farmers will increase their awareness and interest in risk management tools.
46 · Latino farmers will begin using risk farmers understanding and using risk management tools/programs management tools and products. The including production, financial, project has used (and will continue to use) legal, and human short after the pre-test and post-test tools, phone and project activities are completed. email communications with participants · Latino farmers are more confident and instructors as means of verification. with the regional risk management Finally, it is expected that this project will agents and agricultural business help extension and insurance agents be extension educators, and better aware of Latino producers’ needs and offer articulate their needs and interests. appropriate programs and services.
Approach and methods Challenges and accomplishments The project has organized three one-day Organizing and conducting the workshops bilingual workshops on risk management for Latino producers have proved to be a tools and products, and a visit to a model challenging and rewarding experience. dairy farm (the Southwest Center) of the Some accomplishments were: University of Missouri. Topics at the workshops included recognizing and · Workshop topics were well received assessing economic and marketing risks · Knowledgeable presenters for the farm, financial resources and · Positive evaluations analysis, insurance products, and how to · Bilingual workshops and materials use computers to help manage risk on the · Interest in more training and farm. We encouraged through the additional meetings/materials workshops to set up individual meetings between producers and agriculture We also faced some challenges that made business specialists or insurance agents to us realize the complexity of serving an discuss risk management tools/products underserved population. The most and prepare risk management plans for important challenges were: the family. · Low turn out Qualified extension agriculture business · Competing with farm activities specialists have collaborated facilitating · Hard to persuade farmers to go far the risk management portion. The project away from home and overnight director, José García, has been the · Low interest in establishing a language and cultural liaison between network facilitators and the Latino producers. · Simultaneous interpretation CFSSA has partnered with state wide grass roots organizations, the Missouri Final thoughts Farmers Union and the Social Concerns Although the project hasn’t finalized yet, Office of the Diocese of Jefferson City to we believe that the training provided had publicize the workshops and disseminate a positive impact on Latino farmers. Two the risk management materials. additional workshops on risk management are being planned and, if funding allows, CFSSA staff will follow up and assist with another farm visit. Furthermore, because further information and referrals a few of the importance of the project and the months after the workshops. The project potential impact on Latino farmers, we will can be expanded to Latino producers in develop (with funding from the North the same and other regions and new Central Risk Management Education workshops could address additional risk Center) a “Business Planning Guide” in management issues for Latino farmers. English and Spanish for minority producers in 2006. The success of the project will be measured by the increase in Latino
47 The Movable School Approach to Farm Futures (Ethiopia's Teff)
Edgar Hicks Kansas Black Farmers Association Nicodemus, Kansas
Many farmers market their grain The KBFA feels price risk management production at harvest with no underlying education (RME) should draw from some knowledge of any of the discovery factors part of the following Campbell historical that make up their farmgate price. They commentary (page 82): also may not understand the relationship in grain marketing between cash and "Let us now consider the first annual futures (basis) which is a party to every Negro Farmers Conference,* which was contract made with a commercial grain held in February, 1892, and out of which company. For black grain farmers the grew the present agricultural extension penalty for this lack of marketing work among Negroes. nomenclature has been traumatic. To Dr. Washington's surprise this first This presenter was introduced to conference brought five hundred farm agriculture by summer visits during high people to Tuskegee Institute. To this school to grain and cotton producers in gathering many came afoot. Great the U.S. Department of the Interior's numbers, in order to be on time for the National Heritage Area of Cane River, opening session, left home as early as Louisiana. After a thirty year career with midnight prior to the meeting, in various international grain firms there was a types of vehicles and conveyances, desire to share the acquired grain including wagons drawn by oxen. At this marketing experience with high school and subsequent conferences, Dr. families. Unbelievably, none of the Cane Washington always conducted the River families are currently engaged in program and discussions in such an farming! informal and simple manner that farmers were assured of their welcome to the The only remaining black community of school and readily made to feel that they farmers in the Midwest is Nicodemus, were an integral part of the meetings. Kansas, and Kansas is without an 1890 Usually someone was called upon to lead Land-Grant Institution. Inspired by an old time plantation melody. Soon all reading the 1936 book published by The present joined in, humming, nodding, and Tuskegee Press, The Movable School Goes softly patting their feet. Many times when To The Negro Farmer, the idea for the climax of a spiritual was reached, the incorporating the names of Booker T. atmosphere was surcharged with that Washington and George Washington oneness of spirit which so completely Carver into sustainable price risk characterizes the Negro rural church management format was incubated. gathering. The constraints of fear and self-consciousness were swept away, and Recognizing the colloquialism of early kindred souls felt only the stir of emotion 1900s, there seems to be a useful place at which served to open their hearts and the table today for the spirit in which minds to the inspiration that was to follow. Thomas M. Campbell (the USDA's first Dr. Washington, in his tactful way of extension agent) wrote his biography. approaching the most ' delicate subjects’, would launch into his program, calling the attention of the people to the '
48 vital facts affecting their lives', without C Service offending or embarrassing them." "The Movable School" approach is the The "delicate subject" and "vital fact" for future direction of community which the the KBFA's presentation is: marketing KBFA seeks to sustain. We are embracing grain as a commodity (with no farmer the Ethiopian grain (grass) teff as the control of price, {input/output}) is not in most significant valued-added crop the the best interest of community, family, Nicodemus community can grow to reach and rural development! Having said that, 'self determination'. Teff can be our bridge we trod on, presenting the KBFA's version to a cultural connection, water of RME in a Movable School manner, while conservation, medical, health, nutrition, moving the Nicodemus community animal feed, and an area that has not towards a sustainable agri-tourism format been invaded (currently) by multinational connected to its designation as a National niche destroyers. Historic Park Site. We are doing this in two ways: For References: current "Farm Futures" commodity Campbell, Thomas M. 1936. The Movable education we are embracing the farm School Goes To The Negro Farmer. marketing business of Mrs. Ida Hurley of Tuskegee Institute Press. Charleston, Missouri (Hurley and Mayberry, B.D. 1991. A Century Of Associates). This decision is based after Agriculture In The 1890 Land-Grant recognizing the applicability of Mrs. Institutions- 1890-1990. Vantage Hurley's early mission statement: The Press. application of sound Christian principals to Schor, Joel. 1982. Agriculture In The achieve positive results for the client's Black Land-Grant System To 1930. farm enterprise; It is a belief from within, USDA. not a behavioral attitude to learn: Hurley, Ida. 1975-2005. "Simple is Hard". Various Communications. Charleston, Missouri C The Law of Use Evert, Sarah. 2005. Teff: An Alternative C Accountability Dry Land Crop for Western Kansas. C Reciprocity Kansas State University (graduate C Perseverance work)
49 Agricultural Law: What Every Small Farmer/ Rancher Needs to Know
Janie Simms Hipp Rogers University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas
Legal Issues means - Transfer of ownership of your · What we don’t know can hurt us; operation - How to do this - Who to Prevention is the key; Try not to ever transfer to and under what need a lawyer; Planning is critical; circumstances - Terms of transfer - Courage to examine your situation; Acquisition of new lands for your If you need a lawyer, be prepared; operation - What’s been there - May be Time; Money; Emotional acquiring environmental liability
· Farmers, ranchers and rural citizens · Contract Issues - How to form a need to know and think about legal contract – offer & acceptance still the issues relating to: Their Personal rule –can be written, can be verbal - Lives; Their Professional Lives Both Who can enter into a contract & In & Out of Farming; Their regarding what types of issues - Communities; Aspects of Legal What types of contracts must be in Issues – Local, State, Federal writing - How do breaches of contracts occur - What happens · Personal & Professional - First, are when someone breaches the contract your affairs in order? - Have you – remedies – damages – what are planned for your operation? - Short the rules in your jurisdiction - What term, Long term, After you are gone types of relationships involve - What about Property issues - What contract issues - Warranties when about Contract Issues - you sell products Injury/harm/tort issues - Environmental issues - Emerging · When you advertise your product as issues, Property issues, Boundary having certain characteristics – you lines – where are they? - Title issues are creating a warranty - If the – do you know where it is? Could product doesn’t have those you find it in a pinch? - Fences – characteristics, you may have fence disputes are still very popular breached your warranty - Express conflicts – good fences make good warranties – can be verbal or written neighbors - Adverse possession – - Implied warranties – fitness for what is the time period in your state general purposes; general for adverse possession of your merchantability; fitness for particular property…what must be proven - In purpose - How to disclaim warranties all 50 states a trespasser can acquire ownership by continuously occupying · Injury/harm/tort issues - Negligence a parcel of land until the statutorily – setting in motion, through less set period of limitations runs out. than careful behavior, a chain of events leading to harm to another - Liability related to your property – when Trespass – coming on to another’s you allow individuals onto your property and interfering with their property – do you know what the law quiet use and enjoyment of their is in your state - Your duty of care property owed to those coming onto your property - What this realistically · Nuisance – common agricultural-
50 related harm - public nuisances and neighbors - Conceptually similar to private nuisances - Flies, dust, noise, nuisance odor common – regardless of size - Harm to employees – commonly · Intentional disparagement of food caused by failure to maintain safe products- Common law -Many states working environment or employ or recognize a claim for tortious properly train co-employees - Harm interference with business relations - to third parties – your liability for State legislation - Designed to harm caused to third parties - Harm protect perishable food products to another’s property from false and malicious statements - Based on belief that perishability · A tort is a civil wrong or injury - makes market value of food products Does not involve breach of contract vulnerable to false statements - disputes - Generally, tort law is Common law approach believed to be judge-made law - In all jurisdictions inadequate - Statutes in 13 states tort law changes as new cases are decided - Much change in 20th · Access to Land – Liability for torts Century (esp. post-1950) - Tort law that occur on your land - The is concerned with substandard traditional approach created a behavior; its objective is to establish hierarchy of status based upon the the nature and extent of benefit the entrant bestowed upon responsibility for tortuous conduct the owner or possessor - Invitees and child trespassers - Social guests · General areas of tort law: and licensees - Adult trespassers Intentional torts -Liability regardless · Hierarchy of status approach - of fault - Privileged torts; Negligent Adult trespasser - Owner or torts (90% of all tort cases) - Fault- possessor only has duty to refrain based system; The line between from willfully or wantonly injuring; intentional and negligent torts is one Child trespassers -Attractive of degree - Intent is a desire to bring nuisance (“turntable”) doctrine - If about a result which will invade the a landowner has a reasonable interests of another in a way that the expectation that children will be law forbids; A person may be held attracted to the premises by a liable for any resulting injury dangerous artificial condition, the although intending nothing more “attractive nuisance doctrine” than a good-natured joke, or applies - The child is treated as a honestly believing that the act would licensee or invitee not injure the plaintiff, or acting · Child trespassers -Farm ponds - under the belief that it is for the Usually are held not to be artificial plaintiff’s own good conditions (doctrine does not apply unless child is invitee) - But, items · Trespass - A trespass consists of two associated with farm ponds can be basic elements: Intent - Plaintiff attractive nuisances - Remoteness must show that the trespasser either may be the key factor - Swimming intended the act that resulted in the pools are likely to be attractive unlawful invasion or acted nuisances negligently or in a dangerous · Child trespassers - Reach of the manner. Force - Any willful act, attractive nuisance doctrine - whether the intrusion is immediate Smoldering ashes - jury question; or an inevitable consequence of a Top-heavy newspaper stand - jury willful act. Intentional interference question; Large machine with with real property - Every possessor exposed gear wheels - jury of land must use the land so as to question; Rain-filled ditch on avoid injury to possessory rights of construction site - jury question;
51 Extra rails stored beside railroad injury; - Conditions are maintained track – no; Partially uprooted dead on the premises that are dangerous tree – no; Septic tank – no; to persons outside the premises; - · Licensee - Anyone on the premises The premises are leased for public with permission or acquiescence, admission; Landlord retains control but does not bestow a benefit on over part of the leased premises the landowner - Hunters with that the tenant is entitled to use; permission who do not pay a fee - Landlord makes an express Other than the duty of the covenant to repair the leased landowner to notify of hidden premises, but fails to do so and dangers, the licensee takes the injury results; Landlord negligently premises as is. repairs items located on the · Social guest - A person on the premises premises who does not confer an · Recreational use of land - Model economic benefit, but does confer a Act (1965) - Limits the liability of social benefit - Landowner must persons making their rural land exercise reasonable care to available to the general public for maintain the premises recreational purposes - Includes · Invitee - A person on the premises roads, waters, water courses, for business purposes or for mutual private ways and buildings, advantage rather than solely for structures and machinery or the entrant’s benefit - Invitees equipment when attached to realty include such persons as milk truck - Includes activities such as driver, cattle buyer, veterinarian or hunting, fishing, swimming, employee - Landowner must make boating, camping, picnicking, and keep the premises safe and hiking, pleasure driving, nature warn of existing dangers study, water skiing, water sports · Modern approach to tort liability of and viewing or enjoying historical, land owners and occupiers - The archeological, scenic or scientific modern approach is a movement sites away from basing an owner’s · Recreational use of land - liability on the status of the Recreational users given no higher entrant. - Ordinary negligence status than trespassers - Owners under all of the circumstances - not shielded from willful or Does this mean you must take malicious failure to guard or warn steps to limit entrance to your against a dangerous condition, use, land? - What types of steps should structure, or activity - The Model you take to ensure safety to all? Act does not provide liability · Modern approach to tort liability of protection if the owner charges a land owners and occupiers - Eleven fee - Some states have modified states follow the California this point - Requires careful approach - Eleven other states drafting of release forms retain the common law duty · 90% of all civil cases relate to regarding trespassers and all other negligence - The negligence system unlawful entrants, but utilize a is a fault-based system - Links in standard of reasonable care for all the chain of negligence - Duty lawful entrants - Move toward (reasonable and prudent person reasonable care approach to all – standard) – Breach – Causation – valuing human life over property Damages Reasonable foreseeability · Landlord is generally not liable for - The plaintiff’s harm must have injuries to third parties that occur been a reasonably foreseeable on leased premises unless: - result of the defendant’s conduct at Landlord conceals dangerous the time the conduct occurred. - conditions or defects that cause Reasonable foreseeability is the
52 essence of proximate cause - inapplicable to cases involving Liability is imposed only for harm tobacco or silicone breast implants that is reasonably expected to · Injured party must prove five result from the defendant’s actions elements to recover on a product - A causal connection must be liability claim - Defendant sold the present between defendant’s action product and was engaged in the and plaintiff’s harm - Act of nature business of selling the product; - Real question is whether an act of Product was in a defective nature was the proximate cause of condition; Defective condition was the damage - Reasonable unreasonably dangerous to foreseeability is the key -Guest ordinary user during “normal use”; statutes - An owner or operator of Product was expected to and did a motor vehicle is typically excused reach the user without substantial from liability for injuries suffered change in condition; and Product by nonpaying guests riding with the proximately caused plaintiff’s injury driver unless the driver is intoxicated or reckless - Nonpaying · Nuisance - An invasion of an guests assume the risks associated individual’s interest in the use and with ordinary negligence - Many enjoyment of land rather than an states’ statutes have been declared interference with exclusive unconstitutional - Rendering aid to possession or ownership of the land persons in peril - No legal requirement to render aid - If aid is · Two interrelated concepts: rendered carelessly, person Landowners have the right to use providing aid can be held liable for and enjoy property free of any resulting damages - Once aid unreasonable interference by others begins, the duty is to continue until - Landowners must use property so a replacement comes or the aid as not to injure adjacent owners otherwise becomes unnecessary · Good Samaritan laws - In many · Nuisance law is rooted in the states, a person rendering common law and has been developed assistance is generally only liable over several centuries as courts for injuries resulting from willful settled land use conflicts. Nuisance intent or recklessness - Higher law is always changing - Legal rules standard of care applies to those vary between jurisdictions compensated for rendering aid - Still no affirmative duty to render · Nuisance law is important to aid, however agriculture because of the noxious · Manufacturers Products Liability - odors produced by many farm Much change since the 1960s - operations Recent trend is toward strict liability - Very favorable to plaintiffs · Two primary issues in every ag. - Insurance costs have skyrocketed nuisance dispute: Whether the use - Proposed federal legislation alleged to be a nuisance is (1998) - Replace state product reasonable for the area; Whether the liability laws with uniform federal use alleged to be a nuisance standards - Punitive damage substantially interferes with the use awards capped at $250,000 in and enjoyment of neighboring land cases involving small businesses - Total defense if plaintiff under · “Nuisance” and “negligence” are not influence of alcohol or other drugs the same thing. Operating a farming and impaired condition was or ranching activity properly and principal cause of harm - 18-year having all requisite permits may still statute of repose - Legislation constitute a nuisance if a court or
53 jury determines the activity operations ; Prevents local and “unreasonable” and causes a county governments from “substantial interference” with enacting regulations or another person’s use and enjoyment ordinances that impose of property. Every case is dependent restrictions on normal agricultural upon the particular facts of the case practices and the legal rules used in the · Ag districting type statutes particular jurisdiction (Iowa) - Ag operations located within a designated area immune · Nuisance - factors for consideration: from nuisance laws if conducted Whether the use complained of is properly - Property rights of common to the area; Whether the those outside ag area must be activity is a minor inconvenience or is considered. a regular and continuous activity; The · Exemptions from zoning activities nature of the property; Whether the - Major issue is whether the ag activity substantially interferes with activity is an ag use or a the plaintiff’s land use; Whether the commercial activity - Most state activity is vital to the local economy; statutes define “agricultural use” Whether the complained-of use pre- broadly (Ex. Illinois statute) - dates the plaintiff’s use Seven acres used to board 19 show horses - Poultry hatchery · Remedies - Courts have the power to on 3 acre tract - 60 acres used to fashion a remedy to fit the particular store sewage sludge for later use circumstances of the situation - Award as fertilizer - Not a mobile home monetary damages - Issue an on ag land - Raising of hogs in injunction - Order the defendant to any quantity cease the offending activity - Can be C Cases historically involving either a temporary or permanent nuisances and farming operations injunction. – Odor – Smoke – Dust – Flies – · Private nuisance - A civil wrong Noises - Regardless of size or based on a disturbance of rights type of operations – only recently in land for which a remedy lies in have nuisance cases involved the hands of the individual whose larger CAFO type operations rights have been disturbed · Public nuisance - An interference Employer’s liability for employees injuries with the rights of the community - Two separate legal systems - Common at large with the remedy lying in law system - Negligence-type approach; the state’s hands Workers’ compensation system - An employee injured on the job is entitled to · Right-to-farm laws - Priority of location a statutorily prescribed amount; Exclusive and reasonableness of operation - remedy for loss from injury or death of a Farmers and ranchers satisfying legal covered worker - Applicable to migrant requirements have a defense to workers nuisance actions - Basic idea is that it is unfair for a person to move to an · Common Law System - The employer agricultural area knowing the bears certain common law conditions which might be present and responsibilities; Provide reasonably then ask a court to declare a safe tools and appliances - Provide a neighboring farm a nuisance reasonably safe place to work - Warn · Types - Nuisance related - and instruct the employee of dangers Farming protected only if it has which employee could not been in existence for a specified reasonably be expected to discover - period of time; Restrictions on Duty to fix a problem and warn local regulations of agricultural subsequent employees of potential
54 danger - Provide reasonably Continuing legal challenges for right- competent fellow employees - Make to-farm statutes reasonable rules for employee conduct New marketing opportunities – legal issues · Common Law System - Duty to hire · Direct marketing - Warranties on reasonably competent fellow products – what does it mean in a employees - Failure to exercise contract sense when you say reasonable care in the hiring of “organic” or “natural” employees exposes the employer to liability for any injuries a particular · Liability of farmers market boards & employee causes to fellow employees members – food safety issues related - Failure to fire upon learning that an to food products sold on the market employee is incompetent also may subject an employer to liability - · Liability of the farmer for those Duty to make reasonable rules for entering his operation to “u-pick” – conduct of employees - The extent of harm to those who enter to pick or the duty depends upon the harvest - Historically, insurance employment situation - An policies exclude coverage for “u-pick” employer’s common law defenses: operations - Insurance coverage – do No duty was breached, Assumption you need it? Can you find it? Post- of risk (Most courts refuse the Katrina impact? defense if the employee must choose between submitting to the danger or · Cooperative marketing opportunities getting fired; Contributory · Relative rights, duties & negligence; Employee’s voluntary responsibilities of cooperative submission to risk must be board members and just plain unreasonable; Negligence of a co- members of cooperatives employee (Employer must exercise · Breach of contract to sell to or due care in selecting employees) market with the cooperative
· Child Labor - All states have statutes · Environmental Issues - Water defining what constitutes illegal or · Point and non-point source liability impermissible child labor - Generally for water pollution – exposure to in age categories - Generally all the farming continues to rise – types of activities involving exposure continues to look at dangerous activities - Exemptions for smaller and smaller operations your own family - Your neighbors’ · Clean Water Act – NPDES permit kids do not meet the definition of requirements - Liability for failure your family under the law – to obtain necessary permits - Do regardless of how close you might you need a permit? - Smaller and be! smaller animal ag operations will need permits in the future · Emerging Issues - Changes in tort · Wetlands – what happens when liability - Tort reform - Limitations on you disturb a wetland? $ damages - Still big issues around · Storm water regulation – where is the country - Piercing the corporate the operation in relation to veil municipalities – do you need a permit for your activities disturbing · Right-to-farm challenges - What is a land/water? “right-to-farm” statute – protection · What steps are municipalities against nuisance suits filed against taking to address land use issues agricultural operations - and permit requirements in your Constitutionality of provisions - area? Where is your operation in
55 relation to water? · What you don’t know can hurt you - What you don’t think about can hurt · Other environmental issues - you - Preparing for the future is key Endangered Species Act to success and longevity of any requirements – exposure for taking - operation permits for taking species– liability for failure to obtain a permit; Just because we are in sustainable or Emerging Clean Air issues – drift, organic enterprises, doesn’t mean we particulate matter, ammonia; aren’t regulated now or won’t be regulated Pesticides – labeling compliance, in the future - Smaller and smaller animal certification of applicators; Toxic operations under scrutiny - Food safety chemicals, hazardous substances, pressing onto the farm and into the small CERCLA liability markets - Animal identification is coming regardless - Even though we “have a relationship with our customer/consumer” · These issues may not be of primary we might still be sued - You don’t have a concern to you, but the general shift relationship with the medical or personal is to require smaller and smaller or property insurance carrier of the operations to seek, obtain and report consumer - Already circumstances where against permits lawsuits have occurred even though the consumer/customer expressed their · Larger picture - emerging support for the producer - Must think of international frameworks for your operation and your activities in the addressing environmental concerns broader world and realize that the broader Drift & Air world may not hold the values you hold - Bottom line – litigious society – until that · Water and Water Rights Issues changes, all farmers and ranchers are exposed to legal liabilities - Plan · Availability of Water will continue to accordingly…don’t stick your head in the be an issue in many states - sand… concerns regarding availability and use of water emerging throughout Excellent additional sources: Principles of the south and southeast; Water Agricultural Law, McKeowen & Harl Quality continues to be an issue; (published by Ag Law Press); Permits/regulations controlling use www.aglawpress.com; Agricultural Law, and availability of water; Specially Nutshell (published by West Legal identified areas of a state in which Publications).; water is critical or water quality is www.nationalaglawcenter.org - Reading impacted – do you know where you Rooms on various subjects - Reference are in relation to those areas? Desk online; Updated bibliographies; Missouri Ag Law Center & Drake Ag Law Center.
56 PACA – A Tool for Growers
Basil Coale USDA-AMS Manassas, Virginia
Producing a crop of fruit and vegetables is inspection result, or merely providing only half the job. The rest involves advice regarding a firm’s rights and marketing. Too often, however, growers responsibilities. Frequently, timely encounter a myriad of difficulties when guidance is sufficient to avoid any further selling and marketing their produce. Some action. There are instances, however, of the more common dilemmas include when disputes are not so easily settled. In buyers who arbitrarily “clip” invoices—or those cases, a claim must be filed with a don’t pay at all; loads that get rejected at PACA office. destinations without justification; and sales agents who do not properly account To file a claim, a grower must simply for sales and expenses. Any of these submit a letter to any PACA Branch office problems can put a grower’s entire outlining the nature of the complaint and business at risk. the identity of the firm filed against. Along with the letter, the PACA Branch office will The Perishable Agricultural Commodities need copies of any supporting evidence Act, or PACA for short, protects growers, such as invoices, broker’s memoranda of shippers, distributors, and retailers dealing sale, accountings, or other paperwork. in fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables Also, a claim must be filed within 9 by prohibiting unfair and fraudulent trade months of the date that payment became practices, and by providing a forum that due, or the date that performance of the growers and others can use to settle contract was required. The cost of filing a commercial disputes. PACA is claim is $60. administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is funded almost entirely Once the PACA Branch office receives a by license and complaint fees that are paid complaint, they will gather the relevant by companies that buy, sell, or broker facts from all parties involved in the commercial quantities of fruits and dispute and assist in reaching a vegetables. This license requirement is settlement. The PACA Branch handles what makes the law so effective. USDA more than 2,000 such cases each year can suspend or revoke the license of firms and resolves about 75 percent of these that don’t abide by the law, and hold them claims informally, generally within 8 liable for any damages that result. weeks. However, if informal settlement is Naturally, the type of penalty issued not possible, USDA will issue a binding depends upon the seriousness and nature decision and order. Although it costs an of the violation. additional $300 to obtain a formal ruling, this fee can be recovered from the other Dispute Resolution party, if the grower prevails. If a grower encounters problems getting payment from a buyer, or believes that Sales Agents they have suffered damages resulting Many growers hire sales agents to sell and from unfair trade practices, they should market their crop. Although arrangements contact a USDA-PACA Branch office to vary, agents typically receive a percentage discuss the matter. PACA Branch of the sales price as their commission, and representatives provide expert, unbiased may also be entitled to deduct other assistance—whether this involves expenses. The PACA requires that agents interpreting a contract term, analyzing an outline the duties and responsibilities of
57 both parties in writing before the first lot creditors until all valid trust claims have is received. In addition, agents must issue been satisfied. Because of this, suppliers accurate accountings documenting the that file for trust protection have a far sales prices obtained and the expenses greater chance of recovering money owed deducted from each transaction. Agents them when a buyer goes out of business. are generally required to submit these accountings in 10-day intervals To preserve trust rights, the PACA throughout the season, and must promptly requires that a seller, within 30 days from pay the net proceeds due once payment is the payment due date, provide to the collected. If a sales agent has not met its debtor a written notice stating the intent responsibilities, a grower should speak to to preserve trust rights, including in the a PACA Branch specialist. If necessary, a notice information about the unpaid claim can be filed and a PACA Branch transaction. Since specific information is representative will audit the agent’s needed for the notice to be valid, it would records to determine whether any be wise to call a PACA Branch office and additional proceeds are due. speak with a representative before preparing a notice. The requirement for Mediation Service providing written notification to the debtor Mediation is an effective way to resolve applies to all who want to preserve trust disputes, since it places the resolution of rights, whether they are a PACA-licensed the dispute directly in the hands of the firm or an unlicensed grower. interested parties. It provides an outlet for settling differences outside of the legal If a seller has a PACA license, however, system, strengthens business the law allows for the automatic filing for relationships, and provides a forum where trust protection simply by including the both parties can air their differences in a following wording on the invoice: neutral atmosphere. All PACA Branch personnel that handle disputes are trained “The perishable agricultural commodities in mediation, and can mediate a dispute listed on this invoice are sold subject to upon request provided both parties are the statutory trust authorized by section agreeable. Mediation sessions can be held 5(c) of the Perishable Agricultural face-to-face or over the telephone. Commodities Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. Furthermore, there is no additional cost to 499e(c). The seller of these commodities mediate a dispute beyond the initial $60 retains a trust claim over these filing fee. To obtain more information commodities, all inventories of food or about this service, or to arrange for other products derived from these mediation of a dispute, contact any PACA commodities, and any receivables or Branch office. proceeds from the sale of these commodities until full payment is Trust Protection received.” PACA’s dispute resolution and mediation services are important tools that produce The PACA law is here to ensure fairness businesses can utilize to resolve disputes and offers many services to assist. For that sometimes occur between trading additional information, call any PACA partners. But what recourse is available Branch office or visit our website address when a customer goes out of business or at http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/paca.htm. files bankruptcy? The PACA trust provision requires that dealers maintain a statutory Tucson, AZ: 1-888-639-0575 trust on fruits and vegetables received but Manassas, VA: 1-888-639-9236 not yet paid for. In the case of a business Ft Worth, TX: 1-888-901-6137 failure, the debtor’s trust assets are not available for general distribution to other
58 Heart of the Farm; Women in Agriculture
Joy Kirkpatrick and Carol Roth University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, professionals were interested in University of Wisconsin-Extension (UWEX) developing programming for women sponsored educational programs involved in agriculture. As a result, two specifically for farm women. These female county-based UWEX agricultural programs targeted women who helped agents and four University of Wisconsin manage their farming operation. campus-based faculty/staff formed a Unfortunately, these programs were steering committee to develop this abandoned. Two reasons are thought to project. (3) The final factor was funding. A have contributed to the end of programs series of small grants made it possible to for farm women: (1) a lack of leadership conduct two pilot workshops.2 Information in UWEX for these audience specific gathered from pilot evaluations and a (versus topic specific) educational follow-up focus group provided programs, and (2) the move of farm information that was useful in developing women to seek off-farm employment to the program and seeking additional supplement incomes and provide funding to expand the program. In 2003, insurance benefits for their family. Adding a grant from the North Central Region’s off-farm employment to their workload Risk Management Education Center made juggling their various roles even supported four Heart of the Farm – harder. Participating in the existing Women in Agriculture Conferences that Extension educational programs fell off were held throughout Wisconsin. The their “to do” lists. Heart of the Farm – purpose of Heart of the Farm is to address Women in Agriculture is an attempt to the needs of farm women by providing reach this underserved audience of UW- education on pertinent topics, connecting Extension agriculture programming. them with agricultural resources, and creating support networks. Three things happened to make Heart of the Farm in Wisconsin possible. (1) The Heart of the Farm Participants Program on Agricultural Technology Six Heart of the Farm (HOF) conferences Studies (PATS), UW-Madison, published its were offered at various sites throughout research, The Roles of Women on the state during 2002-2003: Jefferson, Wisconsin Dairy Farms at the Turn of Ladysmith, Eau Claire (2), and Richland the 21st Century.1 This research indicates Center (2). Over 150 women attended that most farm women are responsible for these conferences. Almost two-thirds the financial record keeping on their farms (62%) of the participants were between and also share in the decision-making to 35-54 years of age, with an equal number borrow money and/or expand their of younger (18-34 = 18%) and older (55 operations. At the same time, many or older = 20%) participants. More than 1 women were taking off-farm jobs and the in 3 women indicated they worked off- number of farms was decreasing. This farm. The average number of hours demand for their time coupled with the engaged in off-farm work was 30 hours lack of contact with others who per week. This means that for most of understand the complexity of farm life these women (89.4%), off-farm work created a feeling of social isolation for constituted more than a part-time job. As many farm women. (2) The second piece might be expected in Wisconsin, the of the puzzle fell into place when a core majority of women who participated in group of UW-Cooperative Extension HOF came from dairy farms (58.7%). The
59 remaining 40%+ were involved in other and farm investments. And to a slightly enterprises – beef, grain, hogs, other – or lesser degree, they influence the decisions a combination of enterprises. that relate to farm labor, and livestock or dairy management. Farm women were Women are Involved in Major Farm also asked how they would describe their Decisions involvement in the decisions that were As indicated by Chart 1, women are made on the farm. More than one-half involved in all of the major decisions that (57%) said that they were “very are made in their farming operations. The involved.” Another one-third (30%) said majority of women are responsible for that they were “involved to somewhat almost all of the decisions related to the involved”. Only 2% said that they were household (93%), however, these women “not involved at all” in farm decision are least involved with decisions about making. crop management. What is most interesting is that these women are most likely to be part of the decision making in areas that relate to long-term planning
60 ‘Women’s Work’ on the Farm operations, the majority (82%) indicated Similar to their involvement in the farm that they are satisfied with their decision-making, farm women play a responsibilities. However, 3 out of 5 crucial role in the farm tasks that they (60%) said that they see their perform. The contribution that women responsibilities changing. For some, those make to their farming operation is often changes are related to physical changes or overlooked. ‘Women’s work’ includes farm health reasons that affect their ability to work, household tasks, and for some, off- perform the farm work. For others, it is farm work as well. When asked how they related to off-farm employment that takes would describe their involvement in the away time that would be available for on- day-to-day farm tasks, almost two-thirds farm work. of the respondents said that they were “very involved” (61%) and another 22% For most, however, the changes were said they were “involved.” Less than 5% related to major transitions in the farm said that they were “not involved at all.” operation. These transitions covered a wide range — “working a son into the ‘Women’s work’ on the farm is divided into business,” transferring the farm from one three main categories – generation to the next, retirement, and bookkeeping/marketing, manual labor, expansion of milking herd or other and machinery/field work. While farm livestock. women are involved in a variety of tasks they are most likely to be involved in Regardless of how their farming operation bookkeeping /marketing and work that was changing, women see financial requires manual labor and less likely to be information as a key component in making involved with machinery/field work. The that transition. Financial information majority of women (85%) “regularly” and needs include record keeping, taxes, “sometimes” do the farm bookkeeping and marketing, retirement planning, and farm bill paying. Because of their close transfer. connection to and understanding of the farm business finances, women’s Heart of the Farm Motivates Changes involvement in the decision-making for in Managing Farm Risk their farm operation is critical. As shown in Chart 2, farm women indicated that they used what they had On farms, women do a variety of manual learned at a HOF program to address labor tasks that range from running many of the risks that they face in their errands to rock picking. Much of the work farming operation. Not only did the revolves around feeding and taking care of program participants gather information, the livestock. The most common tasks but in many cases, they applied this new that women regularly or sometimes knowledge to manage a risk in their perform are: (1) running errands; (2) farming operation. For example: caring for young stock; (3) milking cows / 1. Participants not only cleaning after milking; (4) feeding “Discussed a plan to deal livestock; and (5) picking rock. with 5Ds” they also “Developed a plan to deal Women are the least involved in work with unexpected events” or, related to machinery /field work. Many 2. They “Discussed how our share the responsibility for haying (70%) farm will be transferred,” and harvesting crops (59%). “Updated estate plan for our farm transfer,” and then Women’s Changing Roles in the Farm “Started retirement Operation planning.” Regardless of the long hours and multiple tasks that women do in their farming
61 But farm women want more… sessions on the topics for which the Input from farm women is essential in women requested more information. guiding the selection of program topics. Three sessions that focused entirely on Through focus groups, program surveys, health care issues were offered in and follow-up evaluations, farm women locations near the workshop sites. These have indicated the topics that would be health care sessions gave the women useful in managing risks on their farm. more in-depth information and more time They include: production issues, to network and discuss their own struggles government and law, financial and issues. management, health issues, marketing, long-range planning…to name a few. As noted earlier, many farm women take Women are integral to each of their farm on the responsibility of recordkeeping for operations. Providing farm women with the farm business and because of this the tools and skills to perform their tasks role, the women requested more will benefit all of agriculture. workshops on record keeping software. In response, the UW-Center for Dairy UW-Extension responds to farm Profitability provided three hands-on women’s requests workshops in computer labs introducing The one-day Heart of the Farm workshops farm women to two financial continue to expand into other regional recordkeeping programs, QuickBooksTM locations throughout Wisconsin. Six and AAIMS®. workshops were offered in 2004 and four were conducted in 2005. Four are planned In 2004, UW-Extension introduced a new for the 2005-06 winter programming educational program called Annie’s Project season. In addition to continuing the one- to WI farm women. Annie’s Project is a day Heart of the Farm workshops, UW- farm women’s risk management program Extension provided focused educational developed by University of Illinois
62 Extension Educator, Ruth Hambleton. isolation that many farm families and Annie’s Project allows women to learn especially farm women face. about risk management through a small group setting in five sessions (over a six For more information about Heart of the week period). Not only does this allow for Farm, visit: extended contact with educators, but it www.uwex.edu/ces/heartofthefarm provides the opportunity for networking among the women. One Annie’s Project 1 Vogt, Jennifer; and Douglas Jackson- participant noted, “Farmers don’t play Smith, Marcia Ostrom and Sharon cards on Saturday nights anymore. We Lezberg. November, 2001. “The Roles of need this program to network with our Women on Wisconsin Dairy Farms at the neighbors.” As families change the way Turn of the 21st Century,” PATS Research they spend their free time, many times Report No. 10. Madison, Wisconsin: UW- focusing on entertainment within their Madison. own homes or sporting events involving 2A Women’s Challenge Grant from the their children, the connection with their North Central Region’s Risk Management neighbors diminish. Providing farm Education Center (NCR RMEC) as well as women the opportunity to participate in funding from the Cooperative Foundation programs that are pertinent to their farm and CHS Cooperative Foundation business and network with their peers and supported the two pilot programs. neighbors may alleviate some of the
63 Crop Insurance Overview
Laurence M. Crane National Crop Insurance Services Overland Park, KS
By definition insurance is the means of for some crops) in 5% increments, of their protecting against unexpected loss. APH yield. The price election is the price Everyone has insurance; either you buy per unit of measure as issued by the US insurance from an insurance company, or Department of Agriculture Risk you insure yourself. When you self-insure Management Agency (USDA/RMA) prior to there are no premiums to pay, but in the each crop year. event of a loss you pay the full amount. In other words, when self-insured you have a This price election is used to establish the free policy with a 100 percent deductible. insurance guarantee, premium, and to compensate the insured in the event a There is a multitude of crop insurance production loss occurs. Producers have a products on the market and obtaining crop choice of various percentage level price insurance is relatively easy. It involves elections established for each crop year determining the amount of protection (55% to 100% of USDA/RMA established desired and selecting the product and or projected market price). There are coverage level that will best provide that several options on how to divide land to protection. Qualified and informed agents determine APH yields and premiums under are available to answer questions and crop insurance. Each parcel of land for provide help and assistance in completing which claims are calculated is called an an application and explaining program “insurance unit.” A unit is defined as that requirements. acreage of the insured crop in the county which is taken into consideration when Determining Insurance Protection determining the guarantee, premium, and True risk protection must be based on a the amount of any indemnity (loss farm’s own production potential. Proving payment) for that acreage. Unit structure historical yield records is the most realistic is a very important aspect of maximizing method of estimating how much the risk management protection offered by protection is needed, especially if a various insurance policies. Check with an grower’s yield is above average. The insurance agent to find out how many and insurance yield for much of Federal crop what types of insurance units your crops insurance coverage is based on a qualify for, and how this will affect your producer’s Actual Production History premiums. There are four types of unit (APH). APH’s are based on the average structure: basic, optional, enterprise, and yield from the insured unit for four to ten whole-farm units. consecutive years. For farmers who have less than four years of production records, Insurance Products variable transitional yields (T-Yields) are Multiple Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI) used to complete the minimum four-year MOCI is a broad-based crop insurance database. program administered by RMA and subsidized by the Federal Crop Insurance To determine the amount of insurance Corporation (FCIC). As the name implies, protection, farmers must select a MPCI provides protection against an coverage level and a price election. unavoidable loss in yield due to nearly all Producers can insure a percentage of a natural disasters. For most crops, that yield (coverage level) and, for most includes drought, excess moisture, cold products, can choose from 50-75% (85% and frost, wind, flood and damage from
64 insects and diseases. MPCI does not a loss of income when prices and/or yields cover losses resulting from not following fall. While IP looks a lot like CRC, it does good farming practices, low commodity not have the increasing price function of prices, theft, and specified perils that are CRC. The guarantee and the premium will excluded in some policies. There are be calculated using the spring-time specific restrictions on some crops based generated price (projected price). An on acceptable farming practices. Most indemnity is due when the revenue to MPCI programs guarantee a yield based count (production to count x harvest on an individual producer’s APH. If the price) is less than the amount of production to count is less than the yield protection. guarantee, the insured will be paid a loss. Catastrophic (CAT) CAT insurance is the Revenue Assurance (RA) minimum level of multi-peril crop The coverage and exclusions of RA are insurance coverage at 50% of a producer’s similar to those for the standard MPCI yield and 55% of the price, and meets policy. However, MPCI provides coverage requirements for a person to qualify for for loss of production, whereas RA certain other USDA program benefits. The provides coverage to protect against loss premium is 100% subsidized, but the of revenue caused by low prices or low farmer pays a $100 per crop per county yields or a combination of both. RA has administrative fee. Farmers with limited the Fall Harvest Price Option (FHPO) resources may be eligible for a waiver of available. This Option uses the greater of the fee for CAT coverage. Any crop the fall harvest price (harvest-time insurance agent can assist producers in generated price) or the projected harvest determining if they are eligible for a fee price (spring-time generated price) to waiver. determine the per-acre revenue guarantee. So, with the Option, RA works Crop Revenue Coverage (CRC) like CRC, without the Option, it works like The most widely available revenue IP. RA protects a producer’s crop revenue protection policy is CRC. This policy when the crop revenue falls below the guarantees an amount of revenue (based guaranteed revenue. on the individual producer’s actual production history (APH) x commodity Group Risk Income Protection (GRIP) price) called the final guarantee. The GRIP is based on the experience of the coverage and exclusions of CRC are county rather than individual farms, so similar to those for the standard MPCI APH is not required for this program. A policy. This final guarantee is based on the GRIP policy includes coverage against greater of the springtime generated price potential loss of revenue resulting from a (base price) or the harvest-time generated significant reduction in the county yield or price (harvest price). While the guarantee commodity price of a specific crop. When may increase, the premium will not. the county yield estimates are released, Premium will be calculated using the base the county revenues (or payment price. Since the protection of producer revenues) will be calculated prior to April revenue is the primary objective of CRC, it 16 of the following crop year. GRIP will contains provisions addressing both yield pay a loss when the county revenue is less and price risks. CRC covers revenue losses than the trigger revenue. Since this plan is due to a low price, low yield, or any based on county revenue and not combination of the two. A loss is due when individual revenue, the insured may have the calculated revenue (production to a loss in revenue on their farm and not count x harvest price) is less than the final receive payment under GRIP. Beginning guarantee for the crop acreage. with the 2004 crop year, the GRIP Harvest Revenue Option (HRO) Endorsement is Income Protection (IP) available. This optional endorsement IP is a revenue product that, based on the offers “upside” price protection by valuing individual producer’s APH, protects against lost bushels at the harvest price in
65 addition to the coverage offered under an MPCI policy. In this instance, crop hail GRIP. insurance can fill the coverage gap. An MPCI policy protects against losses severe Group Risk Plan (GRP) enough to significantly drop the whole Like GRIP, GRP coverage is based on the farm’s yield average. Crop-hail insurance, experience of the county rather than on the other hand, gives supplemental, individual farms, so APH is not required for acre by acre protection that more this program. GRP indemnifies the insured accurately reflects the actual cash value of in the event the county average per-acre damage from hail. yield or payment yield falls below the insured's trigger yield. RMA will issue the These products are not federal or state payment yield in the calendar year government products and the premiums following the crop year insured. Since this are not subsidized. However, private plan is based on county yields and not products are regulated by the insurance individual yields, the insured may have a departments in each state and companies low yield on their farm and not receive must comply with all state insurance laws. payment under GRP. Important Deadlines Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) Sales Closing: To participate, a person AGR is a non-traditional, whole farm risk must apply for insurance on or before the management tool that uses a producer’s applicable sales closing date. This is the historic IRS Schedule F tax form or last date to apply for crop insurance equivalent information as a base to coverage for any FCIC policy, or make provide a level of guaranteed revenue for changes in coverage from the previous the insurance period. It provides the year. Growers need to decide by this date producer with protection against low farm the type of policy and the level of revenue due to natural disaster or market protection they want. Sales closing dates fluctuation. Covered farm revenue is vary by crop and by state. Final Planting income from agricultural commodities Date: Last day to plant unless insured for reported on the Schedule F tax form, late planting. Acreage Reporting Date: including incidental amounts of income After the crop is planted, producers must from animals and animal products (not to report (by type and or varietal group, if exceed 35% of farm revenue) and applicable) the number of acres insurable aquaculture reared in a controlled and uninsurable for which the insured environment. Incidental livestock income grower has a share. Premium Billing represents the crop production value fed Date: Although premiums are payable on to livestock. AGR-Lite is a streamlined the day after the sales closing date, the version of AGR available in limited states policy holder will not be billed until the offering protection to smaller farms. premium billing date. Generally this date falls near harvest. End of Insurance Private Named Peril (Crop-Hail) Period: Following this date, the farmer no Private stand-alone insurance policies longer has any production or revenue provide protection against specifically guarantee on the crop. This date is the named perils and are paid based on a earliest date the crop is harvested, percentage of damage multiplied by the abandoned, or totally destroyed, the day liability or protection purchased less the the final adjustment on losses is made, or deductible. Examples of private, non- a specific calendar date set in each crop subsidized crop insurance programs may policy. Date to File Notice of Damage: This include crop-hail, wind, or fire insurance, is the last date to give notice of probable which offer protection for one specific peril loss in order to receive an indemnity (e.g., hail), and various programs which payment. Notice is required within 72 supplement federally subsidized insurance. hours of the discovery of the damage, but The part of a crop damaged by a named not later than 15 days after the end of the peril may be less than the deductible on insurance period. Policy Termination
66 Date: If premiums or administrative fees amount of the premium that is owed are not paid by this date, the insurance depends on several factors, including the coverage for the following year will be number of acres planted, APH yield, level terminated. Cancellation Date: Last date of protection selected and the farming to give written notice to the insurance practice. It is the insured’s responsibility company if the grower does not wish to to follow good farming practices and care carry crop insurance the next year. for the crop through the growing season Otherwise, in most cases the policy will and harvest. If a loss occurs they are renew automatically for another year. responsible to inform their agent and Production Reporting Date: To keep your continue to care for the crop and obtain APH up to date, you must certify each consent before any insured acreage is year the acreage planted and the total destroyed. An adjuster will verify the loss production from the previous year. and an indemnity will be calculated and paid according to the terms of the policy. Process of Getting Insurance If no loss occurs, the farmer harvests the Insurance Cycle. Application needs to be crop and reports the actual production to made prior to a specified date early the agent for updating and recalculation of enough that neither party to the insurance the APH. Insurance policies are contract has knowledge of the crop’s continuous and if an insured wishes to production prospects for the year. The discontinue insurance for the next year, application for insurance includes the crop they must do so by a specified date known for which the insurance is sought, the as the cancellation date. The cancellation county in which it is to be grown, the date is usually the same date as the sales coverage level and price election at which closing date, though minor differences the crop is to be insured. Historical occur on some crops. records will be needed to verify production potential and to establish an APH (actual Finding an Agent Crop insurance is sold production history). The next step is to only by agents in the private sector. Use plant the crop prior to the final planting the Risk Management Agency’s website date. After the crop is planted, insured (www.rma.usda.gov) to locate an agent in producers must file an acreage report with your area, or ask other growers or their insurance provider to certify the professionals (such as lenders) you do number of acres planted, the farming business with for their recommendations. practice (for example, irrigated, non- Check with the insurance agency where irrigated, etc.) where appropriate, and any you purchase other types of insurance. other information required to insure that Often you can obtain crop insurance crop in that area. After RMA accepts the through an agent you already use for your acreage reports, it calculates the amount homeowner’s, automobile, fire, health, or of subsidy and credits the appropriate life insurance needs. Many insurance amounts to insured farmers and their agencies have agents who specialize in insurance providers. Premiums and any crop insurance. fees that insured farmers are required to pay are generally billed after the acreage report has been filed and processed. The
67 Track Two
Bridging the Gaps in Programs and Services
68 Opportunities & Challenges for Refugees & Immigrants
Larry Laverentz The Office of Refugee Resettlement Washington, DC
Each year the President signs an Executive refugees through the use of partnerships Order that permits the U.S. Department of to access resources that encourage State to bring to this country a certain refugee farming and rural number of refugees. In recent years, the entrepreneurship to take advantage of number of arrivals has ranged from about increasing demands for niche, specialty 27,000 to 29,000 in the post 9/11 years to and organic crops caused by changing about 53,000 persons in fiscal year 2005. demographics and attitudes in this country. “A refugee is someone outside of his or her country of nationality, who is unable One of the keys to the success of the RRI or unwilling to return because of has been the presence of a coordinating persecution or a well founded fear of agency or entity in each community. persecution, on account of race, religion, Obviously, its purpose is to understand nationality, membership in a particular and promote the coordination of various social group or political opinion.” resources that can support refugees in agriculture. Related to this is the function A refugee is different from an immigrant in of identifying and working to solve the that a refugee is here to escape challenges that cut across organizational persecution, cannot return home, brings lines and technical areas. virtually no personal property and needs government assistance. The contrast with The coordinating body is also important immigrants is clear with the most obvious, because of the uniqueness of each immigrants are here by personal plan. community. Planning and strategies have to be responsive to the local variables that The approach by the Office of Refugee include such things as growing season, Resettlement (ORR) has been that the first access to population centers, marketing 2 to 5 years in this country is generally a options, suitable crops, soil type(s), period of adjustment where refugees are cultural attitudes on the part of the expected to begin employment early on in refugee and indigenous populations, minimum wage jobs with hopefully upward presence and effectiveness of resource mobility. The ability to speak limited or no agencies, and state and local regulatory English is not considered to be a barrier to and procedural incentives and employment. After the period of disincentives. adjustment, refugees are encouraged to engage in self-employment. ORR has Early in the last fiscal year, the supported this through successful Secretaries of USDA and the Department programs of Microenterprise and of Health and Human Services signed a Individual Development Accounts (IDA). Memorandum of Understanding which The Refugee Rural Initiative promotes this promotes the working together of offices idea of self-employment through within USDA with ORR and the Office of agriculture. Community Services (OCS) within DHHS to improve the coordination of programs From the perspective of the Office of and services to refugees and other low Refugee Resettlement (ORR), the purpose income individuals engaged in farming and of the Refugee Rural Initiative is: To meet rural entrepreneurship. In follow-up to the goal of long term self-sufficiency for this a work plan has been developed that
69 calls for specific areas of coordination and participated in a national Rural Refugee responsibility. In keeping with the spirit of Initiative Workshop in Columbus, Ohio. this, several USDA officials recently
70 New Entry Sustainable Farming Project
Hugh Joseph Tufts University Boston, Massachusetts
Immigrants and refugees who start to provides easier access to large markets, farm in the US are not just like any other particularly ethnic ones. Adult education beginning farmers. They face many classes should be encouraged. challenges adapting to life in the US and this also translates to challenges with 3. Production: Production challenges for building a successful farming life and immigrant and refugee farmers include: enterprise. Three important areas are · Lack of familiarity with crops that summarized below: grow well in the regions of the US; similarly, figuring out how to grow 1. Farmers' backgrounds: Many crops that they raised in their home immigrants and refugees who begin countries within the different climates farming in the United States usually are and soil conditions that exist here. not beginning farmers. They have a · Pest management: Lack of familiarity farming heritage; these days this is with handling pest problems, usually from a tropical Third World combined with limited education and country. Previous farming was often literacy and English language can lead subsistence or small scale enterprise, with to pesticide misuse and subsequent limited equipment and infrastructure or health and safety risks. access to credit. In a sense, these · Traditional patterns of family and farmers have to unlearn many of the community labor run up against US practices that worked in their homelands labor laws and other regulations. as they adapt to and learn about · Finding safe, legal and reliable seed "advanced" market-based agriculture sources for non-traditional crops can systems functioning within an ever- be difficult. Some items may be expanding global context. restricted, such as water spinach, and require special permits. Solutions: Provide opportunities for farm · Being accustomed to using labor- training and education and for improved intensive production methods and use access to farm resources through of traditional planting systems can programs directed towards these slow adaptation to using appropriate producers. farm equipment and to more rapid farm expansion. 2. Demographics: Many immigrants and · Trends in industrial agriculture - refugees are settled in urban communities including scale and concentration - where there is housing and social services. make it hard to raise animals and But that makes access to affordable having mixed use farms. farmland more difficult. Once in the US, immigrants and refugees often experience Solutions: Offer farm training language and literacy barriers. opportunities to learn about US Educational limitations and cultural and agriculture; focus more on mainstream social differences can also be barriers. products; farming experience in the US before starting a farm business; e.g., as Solutions: Limited employment farm labor, apprentice, or partners; focus opportunities due to education or literacy on farm enterprise versus farm production limitations can be easier to manage in approaches; e.g., know your market first. agriculture. Farming near urban areas
71 4. Marketing: the driving force · Ethnic crops often have limited · Many immigrants and refugee farmers markets - often in ethnic areas - that find it hard to market to buyers who may restrict marketing opportunities. are not in their communities; many · Many ethnic crops bring low prices, don't know what markets are especially in the ethnic communities available. where the demand is highest. · Many immigrants and refugees Solutions: Assistance with marketing struggle with the challenges to build (coops, coordinated deliveries) can be marketing relationships. critical; similarly, training in marketing · Small producers can be unfamiliar skills and opportunities; focusing on niche with market demands such as post- or specialty markets where prices are harvest handling, grading, packaging, highest; doing value added processing; presentation, and pricing. looking for high end markets as a priority. · Ethnic markets often don't place a premium on organic, sustainable or even fresher quality foods - price is
72 Immigrant/Refugee Farming Projects
Chris Morton Minnesota Food Association Arden Hills, MN
The USDA’s Farm Service Agency’s Office 1890 and 1862 Land Grant of Outreach web site includes a short Institutions, American Indian historical piece that describes the Community Colleges, Hispanic Serving implementation of Section 2501, or the Institutions and community based Outreach and Assistance for Socially organizations to reverse the decline of Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers socially disadvantaged farmers and Program: ranchers across the nation through training and technical assistance. The Small Farmer Outreach Training and Technical Assistance Program, In the late-1990s, new immigrants were initiated during Fiscal Year (FY) 1983, added as a classified group to be included was part of the former Farmers Home as “socially disadvantaged.” Tufts Administration (FmHA) response to the University and Minnesota Food Association USDA Task Force on Black Farm were contracted with to establish an Ownership. It was also reflecting a outreach and assistance program for new commitment to implement Presidential immigrants. Both Tufts University and Executive Order 12320 dated Minnesota Food Association spread their September 15, 1981, (signed by focus over Southeast Asian/Hmong, President Ronald Reagan) to support Latino, and African immigrants and Historically Black Colleges and refugees. Universities (HBCU). For the last ten years, there has been a The Food Security Act of 1985 directed large number of colleges and universities, FmHA to continue funding small farmer as well as community-based organizations training and technical assistance providing outreach, training, and technical programs. The Agricultural Credit Act assistance to new immigrants wishing to of 1987 required FmHA to assist return to their agrarian roots and become socially disadvantaged farmers by farmers. Much of the training and establishing an outreach program to technical assistance, then, has been advise these farmers on farm focused on farm business management in ownership loans and of the availability America’s capitalistic system, and crop of FmHA inventory farmland for production in a variety of climates and purchase and also to provide training varying soils. and technical assistance. One continuing nagging problem is the Title XXV, Section 2501 of the Food, question of land access, both on the front Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade end for training opportunities, and on the Act of 1990 charged the Consolidated back end as participants graduate from Farm Service Agency (CFSA) with the training programs and want to purchase implementation of the Outreach and their own farms: Assistance Grants for Socially · Land is expensive, even for training Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers programs; Program. Using this authority, CFSA · New immigrants and refugees often would enter into agreements with want only to lease land at a very
73 low cost, but not participate in any particularly in communities where type of training program; new immigrants/refugees live · New immigrants will often lease (e.g., St. Paul/Minneapolis, three (3) to five (5) acres of land Milwaukee, San Francisco); from local farmers as an · Immigrants and refugees are inexpensive way to have access to resistant to moving to rural land, and keep their prices low; communities where land is more · Land in the urban and suburban affordable. circles are often very expensive,
74 ISED Solutions, Refugee Rural Initiative (RRI)
Ben Turner Institute for Social & Economic Development Washington, DC
The Office of Resettlement (ORR) has Many refugee operators find that securing engaged ISED Solutions to explore how to farm financing can be challenging due to: maximize opportunities for refugees who · A reluctance of many farmers to desire self-sufficiency through starting or file taxes expanding an agricultural enterprise. · Lack of proper, consistent record keeping To assist ORR’s efforts, and to better understand how refugee serving agencies · Absence of credit histories can serve refugee agricultural enterprises, · Non-engagement of market driven ISED Solutions has engaged 11 direct strategies such as crop service partners from California to diversification, transitioning to Massachusetts among the network of non- pesticide free organic farming and profit community based and faith based lack of willingness to relocate to organizations serving refugee areas outside of second and third communities. RRI partners bring tier suburban areas where farm experience providing asset development land is cheaper. programming such as micro-enterprise development, community development, or Solutions: Some strategies to increase individual development account programs, access to finance for refugee operators are or have working relationships with for government agencies like Farm Service organizations that provide such services. Agencies, Extension Agents, and the USDA in general, to design and deliver products Important goals of the RRI are: and services that promote and assist limited or non-English speaking farmers. · to facilitate collaborations and Employees of these agencies must begin partnerships between the local to learn to recognize the important refugee service providers and contribution that refugees and immigrants USDA agencies; can make to American Agriculture and · to help agencies retool or redesign begin to tailor their efforts for the needs of their micro-enterprise programs for small and very small farming operations. a better fit with the needs of food They could, for example, provide special sector entrepreneurs; incentives for sellers and buyers of smaller · to compile as much information as (5 to 40 acres) acreage. possible within the limits of this Organizations such as Mutual Assistance project, about the involvement of Associations and Voluntary Agencies, refugees in the agricultural sector. those entities responsible for helping refugees resettle, must continue to work In addition to the issue of access to land towards redesigning and retooling their and training opportunities, many refugee economic development programs to farm operations are chronically become more competent at the delivery of undercapitalized, which in part impedes an technical assistance to clients who work in operator’s ability to finance land the farming and agri-business sector. This purchases, cold storage facilities, farm entails creating more farm specific cash equipment or under take other market flow loan solutions, providing relevant loan driven strategies to increase income. capital for asset purchases and most importantly work with operators on
75 market driven strategies to enhance understand the inter-relatedness of farm operations. sector systems of distribution and develop effective strategies to help refugees’ Additionally service providers need to access and secure profitable markets. establish working relationships with traditional providers of agricultural services and finance, and they need to
76 Native Women in Agriculture Vicki LeBeaux Intertribal Agriculture Council Billings, Montana Polly Hayes Seminole Tribe of Florida Florida Jeannie Benally Navajo Nation Shiprock, New Mexico Janie Hipp Rogers University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas
Vicki LeBreaux · Trademark program
· Intertribal Agriculture Council · Domestically Established - Criteria Chartered in 1987 - Promoting the must be met Indian Use of Indian Resources · Made by American Indians Trademark • Programs to meet member needs - United States Department of Commerce reports that non-Indians · American Indian Foods using “Indian” labeling accounts for at · Trademark least 20% of $1 billion industry - Solution? · Farmer To Farmer Program · “Made by American Indians” · Outreach Program Trademark · Policy · “Produced by American Indians” American Indian Foods – “Taste the Trademark tradition” · Since its first use in 1993, the · Initiated in 1998 - tradeshows and trademark has grown to include over export seminars 500 users with domestic & international exposure · Europe and Asia -proven countries, established markets · Must be a member of a federally recognized tribe, application with IAC, · Currently working with the following IAC approves, license term applies, products: salmon and seafood, incorporation of trademark into label of blueberries, cranberries, buffalo, beef, the product olive oil, citrus (all variations). apples, asparagus, seasonings, teas, rice, · Allows Product Differentiation - alfalfa pellets, melons Commodity vs. Specialty Product; “Niche Market”; Value-Added; Original · native chef conducting “Native Tastes Stewards of the Land; Naturally Seminars” = Canadian Food and Raised; Improves Native American Beverage Show; London Fine and Economies Fancy Food Show, Native Tastes Seminars in London, Asia and Canada Farmer to Farmer Program with Winrock International · Reverse trade missions, shows, seminars · Native people volunteer time & ag- related expertise
77 · All expenses paid, Length of trips: 10- Jeannie Benally 14 days, End of trip report, Follow up Farm Safety · Register in IAC Database, Review · Chemicals & Their Uses Scopes of Work with IAC · Canal Ditch Safety Outreach Program · Cattle Handling Safety · Four IAC staff located in each of the four regions in the Indian Country 4-H Youth Leadership Activities
· Assist in Agency/program · Public Speaking understanding, provide education & · Livestock Projects training, serve as an information resource; Farm Bill - Testify to · Demonstrations Congress on current legislation; · Workshops represent a concerted voice for Indian Country on Ag Issues Ag Education • Livestock Seminars
Polly Hayes • Agricultural Days Discussion of one tribe’s experiences with • Small Farms Workshop 4-H programming • Master Growers Program Try to fuse program with our strong • Demonstration Plots traditions - have been raising cattle for over 200 years and we have the 10-12th largest U.S. herd and 4-5th in Florida. - Annual Livestock Auction & Dine One of the first nationally to be involved Agriculture, Inc. with Animal ID program and our children are very much involved with the entire Building Alliance with Navajo Communities process. for Health and Wellness We touch about 80% of tribal youth with Janie Hipp Rogers our programs, around 40% in registered Our Mission: To provide a network and projects and another 40% in school forum for Native Women in Agriculture. enrichment programs; every year we try to get stronger. Our Vision: As Native Women of the The Seminole Tribe has had a 50+ year Earth, who are educators, nurturers and involvement with our 4-H partners - conductors of cultural unity for future traditonal clothing, baskets, dolls - generations; we will address agricultural keeping it alive our kids are showing issues relating to education, food systems, interest in video and technology transfer viability, preservation of cultural Over 90% of Tribal members are active identification and understanding. participants in the programs administered • Where are we? - Throughout North by the Seminole Tribe's Education America and beyond Department; over 450 Tribal member students have graduated from high school • What have we contributed? since 1945; approximately 570 Tribal Historically, culturally, traditionally, members currently attend Florida public we are agriculture in our schools schools; more than 70 Seminole communities students are known to be enrolled in 59 • Federally Recognized Tribes in the different colleges or universities. U.S. - 564+ federally recognized tribes and 264 federally recognized Alaskan villages; “federally
78 recognized” = tribes and non-reservation Tribes found in the groups that have a special, Southern/Southeastern region of the legal relationship with the country - Most farms harvest outside a U.S. government; contractual relationship and most Government to government receive no government payments relationship; Usually treaty (WRP, CRP, EQIP, etc.) related • Keepseagle litigation still pending --re: Our Land access to governmental program • 275 land areas are administered as • Most incorporate some form of reservations (reservations, livestock, plus hay, corn, wheat, pueblos, rancherias, communities, soybeans, fruits, nuts and berries; villages, etc.) - Largest = Navajo Rapidly growing niche products sector Reservation = 16 million acres of Intertribal Agriculture Council report in land in Four Corners area; total of conjunction with the Federation of 56.2 million acres of land held in Southern Cooperatives (1995) trust by the U.S. for various Tribes and individuals; of that 47 million • 9% of respondents had college acres of land is used in agriculture degrees, most had high school + some college; 78% were primary wage • Land fractionation is a large issue - earner; 46% were receiving at least Secretary of Interior serves as $10k in on-farm income; 70% received trustee for such lands – Bureau of at least $10k off-farm income; Only Indian Affairs (BIA has delegated 14% received FSA loan; 1/3 reported responsibilities - Ongoing litigation having crop insurance between 1990- with Department of the Interior 1995 and BIA ---re: management of accounts - High percentages of • Most recent Census Report (2002) - land on reservations is owned, American Indians operated 56.8 occupied or leased by non-Indians million farmland acres or 6 percent of the 938 million U.S. farmland acres; What/Who is our agriculture? Sold $1.64 billion of agricultural • 1992 Census of Agriculture - 8,346 products including $781 million of farms operated by American Indian - crops and $857 million of livestock; Under-reporting is a serious problem make significant contributions to U.S. agriculture; number of American • ERS comprehensive report of limited Indian farm operators identified totaled resource and socially disadvantaged 42,304; these numbers still do not farmers (1990s) reflect full impact of Native American • 80 % of all farms operated by Women, agriculture; Still underreporting African Americans and Native • Extension Indian Reservation Program Americans sold less than $25k in - Authorized by the 1990 Farm Bill agricultural products in 1992 (P.L. 101-624); 8 programs in 15 • One-half of the farms operated by states; AK, AZ, FL, ID, MS, MT, NC, Native Americans were in the Southern NV, NM, ND, OK, OR, SD, WA, WY; 86 Plains region – 2/3 of all American agents in 19 states; $1.9 M (early Indian farms located in the OKC, 2000s) – originally authorized for $8.0 Billings and Sacramento regional M; Agents are employees of offices of RMA Cooperative Extension Service of the state where the reservation is located; • Almost all land farmed by Native Office and work on Reservations; Americans is on reservations, but this Conduct Extension work on behalf of didn’t take into consideration the Native Americans residing on numbers of Tribal Nations that are reservations
79 American Indian women – America’s First • Women’s rights Farmers • Iroquois League of Five • Our primary responsibility is to gather Nations – existed prior to plant foods – brought about the colonization revolutionary transformation to • Women had full political “agriculture” - Made first agricultural participation – men made discoveries and began centuries’ long decisions but women had process of domesticating crops - power to veto them - allowed villages to flourish and political Women had power to systems to develop appoint men to positions of • Although farming takes place authority - Matrilineal throughout what is now the Eastern societies – lineage traced U.S., European colonists described the through women - Property land as vast, empty tracts and clan affiliation owned and passed on through • Reinforced claims to ownership women through eminent domain (English common law) - If unoccupied or • Iriquois Constitution – unused, the land belonged to “the “women shall own the land Crown” - In order for colonization, and the soil. Men and must portray land as untilled women shall follow the status of the mother.” • Actually intensive cultivation underway along with seasonal storage of surplus • Women as head of households - Early reports indicate planting of 2 traditionally and is still very common crops (double cropping) and field among tribes today rotations underway Challenges as we move forward…Native • Other techniques shared with settlers Women in Agriculture – techniques in place when colonists · Re-engaging Native Youth - Return to came organic and traditional foods • Which seeds to plant and · Creating network/support for Native where - Fertilizers & Natural Women to impact Native Agriculture in insect repellents positive ways • Intercropping & Double · Local food systems & export of food cropping - Raised bed products farming & terraces · Ensuring land base, health of land • Plows - Irrigation systems base, health of peoples; Funding and aqueducts - Aquaculture
• Food coloring and food preservation & Food storage
80 Outreaching to Socially Disadvantaged Farmer & Ranchers along the Texas Mexico Border
Omar Garza The Texas Mexico Border Coalition Community Based Organization Rio Grande City, Texas
This community-based organnization and others. We have also worked with (CBO) was formed when a Local Soil and SARE on one project a few years back. Water Conservation District realized that Our partners include Colleges and there was a gap that needed to be filled. Universities, other Non Profits, other Technical assistance, as we knew it, was agencies, and many local and county becoming harder to access, especially in groups. Currently we are working on the the border region of Texas. In 1998 the following: 1. Risk Management Agency organization was incorporated in Texas Outreach Grant through the F.A.R.M. and the process started to become a non- project. 2. Natural Resources profit 501c3 organization. This was a Conservation Service on a TSP grant. 3. costly process, especially for an CSREES on a 2501 eFARM Project. We are organization with no funds. It took some also involved in several other smaller commitments from the Soil and Water grants from different agencies to provide Conservation District and a few individuals some other specific service. All grants are to come up with the needed cash. related to providing educational and technical assistance to the communities in In 1999 membership was opened, and the area that we serve. Meetings are several membership meetings were held provided thru partnerships with the local within the region. The initial members agencies and, in many cases, local were all committed producers who also landowners to develop agendas beneficial shared the dream of an organization that to the area’s needs. would help with technical assistance and other educational activities. The initial Meetings are set up in conjunction with organizers now decided that it was time tours and etc. at the different locations. for them to step back and allow the Arrangements are made, working with organization to move forward. Members local organizations, such as Cooperative elected membership from the CBO area Extension Service, Rural Development, and activities started. Membership Texas Department of Agriculture, and reflects the makeup of the area and others to assist with logistics. We depend represents the different farming, ranching, on producer input to provide topics and related activities from the area. relevant to their needs. For example: in Membership now stands at approximately the Winter Garden area of Texas, through 150. Once a member signs up, that communication with small producers at a person is a member for as long as that local farmers market it was learned that person wants to remain one. Membership many of the 5-10acre vegetable farmers dues are paid only once. A member may were selling their produce for cash and not request to be removed from the mailing even reporting it on a Schedule F Form list at any time. 1040. Some have never filed a schedule F, therefore, they had no information for FSA in applying for a farm loan. This As a 501c3 organization we can access became a topic at a meeting where grant money from the different Schedule F was explained. There are governmental agencies. In the past we many other examples but this gives you have worked with RMA, NRCS, FSA, FSIS, an idea. All of our meetings are producer
81 driven: they are the ones who tell us programs, loan programs, NAP, what information they need. eGOV, and other programs. In collaboration with FSA, an Finances are an important part of any eHELPDESK has been set up to program because money is needed to answer producers’ questions about provide what is needed. Good financial computer internet usage. It is records are important because those show staffed 8 hours per day 5 days per the stability of the organization. A good week. NRCS in Texas is also a working relationship with a solid financial collaborative partner in this institution is essential. Re-imbursements endeavor. take time to go through the process. You have to be able to function as you wait for 4. Cooperative State Research, those. This problem grows as the Education, and Extension Service: organization grows Through a 2501 project the CBO has undertaken the task of training Our work plans are in line and are producers in using the internet to consistent with the organizational conduct eGOV business through principles. It is important to keep in touch our eFARM project. There are with clients. Some of our clients are thousands of people trained in this followed from the start to the finish of an endeavor. This has been a activity. Our best resources come from collaborative project with Rural the producers whom we provide infor- Conservation and Development mation to. If after a producer has been Districts, NRCS. After the training, rejected by banks and FSA, we at times they are given the number for the take the necessary steps and take them to helpdesk in case problems arise the AC Bank and at times they will be successful in obtaining credit. If not we 5. University of Texas San Antonio continue to work with them and provide and Texas A&M University: financial information so they can become Assisted both Universities with credit literate. their HLRPN program from the creation of that program. They Some of our partners are: develop leaders in their Masters 1. Risk Management Agency: and PhD programs specifically for Thousands of producers have been leadership positions in agriculture. informed about becoming better at We are a source of local managing risk in their enterprise. information and contact with the Numerous meetings have been real world. Leadership from our held over the last 4 years with organization have served on their documented results. selection committee.
2. Natural Resources Conservation 6. University of Texas Pan American: Service: Many producers have Through the University’s External been assisted with their Affairs Division, we collaborate with conservation program planning many of their rural programs; from through their EQIP, CRP, WIP, and the Rural Development Center to several other programs. their Farm Service Agency Hifarm Project 3. Farm Service Agency: Multiple programs have been presented to thousands of producers with information on commodity
82 Bridging Communication Gaps in Programs and Service
Jorge O. Comas USDA-FSA Washington, DC
The objective of this presentation is to Effective Communication discuss the communication gaps that Technical professionals including sometimes exist in the delivery of agricultural practitioners have to programs and services and to present communicate effectively in order to; some of the tools that Farm Service Agency (FSA) has developed to bridge • Understand customers’ requirements those communication gaps. These tools and needs are being utilized to provide customers • Build successful working relationships with the ability to obtain information and conduct transactions and to increase the • Meet customers and market demands, participation of small and limited resource and farmers and ranchers in FSA programs. • Survive and successfully manage time pressures
Have You Ever… Miscommunication • Have you ever had trouble • So often, communication breaks articulating a complex concept? down, and nothing gets done or at least done well. • Have you ever doubted that someone truly understood you-or • If you have ever experienced that you completely received miscommunication, then you know someone’s message? that words mean different things to different people. Effective Communications • Every day differences in The success of agricultural programs and communications cost your business, other programs depends on multiple organization or association a lot of factors but: time, energy and money. • Effective communications is a Bridging Communication Differences MUST... · Utilize effective communications Communications Gaps Form When: including the use of other languages · The message is not received, or to communicate with your customers.
· Differs from the message received · Words are your ambassadors
Concepts in Communications · They open or shut the door
Understanding and applying the concepts · They program you for either in communication gaps will help us success or failure, and determine: · They tell people what to believe • How the gap happened? about you and your business. • What we can do about the gap?
• How we might prevent the gap in the future?
83 What are some of the things that FSA · A network of State Outreach is doing to bridge communications Coordinators help county offices and gaps in programs and services? service centers coordinate outreach efforts at the grass root levels. · FSA is translating vital public documents and information into non- · FSA provides support for small farm English languages to improve the conferences and activities like the delivery of its programs and services. one that we are here today.
· FSA is developing a foreign language website to accommodate the What is Farm Service Agency? language needs of LEP customers. Farm Service Agency (FSA) is the USDA’s · FSA currently provides LEP principal agency charged with promoting a customers assistance including TTY stable and abundant American food services for the deaf and hearing supply. This objective is best met by impaired via two bi-lingual supporting America’s production English/Spanish contractors. They agriculture community and helping protect operate Monday to Friday, 8 to 5 the Nation’s food and natural resources. p.m. Eastern Standard Time. FSA serves the public by providing ALL farmers and ranchers with access and Phone: 1-866-538-2610 (toll free) opportunity to participate in farm commodity, credit, conservation, FAX: 1-866-302-1760 (toll free) environmental, and emergency assistance TTY: 1-866-480-2824 (toll free) programs. Through these activities, FSA supports the USDA mission and help ensure a healthful, stable, accessible, and · These services are being enhanced affordable food supply. Through these through a broad initiative to provide programs, FSA also fosters good land LEP customers with the ability to stewardship, which will help preserve our obtain information and conduct agricultural prosperity for generations to transactions using advanced come. Knowledge Base and Voice Self- FSA Program Information Service (VSS) technologies. FSA programs are legislated by: · FSA has successfully piloted an integrated based content resources · Farm bill management solution (AskFSA) that · Annual Appropriations provides online self-service, e-mail response management, an intelligent · Disaster and Emergency Acts knowledge base, and incident FSA personnel may also be contacted at: queuing and routing capabilities. · Farm and Equipment Shows · FSA developed a Field Translations Review Team (FTRT) to review · Town Hall Meetings documents and information including · County Fairs public forms translated by contractors for compliance. · County Offices/USDA Service Centers
· FSA utilizes cooperative agreements Producers may also obtain information with community based organizations, through: educational institutions and farm · Local USDA Service Centers groups to broaden the Agency’s outreach activities for small farmers · Newsletters and ranchers. · National FSA Website -
84 www.fsa.usda.gov area, are responsible for overseeing FSA services delivered and outreach to the · State FSA Websites - farming community. www.fsa.usda.gov/ST For the 2005 County Committee (COC) elections, the Secretary’s office Program Benefit Delivery determined to target a total of 440 counties for special efforts to encourage Producers (including small, limited participation and to attempt to increase resource and beginning farmers and SDA representation on the COC. The ranchers) apply for benefits and are counties were identified using Census of serviced by their local service center. Agriculture data. County Office elected committees, comprised of farmers in the county office
85 An Innovative Approach to Meeting the Needs of Underserved Populations
Stephan L. Tubene, Okarsamaa B. White, and Mark Rose University of Maryland Eastern Shore Glen Burnie, MD Introduction 2. Southern Maryland: Anne Arundel, Reaching underserved farming populations Calvert, Charles, Prince George’s, and can be challenging. Underserved farmers St. Mary’s counties; and do not always have access to resources 3. Virginia’s Eastern Shore: Accomak and offered by both state and federal agencies. Northampton counties. Assessing the needs of these farmers and responding to their needs in a timely The targeted area has a significant manner is critical to farmers’ success. number of underserved farming Such clientele must be cautiously assisted audiences. In general, limited-resource using creative and innovative methods. and minority farmers and ranchers do not This paper aims at (1) introducing the new usually attend traditional Extension audience not vested in traditional meetings and workshops due to many Cooperative Extension and USDA services; reasons including time differential, (2) discussing ways used to effectively communication breakdown, and previous reach this new audience, and (3) experiences with government programs. discussing collaborative efforts through However, small farmers participating in mutual programming, resources sharing, the Maryland OASDFR program have and commitment across agencies. gained significant hands-on experience in various aspects of farming including production, marketing, finance, record Underserved Farming Populations in keeping and farm management; acquired, Maryland owned, operated, and maintained farms; Maryland Target and Fringe Areas increased their participation in various Maryland Socially disadvantaged farmers USDA programs; and improved the and ranchers are referred to as limited- profitability of their farms. resource farmers, which include women, minority (i.e., African Americans, New Immigrant Farmers Hispanics, and Asians), and new Beside U.S. limited-resource and minority immigrant farmers. farmers, there is a growing influx of newcomers into the agricultural business Maryland Outreach and Assistance for commonly known as new immigrant Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and farmers. According to the National Ranchers (OASDFR) targets 12 counties Immigrant Farming Initiative (2004), (i.e., 5 in Maryland’s Eastern Shore, 5 in immigrant farmers are immigrants and Southern Maryland, and 2 in Virginia’s refugees, including farm workers, who Eastern Shore) comprising a total of 235 aspire to have a farm business or are farmers. In addition, the Outreach project currently farming for the social and works closely with other underserved economic benefit of their family and audiences (26 farmers) located in fringe community. areas (Howard, Montgomery, Talbot, Queen Anne’s, and Kent counties). Immigrant farmers as well as beginning farmers, not properly framed in the Target region comprises: Economic Research Service’s farm 1. Maryland’s Eastern Shore: Caroline, typology (Hoppe, and MacDonald, 2001) Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico, and have special needs that must be Worcester counties; addressed by institutions interested in
86 their survival and success (Tubene, 2002). Building relationships and trust is crucial to meeting the needs of underserved This new category of farmers is a new audiences. However, over the years some rising star, which deserves much attention minority farmers have lost such trust and from policy makers and agricultural faith in the U.S. government agencies due service providers. In fact, new immigrant to discriminatory practices (Tubene, 1999; farmers have little or no knowledge of the and USDA, 1999). This made it difficult for U.S. agriculture and U.S. farming government agricultural service providers requirements even though most of them to effectively do their job of providing were farmers in their homeland. Their technical services to minority farmers. needs must be identified within this new frame in order to better know them and As for any agricultural service providers, serve them effectively. meeting the needs of underserved audiences requires careful identification Changes that have affected Maryland and understanding of their needs. This agriculture, namely the housing includes understanding their daily development pressure on farmland, and struggles and designing programs around the downfall of the tobacco industry, have these specific needs. In the last five years, also brought new opportunities to small- the Small Farm Institute, the Maryland scale farmers, particularly, new immigrant OASDFR program, and Maryland NRCS and beginning farmers, in terms of have utilized and promoted strategies that diversified agriculture and alternative encourage and assist underserved farming market opportunities. population to acquire, own, operate, and maintain farms. These innovative and Reaching New Audience non-traditional methods used to reach Land-grant universities have an farmers are farm visits, one-on-one international reputation of taking the technical assistance, farmer focus groups, university to the people. Created by the hands-on workshops and seminars, Morrill Land-Grant College Act signed by networking events, trials and President Abraham Lincoln on July 2, demonstrations, on-farm research 1862; 1862 colleges became the first projects, and targeted scheduling institutions in the nation to teach strategy. “branches of learning related to agriculture and the mechanic arts” without Leveraging Resources across excluding other scientific and classical Agencies studies (Rasmussen, 1989). Partnerships and cooperation among agencies and organizations are key The land-grant university system was components to identifying small farmers thereafter strengthened by subsequent and their needs and increase the capacity legislations, namely the Hatch Experiment of these agencies and organizations to Station Act of 1887, the Second Morrill provide technical and/or financial Land-Grant College Act of 1890; the assistance to small farm clientele. Limited- Smith-Lever Act of 1914, which resource and minority farmers are established the system of cooperative underserved because of lack of interest extension services; and the Tribal Colleges from both farmers and government Land-Grant Status of 1994 known as a agencies. On one hand, government provision of the Elementary and agencies design “one size fits all” Secondary Education Reauthorization Act programs; and on the other hand, limited- (NASULGC, 2005). While 1862 land-grant resource and minority farmers do not trust universities are recognized to serve government programs due to past predominantly Caucasian populations, experiences. Hence, advocating for this 1890 and 1994 institutions serve segment of the forgotten audience is predominantly African Americans and crucial to their survival. Very often, it Native Americans respectively. requires lobbying government agencies
87 and/or raising additional funds to maintain underserved populations but also the programs. It is the duty of the Small Farm underserved audiences themselves. Institute and the Maryland OASDFR Innovative and creative strategies used to project to leverage resources across reach underserved populations include agencies in order to meet programs’ farm visits, one-on-one technical goals. assistance, farmer focus groups, hands-on workshops and seminars, networking Since 2000, three institutions joined effort events, trials and demonstrations, on-farm to pursue common projects. In 2000, the research projects, and targeted scheduling Small Farm Institute sought collaboration strategy. Better collaborative and from the Southern Maryland Resource coordinated initiatives among institutions Conservation and Development (RC&D) are to be encouraged for better outcomes. Council to identify technical and financial opportunities for small farmers in References Maryland. Two years later, as the Hoppe, Robert and J. MacDonald. 2001. Maryland OASDFR was being established America’s Diverse Family Farms: Assorted at UMES as an independent program (after Sizes, Types, and Situations. USDA-ERS, separating from Delaware State Agricultural Information Bulletin Number University), RC&D became one of its 769. Washington, DC. Advisory Board members. Since then, NASULGC. 2005 RC&D was able to coordinate a link with http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Lan the USDA-NRCS Maryland State Office. d_Grant/Land_Grant_Main.htm This link has provided technical and Rasmussen, Wayne. 1989. Taking the financial assistance to assisting the UMES University to the People. Iowa State program to further identify USDA farm University Press, Ames. program opportunities, alternative and Tubene, Stephan. 2002. The Small agri-tourism opportunities, as well as Farm Institute World Wide Homepage, share information concerning farm www.agnr.umd.edu/mce/smallfarminstitu resources. te Tubene, Stephan. 2001. Agricultural With assistance provided by the NRCS and and Demographic Changes in the Mid- RC&D Coordinator, many new partnerships Atlantic Region: Implications for Ethnic were created and enhanced not only and Specialty Produce. Fact Sheet 793. within USDA but also between government University of Maryland Cooperative and private small farm interests. Extension. Tubene, Stephan and David Holder. Concluding Remarks 2001. Serving Small Farms in the 21st Underserved populations encounter many Century. Small Farm Institute, Maryland obstacles in their daily life. In Maryland Cooperative Extension, University of underserved farming audiences are Maryland. minority limited-resource farmers, new Tubene, Stephan. 1999. A Survey of immigrant farmers and beginning farmers. Minority Limited-Resource Farmers in Very often, they do not have resources to Anne Arundel County. Maryland navigate the system to get where they are Cooperative Extension. The Small Farm to be. Meeting their needs requires a Institute holistic approach. Report #99-1. USDA. 1999 Class lawsuit Leveraging both internal and external http://www.usda.gov/cr/OCR/Pigford/con resources can be crucial to the survival of sentdef.htm not only the very institutions serving
88 Growing Wisconsin Farmers
Gwen Garvey Wisconsin Department of Ag, Trade & Consumer Protection Joy Kirkpatrick University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin
Grow Wisconsin Farmers (GWF) is a assist in farm transitions. coalition of organizations, agencies and agri-businesses that is committed to This effort began in 2002 when an Ad Hoc sustaining and improving the Wisconsin committee focused on beginning dairy agriculture industry by focusing on farmer issues met and organized a beginning farmer issues. Grow Wisconsin working group. This initial meeting Farmer’s vision is a coordinator network of included representatives from Wisconsin resources to be available to assist Department of Agriculture, Trade & beginning farmers. Its mission is to Consumer Protection, University of develop and sustain a coordinated network Wisconsin, Wisconsin Technical Colleges of resources and policies to assist farm system, Farm Credit Services, Wisconsin entry and transfer. Milk Marketing Board, Wisconsin Farm Services Agency (FSA), and various farm Grow Wisconsin Farmers strives to organizations. The GWF effort was achieve this mission through regular work assisted by the Wisconsin Dairy Industry group meetings to coordinate educational, Revitalization program, USDA funding promotional and policy efforts; annual secured by Senator Herb Kohl. state wide conferences to reach beginning farmers and agri-business professionals; The Ad Hoc committee focused on the Dairy Career and Business Development barriers beginning dairy farmers face. The website; and projects. Recent projects committee relied on research from UW- include: developing regional networks and Madison Center for Integrated Agricultural support systems for beginning farmers; Systems and the Program on Agricultural establishing managed grazing dairy Technology Studies, Nurturing the Next incubator farms; training beginning dairy Generation of Wisconsin’s Dairy farmers, mentors and advisors through Farmers 1, which notes, “A strong dairy internships and other opportunities; economy has both economic and social analyzing potential farm sites for benefits for Wisconsin….support for beginning farmers; encouraging earlier beginning dairy farmers….is an important farm succession planning. strategy that can renew the dairy industry and new farmers.” Grow Wisconsin Farmers values: 1. Economically sound and “Dairy farmers can successfully start at environmentally viable farms. different ages and stages in their careers. 2. Diverse opportunities for beginning They employ a range of production farmers to establish successful strategies at different scales. Some take businesses. over the family farm, while others start 3. Low cost and/or retrofitted facilities as out on their own farms.” opportunities for beginning farmers. 4. Experienced farmers who assist “….the most important characteristic of beginning dairy farmers. the successful beginners….was the ability 5. Public and private organizations that to negotiate a good fit between their
89 resources, skills and farm and family farmers. goals. Public and private sector agencies and businesses can help beginning • To conduct regional workshops that farmers develop ‘smart’ entry strategies.” attract • Beginning farmers The first state-wide effort was a • Young people considering conference held in 2003 in Madison, WI farming careers, and which focused on identifying gaps and • Farm owners barriers that beginning farmers encounter. seeking/considering life and Conference organizers invited beginning business transitions farmers to tell their stories and be honest • To encourage personal interest, about the struggles they faced. The career entry and general support for afternoon consisted of facilitated the future health of production roundtable discussions. Each roundtable agriculture was given a topic and asked to expand on the gaps/barriers. Discussion topics were: State and regional partners expanded to financial, business, education, production, include those on the ad hoc committee and support. and regional economic development organizations, county agriculture The 2004 state-wide conference focused promotion organizations, grazing on addressing the gaps. The discussion networks, Wisconsin Housing & Economic topics for this second conference included: Development Authority, Service Corp of getting in, staying in, community support, Retired Executives (SCORE) and local farm decision-making for beginning farmers, organizations. mentoring opportunities, ag lending resources, improving profitability, Three regional workshops were conducted. neighbor/community relations, older Cleveland, Thorp and Rice Lake, WI were generation issues, younger generation the sites, with 72, 93 and 98 participants, issues, and farm organizations’ assistance respectively. Approximately 40% of the for beginning farmers. The facilitated participants identified themselves as roundtable discussions were designed to beginning farmers. Each of the workshops allow interaction among all the was conducted on a Saturday during the participants, and were specifically winter Extension programming season. designed to discourage lecture Workshop success was based on obtaining presentations by the facilitators. The the commitment of key people who have a roundtable discussions were the most local stake in the future of farming who popular activity and highly reviewed in the agreed to take an active and responsible evaluations. Although the state-wide role in the planning of the workshop. workshops were well attended and well evaluated, the ad hoc committee realized The workshop structure was similar to the that there were more beginning and state-wide conferences with a keynote aspiring farmers in the rural locations of speaker, focused beginning farmer panels, Wisconsin who were not being reached. and repeated facilitated roundtable discussions. Educational organizations This concern led to the 2004-05 Grow and government agencies were invited to Wisconsin Farmers regional workshops. provide displays for the workshops at the The target audience for these workshops locations where space allowed. Cost of were beginning and aspiring farmers and participation was kept at a minimum ($10 those who support them. The purpose of per person), by use of grant funding for these regional workshops was: materials and speaker costs and business support for the meals and breaks. • To establish regional networks of stakeholder organizations that will Developing and sustaining a beginning have a central focus on beginning farmer workshop series requires vision,
90 planning, follow-up, local network Planning for the 2005-06 regional development, encouraging and supportive workshops and the 2006 state-wide facilitation, new ideas, continuity and state conference has already begun. The state wide planning assistance. wide conference will focus on reaching agri-business professionals who work with Reflections and Planning farmers. Five regional workshops are The popularity of these workshops planned, using the same basic agenda indicates there are people who want to format, but with flexibility to allow for farm. There is community and regional focus on types of enterprises experienced farmer support out there, it is and/or production systems. just a matter of learning how to find and harness it. The combination of regional 1 Barham, Brad, UW-Madison Program on workshops and state wide conferences Agricultural Technology Studies (PATS); provide networking opportunities to Jackson-Smith, Douglas, UW-Madison PATS; address this very specific topic of Stevenson, Steve, UW-Madison Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems (CIAS); beginning farmer issues. The format of Taylor, Jennifer, UW-Madison CIAS and PATS, the workshops and conference is very October, 2001. “Nurturing the Next Generation important. We feel that we have found a of Wisconsin’s Dairy Farmers,” Special format that works in providing real collaborative report between the Center for farmers’ stories and the opportunity to Integrated Agricultural Systems and Program network and learn from neighbors. A on Agricultural Technology Studies, UW- coalition is the key to both the workshops Madison. and conference success.
91 Recordkeeping and Financial Management for Small and Limited Resource Farmers in Alabama Charlotte Ham Tuskegee University Tuskegee, Alabama
Recordkeeping and business management highlight that recordkeeping is something decision making continue to be a that we all do as professionals and in our challenge for small and limited resource personal lives and that our efficiency and farmers in Alabama. The Alabama Center stress level can be affected by our level of for Small Farms and Rural Development at organization. Tuskegee University has used various Next, workshop participants were provided approaches in meeting the needs in these the type of information shared with target areas. The National Small Farm clients as they were guided through the Conference presentation reviews the process of developing a farm or ranch different instruments used through the business plan. The PowerPoint years, including FSA Farm and Home Plan, presentation followed closely the Texas Quicken, FINPack, and back to the simple A&M University publication by Pena, journal entry approach. The goal has been Klinefelter, and Warmann called “Financial to identify what method works best for Management: The Key to Farm-Firm each individual and to reinforce these Business Management.” Reference was behaviors. also made to the IRS website for The lessons learned from working with farmers/ranchers, IRS Agriculture/Farmers producers on FSA Farm and Home Plan Information Section and FINPack indicated that there remains http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/farm a need for a systematic way to track ers/index.html. The lecture portion revenues and expenses throughout the addressed the following topics: benefits of year. The ability to forecast, the long-term recordkeeping, developing financial planning for which FmHA/FSA Farm and management skills, the planning process, Home Plan and FINPack are designed, is financial statements and ratios, what contingent on the quality and consistency records to keep and the importance of of data collected over time. To address maintaining a journal. this challenge, producers and agriculture Last, the risk management tools professionals working with Tuskegee developed through the partnership of a University have been exposed to Quicken local business, Alcena Management and the use of Microsoft Excel for entering Information Systems, Inc., and Tuskegee daily transactions in journal form. University with the USDA Risk The workshop began by asking the Management Agency were distributed and participants to consider their own personal explained. The journals have continually recordkeeping system and to determine been revised when provided as the for themselves what works and what handout to demonstrate an easy-to-use needs more attention. Audience manual bookkeeping system that coincides participants provided feedback about ways with six Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. they store and retrieve information. Some The recordkeeping system documents the examples included centralizing telephone basic financial information needed to numbers into one phone book, keeping examine revenues and expenses. The only one calendar, and using a credit card following journals contain the basic for business transactions to track financial and management data for small expenses. The goal of the exercise was to
92 farm business success: livestock/produce raised, e.g. the first two categories within the income section of the · Cash Receipt Journal is a record of tax return. Then, at the end of the tax all cash (income) received. year or whenever the manager wants to Examples: sales, loans, agricultural see where he/she stands financially, the program payments, and crop data can be sorted and summed simply. insurance and disaster payments, etc. The Cash Payment Journal and Check Register follow closely the expense · Cash Payment Journal allows the categories and provide a way to code as a farmer to keep records of all cash part of daily activity. An intergenerational (expenses) that has been paid out approach is encouraged such that over a period of time. farmers/ranchers maintain the manual · Check Register is a record of all logs and children learning mathematics payments made via checking and computer databases maintain the account. electronic logs.
· Mileage Log is a record of the miles The Mileage Log, Asset Inventory Log, and traveled during the course of a Mailing List are also key items for tracking business year. The mileage log to ensure travel related expenses and allows the farmer to take depreciation are accounted, while the advantage of the tax deduction for mailing list contains all contacts for car and truck expense. supplies, for customers, and for others where communication is key. See the · Asset Inventory Log is a record of appendix for examples of column headings all assets owned by the farm. By and utilize the concept with your clients maintaining the asset inventory log and/or on your farm using the the farmer can keep a record for spreadsheet software program available to depreciation expense deductions. you. · Mailing List is a record for the In conclusion, participant discussion farmer to track all the important occurred. There was a recommendation of people that contribute to his/her Quicken software for generating Profit & business operation. Loss Statements, and other financial The key concept of the first three items statements; along with questions and listed is that they include a column for statements regarding the level of adoption entering a number that coincides with the of electronic financial tools by clients. expense or revenue in the IRS Schedule F Follow-up has occurred with individuals tax form. For example, the Cash Receipt who requested the Managing Cash Flows Journal has a column for representing if Workbook data file or more copies of the the money received is from the sale of manual journals. livestock bought, or the sale of
93 Appendix: Column headings for journals, logs, and the list in the Managing Cash Flows Workbook
94 95 Track Three
Marketing
96 How to Start a Cooperative
Edgar Lewis USDA, Rural Development Washington, DC
Guidelines Cluster 3: Market and Member • Training or Orientation Tool Analysis • Development DOES NOT Occur as a 10. Evaluate Market for Proposed Linear Process Product/Service • Clusters Should be Completed Before 11. Quantify & Characterize Potential Moving Forward Market • Conscious Decisions Should Be Made 12. Evaluate Interest of Potential to Proceed or Stop Members 13. Quantify Potential Level of Cluster 1: Needs Assessment Participation & Commitment 1. Identify Economic Need 2. Clarify, Review & Evaluate Proposed Decision Point Business Activity § If market potential and member 3. Evaluate / Identify Appropriate participation are sufficient, proceed Organizational Structure to Activity Cluster #4. 4. Define Proposed Activity in Mission § If not, reconsider Activity Clusters Statement # 2 & 3, or STOP § Decision is made by vote of the Decision Point group, advisors, and / or by § If need is identified, the proposal Cooperative Development realistic, and a co-op is possible Specialist solution, proceed to Activity Cluster #2. Cluster 4: Feasibility Analysis § If not, review activity or STOP 14. Conduct Feasibility Analysis § Decision is made by vote of the 15. Identify Factors Necessary for group and by Cooperative Success of Cooperative Development Specialist 16. Define Risks and Benefits to Potential Members Cluster 2: Leadership and Work plan 5. Establish Steering Committee Decision Point 6. Establish Advisory Team § If feasibility analysis is affirmative 7. Educate Comm. & Team on Co-ops & and potential members recognize Dev. Process benefit, proceed to Activity Cluster 8. Develop Plan of Work & Time Line #5. 9. Assign Tasks & Target Dates § If not, reconsider Activity Clusters # 3 & 4, or STOP Decision Point § Decision is made by vote of the § If group takes responsibility for group. action, proceed to Activity Cluster #3. Cluster 5: Business and Organization § If not, STOP Plan § Decision is made by vote of the 17. Develop Business Plan group, advisors, and / or by 18. Obtain Legal and Accounting Cooperative Development Counsel Specialist 19. Finalize Capitalization Plan & Draft Legal Docs
97 20. Establish Banking Relationship Cluster 6: Incorporation and Start-Up 21. Conduct Member Equity Drive 22. Incorporate / Elect Board 23. Establish Accounting & Control Decision Point Functions § If equity drive successful, proceed 24. Id. Mgt. KSA’s, Conduct Search, to Activity Cluster #6. Hire Manager § If not, reconsider Activity Clusters 25. Complete Capitalization # 4 & 5, or STOP 26. Land, Bldgs. & Equip. § Decision is made by vote of the 27. Develop Opr. Policies group. 28. Begin Operations
98 How to Start a Farmers Market
Denny N. Johnson USDA, AMS Washington, D.C.
A farmers market can be defined as a starting a market, the following goals common facility or area where several should be the main areas of focus: farmers/growers gather on a regular, recurring basis to sell a variety of fresh Creating a Sponsoring Organization fruits and vegetables and other locally- The beginning stages of setting up a grown/raised farm products directly to farmers market typically involve consumers. Farmers markets give assembling a group of dedicated consumers direct access to fresh fruits and stakeholders to form a sponsoring vegetables and other farm products, as organization, who meet to discuss the well as provide small-sized farmers with objectives and goals of the planned an alternative sales outlet for their farmers market facility, establish a production. governing body, such as a board of directors, and develop by-laws and Who Benefits From Farmers Markets? operating rules and regulations for the Small/medium-sized farm operators Direct planned market. Preliminary feasibility access to consumers at farmers markets studies are often undertaken by these provides an important supplemental organizations to evaluate local market source of farm income for many growers. conditions, and established operating rules According to USDA’s National Farmers and fee structures that are suitable for a Market Survey in 2000, 19,000 farmers specific market location. reported using farmers markets as the sole outlet for their commercial fruit and Farmers markets can be initiated by a vegetable production. wide variety of groups or individuals. In some cases, individual citizens take the Consumers Farmers markets allow initiative to form committees of local consumers to have access to locally volunteers, such as “Friends of the Farmer grown, farm-fresh produce and the Market” organizations, which assume a opportunity to personally interact with the leadership role in planning a farmers farmer who grows the produce. market facility. Other farmers markets are developed with the assistance of non- The community Many urban communities profit foundations with interests in where fresh, nutritious foods are scarce sustainable agriculture, municipal, local gain easier access to food through farmers and State governments, and producer market operations. Survey data from associations. 2000 indicate that 58 percent of markets participate in WIC coupon redemption, Once these farmers markets are food stamp redemption, and/or other developed, it is very important to put State and local nutrition programs, while together a mission statement and set 25 percent of markets participate in goals that will serve as the benchmark for gleaning programs aiding food recovery the market as well as communicate to organizations in the distribution of food potentially participating growers and and food products to needy families. consumers. · Mission Statement. The idea is for The keys to establishing a successful the mission statement to be short, farmers market involve setting and but provides an impression of the achieving a clear set of goals. When direction in which the market is
99 headed. With the mission statement growers might be interested in in place, the first major step is now to participating in direct farm sales on the focus on goal setting. This process is market, which commodities are available utterly important because they not locally, and what the seasonal availability only serve as motivation and of product is likely to be. County inspiration, but they also help in the extension agents, Cooperative Extension formation of prioritizing them as well. departments at local land-grant universities, and agricultural trade • Example: Dane County, Farmers associations can be useful sources in Market in Madison, WI finding farmers who may be willing to participate in the market. In order to · Goal Setting. Goals describe what is convince local growers to support the expected to be achieved at the concept of the farmers market, it may be market, what is to be marketed, who important to demonstrate the level of will be involved in the market consumers’ interest in obtaining high- operations, and what is expected to quality fresh produce and other farm be earned down the road. products from local growers, set fees at a Unfortunately, goals do not describe level that local growers find acceptable, how one plans to market and price and, in some cases, provide assurances to products, staff the market, and growers that 1) the farmers market will be provide market equipment. To a producer-only market and 2) there will further spell out particular goals, be be limitations on the number of vendors sure to write out goals, identify who are allowed to sell the same common and realistic goals, and commodity. It is important to remember prioritize goals. When setting and that there is “no hard and fast rule” about prioritizing your goals, it is wise to which item to consider first when starting define a timeframe for each goal. a farmers market, but often identifying Timeframes for goals can be set up to farmers is harder than finding a location. include: By-laws • Short-term – one to five years The by-laws are established formal rules (Example: finding 5 local farmers that govern the internal affairs of the to serve as vendors) market. They normally describe and • Intermediate – five to ten years define the role and responsibilities of the (Example: being a fully funded directors and officers, the purpose of the market on its own that offers other market, where it is located, the hours of attractions to the market) operation, membership, dues, fees, • Long-term – ten or more years election procedures, and the amendment (Example: remaining fully funded process. with no assistance and offering value-added opportunities) Rules and Regulations To ensure an efficient and orderly market, The task of prioritizing goals will never be it is important to adopt and enforce an easy one, since most goals overlap concise rules and regulations. However, each other. However, the idea is to please make sure to contact the state recognize which goals are most important farmers market representative to find out to the market, and determine which ones about each State’s specific guidelines for are worth pursuing, even if it prevents starting a farmers market at from other goals being reached. http://www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarket s/. Identifying and recruiting farmers Examples of certain questions/concerns When attempting to establish a farmers that can arise include: market, it is important to identify the local • Should sales at the market be limited growers in the area, and figure out which to fresh fruits and vegetables or should
100 processed and dried goods, or farm · Permits – The need for permits will vary related crafts, be allowed? for each location. To find out what • How many participants can the market permits are actually needed, one should accommodate or is there ample space contact the local Chamber of Commerce for all of those that desire to or local community planning/economic participate? development office for assistance. • Are licenses and permits required to sell certain commodities at the market, · Outside Assistance & Financing – such as nursery licenses for all potted Farmers markets can look for outside plants and cut flowers, or processed sources of financing and technical foods certifications for any value- assistance through local and State added vegetable or fruit items? government, foundations and other • Will the geographic region that the private organizations. The market draws on for suppliers be Northwest/Midwest Institute maintains restricted in any way (e.g., by number a list of such resources at of participating counties)? http://www.nemw.org/farmersmarkets/ • If a market is located on city property, will the city allow hot food items or · Fee Structure - Fees collected from “closed alcoholic containers” to be sold participating vendors are typically a on the market? primary source of income for farmers markets. Fees determine whether the Budget market can afford to pay the manager a The board of directors or similar governing salary, how much advertising the body for the farmers market typically market can afford, and what type of oversees the financial status of the maintenance/improvements can be organization by creating a budget and plan made on the market site. Fees should for the annual operation of business. be based on profitability and reflect the Expenses from this include insurance, true costs of operating the farmers permits, and outside assistance and market. They also should be structured financing for the organization. to fit the needs of the organization. Fees may be based on a percentage of · Insurance – All organizations should be the farmers’ gross sales for each covered by some type of liability market day, or a seasonal/annual basis. insurance. Insurance companies view outdoor activities as a major risk, Identifying a location therefore, it has become quite difficult Location is a critical factor in developing a to obtain coverage. Researching the successful farmers market. Ideally, matter and finding out who offers farmers markets should be centrally coverage and what type of coverage located in a downtown district, a well- offered is essential. Some companies populated residential area, or a well- require organizations to be trafficked commercial area. Wherever incorporated, either as a non-profit possible, market sites should provide easy organization or a non-profit access to car traffic, offer attractive organization with 501( c ) 3 status, to surroundings, be visible from the road, qualify for such coverage. Local and be located in an area with controlled governments, that sponsor farmers traffic patterns. The most desirable markets, can sometimes add them to locations are those that are easily their existing policy. The North accessed by both the public and American Farmers Direct Marketing participating farmers. Ample parking for Association (NAFDMA) offers an customers and farm vendors, along with insurance company referral list to their and ample room for vendors to set up membership. To view that list, log on their stalls are important assets. to their website at www.nafdma.com.
101 Examples of good locations include: C Shopping centers and malls Farmers markets are a viable, direct C Outdoor spaces/parking lots affiliated marketing activity that provide ample with religious institutions variety, fresh quality, and reasonably C State and Federal building parking lots priced farm-raised commodities to (for weekend markets) consumers of various ethnic and economic C Downtown “plaza” areas backgrounds. Shopping at a farmers C Public parks market is a real delight for the senses, the C Public square assortment of smells, tastes, textures and C Blocked off street connected to local color schemes create a rewarding businesses experience that consumers would get excited in their respective return. It is To be most successful, farmers market simply a place of solace to some and a locations should offer access to public reunion to others. restrooms, public telephones, and a customer service booth. When looking to develop a successful farmers market in your community, one Identifying a Market Manager must remember that it takes time, a great What most successful farmers markets deal of patience, and persistent effort. have in common is a positive, dynamic Nevertheless, the chances of establishing manager, who serves as the main point of a successful farmers market increase to contact for the market. The market the extent that stakeholders: manager’s main duty is overseeing the day-to-day operations of the market. He C “Do their homework” and thoroughly or she is responsible for collecting user evaluate local market conditions fees, obtaining the proper permits and C Leverage available resources in the insurance for the market, enforcing the community market’s rules and regulations, recruiting C Hire strong, capable management vendors, controlling the vendor and C Set appropriate market standards product mix, handling any complaints or C Develop a realistic budget and fee disputes that may arise among structure participating vendors, and working closely C Arrange for a reliable and steady with the market’s board of directors or supply of quality farm product, and other governing body. To be successful, it C Pay sufficient attention to market is critical that the manager is able to work publicity and community relations well with and communicate information C Tap into city/county resources that clearly to a variety of market deal with local health coding, local stakeholders. ordinances and laws, permits, etc., solid waste disposal, and connection Beyond overseeing operational issues, a to utilities major component of the market C Finding inexpensive public space manager’s role is establishing strong C Work together with other parties contacts with the community, especially (community leaders, policy-makers, with members of the local media. The consumers, potential vendors) in market manager typically represents the order that the market is used “public face” of the farmers market to the profitably and efficiently to better suit local community, and plays an important the community role in influencing the publicity that the market receives.
102 Marketing Natural Meats: Targeting Consumer Segments in your Marketing Plan
Dawn D. Thilmany and Wendy Umberger Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado
Retail sales of organic meats and poultry business planning among other US are the fastest growing segment of the natural meat producers and alliances. $23 billion organic food industry, with a growth rate of 77.8% between 2002 and The objective of this presentation is to 2003 (Organic Trade Association). Sales share research on consumer segments for through general supermarkets (rather natural, local meat products. Using a than specialty health and natural markets) 2004 national survey, consumers were accounted for 45% of natural/organic food grouped based on their interest and sales in 2001, up from 31% in 1998, but willingness to pay for various natural beef direct sales by producers also appear to products (varied by production claims), be growing in many regions. These trends use of different marketing channels signal the growing mainstream appeal of (health/natural food stores, farmers natural foods and motivate the need for markets, meat shops, direct from analysis of the nature and variety of producer, Internet), the importance they characteristics and primary motivators of placed on different production practices those consumer profiles who have interest (antibiotics, hormones, BSE-tested, in natural/organic meats. wildlife-friendly grazing, grassfed) and reasons that motivate them to purchase The increasing complexity of consumer natural meats. Such analysis should food purchasing trends is an important facilitate producers' ability to effectively factor guiding all agribusiness-marketing develop product concepts, labeling and efforts. Profiling and targeting consumers promotional strategies targeted as by marketing channel (natural and organic receptive consumers. In addition to food stores) may have once been presenting the research findings, the effective, but it appears that natural meat presentation will focus on how producers consumers may be increasingly diverse. could use such findings to develop more This is an issue of interest and importance effective marketing plans and activities. to those producers who seek to use smaller niche markets as a means to The importance of various beef innovate value-added meat products since characteristics to consumers can be they are often too small to get access to analyzed in two different ways: factor retail natural stores. One area of analysis, which measures the primary increasing differentiation relates to the differences in responses across the entire location and types of production methods sample to determine important factors for used to raise the animals. Throughout the differentiation; and, cluster analysis, United States and Colorado, numerous which groups consumers by their similar new business ventures have been initiated responses, suggesting groups of to garner either a price premium or more consumers who may appreciate and loyal customer base through the respond to various product concepts and marketing of unique production systems to marketing messages. The most important consumer segments. The market research factor explaining almost two-thirds of the conducted on behalf of Colorado differences among Colorado consumer Homestead Ranches is presented here in responses (and 60% in the national the context of its potential use for sample) relates to production practices (use of antibiotics, hormones,
103 environmentally friendly grazing). This practices, even though they still expect signals the potential strength of freshness and premium brands (attributes production methods (and marketing of that may directly affect their eating such quality differences) as product experience. The health and natural differentiation criteria. consumers are also willing to pay more, but differ in their higher use of health and Findings from the cluster analysis indicate natural food stores, are even more likely that there are multiple segments of to be female than the entire sample (82% consumers who are likely to purchase vs. 72%), are very concerned about natural beef, and that different segments societal health benefits relative to their are motivated by different factors. We personal benefits (a civic-minded reason found the five clusters vary significantly in they purchase natural), and rank the means across a wide set of variables, importance of every environmentally- and including demographics, and used these animal-friendly production practice high. differences to name each cluster. As a means to target consumer segments, we As a contrast, empathetic value seekers can focus on willingness to pay and note (15% and 27% of the Colorado and there is a stark difference in the level of national samples, respectively) are not premium that consumer segments are willing to pay a premium price, but could willing to pay (Fig. 1). Two target be future consumers if their incomes rise, segments, quality seekers and health and natural prices decline, or if producers natural consumers, were targeted because decide to price discriminate and target of their willingness to pay the prices that affordable meat cuts (roasts, ground beef) Colorado Homestead Ranches needs to at price sensitive consumers. They are charge to meet their goals for returns to also females, in more rural areas and rate meat. the importance of most production practices high, even though they currently Quality seekers (17% and 19% of seem unwilling to pay more for natural Colorado and national samples, meat products. respectively) and health and natural consumers (22% and 13% of CO and This presentation on potential Colorado United States, respectively) both indicate and national natural meat consumers a willingness to pay a premium for focuses on how sustainable practices may natural, local beef, but are motivated by be effectively used as a product different aspects of the meat and its differentiation strategy. The most intrinsic production attributes. Quality interesting finding is that there is more seekers differ in not only their higher than one “type of consumer” interested in willingness to pay, but also in the fact niche beef products, and that the product they are more likely to be male and they development and marketing strategies put little importance on production needed to attract these different segments may differ significantly.
104 Figure 1-Consumer Willingness to Pay by Consumer Profile
105 Using the Web to Connect Buyers and Sellers of Small Ruminants
Susan Schoenian University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Keedysville, Maryland
restore the competitiveness of American Introduction lamb. Some of the assistance package The per capita consumption of lamb and was used for competitive grant funding. mutton is estimated to be only 1.1 pounds Cornell University received a USDA (in 2002) as compared to 4.5 pounds in marketing grant and developed the the late 1960’s. Most Americans do not Northeast Sheep & Goat Marketing eat lamb, while some consume much Program (NESGMP). One of the more than one pound. Lamb and mutton accomplishments of the NESGMP was the imports currently account for more than creation of a web site one-third of U.S. consumption. Separate (www.sheepgoatmarketing.info ). The statistics are unavailable for the grant ended in 2003. consumption of goat meat. In 2001, Maryland Cooperative Extension The typical lamb consumer is an older, developed an online directory of sheep relatively well-established ethnic individual and goat producers. The purpose of the who lives in a metropolitan area like New directory was to help producers sell their York, Boston, or Philadelphia in the market animals, breeding stock, and other Northeast or San Francisco or Los Angeles products and to help buyers locate the on the West Coast. Lamb consumption has same. In 2004, Maryland Cooperative remained constant among Middle Eastern, Extension received a Northeast SARE African, Latin American, and Caribbean grant and developed the Mid-Atlantic consumers. Contrary to the overall Sheep & Goat Marketing Project declining trend in United States’ lamb and (MASGMP). The purpose of the MASGMP mutton consumption, there is a growing, was to build upon the accomplishments of high-value market to be found among the the NESGMP and extend its efforts further American Muslim population. Population south into the Mid-Atlantic States. demographics favor an increase in lamb and goat meat consumption. The SARE grant provides funding for a part-time web master (10 hours per week History of the Web Site for 2 years). As part of the grant project, In 2001, the American Sheep Industry the Northeast Sheep & Goat Marketing Association filed a section 201 trade Program web site is being expanded into a grievance against imports of New Zealand national resource on sheep and goat and Australian lamb. While the case was marketing with a focus on the eventually overturned, the sheep industry ethnic/religious markets for lamb and received a $100 million assistance goat. The Maryland producer directory is package from the U.S. government. The being combined with the NESGMP purpose of the assistance package was to directory into a national database of sheep
106 and goat producers. The entire web site is ethnic/religious markets for lamb and being converted to a database to allow goat. The interactive portions of the web more automation and interactivity. The site include the producer directory, web site – www.sheepgoatmarketing.info marketing directory, calendar of events, – is a joint project between University of and market inquiries. Maryland Cooperative Extension and Cornell University. The producer directory contains listing of sheep and goat producers with breeding The Web Site stock, market animals, and other products While there is a strong demand for lamb to sell. Producers may enter their own and goat meat from ethnic customers, the data. Currently, there are over 500 marketing infrastructure is generally entries. The Marketing Directory contains lacking, and buyers and sellers often have listings of live animal markets, livestock difficulty making connections. As a result, auctions, livestock dealers, livestock the primary objective of the web site is to haulers, livestock processors, marketing connect buyers and sellers. The web site cooperatives, meat wholesalers, meat contains the following sections: retailers, and feeders. These entries are made and updated by one of the web site 1. About administrators. The Calendar of Events 2. Education lists events pertaining to sheep and goats. 3. News Users may enter their own information to 4. Marketing Directory the database. Market Inquiries list sheep 5. Producer Directory and goats for sale and wanted (to buy). 6. Calendar Buyers and sellers enter their own 7. Links information into the database. During the 8. Market Inquiries holiday seasons, there are special listings of lambs and kids. These lists are The education section includes an ethnic compiled by one of the web site calendar and on-farm slaughter poster, as administrators. well as various articles pertaining to the
107 Future Plans for Web Site · A sheep/goat producer sold In recent months, the web site has animals within a week after listing experience difficulties with the server at his farm in the directory. the University of Maryland. This has · A goat producer made his first on- limited progress. In the future, the web farm sales to the ethnic market site will be expanded to include more after listing his farm on the web listings from more states. More sections site. of the web site will be automated with · A producer said, “Thanks to your database programming, improving the web site, I have every goat born web site’s interactivity. Eventually, users next spring sold, as well as orders will be able to edit their own listings. for various products.” Currently, changes to entries have to be made by one of the web site A Virginia sheep producer with 700 ewes administrators. The web site will be made made a connection with an ethnic lamb more visually appealing. processor in Connecticut. Thanks to the web site, he has all his wether lambs pre- Web Site Impacts sold for a premium price. · A goat producer attributed 15 sales to his listing in the directory
108 Accessing New Markets: Challenges for Small Farmers
Monika Roth Cornell Cooperative Extension Ithaca, New York
This presentation is based on 25 years of markets. Financing an expansion or experience working as an extension management skills pose limitations for educator working with small farmers. The some. Labor is another limitation. Finding information being presented is not based markets that allow incremental expansion on research results; rather it is my of a small farm enterprise is ideal though observation and assessment of the not available in every locale. challenges that small farmers face in marketing their products. It is important Marketing challenges also vary to clarify that the small farmers I have significantly by type of product. Dairy, worked with include primarily beginning livestock and poultry products are subject farmers who started out direct marketing to more market regulation than fruits and their products to consumers and then vegetables. Thus producers of meat- expanded into direct to retail and based products have additional regulatory wholesale marketing activities. (Most costs associated with selling their achieve sales between $40,000 to products. Regulations can limit $120,000.) participation in certain market channels. As food safety and security regulations The challenges small farmers face are become more stringent, it will become both internal to the farm operation as well ever more challenging for small livestock as external from the marketplace. Size producers to meet regulatory does matter and for a small farmer to requirements. succeed, it is important to grow for the market. As educators, our role in helping Industry consolidation has played a played small farmers grow is to understand the a significant role in reducing marketing marketplace so that we can help match options for small livestock farmers. the producer’s capabilities with the During the past 50 years, the markets for market’s expectations. I call this “Right dairy, livestock and poultry have become Sizing” – linking producers of a particular ever more concentrated hence small size with markets of a size that they can livestock farmers are impacted both by serve successfully. low prices and limited markets. Local and regional marketing of fruits and Small farmers often struggle to expand vegetables has not been impacted to the the scale of their operation, as it is not same extent in part because these have incremental. A beginning farmer who is been consistently available at local outlets successful at farmers’ markets may need such as farm stands. to expand production three or four fold to become established in new market venues Consumer preference for fresh local such as sales to restaurants, retailers of produce has played a significant role in wholesalers. Expansion from a small fairly revitalization of direct marketing which self-sufficient farm into a larger enterprise was faltering until the 1970’s when requires more inputs (labor and farmers’ markets started making a equipment) to generate the additional comeback. Over the past 35 years, there output. To justify the added cost, the has been a significant expansion of direct output has to be significantly increased. marketing. While fruit and vegetable Many small farms may not have the producers have been more engaged in internal capacity to expand into new direct marketing from the outset, now all
109 types of producers of livestock products additional benefit of increasing food safety and added value agricultural products are and security. found in direct consumer or retail venues. What is clear regardless of the market Consumer interest in fresh foods produced channel being utilized by small or large closer to home with fewer chemical inputs farmers, margins are narrow and the is a driving force behind the expansion of marketplace is constantly changing. direct marketing. This has enabled more Farmers must remain alert and flexible. small farmers to connect to the Challenges that arise are not without marketplace in new ways. However, there opportunities. Further discussion of the are challenges. One is that of unrealistic challenges and opportunities associated expectations about the demand for locally with major market channels follows. produced products. Small farmers often fail to critically assess the demand for Direct Marketing Challenges and their products in the marketplace. Opportunities Furthermore, since many buyers lack Over the past 35 years, direct marketing experience dealing with local suppliers, has expanded to include many new farmers must be prepared to “push” their models. Farmers’ markets, sales at the products with potential buyers. This farm, roadside stands, farm stores, activity of marketing is highly time community supported agriculture, pick- intensive and often conflicts with time- your-own and agritourism are some of the spent farming. location-based activities that small farmers participate in. The Internet and While direct marketing has provided mail order are additional tools by which opportunities for small farmers, a real small farmers access consumers directly challenge is imminent. For the first time for sales. in decades, consumers are facing a significant increase in energy costs that The key challenge for direct marketers is will impact spending in other areas. The attracting customers and building a loyal commitment to purchasing foods from clientele that enables the farm to survive. local farmers may be overshadowed by Indeed many farmers who have either their need to economize. This can impact started out or shifted into direct marketing farmers in two ways: consumers may are realizing a high degree of success. choose to buy more foods from Sales at thriving farmers’ markets can be conventional grocery and big box retailers as high as $100,000 per season per farm because of cost and convenience—lower and successful PYO/Agritourism ventures prices, one stop shopping, less gas. This may be operating multi-million dollar will require small farmers to develop new enterprises. strategies to attract and retain customers. The success of direct marketing is Rising energy costs are also impacting attracting more individuals to farming, retail and wholesale buyers. Shipping some see it as a retirement activity and costs have increased sharply due to rising others are seeking a business opportunity. gasoline prices. Placing further downward Both types seem to have romantic notions price pressure on distant suppliers may about the opportunities and what is not be an option; hence, food costs will involved. Some quickly find that sales via rise at the consumer level. Whether the farm stands or farmers’ markets are increased cost of shipping products from small, especially as they seek to establish distant sources makes local supplies more themselves among the competition. At attractive remains to be revealed. If the Ithaca Farmers’ Market, which is a farmers work collectively to offer a price very successful market, it is my advantage, the opportunities for local observation that a small farmer has to be producers could expand. A regional food present for 3 years before sales begin to economy could reemerge with the cover costs. The same can be said of
110 roadside stands—it takes time to build restaurants interested in local farm clientele. This needs to be factored into products are not big volume users, the start-up phase of a business. Very demand the highest quality, and some few new farmers develop sales projections have the reputation of being slow to pay. to help them accommodate 3-5 years of Specialty food stores and grocery chains start-up. may purchase more but also expect standard packs, grade and quality. It is Another challenge for small farmers is that the more experienced farmer that can many communities may not have the meet these demands. They can also be population and demographics to support tougher on prices and generally pay on a successful direct marketing. This requires monthly schedule. a variety of strategies to develop a customer base. Many small farmers use Institutional Sales Challenges and multiple direct market channels to Opportunities increase customer numbers and sales. In The growing farm to school movement is Ithaca, none of our small farmers creating new marketing opportunities and participate in only one direct marketing challenges for small farmers. The first strategy. For example, they may sell at reality is that school food service directors the farmers’ market, operate a CSA, or are required to keep costs per student sell to restaurants or specialty food stores down through use of government in order to generate sales that approach a commodities and by serving foods that full-time income, and many rely on part- require little additional prep time thus time off-farm work for benefits and living saving on labor. Thus there are very few expenses. One strategy to overcome the fresh, whole food items being utilized in population problem is to take product to the school kitchen. Some local products urban markets, examples of this include that have potential include apples and farmers that drive several hours to NYC other fresh fruits, potatoes, onions, Greenmarkets or who offer CSA shares to lettuce, and perhaps hamburger. This will urban consumers or that collaborate on change as concern over the diets of delivery to urban markets. children is shaping policies that make it more feasible for small farmers to supply Additional innovative direct marketing a school district. Costs are still of concern strategies are emerging to get local to school districts, therefore, low prices product into the stomachs of local make the school food service market less consumers; these include home delivery attractive to farmers unless they find a and cooperative farm stores offering a way to specialize in this niche. wide variety of local products. Undoubtedly more initiatives will emerge In investigating opportunities for out of necessity. institutional food service sales, a myriad of additional barriers to doing business arise Retail Marketing Challenges and for small farmers. These may include the Opportunities following: requirement to carry a high Retail marketing, as I define it, includes level of liability insurance, paperwork to sales from the farm to restaurants, become an approved vendor, refrigerated specialty food stores, and grocery trucks, traceability, HACCP regulations, chains…where the farmer is once removed etc. In addition, these venues, just like from the end consumer. The retailer in schools, operate a tight ship, with targets these situations is motivated to feature established for what they can pay per local farm products. The benefit of selling meal, and they limit the amount of retail is that farmers can access more cooking required to save on labor costs. consumers and prices, while lower than Thus products they demand in fresh form direct sales, are a bit better than are few. Just as with schools, an conventional wholesale. Each of these individual farmer would need to become channels has its challenges. High-end specialized in serving this market.
111 Another strategy would be for groups of to require their produce distributor to small farmers to work with a distributor supply 25 % from NY farms. Another local who can assume the business functions produce distributor is being asked by his and overhead associated with sales and restaurant customers to supply local delivery requirements. products. Additionally, a major NYC distributor is actively seeking supplies of Wholesale Marketing Challenges and specialty products from small farms. This Opportunities shift in the marketplace, driven by Small farmers involved in traditional consumers, is huge and offers increasing wholesale markets tend to be those who opportunities for smaller farmers to are on the “larger” side of small (by USDA specialize in meeting volume demanded definition). Wholesale markets for the by larger consumer markets. purpose of this paper are twice removed from the consumer. In other words, the Ultimately, for growers to succeed in any broker/distributor takes possession of the of these marketing arenas, they will need product and resells to restaurants, food to become more intentional in their stores or institutions that in turn sell to marketing efforts. More time must be end consumers. Opportunities for local spent on meeting the demands of sales to brokers/distributors are increasing consumers. However, when products can as the demand for local products is being be supplied at a quality, price and location pushed backwards up the marketing that is optimal, fair and convenient, chain. The wholesale buyer, in order to opportunities will increase and small retain contracts, may be being forced to farmers will once again become significant seek out local sources. As an example, local and regional players in the food Cornell University has changed its contract supply system.
112 Evaluation of Three Small Farm Feeding Regimens for Beef and Small Ruminant Relative to Market Value
Ray Mobley Florida A&M University Tallahassee, Florida
The role of extension personnel is to USDA reported 62 pounds per capita provide realistic and practical information consumption in 2001 (USDA.GOV). to community based clientele in order to accomplish cost effective outcomes and A major concern of all cattle operations, is impacts. Cattle production is no maintaining an effective feeding program. exception. Extension personnel are in a Since feed account for over 50% of the crucial position to provide practical cost of production, both limited resource information to producers based on applied and large cattle producers are challenged science and research. Limited resource with utilizing cost efficient feeding producers especially rely on extension programs to raise cattle to target weights. personnel to assist in developing programs Traditional small producers will raise cattle that can be consistently managed and relying on pasture in a cow-calf or stocker sustained. herd. An established practice of supplementing cattle feed with sub- The diversity of programs and methods of therapeutic levels of antibiotics and raising cattle and small ruminants make antihelminths have long been practiced as this area one that requires sound science an aid in weight gain. However, there is and sustainable models. A study was empirical evidence that the strategy of conducted to gather data for use in limited feeding medicated feed may be resource beef cattle programs in fifteen contraindicated. The use of these counties in northern Florida. Information substances could possible have an impact derived from the study could be used by that could lead to antibiotic and/or extension personnel to assist limited parasite resistance resource farmers in these counties to make decisions according to Best Materials and Methods Management Practices to achieve target The experiment was conducted under weight gains in typical cattle operations. limited resource farms conditions in north As a result of the knowledge gained, Florida. The objective was to determine extension personnel will be able to provide whether or not a specific feeding science-based information to small and management system, significantly affected limited resource farmers that could the target weight (market weight) of cattle enhance on farm cattle production. raised under limited resource conditions. Three groups of weaned crossbred Cattle production is a major industry that Brangus cattle (10 per group) were used includes both large and limited resource in this experiment. The animals were producers. Comerfort, et al (2001) weighed on a monthly basis. The initial reported that the United States is the weights were taken in June 2002 and the leading beef producer in the world. final weight was recorded in December Almost 26.9 billion pounds of beef were 2002. produced in the United States in 2000 and per capita consumption totaled 78 pounds.
113 Table 1 Compositional Profile for feeding rations Profile of Grass using kahdahl method
Protein% 11 Fat % 3 Fiber % 74 aAOAC (1995) methods were used to determine compositional values.
Table 2 Composition of Medicated and Non medicated supplements
Composition Medicated Non Medicated Protein % 12 12 Fat % 1 3 Fiber % 8 15
Compositional values were supplied by the feed manufacturer
Results: The implications and significance of Our study concluded that animals fed on this information: non-medicated (Super 12) rations gained Extension programs can be further significantly more weight when compared developed to train small and limited cattle to the other groups. Inconsistent with our producers to: expectations, the medicated group did not · Apply a pasture-based feeding gain significantly more weight than the program to grow in production graze only group. The results of this study based operations. suggest that feeding cattle on · Incorporate feeding programs with supplements including medicated and high herd health management programs protein feeds do not significantly improve in order to maximize weight gain weight gain in a cow calf operation. In and decreased loss. consideration of cost of feed, it would · Develop effective and prudent appear that limited income and small parasite control in concert with producers can feed their herds to market enhanced pasture rotation, new weights on farm conditions by providing animal control, and strategic high quality pasture with a good rotational deworming programs. grazing strategy. This data can be used · Recognize advantages of feeding a by extension to educate and train the combination of high quality grass small beef cattle producers regarding and high quality supplement for sustainable and affordable feeding cost effective feeding of cattle. programs. It can be used to teach limited · Practice the prudent use of resource farmers how to realize a profit medicated feed that is margin from cattle operations, especially environmental friendly and limits as it relates to high quality pasture food safety risks. grazing as compared to supplemental · Develop and maintain effective feeding. record keeping systems on weight gain and cost of feed as a valuable tool in management decisions.
114 Although this was a limited study, Cattle. extension personnel can use the data to http//agalternatives.aers.psu.edu. more effectively advise small and limited Smith, S., Enis, J., and Gill, D., (1995). personnel in sustainable production based Effect of Bambermycin on Weight cattle operations. Additional studies Gain of Summer Stocker Cattle. should be conducted to examine the www.ansi.okstate.edu/research/1995 duration and cost of feeding medicated /RR.24 PDF feed. The use of antibiotics and Lusby, K., Horne, G., (1983). Energy vs parasiticides in animal feed should be protein supplementation of steers further investigated. grazing native range in late summer. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. MP-114. References Cited: McCollum, F., (1987). Performance of Angulo, F.J, Johnson, K.R, Tauxe, R.V, & steers fed soybean on rangeland in Cohen M.L. (2000) Origins and the late summer. Okla. Agr. Exp. consequences of antimicrobial- Sta. MP-119. resistant nontyphiodal salmonella: McCollum, F., Gill, D., and Ball, R., (1988) implications for the use of Steer gain response to monensin and fluoroquinolones in food animals. chlortetracycline addition to summer Microbiology Drug Resistance (1) 77- protein supplements. Okla. Agr.Exp. 83. 2000:6:77-83 Sta. MP-125 AOAC. (1995). Official Methods of Analysis Piddock, LJV. (1996) Does the use of of the Association of Official antimicrobial agents in veterinary Analytical Chemists, 16th ed. medicine and animal husbandry Association of Official Analytical select antibiotic-resistance bacteria Chemists, Washington, DC. that infect man and compromise Cantrell, J., Bryan, G., & Lusby, K., antimicrobial chemotherapy? Journal (1985). Effect of protein of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 38: supplementation on stockers grazing 1-3 native grass in southeastern Piddock, LJV. (1998) Fluoroquinolone Oklahoma. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. MP- resistance-Overuse of 117 fluoroquinolones in human and Gill, D., Lusby, K., and Ball, R., (1984). veterinary medicine can breed The effect of protein supplementation resistance. British Medical Journal, on late summer gains of stocker 317: 1029-1030 cattle grazed on native WWW.NASS.USDA.GOV/MS. Per Capita bluestenrange. Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Consumption _beef-pork-chicken, MP-116. 1991-2001 PDF. Comerfort, J., Greaser, G., Moore, H., & The SAS System for Windows, V.9.0. SAS Harper, J., (2001). Feeding Beef Institute, Cary North Carolina
115 Making Educational Sense of Market Planning for Small Farmers with “P”, “C” and “Z”!
Dr. John M. O’Sullivan North Carolina A&T and State University Greensboro, North Carolina
Introduction However, they too need guidance and Marketing is seen as one of the great support, to become successful educators challenges facing small farmers. Small in marketing skills. Then, they could see farmers frequently express their significant impacts as their small farm willingness to handle production but then market audiences become educated to be hope to leave marketing to someone else. able to find appropriate marketing Or, they just throw up their hands and end answers for themselves. up at the mercy of the market receiving whatever price is offered. Research has Presentation shown, however, that successful small This presentation offers approaches for farms do not abandon the market to outreach educators to use so as to explain someone else. They are actively involved marketing basics to farmers and in their own marketing (Johnson & Perry, marketers. It sees a model in the train- 1999). the-trainer model of ordinary Extension In-Service training or of the Sustainable Extension and other support services tend Agriculture Research and Education to do not much better in terms of actually Professional Development Program. It assisting small farmers to market their explains these basics in simple terms and products. Campus-based faculty members it offers ways to operationalize the ideas sometimes give the impression that of basic marketing by small farmers and market research is a very complex and marketers. convoluted science. This too can be a significant disservice to Extension and to The present program also offers some their clientele. Market research conducted simple steps of market research by small by large corporations and taught as the farmers that do not have to be an models and case studies in schools of overwhelming challenge. It offers simple business can be very complex and be off- steps that can be followed by small putting for Extension outreach use. In farmers, their extension partners, and addition, economics is often seen as the others, interested in helping direct reserve of campus “experts” or gurus, marketers understand their customers. It whereas Adam Smith (1776) has much to offers suggestions for tools, as used to offer people trying to understand how assist small farmers in North Carolina, as markets function. well as simple market observation techniques to assist producers to develop Small farmers have very real educational their own marketing skills. These steps needs in terms of marketing. They, provide the starting point for market especially as direct marketers, need to planning, allocation of market resources, understand what their customers want, and ways of using information for when they want it, where they want it, production and marketing decisions. They what they will pay for it, and how to also can then be built into evaluation communicate with the customers. Small feedback loops for program evaluation as farmers need help to develop these skills. part of the implementation of an Extension can offer educational programs evaluation plan. to help farmers understand these topics.
116 What is marketing? venues. This method also allows for Marketing text books usually define customer suggestions and comments. marketing as the total process engaged in order to achieve customer satisfaction. Traffic flow patterns can be important too. See, for example, the presentation offered For this, we use the “Customer Flow in Kotler and Armstrong (1987), preface Counts” with hand count machines. Using and chapter 1. In another textbook, it is this method, better display and argued that that goal of achieving merchandising steps can be taken so that customer satisfaction is met by a series of they are appropriate to traffic flows. management decisions made by sellers, based on their knowledge of customer Finally there is electronic mail messaging wants and needs, competition and other to maintain dialogue and to keep market environmental factors. For customers in the loop. Community example, Aaker, Kumer and Day (1998) Supported Agriculture can use this method layout the broad parameters of market as well as regular feedback forms in the research as being the way-by-which give and take of the supply boxes. informed decisions can be made by marketers. Successful marketing- No comments on market research would achieving customer satisfaction- is be complete without reference to the successful because of insight into the wonders of “Google”. Web explorations of consumer and the marketing context. local demographics can show the trend of According to Hiebling and Cooper (1996) customer patterns for the present and the marketing is the “insight developed foreseeable future. Detailed projections of through a deep understanding of the business and economic development plans target market, the business environment might provide suggestions as to how and the competition”. These texts, used in customers can be met on their own turf. business courses emphasize the complexity of the task. But they should be Responses to Customer Wants, The 4 studied and used to provide us with the “P’s”/ “C’s” and “Z’s” goal for our educational programs for Once people involved in direct sales of small scale farm marketers. farm products obtain information about their customers and their wants, then they Market Research-steps to can plan how to respond. Small farm understanding the customer direct marketers are business people just It is obvious that the very important first like everyone else. Their point of sales step of the process must be to understand may only be a three foot by six foot table the customer. Jay Conrad Levinson (1998) at a Farmers Market, but they face the describes key ways that small business same challenges of achieving customer people can conduct essential business satisfaction as any business person, large steps on a “shoestring” budget in his or small. Indeed, vendors at Farmers acclaimed Guerrilla Marketing. Basic to Markets must recognize that American market research is “ask the customer”. It customers expect their shopping can be done by anyone and is essential for experiences to conform to certain set business success. Direct Marketing offers standards and to ignore these is a way of perfect opportunities for doing just that on courting disaster (Underhill, 1996). a regular basis- face-to-face. Extension can help marketers to respond In addition there are several other with a useful explanation of the 4 P’s of possibilities for direct marketers to glean marketing. Study of options in the 4 “P’s” information from customers. For example, is built on a rotation of the perspective so there is the “Dot Self Survey” method of that the 4 P’s become the 4 C’s of market research. We have used it at customer satisfaction. A useful Extension Farmers Markets but it could be used in program can then bring these perspectives roadside stand situations and other into the direct market context by looking
117 at the 5 shopping Zones described by Paco http://www.asapconnections.org/in Underhill. Underhill’s research shows that dex.html. there are five “zones” in the American Johnson, J. & J Perry (1999). "What shopping experience. These are; the makes a small farm successful? Landing Zone, the Transition Zone, the Agricultural Outlook. ERS. USDA. Destination Zone, the Transaction Zone Washington DC. November 1999. and the Exit Zone. These are relevant Pages 7-10. from the biggest to the smallest retailer. Kotler, P. & G. Armstrong (1987). Awareness of customer expectations Marketing: An Introduction (4th allows small marketers to provide positive Edition). Prentice Hall, Upper shopping experiences and hence increase Saddle River, NJ. sales. These issues are addressed in the Lev, L. & G. Stephenson (1999). “Dot presentation in the area referred to as the Posters: A Practical Alternative to “Z’s”. Written Questionnaires and Oral Interviews”. Journal of Extension. The program is presented with power http://www.joe.org/joe/1999octob point slides. It is available for anyone er/tt1.html. interested in having a copy of it for in- Levinson, J.C. (1998). Guerrilla Marketing; service training with Extension or other Secrets for Making Big Profits from adult educators. There are also a short your Small Business (3rd Edition). video and handouts used as take-home Boston, MA Houghton Mifflin. check sheets for direct marketers. These Smith, A. (1776, 2000). The Wealth of are available to be shared with program Nations. New York: Modern Library. participants. The references cited below Underhill, P. (1996). Why WeBuy: offer a base from which to build a sound The Science of Shopping. practical, useful Extension educational Baltimore MD: Penguin Books. program. Small farm direct marketers need us to offer this educational support. Examples of Extension Materials from my own NCA&TSU Cooperative Extension Some Useful References Educational Program. I will be happy to Aaker, D.A. V. Kumar & G.S. Day (1998). discuss and share these and other Marketing Research (6th Edition). materials. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hamilton, N. D. (1999). The Legal Guide O’Sullivan, J. M. for Direct Farm Marketing. Des “Know your market first. Video (13 Moines, IA, Drake University min). School of Law. “Winning Shoppers for your Hiebling, R.G. & S.W. Cooper (1996). The market”. Video (13 min). Successful Marketing Plan (2nd Building a Bridge to Your Edition). NTC Business Books, Customers, a marketing handbook Chicago. Direct Marketing- A hands-on Jackson, C. See the website for the display (with T. Nartea). Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Program.
118 Using GIS Tools to Improve Agricultural Marketing and Local Food System Mapping
Duncan Hilchey Cornell University Ithaca, New York
Farmers Are Looking for More graphic information systems in market Sophisticated Marketing Tools analysis is to create color maps depicting Recent research conducted by the demographic data superimposed with Community, Food, and Agriculture symbols marking the location of potential Program (CFAP) identifying farmers’ needs buyers. Figure 1 is a map with a base confirms the work of others (e.g., Bills, et layer at the census-tract level in the al., 2000) indicating that New York Syracuse, NY, metropolitan area showing farmers want more marketing information the concentration of Asian residents (the and tools to take advantage of the darker the color, the higher the immense scale and diversity of the state’s percentage of Asians). consumer base. Focus groups of three samples of NY State Farmers’ Direct Marketing Association (NYSFDMA) members showed that farmers want: (a) more information on what motivates customers to buy; (b) techniques to Fig. 1 understand who their customers are; and (c) information Cornell can develop to educate consumers about local products (e.g., the health benefits of particular foods).
CFAP is exploring methods of providing low-cost information and tools not previously available to the average farmer nor to many segments of the agribusiness community. With these tools, farmers will be able to generate maps at the census- tract (neighborhood) level showing the location of concentrations of potential The location of retail food businesses are specialty-dairy-product consumers, superimposed (purple dots). Imagine how gourmet consumers, organic consumers, useful this information would be if you kosher, and other ethnic consumers and were a vegetable grower interested in the like. Producers, Extension agents and targeting Asian consumers. This map commodity organizations will be able to provides you with a simple understanding identify and map restaurants and grocery of the relationship between your target stores, as well as local public schools, consumers and retailers in their hospitals, jails and other public institutions neighborhoods. A bok choi grower or kim that might buy New York agricultural chi processor now knows which food products. retailers to contact. Furthermore, an “identify” feature allows the user to simply Examples of the Application of GIS click on the retail store symbol and a Technology to Market Analysis window will pop up providing the contact Perhaps the most simple use of geo- info for that particular store. CFAP is
119 preparing to develop an on-line version of MarketScape include several dozen this technology similar to what is already databases of additional marketing available to Illinois farmers, called clusters, such as databases of potential MarketMakerTM. It consists of a general institutional markets like hospitals, GIS-based demographic information nursing homes, public schools and mapping tool, and geocoded business universities. MarketScape subscribers will listings. Farmers, cooperatives, also have the capability to identify distributors and other agribusinesses are concentrations of niche markets, such as already able to visit MarketMaker and consumers of organic, gourmet and ethnic conduct basic demographic and business specialties, as well as target information queries. concentrations of consumers of specialty products — from artisanal cheeses and At CFAP we will develop a second and value-added fruit conserves, to maple- more advanced set of marketing tools to sugar specialties and herbed sauerkraut. permit a look not only at demographic Covering training and technical assistance factors but also attitudinal and behavioral will likely require charging a nominal information about food preferences, annual fee (e.g., $500) once the proposed purchases, etc. MarketScapeTM will be project has reached term. designed for producers, farm organizations, Extension field staff, and Implications of GIS Technology in ag. development professionals who want Food System Planning to conduct more thorough market Finally, there is longstanding interest analysis. In Figure 2, for example, data among food security organizations, urban from a survey of New York State planners, and others in New York and consumers (Empire State Poll, n= 1,000) elsewhere for new neighborhood and was used to construct this map depicting regional food-system analysis tools. Using consumer “propensity to buy local” in the the latest technology in mapping, planners Syracuse, NY, metropolitan area. The and practitioners in the food security darker the color of the census tract, the community can generate maps indicating more consumers in that tract matched the demographic and socioeconomic status demographics characteristics of (SES), food insecurity levels, and food consumers in the Empire State Poll who consumption patterns at the neighborhood said they would go out of their way to buy level. Overlaying this colorized information locally produced food. with symbols marking the location of Fig. 2 critical food-system infrastructure, such as farmers’ markets, CSA distribution sites, community gardens, food stores which accept food stamps, congregate meals sites, food pantries, food banks, and the like, can reveal new insights into the relationships between the needs of the hungry and the food-security resources of service providers.
For example, in the map of lower Bronx (New York City) in Figure 3, we can see concentrations of Hispanics (the darker the color, the higher the percentage of Hispanics) overlaid by the locations of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) distribution sites (purple with dot). Such a Collecting and geocoding survey data like map might trigger the question “why don’t this is a laborious and expensive process. we have more community gardens in our The data available to be mapped in most densely populated Hispanic
120 neighborhoods (near Interstate 278 in the MarketScape Features lower right quadrant of the map)?” · Capable of mapping primary (survey) as well as secondary data; · Zoom feature, streets and highways, labels; · Exhaustive list of demographic and SES variables and CFS infrastructure point data; · “Clickable” symbols with pop-up windows that provide contact info and other data; · On-line for easy access; · Annual data refreshment; Fig. 3 · Web site linked to the USDA, the Community Food Security Coalition, and the Community, Food, and Agriculture Program at Cornell; and · Tutorial and case examples of how to use the technology. The above map was generated using ARC MapTM and required census-tract Data Modules boundary and street-location data, US Below is a list of the data modules (with Census of Population data, and the indicators) that will be explored. The data accurate addresses of community gardens is only useful if it is systematically and CSAs. Using the latest GIS technology collected, is updated on a scheduled basis, there is virtually no practical limit to the and is relevant to a further understanding kinds of SES and point (address) data that the scope and status of the regional food can be mapped. (See below for list of system. proposed data which may be able to be · Basic Demographic Data Module mapped.) However, it should be noted · Transportation Systems Module that while this tool is powerful, it is only as · Socioeconomic Data Module useful as the data are accurate. Census · Food Security Infrastructure and SES data can age quickly, and the Module locations of local CFS infrastructure can · Farm Data Module change. Therefore, the data must be · Value-Adding Infrastructure Module continually refreshed, preferably with · Marketing Services/Infrastructure continued participatory inputs from local Module frontline service workers. This tool should · Institutional Markets Module be used to supplement and/or · Agency/NGO Module corroborate, not replace, the local · Agriculture Development Tools knowledge of such workers. Module · Agricultural Services Module · Food Consumption Patterns Module · Market Niches Module
121 Assessing Direct Marketing Options for Small Farms in the Pacific Northwest
Marcy Ostrom Washington State University Puyallup, Washington Garry Stephenson Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon Cinda Williams University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho
This session presents the combined results traits shared by successful farmers’ of a four-year, USDA-IFAFS study that markets with implications for strategic was initiated in 2001 as a collaborative planning and increased management effort of Oregon State University, capacity. Washington State University, the University of Idaho, the Washington State Growth in farmers’ markets has been Department of Agriculture, and Rural achieved not by the replication of a single Roots. The project was designed to successful model but rather by markets document the current status and future following diverse paths that reflect the potential of locally-based food production diverse communities that they serve. and consumption systems in Pacific Despite this growth, many individual Northwest at the state and county level. markets remain “works in progress” Project components included assessing the characterized by both limited financial feasibility of different direct marketing resources and high levels of manager strategies; evaluating and fostering the turnover, changes in location, and development of farmers' markets; and modifications in market rules. Over the identifying market barriers in federal, last five years we have developed and state and local regulations and processing refined research and extension infrastructure. approaches that focus on addressing these constraints without reducing the One Market at a Time: What We Have individuality of markets. This “one market Learned About Improving Farmers’ at a time approach” depends on a limited Markets set of easy-to-adopt research methods The economic viability of many Pacific and an action research approach that Northwest small farms and the region’s improves manager skills and potential for establishing and maintaining strengthens manager networks. local food systems is linked to the vitality of numerous independently operated and Assessing Direct Marketing Strategies sometimes isolated farmers’ markets. As Across the Northwest, farmers are grassroots non-profit organizations thin on employing innovative strategies to develop resources, farmers’ markets are local markets for their products. Through challenged by widely varying agricultural interviews and in-depth whole farm case conditions, population densities and studies, the performance of farmers’ socioeconomic circumstances. How markets, on-farm sales, CSA, and direct- markets address these issues is a major to-retail was evaluated from the farmer factor in their success or failure. This perspective. Analysis of farm paper reports on research exploring the management records on case study farms
122 suggests that direct market farms retain a been formulated. higher share of gross sales than their conventional counterparts. In one urban The Economic Impacts of Local and county, direct sales of products such as Direct Marketing broccoli, lettuce, and apples were resulting Using an input/output modeling system in prices two to four times higher than based on IMPLAN data, we investigated wholesale rates. At least a fifth of the the contribution of the local food supply to farms in Washington were direct total food consumption in three Northwest marketing some of their products. states and in three county case studies. The model tested possible scenarios for Market research indicates tremendous job and income generation through consumer demand for locally-raised meat enhanced local marketing networks. In products; however, most producers have addition, surveys, interviews, and been unable to access these markets. agricultural census data were used to Project sponsored listening sessions examine the potential social, brought together producers and county, environmental, and economic benefits of state, and federal-level government community based efforts to source more regulators to discuss the changes needed food locally. In one urban county, only in county health codes to allow meat sales two percent of current crop production at farmers’ markets and on farms, the was marketed directly to consumers. changes needed in state regulations to Estimates based on IMPLAN modeling facilitate on-farm poultry processing, and showed that if farmers here sold as much the changes needed in federal regulations as ten percent of their crops directly to the to allow co-packing by state certified public, it could mean an additional $6 poultry processors. The ensuing dialogue million annually for the county’s farms. has resulted in changes to county health codes to permit meat sales at the major Additional information, reports, and urban markets in Washington and new research findings from this project can be state legislation facilitating on-farm obtained from the project website at: poultry processing on farms with 1,000 www.nwdirect.wsu.edu birds or less. Recommendations for addressing the additional barriers identified in the listening sessions have
123 What Does it Take to be Successful at Marketing?
Mary Holz-Clause and Reg Clause Iowa State University Ames, Iowa
How do producers go about finding the assumption that the food markets for their products? This age old industry is an $800 billion dollar question often defines the difference business, and it certainly is possible between producers that are successful and that their product is so wonderful those who fail. that it can capture a small percentage of that market. We have To be successful in marketing and heard producers make the business there are a few tenets that assumption that they can earn producers should consider: 1/1000 percent of the food market, so therefore they can easily be an $8 § Do you have a unique selling million dollar company. While the proposition? Is this market arithmetic is sound, it is intellectually underserved? Do you have a offensive. You will likely have to competitive or comparative elbow someone out of that 1/1000 advantage? Which of these things percent. You’ve got to earn can your product be: Better than; whatever share you will get, so don’t Cheaper than; or Different than? assume it is there just for the taking.
§ Know the territory is a standard § Isolate your specific opportunity and adage in marketing. Many farmers anchor your claims with solid, third make the assumption “the market is party observations. Letter of interest there—and I have the best product from customers can be validation. and everyone will want to buy my Successful test marketing is always product.” You owe it to yourself and good. Actual transactions trump many times to your banker to prove surveys every time in validating your that statement. The trap in that idea. Go sell something and see how statement is the assumption that that works. marketing is all about the product. Everyone should recognize that § Can you make a business case for many of the most successful your product or idea? Ask yourself if marketing businesses succeed with this is a: Fad market? Growth inferior product. How? The market? Is there extraordinary possibilities for being better include: competition? Will you have any competitive positioning, packaging, revenue diversity? Can you execute a pricing, delivery, margins, service, good business model? Will your labeling, customer relations, actual business structure make organization/management, ease of sense? Test this out on people as if transaction, brand, market share, you were asking them to invest in availability. These are just a few of you and your idea. Learn from this the other marketing aspects you “win so that your explanation of the with.” Product is only a small portion business case makes sense, not only of the value proposition in a to you, but to anyone. competitive marketplace. § Good marketers have a sound § Some times we hear producers make knowledge of their competition.
124 Producers who say “I have no you. Never become convinced that competition,” are a disaster waiting you know it all or even enough. to happen. Most customer needs are Maintain a healthy paranoia because already being met by someone and it is extremely likely that you should some product. Therefore, your be afraid of the competition, even product must replace the other firm’s when you aren’t. product. What are you going to replace in the marketplace? In his § Successful marketers are tenacious. Website, Paul Lopez says “We insist “One of our favorite motivational that the business plans we seriously speakers says that "It's a dog-eat- review feature a competitive matrix, dog world out there...for forty hours i.e., a comparison by relevant a week. But when you get out to features of their product vs. all other fifty, there aren't as many dogs. And logical purchase alternatives. If it when you get out to sixty or more, isn't as clear as a bell that any fully it's downright lonely!" There is no informed prospective purchaser attack more likely to succeed than would be crazy not to seriously one executed when the enemy is consider purchasing the product in asleep, or having his second drink. question, one knows, at least, that Almost everything is stacked against he is looking at a me-too offering entrepreneurs. They even the odds with all of the risks that that entails.” with, among other things, sustained, http://www.nationalconsortium.org/s superior effort. tory5.html http://www.nationalconsortium.org/s tory5.htmlhttp § One trap is assuming you have a comparative advantage and no one § What is your business model? How knows you are there. The will you actually make money in this marketplace is more transparent business? You have to explain this than ever before in terms of costs, carefully to yourself, your banker and pricing and even production your accountant. This will define the methods. Competitors know more measures you manage to. Small about the margins in other businesses can differentiate segments, the price they pay for themselves at the business model their inputs and the prices they level. Do you make money on receive for their product than ever buying inputs very cheap? Do you before. The real problem is that make money by being the most most people do not know enough efficient producer? Do you make about the value of the product they money by being able to deliver are producing to know whether their cheaper than the competition? How product is under priced or over do you make money compared to the priced relative to others. Producers competition? Remember that have to be learning more and more perception is reality, and value is about the comparative advantage of created in distribution and via their products all the time. marketing, not in production.
§ Just don’t let the ego get in the way. § Have a sound knowledge of the Let the market tell you what it wants financial dynamics of your business. to do. Listen carefully to the market Farmers don’t need an accounting signals. Great marketers are great degree, but they need to focus on listeners…to their customers and to key results areas, such as: gross the market in general. If you margins, return on investment, become arrogant and believe you monthly fixed costs, sales/employee. know more than the market itself, Get help in setting up your cost you will get your head handed to accounting. You have to plan which
125 business measures you will be Nobody loves planning! Planning is a managing. Without these measures, powerful tool, however, and the best you cannot know if you are entrepreneurs reduce their pursuit of succeeding. Cash flow and new their strategic objectives down to customers are not sufficient action plans with detailed budgets, measures of short or long term people responsibilities and deadlines, success. and they monitor the assault on a real-time basis. § Have a true understanding of your http://www.nationalconsortium.org/s cash flow. Ask any gathering of tory5.html entrepreneurs whether they understand that cash is life and there § Anticipate what will happen. It will. will be nods all around. Then ask Although you can’t see the future them whether they also understand and anticipate everything that will that lack of cash is DEATH and the happen, you need to have a fallback blood drains out of their faces. The plan. By far, the majority of small best entrepreneurs equate cash with business startups fail and do so in blood, and part with it only when it the first three years. This cold fact stands to directly further their could be a good reminder on your objectives. office wall right next to the frame http://www.nationalconsortium.org/s with your first dollar earned. tory5.html § Get your mental focus right. Peter § Emphasize working capital. Put Drucker is the dean of all business together enough working capital to guru's and his suggestion is to sustain this business through the replace the word achievement with thin, early days and beyond. Put the the word contribution. His reasoning business on an accrual accounting is simply by focusing on contribution basis so you are constantly rather than achievement you keep measuring your financial ratios. your focus on where it should These are the true measures of be…your customers, family, growth in a business. Don’t do this employees, shareholders and for the bank or for the IRS…do it for industry. yourself. § Passion. If you don’t have fire in § Your business is a reflection of you. your belly—you will not be successful True entrepreneurs take things in your company. If passion is not personally. When they succeed, they there, it is not possible for firms to know that they deserved to. When survive the hard times that will they fail, they know that it was their happen. fault. They don't make excuses for past shortcomings. They describe Producers needing advice on successful them as lessons learned. They don't marketing do have resources to turn to. look for places to pin blame. When The Agricultural Marketing Resource they first smell failure, they fight like Center (AgMRC) is a national virtual alley cats to turn things around, resource center for value-added because they see their performance, agricultural groups, located at however good or bad, as a reflection www.AgMRC.org. The purpose and of themselves. mission of the AgMRC is to provide independent producers and processors § Execute. It has been said that if you with critical information to build successful don't know where you're going, any value-added agricultural enterprises. road will get you there. Entrepreneurs don't love planning.
126 The Center combines expertise at Iowa The Markets and Industries section State University, Kansas State University provides information on the major and the University of California to assist markets and industries (food, energy, clients locate the resources helpful to etc.) that producers may enter during the them as they proceed with a value-added process of adding value to their agricultural business. The center works commodities. with other leading land grant universities on value-added projects. Partial support is The Business Development section derived from the USDA Rural Business- focuses on information needed to create Cooperative Service. and operate a viable value-added business. The information is provided Content sequentially for use during the business The content portion of the AgMRC Web analysis, creation, development and site is divided into four main sections: operation process. 1) Commodities and Products 2) Markets and Industries The final main area of content is the 3) Business Development Directories & State Resources section. 4) Directories and State Resources Several directories were created for the Web site by AgMRC staff, including The Commodities and Products section consultants and service providers, value- provides information from the perspective added agricultural businesses and specific of adding value to the commodities and contacts in each state. products traditionally produced on the farm. Examples are corn, beef, fruits, etc. Contact Us Information is provided along the supply Producers, extension personnel and rural chain from production, processing and development specialists contact the marketing for each commodity/product, resource center either via toll free phone focusing on marketing. More than 175 at 866-277-5567, e-mail at commodities are profiled. [email protected] or the Web site, www.agmrc.org.
127 Profit-Directed Marketing Strategies for Small Farmers through Group Action
Magid A. Dagher, Dovi Alipoe and Wes Miller Alcorn State University Alcorn State, Mississippi
Introduction
Profit-directed marketing is the greater competition from foreign organizing and implementing of marketing producers, and shrinking share of the activities efficiently in order to minimize marketing bill. These trends have associated costs, obtain the optimal price contributed greatly to the decline in the for the commodity or service, and number of farms in the U.S. over most of maximize returns from marketing. the last half of the twentieth century. In Marketing of agricultural products is 1973, there were 2.8 million farms; but essential for small farm viability since it is today, there are only 2.1 million farms. the revenue generating apparatus or life- Less than one percent of the population line for an enterprise. It has been a works full time to grow crops, livestock challenging activity for most producers and fiber. The real prices they get for who tend to invest more time and effort their products are about the same as on actual physical production. As a result, those their fathers received forty years their agricultural enterprises often do not ago. This has resulted in small family perform well. farms exiting agriculture at an unusually high rate over time. Marketing involves several physical and coordinating functions: assembly; sorting, More recent major trends involve grading, and packing; transportation; biotechnology and genetically modified storage; processing; wholesaling; crops, food security, food safety and retailing; and negotiating terms of trade -- information technology explosion. i.e., price, quality, quantity, time and Additional trends that pose challenges and place of delivery, and assumption of provide opportunities include growing marketing risks. Before a producer plants consumer desire for organically produced crops or invests in a livestock operation, foods, exotic crops, functional foods, he should ascertain the strength of wholesome foods, higher quality products, demand for his product. Strong demand niche markets and more. usually translates into higher prices, farm incomes and profits. Small-scale producers have found it increasingly difficult to farm fulltime and The Agricultural Environment generate farm income high enough to a decent standard of living. If the imputed Small farmers and their business cost of the owner-manager were to be organizations have faced many challenges applied against farm revenue received, over the last several decades. Several most producers would realize negative major trends have posed problems for profits or losses. A key reason for this small farmers: substitution of capital for situation is the suboptimal performance in labor, economies of scale in production marketing their products. Most do not and marketing, fewer but larger farms, develop marketing plans in advance. As a cost-price squeeze, prevalence of pure result, when they harvest their crops and competition in production agriculture, sell, their take from the market seldom
128 covers the true cost of production and production of the crop. When the crop is marketing combined. Most subsidize the ripe or ready, harvesting occurs, operation with their time and effort employing proper harvesting methods. without explicit awareness that they are Post-harvest handling then follows and doing so. typically involves gathering, transporting, storing, washing, sorting, grading, packing The farmer, cooperative or other type of and shipping. The primary product enters business organization is a part of a food either the wholesale or retail market. Of system with major sub-systems that course, final sale occurs at the retail level involve a great deal of coordination in where consumers purchase the product for order to function efficiently and consumption. If the primary product was successfully. Figure 1 depicts a common value-enhanced through processing, then construct of this system and its key the processed products would flow to the components. It begins with identifying consumer through the wholesale and retail demand for a product that one decides to levels. How well does the producer produce. Then, the farmer procures the perform in this system? relevant resources required to produce the product. Next, he combines the resources by applying processes that have yielded consistently good results over time in the
Figure1.Food Delivery System. Source: Mississippi Small Farm Development Center, Alcorn State University
129 Understanding Markets and Marketing be low. Of course, covering all costs is also desirable, even if the net income or A market is a place or environment in profit is zero. which producers and consumers meet or interact to negotiate the terms of trade, Marketing in its simplest form is about followed by the transfer of ownership of relationships. Most people prefer to do the product to the consumer and cash to business with people they know. the producer. In a nutshell, both the producer and the consumer influence the level of prices. They do so in a free Profit-Directed Marketing Strategies market where the forces of demand and supply work to determine prices that will Profit-oriented marketing through entice the producer to sell and the group action enhances small farmers’ consumer to buy. capacity to compete for a greater share of the food marketing bill. Figure 2 It is important for the producer to illustrates the marketing bill which understand the fundamentals of how consists of activities beyond the farm markets work. This knowledge positions gate. These activities account for the producer advantageously to exploit approximately 80 percent of each dollar the opportunities available to him. The spent on food by consumers. In order for fundamentals are embedded in the laws of farmers to obtain a greater share of demand and supply. Understanding the consumers’ expenditure on food, it is key factors that influence demand and recommended that they actively supply enhances the producer’s knowledge participate in business forms other than so that he designs the strategy that will sole proprietorships. These non- yield the best return. individual types of business include partnerships, cooperatives, marketing Marketing activities are many, can be associations and corporations. They complex and require resources, both should explore options such as s- physical and human, which are costly and, corporations and limited liability therefore, should be planned and cooperatives. implemented efficiently. The more efficient the marketing operation, the Cooperatives play a major role in more competitive is the marketer or assisting small farmers with group- supplier. Marketing efficiency is oriented involvement. Successful achieved by cutting cost per unit of cooperatives do not rest on their laurels. product to its lowest level. In fact, if all They consistently market on a national costs of production and marketing can be and international level to find niches for kept at their lowest levels, then the their products and to establish and nurture producer stands an excellent chance of relationships that will allow the achieving the highest profit level possible. organization to grow as the produce Alternatively, if his operation is not company, restaurant, hotel, or other client profitable, then he minimizes his loss. expands. Successful cooperatives consistently solicit new customers while Most primary agricultural products are maintaining relationships with existing sold in a market environment clients. In the southern region, the level characterized by pure competition. In this of farmer cooperative activity is high. type of environment, there are many Each state has several local cooperatives producers supplying the same product and along with some state association of there are also many consumers buying the cooperatives. For example, Mississippi same product. Prices, then, tend to be has the Mississippi Association of close to the true cost of production and Cooperatives (MAC) and the relatively new marketing activities. Profit margins tend to Mississippi Center for Cooperative
130 Development (MCCD). Of course, most of Agricultural cooperatives become more us know of the Federation of Southern profitable as they diversify to quickly Cooperatives which has state associations respond to the demands a changing free as its members. market and become part of vertically integrated business plans. Vertical Today, there are many examples of farmer integration reduces risk associated with business organizations, mainly fluctuations in the free market, providing cooperatives, that have employed a opportunities for forward contracting, vertically integrated or horizontally hedging or spreading crop sales. Profit- integrated model. They have structured centered marketing operates from plans their organizations in this manner in order which remove the questions: Will it sell? to better generate product volume, control In what quantity? To which buyer? it, maintain quality and manage product Because of well established and flow from the farm to the consumer. Well maintained relationships, no farmer or integrated operations are able to access cooperative resources are wasted. markets that the individual cannot. Nothing is planted until it is already sold or its market is firmly identified.
Figure 2. The Marketing System for Alternative Crops. SOURCE: Marketing Alternatives for Small Farmers: Fruits and Vegetables. National Fertilizer Development Center, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, Alabama
131 References USDA-NASS, Agricultural Statistics Board. Dagher, Magid A. Enhancing Marketing Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Knowledge and Skills for Small Operations 2004 Summary. Farmers, paper presented at a Whatley, Booker T. and George DeVault. workshop on Growing Marketing Handbook on How to Make $100,000 Opportunities: An Outreach Program Farming 25 Acres: With Special for Minority Farmers, Tennessee Plans for Prospering on 10 to 200 State University, January 2005. Acres. Publisher: Emmaus, Pa.: USDA National Commission on Small Regenerative Agriculture Association: Farms. A Time to Act. January 1998. Distributed to the Trade and Libraries USDA-NASS. U. S. Census of by Rodale Press, Copyright 1987. Agriculture, Several Reports.
132 Maine Highlands Farmers Joining Together To Enhance Marketing Efforts
Donna Coffin Lamb University of Maine Dover-Foxcroft, Maine
Getting Started submitted to the Maine Department of Although there are some farm stands, in Agriculture for a total request of $8,500 to the fall of 2001 there were no established assist with joint marketing issues but this Farmers Markets or Cooperative grant was not funded. Agriculture Markets in Piscataquis County. Farmers are unsure if there is an adequate As a result of the initial meetings to write population base to support these types of the grants, one farmer opened up their direct marketing venues in the area. Some farm stand and invited other farmers to farmers also want to explore value added set up farm stands with their own product manufacturing. products in a pilot farmers market venture. While this did not work it Grants were written to help determine if it resulted in a number of farmers taking is feasible to establish a marketing farm products from farmers without a organization in Piscataquis County for farm stand. This increased the type and farmers from Piscataquis, Penobscot and variety of agriculture products that Somerset Counties (Maine Highlands customers have available to them as well Region). Also, these grants will determine as allow new farmers the opportunity to the best organizational system and type of tap into an established farm stand marketing method(s), such as farmers clientele. markets, selling to institutions (schools, hospitals, etc), suited to the mix of Another farmer is initiating the participating farmers. They want to development of a cooperative agriculture enhance and expand the current market where farmers can bring their marketing methods of farmers in the products to one location and have one region without impinging on their current person sell all the products to customers. markets. Farmer surveys, consumer This will relieve the farmers of staffing a surveys and localized map of farms selling farm stand during the busy part of agriculture products will be developed. summer. This project is still in development. Fruit, vegetable and livestock farmers from Piscataquis, Penobscot and Somerset The group of fruit, vegetable and livestock Counties (Maine Highlands Region) farmers have formally organized into a Piscataquis County Economic Development local agriculture marketing named the Council, and University of Maine Maine Highlands Farmers to implement Cooperative Extension worked the SARE grant and enhance their collaboratively to develop a new Local marketing efforts. Agriculture Marketing group. The Maine Highlands Farmers The group was successful in developing Since becoming established as the Maine and getting funding for a $7740 grant Highlands Farmers, the Piscataquis and from the Sustainable Agriculture Research Penobscot County farmers with the and Education (SARE) Farmer/Grower assistance of Extension Educator Donna Grant program. They also developed Coffin Lamb have been able to enhance Agriculture Development Grants that were their farm marketing capacity, through a
133 variety of educational programs and area. They submitted a grant in 2005 for projects in collaboration with other their food cupboard project to cover both member farmers. Piscataquis and Penobscot Counties but this was not funded. In the past two years, this 40-member organization met monthly to work on 3. Consumer Survey issues including direct and value-added The consumer survey was mailed to 2,000 marketing, signage, insurance, taxation, rural homes and 2,000 urban homes to food stamps, and farmer participation in help farmers learn how to better serve the Senior Farm Share, Food Stamp and these populations. WIC programs. During the summer · Preliminary results of the rural months they meet at a member’s farm residents have found that 72% of and tour the farm to learn from each consumers purchase apples from direct other. farm markets and 67.5% purchase sweet corn from these markets. Thanks to the Sustainable Agriculture · Also 56% of rural residents report that Research Education (SARE) grant, a they process food products in bulk for regional survey determined consumer the winter including 42.5% process preferences for local agricultural products berries, 36.5% process tomatoes and and uncovered marketing opportunities for 21% process squash. area farmers. There are now twenty-six · On the average consumers travel 11.7 paid members of the Maine Highlands miles to direct farm markets, while Farm Products Promotion Group with a full some will travel up to 50 miles to go to slate of officers and board of directors. a farmers market. · About 10% of the consumers noticed Projects either poor flavor in their vegetables, 1. Farm Map for Consumers bruised fruit or tough vegetables from The initial farm map had 2,000 full color direct farm markets. Limited hours of copies printed. Distribution was through farmers markets disappointed the Chambers of Commerce, local consumers. But the number one businesses, town libraries and the farms disappointment with farm stands was themselves. The map was so well received high prices. that the group sought additional funding · Almost half of consumers spend less to print a larger map with more farms. A than $10 at each farm stand visit. subsequent grant funded the printing of These consumers reported that they over 20,000 copies of this farm map in purchase vegetables 80% of the time 2004. and fruits 65% of the time. A quarter of consumers spend between $10 and 2. Food Cupboard Grants $20 at a pick your own farm and This farmers group also received two other almost half the time they are grants from local foundations to purchase purchasing fruits. fresh vegetables, fresh fruits and local meats from member farmers for the local This survey has resulted in an Extension food cupboards (total $8,000) It the publication Why Consumers Buy---and Piscataquis Public Health Council a Healthy Don't Buy---Your Farm Direct Maine Partnership Grant and the Maine Products” Item #1160, by Donna Coffin Community Foundation Grant that funded Lamb, Hsiang-Tai Cheng, and Lili Dang. this effort. Along with the food, clients University of Maine researchers surveyed received Extension publications on the consumers in the Maine Highlands region care and use of the various food products to assess marketing opportunities and that they received during the summer. barriers for local farmers. The findings The farmer group proved that they were from this watershed survey are presented able to jointly provide in-season products and analyzed in this 12-page publication. to a number of sites in the two county Twenty-two charts provide visual
134 enhancement of data such as how rural · 2004 summer meetings have included and urban consumers find out about farm farm visits to see other farms and direct outlets, how far they are willing to members operations and focus on their travel, seasonal spending trends, and marketing methods. product preferences. Identifies customer · Farm Fresh Marketing Opportunity complaints about types of outlets and · Maine Revenue Service Department highlights opportunities for farmers who · Division of Property Tax on property want to increase their farm direct tax alternatives for farmers learning business. about open space, farm use and forest http://extensionpubs.umext.maine.edu/ use property tax designations.
4. Other Collaborations Benefits to Members and Community Members of the group coordinated a Maine As a result of participating in monthly Highlands Farm Products Booth at the meetings and learning about new recent Heritage Festival at the local fair programs and grant opportunities: grounds. Nine members provided · six farms are now accepting WIC products to decorate and sell at the booth coupons as well as staffing the booth. Products · six farms have Senior Farm Share included pumpkins, apples, maple syrup, contracts (over 250 contracts @ $100 vegetables, soap, sheep skins, jams, each) jellies, antlers, and baked goods. · one farm received a grant to provide nutrition education programs at the While the weather for the first day was farm during the summer of 2003 and questionable and the crowd was small the 2004. second day was canceled due to the · five farms with farm stands are downpour of rain. But the members carrying products produced by five learned that it was possible to join farmers who do not have a permanent together to offer event participants a cross retail stand. section of products from local farmers. · Ten to twelve farms are provided over $8,000 worth of food to local food 5. Regular Meetings cupboards funded by local foundations. The group continues to meet regularly on · Three farmers participated in the the fourth Wednesday of the month. Phase I of Farms for the Future and Topics have included: two farmers were successful in · Food Stamps and WIC for Farmers applying for the Phase II of this · Farm Marketing Studies program and they each qualified for up · Consumer Survey Preliminary Results to $25,000 grant to help with · Signage for farmers & Farm logo implementation of their farm plan. development · 2004 farm map was developed and · Food safety of value added products 21,000 copies are being distributed · Workers' compensation throughout the two county area. · Types of Insurance · Farm land taxation
135 TEACH: Teaching Educators Agriculture and Conservation Holistically
Valentine A. Thompson USDA-FAS Washington, DC
Learning Objective Costa Rica – Essential Facts TEACH Participants increase their • Area: 51,100 sq km understanding of the opportunities and • Population: 4.1 million challenges for natural resource • People: 96% Spanish descent, 2% conservation and rural poverty reduction African descent, 1% indigenous, in tropical America 1% Chinese • Language: Spanish, English Specific Learning Themes • GDP per capita 2003 US$ • What are the implications of a changing macro-environment on 02 U.S. 37,800 rural households and environmental 65 Uruguay 12,600 conservation efforts? 72 Argentina 11,200 • What are the strategies for small 82 Costa Rica 9,000 rural producers for increasing their 85 Mexico 9,000 competitiveness in increasingly 95 Brazil 7,600 globalized markets? (Source: CIA Factbook 2003) • What opportunities exist for reconciling the twin goal of What is Sustainable Development? environmental conservation and “To ensure socially responsible economic increased income generation? development while protecting the resource base and the environment for the benefit Aspects to be considered of future generations” • Large scale production of tropical ( UN Conference on Environment and fruits for export markets Development (UNCED)) • Organic production and marketing in local markets Development path along which the • Development of agro-tourism maximization of human well-being for • Cooperative business development today's generations does not lead to by (indigenous) women declines in future well-being.” Requires: • Opportunities for adding value to 1) eliminating negative externalities traditional tropical crops (e.g., responsible for natural resource sugarcane, coffee) depletion and environmental • Rainforest conservation degradation • Role of NGOs in promoting 2) securing public goods essential for sustainable rural development economic development to last, such well-functioning ecosystems, Why Costa Rica a healthy environment and a • Uniqueness of Tropical Agriculture cohesive society. • Safety Issue ( OECD) • Friendly People • Large Pool of Small Farmers What Local Resources area Needed • Developed Agro-tourism Industry for Sustainable Development? • Cost – Benefit Ratio • Financial capital: sources of income • Diverse Terrain (on-farm and off-farm, including
136 remittances), savings, access to tourism loans, credit • Agricultural sector with little • Physical capital: infrastructure alternatives for marginalized (power and communications farming households: vicious circle networks, roads, ports), machinery, of poverty and environmental tools for production degradation • Human capital: education, capacities, • Soil erosion, loss of soil fertility and health, nutrition biodiversity, overuse of • Social capital: integration in agrochemicals community and business organizations, access to services, The Most Important Advantage of political and social networks AgriTourism • Natural capital: access to natural Strengthening the competitiveness of rural resources (land rights), land, water, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to genetic material increase their economic and social benefits without compromising the natural Challenges for Achieving Sustainable resource base Rural Development – Point of Departure Conclusions • Central America: 60% "poor" and Globalizing environment implies 40% "extremely poor" people è GDP opportunities and challenges for the per capita of Honduras (US$ 2,600) development of rural small producers and Nicaragua (US$ 2,200) among • Opportunities for small-scale the lowest in the world (157 and enterprises in market niches for 167, respectively) organic, fair trade, certified wood, • Poverty is mainly rural è 52-70% of and other products with special "extremely poor" in rural areas attributes • CAFTA: what will happen in Central • Challenges include: America? • raising competitiveness of • High vulnerability to external rural SMEE through capacity shocks: Natural: Hurricane Mitch building (1998) and droughts (2001) and • strengthening BDS providers Economic: “coffee crisis” (2000- to deliver effective services 2003) • adopting market-based approaches for demand-driven Challenges for Achieving Sustainable BDS Rural Development – the Agricultural • developing integrated supply Sector chains through demand • Traditional production systems orientation, market intelligence that are not competitive in systems, business round international markets (e.g., beans, tables, strategic alliances and rice and potatoes) networks, marketing • Globalization of local markets è rise campaigns, etc. of supermarkets • Watershed management is Bottom Line important concern (degraded Farmers can make money in agri-tourism hillsides, deforestation) è 150 with proper planning million invested in projects in Central America • Dependence on few large export sectors: coffee, banana, pineapple,
137 Track Four
Organic Agriculture
138 Biological Control for Insect Management on Small Farms
David Orr, Mike Linker North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695
Biological control is, generally, using a biological control are not as dramatic or living organism to control a specific pest. immediate as the results of pesticide use. When you choose a predator, parasite, or Most natural enemies attack only specific disease that will attack a harmful insect, types of insects, whereas broad-spectrum you are manipulating nature to achieve a insecticides may kill a wide range of desired effect. A complete biological pest insects. But this seeming advantage of control program may range from choosing insecticides can be a disadvantage when it the pesticide that is least harmful to kills beneficial insects. beneficial insects to raising and releasing one organism to have it attack another, On your farm, a beneficial insect is any almost like a "living insecticide." insect that preys upon a harmful insect that damages your crops. Beneficial There are advantages to using biological insects are the "good" insects that destroy controls. As part of an overall Integrated insect pests. The beneficial insect might Pest Management (IPM) program, eat the harmful insect immediately, the biological control methods can reduce the harmful insect may be paralyzed and legal, environmental, and health hazards eaten later, or the beneficial insect may of using chemicals in pest management. lay eggs so that its offspring will consume In some cases, biological control measures the harmful insect. For example, lacewing can actually prevent economic damage to larvae eat aphids, paper wasps catch the plants. Unlike most insecticides, caterpillars and feed them to their young, biological controls are often very specific and tiny parasitic wasps lay eggs into for a particular pest. People, animals, or other insects and their offspring eat the helpful insects may be completely insect from within. unaffected or undisturbed by their use. There is also less danger to the There are a variety of ways that beneficial environment and water quality. insects can be used for pest management on a small farm. First, a grower can However, there are also disadvantages to conserve the beneficials already on the using biological control. Biological control farm to take advantage of the natural takes more intensive management and control of insects that they provide. This planning. It can take more time, requires conservation approach to biological control more record-keeping, and demands more can be accomplished by modifying patience and education or training. To be pesticide use practices to favor beneficials. successful, you need to understand the These modifications can include: choosing biology of the pest and its enemies. Many pesticides that are selectively less harmful of the predators you will want to use on to beneficials; spraying only when pest your farm are very susceptible to populations reach economic thresholds, pesticides. Using them successfully in an and using reduced dosages if appropriate. IPM program takes great care. In some cases, biological control is more costly In addition to conserving beneficial insects than pesticides. Often, the results of using and building habitat for them, there is also
139 an option to purchase and release The use of beneficial insect habitat to beneficials into your crops. These improve insect pest management is of predators and parasites may be purchased interest to a number of small farm from supply houses. However, purchasing growers in the southeastern United States. beneficials should be done with a "buyer For example, in 2000, N.G. Creamer beware" attitude. Because the government (North Carolina State University, Raleigh, doesn't regulate this industry, the quality N.C.) and T. Kleese (Carolina Farm of material you could receive varies widely Stewardship Association, Pittsboro, N.C.) among producers and suppliers. To conducted an unpublished survey asking become well informed before choosing a organic growers in North and South supplier of beneficial insects, you can read Carolina what their top ten research needs the NC State University Extension were. Survey results indicated the number publications Purchasing Natural Enemies, one response was “insect pests”. When AG-570-1, and Application of Natural growers were asked to prioritize needs for Enemies, AG-570-2. These articles are resolving pest problems, beneficial insects also available online on the following web and beneficial insect habitat were their site: http://cipm.ncsu.edu/ent/biocontrol/ first and second choices, respectively. For the last three years we have addressed Some of the beneficial insects offered for grower concerns by conducting farm-scale sale may not be suited to our climate, research with commercial beneficial insect may not be appropriate for release in a habitats. We also examined habitats we crop field, or are very specific regarding developed based on literature, experience, which insects they attack. For example, and grower input. Several studies were praying mantids are commonly sold as conducted, and are summarized below. natural insect control. However, mantids tend to be ambush predators, eating A laboratory study evaluated the purity, anything that passes in front of them that composition and germination of four they can subdue. In other words, they do commercial beneficial insect habitat not seek out insects like aphids, mixes. These commercial mixes and our caterpillars, and thrips that are typical own mixes were planted in field plots to garden pests. Therefore, these determine their suitability to being grown entertaining, watchable insects are in the southeast, and to assess supplier essentially useless for pest control. recommendations for planting. Mixes Another example is ladybeetles. A single were planted at different rates, and under lady beetle adult or larva can consume different weeding regimes to examine many aphids. But when hundreds of them habitat development under weed are collected into a container and competition. released, they also tend to fly away and disperse in order to avoid competing with A field study recorded the insect each other for food. Don't forget that communities present in three commonly there has to be a lot of food to support a grown cut flower/ herb plantings (Zinnia, lot of insects. So if your crop is not full of Celosia and fennel) as well as three harmful insects, it won't support large commercially available beneficial insect numbers of beneficial ones. It is best to habitat seed mixes. Insect communities strive for a balance of low levels of both were determined in three ways: 1) foliar harmful and good insects. and floral collections were made using a D-Vac, and insects identified to family and Data at the Small Farm Conference will be assigned to feeding guilds; 2) pitfall traps presented to show evaluations of were used to collect ground beetle and beneficial insect and nematode releases ground-dwelling spider populations; and for insect pest management. We also 3) evening observations recorded visits by show how releases of some beneficial noctuid and hornworm moths to flowers. insects can be improved with a few simple steps.
140 A two year field study was conducted to spring cabbage crops. Parasitism of evaluate the effectiveness of a caterpillar pests and aphids were commercially available beneficial insect assessed, as well as predator numbers. habitat in decreasing pest caterpillar Yield and quality measures were taken at populations in organically managed harvest. tomato plots. Six pairs of tomato plots were established and a commercial Cotton grown conventionally (using Best beneficial insect mix transplanted around Management Practices) was compared the perimeter of treatment plots, while a with organic cotton grown either with or brown-top millet border was planted without surrounding beneficial insect around control plots. Egg parasitism by habitat. Population dynamics of both pest trichogrammatid wasps and larval and predator populations were recorded, parasitism by braconid wasps was using several sampling methods. monitored throughout the growing season Parasitism of key pests was also recorded. to determine if habitat increased their Plant growth was examined during the activity. growing season, and yield and quality measures were taken at harvest. Field studies were conducted to evaluate simple habitats planted within fall and
141 Organic Programs at the Center for Environmental Farming Systems
Nancy Creamer, Mary Barbercheck, Melissa Bell, Cavell Brownie, Alyssa Collins, Ken Fager, Bryan Green, Joel Gruver, Shuijin Hu, Lisa Jackson, Nick Kuminoff, Mike Linker, Frank Louws, Susan Mellage, David Monks, Paul Mueller, Phil Rzewnicki, David Orr, Michelle Schroeder, Cong Tu, Ada Wossink, Steve Koenning, Michael Wagger, Robert Walters North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina
Introduction production while developing The Center for Environmental Farming systems that reduce energy use, Systems (CEFS) is a dynamic 810 ha improve water quality, improve facility located in Goldsboro, North animal health, efficiently utilize Carolina (NC) and is dedicated to animal waste management, and research, education, and outreach in improve quality of life for sustainable agriculture. The Center is a producers. In addition to the joint program between NC State animal production units, integrated University, NC A&T State University, NC animal/crop production studies are Department of Agriculture, stakeholder included within the 200 acre groups and farmers. The Center was experiment mentioned above. initiated in 1994 and focuses several of its · programs on organic research, education, · Organic production facility, unique and outreach. In 1999, CEFS had 32 in the United States for its focus on certified hectares of organic land, the research and education efforts on largest at any University in the United organic agriculture. An early leader States. The development of CEFS in developing information for exemplifies partnership, innovation, and organic production systems, this interdisciplinary cooperation. CEFS has dynamic unit is a focal point for earned an international reputation as a farmer and student education, leader for its: innovative research, and extension · 80 hectare (200 acre) long-term training. interdisciplinary farming systems · experiment that allows · An eight-week residential summer researchers the capacity to internship program in sustainable examine the impact of agriculture agriculture that draws students and natural areas on soil quality, from all over the country and world water quality, carbon for in-depth study of all aspects of sequestration, pest dynamics, plant sustainable agriculture. The growth, development, and yield, program includes lectures, field economics, energy and nutrient trips, special projects, and hands flows, long-term ecological impacts on experience in production, and shifts, and more. research, and extension. · · Innovative animal production · Farmer and extension agent research and demonstration training on pertinent sustainable facilities that focus on projects agriculture topics. These have that enhance the efficiency and included (but are not limited to) economic viability of animal pasture management, rotational
142 grazing strategies, organic including soil quality, pest dynamics, plant agriculture (offered to Extension growth, development, yield, and agents as a graduate level course), economics. The systems being studied disease management, organic grain include a conventional system (sub-plots production, composting, etc. CEFS of till and no-till), an integrated crop also hosts annual field days and animal system with a 15 year rotation, an other educational workshops. organic system, a forestry/woodlot system, and a successional ecosystem · Community-based food systems (Mueller et al, 2002). Nested within this work developing alternative direct large experiment is a study now in its fifth marketing strategies to targeted year that evaluates various transition consumer groups that also educate strategies to organic agriculture. and promote the consumers role in facilitating a more sustainable In the transition from conventional to agriculture. organic production systems, it has been documented that there is a period of Research: A range of research projects is suppressed yields followed by a return to being conducted at CEFS on various yields similar to conventional production. aspects of organic agriculture, including This “transition effect” has been attributed but are not limited to: determining in part to time required for changes in soil mechanisms of cover crop weed chemical, physical, and biological suppression and management strategies properties that govern nutrient cycling, to enhance suppression, evaluation of plant growth and development, and the summer legume and grass cover crops in biological control properties of the system organic vegetable production systems, (Scow et al., 1994; Wander et al., 1994; compost utilization in vegetable and Reganold et al., 1993). agronomic crops, impact of summer cover crops on nutrient dynamics and weed Five strategies of transition are being control in fall broccoli, evaluation of evaluated and compared to a conventional sorghum sudangrass as a summer cover control: immediate substitution of all crop and marketable hay crop for organic conventional inputs with organic no-till production of fall cabbage, management practices and inputs; production practices for new crops like substitution of one of the major classes of edamame (edible vegetable soybean), inputs (fertilizer, herbicide, pesticides conservation tillage systems in organic (insecticides & fungicides)) in the first two sweetpotato production, and breeding a years, followed by a third year where all more allelopathic rye cover crop. classes of synthetic inputs have been replaced in an organic system; and In 1998, an 81-hectare long-term, gradual withdrawal of all classes of inputs interdisciplinary farming systems over the three-year period until an experiment was established to allow organic system is in place by the third researchers the capacity to examine the year (Table1). impact of various agriculture systems and natural areas on a range of parameters
Table 1 Strategy-Treatments YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 1 - Conventional (+ F + H +P) (+ F + H + P) (+F +H + P) 2 - Organic (- F - H - P) (- F - H - P) (- F - H - P) 3 – Organic Fert (- F + H + P) (- F + H + P) (- F - H - P) 4 – Organic Weed (+ F - H + P) (+ F - H + P) (- F - H - P) 5 – Organic Pest (+ F +H - P) ( + F+ H - P) (- F -H -P ) 6 - Gradual Trans (Grad reduc.) (Grad reduc. ) (- F - H - P)
143 zNotation used for treatment identification: [synthetic F (fertilizer), H (herbicide), P (pesticides including insecticides and fungicides)]; - (without), + (with). Grad reduc. (gradual reduction of all synthetic inputs, for example, banding vs. broadcasting. In the second year, only rescue chemical treatments will be applied).
The experiment has two ‘starts’ of the significant treatment or treatment by start following rotation to insure replication in interaction effects for marketable time: soybean, sweetpotato, sweetpotato yields. Percent damage wheat/cabbage. Start 1 began in 2000 and (ANOVA on arcsine transformed data) Start 2 in 2001. A wide range of revealed a treatment effect and a parameters is being measured, including: marginal year by start interaction. aboveground biomass of cover crop and Conventionally managed sweetpotatoes cash crop, soil quality indices (physical, had significantly less damage than those chemical, biological), plant residue managed organically or those gradually decomposition, soil microbiological transitioned to organic in the first start. properties, insects, weeds, disease, crop No significant differences in damage were yield, and economics. The experiment will present in the 2nd start. In 2002, conclude after two rotation cycles (6 conventional wheat yields averaged 44.5 years) until all treatments are certifiable bu/ac and organic wheat yields averaged organic. 39.6 bu/ac, but these were not significantly different. The organic Yield data for the first complete rotation transitional treatment with organic pest cycle is summarized in Table 2. According management but conventional fertilizers to North Carolina Department of yielded higher (46 bu/ac) than the Agriculture, average soybean yield is 38.1 treatment where a gradual reduction of all bushels/acre. In this study, averaged over inputs was employed (35.1 bu/ac). In the two starts, conventional soybean 2003, the conventional wheat yielded yields were 47.2 bushels/acre and organic higher (50.7 bu/ac) than the organic yields were 42.4 bushels/acre. Overall wheat (32.7 bu/ac), most like attributable treatment effect was not significant in to nitrogen deficiency in the organic plots. either 2000 or 2001, nor when averaged Average wheat yield for North Carolina is over starts. Nevertheless, when 41.9 bushels. Cabbage yields in 2003 averaging over starts, and contrasting were very low and not different among between those plots where herbicides treatments due to failure of transplant were used and not, the average yield for supplier to produce quality transplants those treatments with herbicides (1,3,5,6) resulting in a significant delay in planting. were significantly higher than those In 2004, cabbage yields averaged 14,111 treatments without herbicides (2,4). kg/ha in the conventional plots and Average sweetpotato yields in this 10,019 kg/ha in the organic plots but this experiment were 19,461 kg/ha for the was not a significant difference. A conventional system and 17,458 kg/ha for summary of additional data parameters the organic system (statewide average is will also be reported 16,300 kg./ha), however, there were no
144 Soybean Yield kg/ha (bu/ac)
Treatment Start 1 Start 2 Conventional 3262 (48.4) 3104(46.0) Organic 2793 (41.4) 2927 (43.4) Organic Fertilizer 3224 (47.8) 3126 (46.4) Organic Weed 2789 (41.4) 2893 (42.9) Management Organic Pest Management 3140 (46.6) 3074 (45.6) Gradual Transition 3127 (46.4) 2872 (42.6) Ns Ns
Sweetpotato Yield (kg/ha) averaged over both years Start 1 Start 2
Treatment Weight ones Marketable % damage % damage Conventional 20,914 19,469 6.7 a 6.9 Organic 22,004 17,458 38.3 b 8.9 Organic Fertilizer 22,400 19,122 23.0 ab 8.1 Organic Weed Mngt 22,432 19,727 22.7 ab 6.5 Organic Pest Mngtt 21,600 19,371 19.6 ab 5.1 Gradual Transition 21,834 17,216 40.6 b 8.3 Ns Ns p=0.05 ns
Wheat Yield kg/ha (bu/ac) Treatment Start 1 Start 2 Conventional 3003 (44.5) ab 3418 (50.7) a Organic 2667 (39.5) bc 2205 (32.7) bc Organic Fertilizer 2982 (44.2) ab 2881 (42.7) ab Organic Weed 2786 (41.3) abc 2244 (33.3) bc Management Organic Pest Management 3101 (46.0) a 1774 (26.3) c Gradual Transition 2369 (35.1) c 2743 (40.7) abc p=.029 p=.058
Marketable Cabbage Yield (kg/ha) Treatment Start 1 Start 2 Conventional 1382 14,111 Organic 4077 10,019 Organic Fertilizer 3248 14,677 Organic Weed 2839 11,092 Management Organic Pest Management 3977 12,261 Gradual Transition 4059 14,130 Ns ns
Table2. Yields for the first three rotational crops managed with different transitional strategies.
Educational programs: The CEFS draws students from all the US and world undergraduate education programs for in-depth study of all aspects of include an 8 week residential internship sustainable agriculture. The program program in sustainable agriculture that includes lectures, field trips, special
145 projects, and hands on experience. In under development, as is a course in addition to organic agriculture, topics organic agriculture to be offered through include soil quality and management, the Horticultural Science Department. The sustainable animal production systems, new course in Organic Horticulture will integrated crop/animal production, pest outline the principles that form the basis ecology, social and economic issues in for organic horticultural production agriculture. Each intern begins their systems. Special attention will be given to internship by selecting a personal research soil fertility, organic soil amendments, or demonstration/extension project compost and mulches, crop rotation, plant located at one of the CEFS units. Interns health, management of diseases and choosing a research project can pests, companion planting, and produce participate as a team member in one of storage/handling and marketing. the ongoing research activities at CEFS, Additional topics will include making the select an activity from a list provided by transition to organic production, and faculty, or design a special project definition and legislation of organic food specifically for them. Interns participate within and outside the U.S. in fieldwork related to the project, data collection and analysis, collecting Outreach: Farmer and extension agent background information, and preparation training on pertinent sustainable of research reports. Interns also have the agriculture topics have included (but are opportunity to be involved in the not limited to) organic agriculture, organic production of organically grown crops on disease management, organic grain the student farm at the Organic Unit. production, composting, pasture Educational activities include farm-scale management, rotational grazing compost production, operation of trickle strategies, and others. More than 50 and overhead irrigation systems, pest agents participated in a series of monitoring and implementation of pest workshops that were offered as in-service control measures suitable for organic crop training and as a graduate level North production, cultivation, operation and Carolina State University (NCSU) course repair of farm equipment, and production, worth four credits (Creamer et al, 2000). harvesting, packing, transporting, and The Organic Unit at the Center for marketing of vegetables and fruit. From Environmental Farming Systems (CEFS the kick-off canoe trip down the served as a home base for training environmentally sensitive Neuse River that activities. These training activities surrounds CEFS, to the final Field Day that consisted of lectures, hands-on highlights their learning over the eight demonstrations, group discussions, field weeks, we believe that immersion in this trips, and class exercises. Two unique program will build social capital as these features of the workshops were the students go on to be teachers, policy interdisciplinary, team teaching approach makers, lawyers, agricultural scientists, and the emphasis on integration of and community leaders. Their goals are information about interactions among admirable and their ideals run deep. production practices. Interdisciplinary Fostering their commitment to agricultural teaching teams allowed for a full, sustainability has been a truly inspirational integrated treatment of subject matter experience for all involved faculty. and present a “whole systems” perspective to agents. Complementary on-campus educational initiatives that include organic agriculture Community-based food systems work that and utilize the CEFS facility are increasing focuses on developing alternative direct as well. A new Agroecology minor is marketing strategies to targeted consumer being offered through the Crop Science groups have also been initiated. These Department at NC State that includes two programs focus on educating consumers newly developed courses in agroecology. about the importance of their role in A PhD minor is Sustainable Agriculture is facilitating a more sustainable agriculture,
146 and on providing economically viable Mueller, J.P., M. E. Barbercheck, M. E., M. options for farmers. Two major projects Bell, C. Brownie, N. G. Creamer, S. have been initiated. The first involves Hu, L. King, H.M. Linker, F.J. direct farm-to-market sales a major Louws, M. Marra, C. W. industrial park (RTP). With 43,000 Raczkowski, D. Susko, M.G. employees at RTP, direct connections to Wagger. 2002. Development and farmers supported by these companies will Implementation of a Long-Term bring significant economic development to Agricultural Systems Study: rural areas in surrounding counties. The Challenges and Opportunities. second project provides direct connections HortTechnology. 12(3): 362-368. between sustainable pork producers and Reganold, J. P., L.F. Elliott and Y.L. Unger. consumers. The NC Choices project, 1987. Long-term effects of organic funded by the WK Kellogg project is and conventional farming on soil designed to help alternative pork erosion. Nature 330:370-372. producers market their products and will Scow, K.M., O.Somasco, N. Gunapala, S. pair pork sellers and buyers via the Web. Lau, R. Venette, H. Ferris, R. Miller, This project is being reported on and C. Shennan. 1994. Transition separately, and the complete description from conventional to low-input can also be found in these IFOAM agriculture changes soil fertility and proceedings. biology. California Ag. 48:20-26 Wander, M.M., S.J. Traina, B.R.. Stineer, and S.E. Peters. 1994. Organic and conventional management References effects on biologically active soil Creamer, N.G., K.R. Baldwin, F.J. Louws. organic matter pools. Soil Sci. Soc. 2000. A training series for Am. J. 58:1130-1139. Cooperative Extension Agents in Organic Farming Systems. HortTechnology 10(4) 675-681.
147 Experiences And Lessons Learned While Providing Outreach To Latino Farmworkers And Farmers On Organic Agriculture And Related Topics
Martin Guerena National Center for Appropriate Technology Davis, California
The National Center for Appropriate La Certificación para Granjas Technology (NCAT, www.ncat.org) is a Orgánicas y el Programa Orgánico private nonprofit, founded in 1976 with Nacional offices in Butte, Montana; Fayetteville, http://www.attra.org/espanol/pdf/certi Arkansas; and Davis, California. NCAT ficacion_organicas.pdf manages projects which promote self- Strawberries: Organic and IPM reliance (especially for low-income people) Options; Fresas Organicas Y Opciones through wise use of appropriate and Para el Manejo Integrado de Plagas environmentally sound technology. NCAT http://www.attra.org/attra- program areas are sustainable energy, pub/PDF/fresas.pdf and sustainable agriculture and rural development. NCAT manages the ATTRA Specialty Lettuce and Greens: Organic project (www.attra.org)–the National Production; Producción Orgánica de Sustainable Agriculture Information Lechugas de Especialidad y Verduras Service. ATTRA is funded by a grant from Para Ensalada USDA’s Rural Business-Cooperative http://www.attra.org/espanol/pdf/Lech Service. The ATTRA service provides ugas.pdf information and other technical assistance In addition to ATTRA funded work, we to farmers, ranchers, Extension agents, have received grants from other educators, and others involved in organizations to develop materials and sustainable agriculture in the United workshops for Spanish speaking clients. States. The ATTRA project is staffed by The following is a summary of completed more than 20 NCAT agricultural specialists and ongoing projects. with diverse backgrounds in livestock, horticulture, soils, organic farming, Risk Management: Non-traditional integrated pest management, and other outreach project sustainable agriculture specialties. The curriculum and educational materials In 2002 ATTRA services were expanded to for this project were developed through serve the growing Hispanic population the support of USDA’s Risk Management involved in agriculture. A toll free Agency Outreach program. The idea was bilingual telephone information line was to develop approaches and methods for initiated at 800 411-3222. The ATTRA training farmers in risk management This website added a Spanish section with effort focused first on identifying gaps in weblinks to various Spanish language risk management skills of the farmers, sustainable agriculture links from the US, then developing a curriculum to address Latin America and Spain. Additionally the gaps. In our case, we knew the ATTRA has developed several Spanish audience in advance, and developed a publications: survey which was designed to outline knowledge gaps. The target audience was Organic Farm Certification & the a cooperative of Latino organic farmers in National Organic Program Hollister California.
148 The curriculum is best used as a guide to The following useful stand-alone provide some ideas about how to materials are available, as well. English approach non-traditional risk management versions of these documents can be found training. Other educational “stand-alone” in the English Participants Workbook on materials may be useful for short courses the page numbers in parentheses noted on marketing, record-keeping and farm below. Spanish versions are PDF files planning. In the past, much risk available for download. management has focused on various kinds of crop insurance. However, in order for a · Marketing Channel Tip Sheet: Food farmer to access crop insurance, Service Jobber (28) / Mayorista de subsidized loan programs, etc, other skills Servicio de Alimentos (8 kb) must first be developed: record keeping, · Marketing Channel Tip Sheet: Terminal cash flow budgeting, understanding Markets (30) / Terminal de Mercados contracts, and planning for one’s (8 kb) markets—these are the skills targeted by · Marketing Channel Tip Sheet: Farmers the materials listed below which can be Markets, Roadside Stands, and CSA's downloaded on the ATTRA website: (32) / Marketing Channel Tip Sheet: http://www.attra.org/risk_management/r Restaurants (24) / Mercado Directo al mgateway.html or a CD ROM can be Consumidor (9kb) ordered at 800 346-9140. · Marketing Channel Tip Sheet: Independent and Small Grocery Stores Trainers’ Manual: PDF, 610kb. This is a (26) / Tiendas de Abarrotes Equines e user-friendly curriculum that guides the Independientes (10 kb) trainer in six risk management lessons · Golden Rules of Marketing (22) / which focus on identifying farm family Expanded Golden Rules of Marketing goals, marketing, managing money (23) / La- Regla de Oro del Mercadeo (individual cash flow budgeting), planting (12 kb) for multiple markets, and contracts and · Ten Questions to Ask Before Signing a regulations Contract (61) / Diez preguntas para http://www.attra.org/risk_management/W hacer (y contestar) antes de firmar un orkbooks/TrainersEng.pdf contrato (6 kb) · Cashflow Budgeting Spreadsheet (40) Participants Workbook: PDF, 850kb. / Presupuestos de Entradas / salidas (Also available in Spanish, Part 1, 4.8 mb, de Fondos (Microsoft Excel, 19 kb) and Part 2, 3.8 mb). This document is used in conjunction with the Trainers Lessons learned from this project: Manual as a teaching support. It is divided It is very important to develop a 1. into 6 lesson sections and contains curriculum that first meets the needs handouts and worksheets that pertain to identified by the farmers and balance each lesson. that with providing training in skills that surveys and observations Overheads: PDF, 141kb. (Also available indicate there are knowledge/skills in Spanish, 162 kb) These are used in gaps. conjunction with the Trainers Manual as a Communicate with the folks that will teaching support. Some of these 2. documents are also "stand-alones". be participating in the training. Listen to their needs with respect to timing, Introduction to Risk Management duration, venue, and content. Be flexible. We changed the course Survey, Risk Management Survey and 3. the Survey Results are included in content to address topics of priority both website and CD in both Spanish concern to growers, as well as to and English (Survey Results in English accommodate speakers’ schedules. only) We reserved time in the final session to focus on topics of interest and
149 concern to the growers. El Manejo de Enfermedades de Do not assume literacy on the part of Planta 4. http://www.attra.org/espanol/pdf/orga participants—reading levels may vary nic_ipm/disease_mgmt.pdf from college level, to primary school, Plant Disease Management to functionally illiterate. Do not http://www.attra.org/attra- equate literacy with intelligence! Use pub/PDF/IPM/disease.pdf of detailed forms, etc, must be geared to the literacy level of El Manejo de Malezas participants. http://www.attra.org/espanol/pdf/orga Farmers are very busy. Every effort 5. nic_ipm/weed_mgmt.pdf should be made to make the training Weed Management interesting, compelling and fun. http://www.attra.org/attra- If at all possible, try to develop a 6. pub/PDF/IPM/weed.pdf trusting relationship with one or more of the farmers prior to the El Manejo de Plagas de actual training. We met with the Vertebrados farmers several times prior to the http://www.attra.org/espanol/pdf/orga start of the training, and each time nic_ipm/vertebrate_mgmt.pdf we met, we learned more about their Vertebrate Pest Management operation and situation. An http://www.attra.org/attra- icebreaker on the front end of the pub/PDF/IPM/vertebrate.pdf training course, particularly if trainers have not had extended A CD ROM with both the English and contact with participants, is Spanish versions can also be ordered free recommended. of charge at: 800 346-9140.
Organic Pest Management: Training These materials were received with great and Organic IPM Pictorial Guides in enthusiasm by participants of the Spanish and English workshops due to the ease by which they are able to follow the presentation with This project was partially funded through out having to concentrate on taking notes. the Organic Farming and Research Most participants in these workshops are Foundation. It consisted of developing organic farmers in training at the Spanish language training for farmers on Agricultural Land Based Training organic/biointensive integrated pest Association (ALBA) in Salinas and farmers management. Power point slides used in and Agricultural professionals involved in the training were condensed into a graphic one day IPM workshops from Central heavy, laminated field guide that can be California. The guides have also been used to identify beneficial insects, insect used at several workshops funded by pests, diseases, weeds and vertebrate CSREES/OASDFR (a 2501 project) pests. Participants are able to follow the presentation with the guides and later use Outreach to minority and them out in the field. These field guides disadvantaged farmers are available on the ATTRA web page: “Record Keeping for Success: Linking Record Keeping, Profits and Personal Los Insectos Benéficos, Plagas y Goals” is the title of this project, funded Hábitat para los Benéficos by USDA’s CSREES/OASDFR program. http://www.attra.org/espanol/pdf/orga Materials developed from other project nic_ipm/insect_mgmt.pdf work (funded by RMA and OFRF) as well Beneficials, Beneficial Habitat and as ATTRA materials on organic farming Insect Pests and the national organic program are used http://www.attra.org/attra- to train farmworkers and farmers. The pub/PDF/IPM/insects.pdf training focuses on record keeping,
150 budgeting, how these practices are sustainable and organic agriculture are important for every day life and for going introduced. The Organic IPM field guide into business, especially organic farming. presentation is used to bring many of the This training includes a hands-on concepts into their situations. California budgeting exercise, with participants Farmlink, one of the collaborators, forming teams to work on a personal introduces Individual Development budget using pay stubs and receipts Accounts (IDAs), in which a third party provided by NCAT staff. Receipts range matches farmer’s savings 3:1. This from groceries to utility bills. The pay money may be used for purchase of land stubs vary so that some budgets come up or farm equipment. Other collaborators short. Participants discuss what could be on this project include Farmworker done to stay within the budget and what Institute for Education and Leadership to do about the shortfall and the surplus. Development (FIELDS), and California Other training components are organic Human Development Corporation (CHDC), farming and the importance of record both responsible for providing a venue for keeping and documentation. Basic the workshop as well as for recruiting of coverage of the national organic program, participants. certification procedures as well as environmental and ecological concepts such as food webs and their relationship to
151 The Economics of Organic and Grazing Dairy Farms
Tom Kriegl University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin
The following researchers are leading the Management Intensive Rotational Grazing project in their respective states: Jim (MIRG) has become a more common dairy Endress (Illinois), Larry Tranel and Robert system in the northern U. S. This analysis Tigner (Iowa), Ed Heckman (Indiana), Bill of actual farm financial data from 101 Bivens, Phil Taylor, and Chris Wolf graziers in 2004, 102 in 2003, 103 in (Michigan), Margot Rudstrom (Minnesota), 2002, 126 in 2001, and 92 in 2000 from Tony Rickard (Missouri) Jim Grace (New the Great Lakes region provides some York), Thomas Noyes and Clif Little insight into the economics of grazing as a (Ohio), Jack Kyle and John Molenhuis dairy system in the northern U.S.: (Ontario, Canada), J. Craig Williams (Pennsylvania), and Tom Kriegl and Gary There is a range of profitability amongst Frank (Wisconsin). Any opinions, findings, graziers. The most profitable half had conclusions or recommendations an advantage of $2.48 in Net Farm expressed in this publication are those of Income from Operations per the authors and do not necessarily reflect Hundredweight Equivalent (NFIFO/CWT the view of the U.S. Department of EQ) over the least profitable half in Agriculture. 2004. This result is similar to the four previous years, but the difference Overview between the higher and lower profit The data and conclusions of this paper are herds was greater in the years with derived from USDA Initiative for Future lower milk prices. Agricultural and Food Systems (IFAFS) The average grazing herd with less than Grant project #00-52101-9708. Some 100 cows had a higher NFIFO per cow strengths of this work include and per CWT EQ than the average standardized data handling and analysis grazing herd with more than 100 cows in procedures, combined actual farm data of 2004. The $1.03 advantage in ten states and one province to provide NFIFO/CWT EQ for the smaller herds financial benchmarks to help farm families was highly dependent on a $0.88 per and their communities be successful and CWT EQ advantage in the cost of paid sustainable. The main report is also based labor. This result is similar to the four upon work supported by Smith-Lever previous years. funds from the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Careful examination of the data suggests Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. that achieving a given level of NFIFO per The full report is available at cow or per CWT EQ is more difficult in a http://cdp.wisc.edu/Great%20Lakes.htm seasonal (stops milking at least one day each calendar year) system. The Participating grazing dairy farms must average seasonal herd had a smaller typically obtain 85% or more of gross range of financial performance within a income from milk sales, or 90% of gross year, but experienced more variability of income from dairy livestock sales plus milk financial performance from year to year. sales, harvest over 30% of grazing season Seasonal herds had a slight advantage in forage by grazing and must provide fresh NFIFO/Cow and per CWT EQ in 2003 and pasture at least once every three days. a large advantage in 2001 and 2004.
152 The non-seasonal herds had nearly a Total Cost is all cash and non-cash costs two-to-one advantage in NFIFO/Cow and including the opportunity cost of unpaid per CWT EQ in 2000 and 2002. labor, management and capital supplied by the owning family. The graziers in the study were economically competitive with Allocated Cost equals total cost minus confinement herds in the states that had the opportunity cost of unpaid labor, comparable data from both groups in management and capital supplied by the five consecutive years. owning family. Allocated cost also equals total income minus NFIFO. While breed of cattle is a minor factor affecting profitability, the Holstein herds Basic Costs are all the cash and non-cash in the data had better financial costs except the opportunity costs and performance in four years of interest, non-livestock depreciation, labor, comparisons. and management. Basic cost is a useful measure for comparing one farm to The study also confirms that accounting another that differs by: the amount of methodology and financial standards are paid versus unpaid labor; the amount of important both in the accuracy and in the paid versus unpaid management; the standardization of comparison values amount of debt; the investment level; across large geographic areas that involve and/or the capital consumption claimed different combinations of production (depreciation). assets and management skills. In comparing the results of this study with Non-Basic Costs include interest, non- other data, it will help to understand the livestock depreciation, labor, and measures used here but not in all places management. Allocated cost minus basic in the country. cost equals non-basic cost.
Here are a few key terms used and more The Average Performance of 101 fully explained in the full report: Grazing Dairy Farms in 2004, 102 in 2003, 103 in 2002, 126 in 2001 and Cost per Hundredweight Equivalent of 92 in 2000.The grazing dairy farm Milk Sold (CWT EQ) is an indexing families that provided usable data display procedure which focuses on the primary an average financial performance level product that is sold and standardizes that many farm families would be satisfied farms in terms of milk price and many with. This level of financial performance, other variables for analysis purposes. The along with some other characteristics of Cost of Production calculated for any two grazing systems, suggest that it may be a farms using the CWT EQ method are viable alternative for farm families who directly comparable. The Cost of want to be financially successful, Production calculated for farms using the especially with a dairy farm that relies cost per product unit (hundredweight) sold primarily on family labor. method are not directly comparable. The measures of profitability calculated in A comprehensive evaluation of the cost of the detailed cost of production and farm production of any business will examine earnings reports in the full report are several levels of cost. AgFA© is the name calculated using the historic cost asset of the web-based, farm financial analysis valuation method (HC) to provide a better and summarization computer program measure of profit levels generated by used in this study. The AgFA© Cost of operating the farm business. Any Production report calculates basic, non- comparison between the measures in this basic, allocated and total costs. report and data based on the Current Market Value (CMV) of assets will be misleading.
153 Production Costs on Selected Multi- they “join the project.” At times farms State Organic Dairy Farms may slip into and out of the above stages Potential organic dairy producers want to or categories, especially between certified know three things about the economic organic and certified market organic. impact of choosing that system: Some certified organic producers only obtain organic premiums for part of the 1. What are the potential rewards year. When that happens, additional once the goal is achieved? judgment will be required to determine 2. How long will it take to attain the the best way to sort the data. goal? 3. What will it cost to attain the goal? Data from organic dairy herds are scarce. Consequently, analyzing the economic To date, there are 10 usable observations performance of organic farms is fairly from certified market organic farms in complex. It is often said “when switching 2001, 11 in 2002, 14 in 2003, and 13 in from conventional to organic, things will 2004. Of these organic farms, six get worse before they will get better.” To practiced management intensive rotational better understand and fairly compare the grazing (MIRG) in 2001, seven in 2002, financial performance of organic farms, ten in 2003 and nine in 2004. Most of the the stages of progression of individual organic herds are from Wisconsin. More organic farms should be recognized. than half of these farms are from Wisconsin. This small number of This project seeks data from farms in each summarized organic dairy farms may of the following stages or categories of not be representative of even the dairy organic production: farms receiving organic milk prices the entire year. A. Pre-organic- The period of operation of a farm before it This is what we can confidently say attempted to become organic. about the economics of the Since anyone not attempting to summarized organic dairy farms. become organic could be called pre-organic, it may not be as 1. Clearly a number of individual farms important to gather data from are achieving financial success with that period as it is to gather an organic system (the total number data from farms at some other of organic farms is still a small “organic stage.” percent of the total). B. Transitional organic- The period 2. Organic producers receiving organic of operation of a farm from the prices are more competitive with time it began to adopt organic other dairy systems in years that the practices until achieving organic national average milk price is low. certification. This is expected 3. The three to five year transition from to be the least profitable stage a “conventional” system to organic is C. Certified organic- The period of often challenging financially and operation of a farm from the other ways. We have been trying to time it achieved organic measure the long-term financial certification until receiving impact of this transition. organic milk price premiums. 4. For those farms (we’ve encountered D. Certified market organic- The a few of these) whose routine period of operation of a farm practices for the past three or more during which it receives organic years just happen to meet organic milk price premiums. requirements, about the only downside to becoming certified and In reality, few farms will supply financial obtaining organic prices is the cost of data from years prior to the point at which
154 and record keeping effort to become categories between organic and grazing certified. herds, organic herds had lower purchased 5. The jury is still out regarding many feed costs from 2001 to 2004. Their other economic questions about advantage ranged from $0.43 to organic dairy farming. More data will $1.26/CWT EQ. be collected from the ten states and province. Economic data is being In contrast, organic herds had higher collected from organic dairy farms in costs all four years in the categories of: Vermont and Maine via a separate repairs, interest, gas, fuel and oil, paid USDA grant. There is an opportunity non-dependent labor, non-livestock to compare data from both projects depreciation. Organic herds had higher for mutual benefit. costs in three of four years in the categories of: taxes, seeds supplies. Additional observations The average organic dairy farm that Given the higher market price commanded submitted data in 2004, 2003 and 2001 by organic hay and grain, it might be was smaller, sold slightly fewer pounds of surprising that organic dairy farms have milk per cow and per farm than the lower purchased feed costs than many average grazing herd. The average other dairy systems. The higher price of organic dairy farm that submitted data in organic hay and grain provides a powerful 2002 was larger, sold fewer lbs. of milk incentive for organic dairy farmers to raise per cow, but more lbs. of milk per farm most of their livestock feed. It does than the average grazing herd in 2002. appear that most organic dairy farmers in The amount of NFIFO generated each year Wisconsin raise a high proportion of their by the average organic farm was enough feed just as most Wisconsin traditional to satisfy most farm managers. This is confinement dairy farms do. The only explained in part by higher average price other Wisconsin dairy farm system with a per CWT of milk sold by the organic herds. lower cost of purchased feed per CWT EQ from 2001 to 2004 are the confinement Their milk price was $20.79 compared to herd sizes less than 150 cows. Most of the $15.68 for the average grazier in 2004, Wisconsin confinement farms with less $20.42 compared to $15.22 for the than 150 cows could be called traditional average grazier in 2003, $19.57 compared confinement farms. to $13.73 for the average grazier in 2002, and $19.99 compared to $16.31 for the Away from the Corn Belt, it appears like it average grazier in 2001. is more difficult for organic dairy producers to raise most of their own grain. The multi-state organic dairy farms had a The project data shows that graziers in the NFIFO/CWT EQ advantage over the eastern states have higher purchased feed confinement farms that were compared costs than graziers in the mid west. The with the multi-state grazing herds from cost of purchasing organic grain also 2001 to 2004. appears to be much higher the farther away one goes from the Corn Belt. In two of four years, the summarized multi-state organic farms had an What’s Next? advantage in NFIFO/CWT EQ over multi- The standardization of data handling and state grazing farms of $0.68 and $0.27 in analysis procedures in this project relies 2002 and 2003 respectively. In two of four heavily on the Farm Financial Standards years, multi-state graziers had an Guidelines (revised December, 1997). advantage in NFIFO/CWT EQ over multi- This and AgFA© opens the door to state organic farms of $0.40 in 2004 and standarized multi-state analysis of other $0.41 in 2001. enterprises for which data can be collected. Additional data and enterprises Continuing to compare individual cost are desired for the project.
155 Genetic Diversity in Watermelon Possible Future Benefits for Organic and Small Farmers
Amnon Levi, Judy Thies and Alvin Simmons USDA-ARS Charleston, South Carolina
Watermelon is a major vegetable crop and nutritional deficiencies. Wild forms of grown in 44 states in the U.S. Watermelon watermelon collected throughout the production has increased from 1.2 M tons world contain resistance to various in 1980 to 3.9 M tons in 2003 with a $310 diseases and pests. The wild watermelon million farm value (National Watermelon collection is stored at the USDA, ARS, Promotion Board; www.watermelon.org). Plant Genetic Resources and Conservation In recent years there has been an Unit in Griffin, Georgia (www.ars- increased demand for seedless grin.gov). Researchers at the U.S. watermelon. As a result, over 60% of Vegetable Laboratory in Charleston, SC, watermelons produced in the U.S. during evaluated the collection of wild 2004 were seedless types. There is a watermelons which is maintained by the continuous need to develop new seedless USDA, ARS and identified watermelon watermelon varieties suitable to consumer plants with resistance to nematodes, demands. Most of the watermelon whiteflies, and spidermites. The cultivars developed in the U.S. during the researchers are initiating efforts to last 200 years have a narrow genetic incorporate pest resistance of the wild background. As a result, the watermelon watermelons into watermelon cultivars so cultivars are susceptible to a large number that small and organic farmers can plant of diseases and pests. There is a great them without using pesticides to control need to enhance resistance to diseases these pests. and pests in watermelon cultivars. Whiteflies, spidermites and nematodes are Modern agriculture, which focuses on most considered major pests of watermelon. profitable crops, reduces the diversity of Whiteflies and spidermites can cause vegetable and fruits throughout the world. sever damages to watermelon in fields by USDA, ARS researchers are making great sucking on the plants, and by transmitting efforts to collect and preserve genetic harmful viruses into watermelon plants. material (germplasm) of vegetables and The root-knot nematodes are microscopic fruits from all over the world. However, worm-like organisms that often feed on small farmers also have an important role roots of many types of plants, including in collecting and preserving seeds of watermelon. As a result, water and important vegetables and fruits that can nutrient flow into the plant are reduced; be useful for future generations. the plants are weakened and become vulnerable to fungal diseases and environmental stress such as heat, water,
156 Enhancing Research and Extension to Serve Organic Agriculture: The NEON Experience
Anusuya Rangarajan Cornell University Ithaca, New York
Over the last ten years, we have seen Organic Farmers and Gardeners more than a doubling in the amount of Association have over twenty years of land in certified organic production. In experience supporting organic farmers and 2001, census data indicated that around consumers in the region, including 1.3 million acres of crop land and 1 million research, extension, outreach and acres of pasture land were certified community building. Historically, little to organic. In 1992, there was about no support came from land grant 400,000 acres of certified crop land and universities or other research institutions. 500,000 acres of certified pasture land. The 1997 publication “Searching for the This increase in acreage has been spurred "O-Word”: An Analysis of the USDA by increased organic market share. The Current Research Information System U.S. leads the world in organic food sales. (CRIS) for Pertinence to Organic Farming”, In 2000, the value was near $8 billion by Mark Lipson, and the “State of the dollars. It was also the first year that States: Organic Farming Systems organic sales through commercial Research at Land Grant Institutions 2001- mainstream markets exceeded those of 2003”, compiled by Jane Sooby, published health food stores. Only about 3% of the by the Organic Farming Research total production was sold directly to Foundation, did much to draw attention of consumers. Analysis of farm data in USDA and Land Grant Universities to this 2002, by the ERS lack of support for organic agriculture. (www.ers.usda.gov/Data/organic/) has shown that in the Northeast, most states Despite the general lack of support from have between 240 and 1,020 certified regional universities, there has always organic farms, and this represents a been a small subset researchers and regional concentration of organic farms extension educators committed to growing compared to much of the rest of the the Northeast organic agriculture sector. country. Only in the upper Midwest, with From this commitment grew the Northeast Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa, is there a Organic Network (NEON). NEON was similar regional concentration of organic funded in 2001, the second year of the farm numbers. Most of the farms in the USDA Initiative for Future Agriculture and Northeast are small acreage vegetable Food Systems Program. The project was producers selling to local direct markets or funded at $1.2 million, for 3 years. Key via Community Supported Agriculture, team members and their institutions capturing some portion of that 3% of the included: direct retail market. Brian Caldwell and Sarah Johnston, Northeast Organic Farming The growth in organic farming in the Association of NY Northeast is a direct result of the Karen Anderson, Northeast Organic commitment and innovation of the Farming Association of NJ growers themselves. The growers and Sue Ellen Johnson, New England their organizations have done most of Small Farm Institute their own research, development and Marianne Sarrantonio, University of education to help grow their farms and Maine this sector. The Northeast Organic Kim Stoner, Connecticut Farming Association and the Maine Agriculture Experiment Station
157 Charles Mohler, Tony Shelton, interactions on 11 successful Laurie Drinkwater, Wen Fei Uva, organic farms in the Northeast David Conner, Anu Rangarajan, Meg McGrath, Cornell University NEON’s products include: Three Regional Coordinators · Economic analysis and validated The project was designed collaboratively enterprise budgets for the and focused on annual organic cropping Northeast systems. Details can be found at · Organic Agriculture Nutrient www.neon.cornell.edu . Management Planner · Crop Rotation Planning Manual The guiding principles for NEON’s · Resource Guide for Organic Insect approach must include a systems and Disease Management approach to learn best strategies to · Real World Organics: Case Studies enhance the viability, productivity and of Exemplary Organic Farms of the environmental stewardship of Northeast Northeast organic farms. This is best accomplished · Organic research and extension using multidisciplinary teams of priorities for NE (see website) researchers, organic community leaders · ‘Who’s Who’: Agricultural and growers. We recognize that much of professionals in the Northeast the knowledge and expertise in organic supporting organic production and agriculture lies with the farmers marketing (see website) themselves. We hope to complement this knowledge with directed research and Economic Research Outcomes education programs that can lead to The intent of this research was to create further improvement in organic farming initial benchmarks for organic enterprise strategies on established organic farms. costs, based upon true production costs of We purposefully chose not to work with highly experienced, established organic transitioning farms, since they are the farms. Using the data collected through target of other research efforts around the the case study farms, detailed enterprise country (Organic Agriculture Consortium, budgets were developed for several crops, IFAFS funded in 2000). We wanted to including: lettuce, beets, garlic, leverage the university and industry strawberries, tomato, winter squash, bell resources to enhance the functioning of pepper, kale, onions, green beans, established organic farms. NEON’s specific parsnips, corn grain and silage, soy, spelt, objectives have been to: wheat (Table 1). This information was · Build and strengthen NE organic used to calculate break-even price points networks and profit per acre, based upon average · Conduct economic analysis and test prices received by the farmer. This data enterprise budgets to assess was integrated with other information organic farm profitability from the case farms to create Whole Farm · Conduct applied research to Business Summaries. This information is address specific ‘knowledge gaps’ being published with the case studies. and develop decision support tools from this work · Highlight biological and financial
158 Table 1. Yield, price, earnings and revenue for parsnips and butternut squash grown on an established organic farm in the Northeast.
Organic Nutrient Management can be made on nutrient content of Planning harvested vegetables. The goal is to be This research, led by Dr. Laurie able to estimate the amount of nutrient Drinkwater, at Cornell, is focused on export if you know your yields. This could understanding the cycling of nutrients on then be inputted into a nutrient ‘balance organic farms. That includes inputs, sheet’ to determine when and where cycling within the soil and finally exports additional fertility may be warranted. It or outputs as harvested crops. can also be used to estimate how rotations Understanding the flow of nutrients will and inputs are contributing to longer term improve the efficiency of nutrient inputs as build-up of nutrients in organically well as reduced risks of non-intended managed (or other) fields. exports- through leaching and run-off. Because soil management on organic Crop Rotation Planning Manual farms is based upon organic matter Understanding how crop rotations might inputs, traditional soil tests to not always be improved on organic farms, to improve accurately predict the amount of available pest suppression or meet other goals nutrients. This research aims to design remains an important research need for other approaches to nutrient management organic farming system design. The first on organic farms. Estimating nutrient part of NEON’s work related to crop additions includes common tests for rotation planning focused on nutrient content as well as estimates that understanding how expert organic are grower friendly. As an example, vegetable farmers design and adjust their estimating nitrogen contribution from rotations to meet their goals, and this was green manures is challenging to growers. facilitated by Dr. Sue Ellen Johnson of the Simple measures of height and density are New England Small Farm Institute. We being tested to see if these can be used a model that was developed by accurately correlated to biomass and educators called Develop a Curriculum nitrogen additions, prior to turning in a (DACUM). The DACUM philosophy states green manure. As far as outputs, over 300 that expert workers are best able to analyses of different vegetable crops and describe what it takes to be successful at cultivars have been conducted to their job, and this success is directly determine at what level generalizations related to the knowledge, skills, tools and
159 attitudes that workers must possess to Real World Organics: Case Studies of perform the tasks correctly. We Exemplary Organic Farms of the Northeast assembled a panel of 12 expert organic Finally, NEON’s largest project is the vegetable growers that spent two days interdisciplinary study of 11 exemplary brainstorming duties (areas of organic farms in the Northeast. These competence) and tasks (specific to duties) farms were nominated by their peers as need to successfully plan and execute crop being successful organic farms. A list of rotations. This is the first time that this the farms is available at the NEON type of approach has been used with website. We seek to accurately describe growers to model management of a management, biological and economic biological system. What was very exciting interactions on these farms for several about the process was that not only were goals: these excellent growers able to share their · To highlight the diversity of organic knowledge in a structured way, they too agriculture in the Northeast reported deepening their own · To identify new research questions understanding of the complexity of crop for more disciplinary scientists rotation design. The information they · To describe these needs to the generated was summarized into a DACUM public and to policy makers chart (see website), and has been · To examine one approach to incorporated into a more in-depth manual multidisciplinary research on crop rotation planning, led by Dr. Chuck Mohler at Cornell, that includes On each farm, we have picked a few focal background information on crop rotation crops for in-depth study. The questions planning, transition, example rotations we seek to answer, for each farm include: and methods to plan and evaluate organic · What are the production strategies rotations. & yields of key crops? · What are the weed problems and Organic Rescue Treatments how are they managed? Currently, there is very little data available · How do farmers determine crop on efficacy of organic pest control mix and rotations? materials. A NEON team collated and · What are the problem pests for key evaluated what data is available on crops and how are they managed? several materials. That summary is now · What practices are used on the available, and is titled the “Resource farm to manage soil health & Guide for Organic Insect and Disease fertility? Management.” Led by Brian Caldwell, this · How do farmers determine the crop publication summarizes the available mix and evaluate the business efficacy data on 13 organic spray profitability? materials and provides pest management · What are some financial approaches for five vegetable families. All benchmarks for successful organic the information is now available on line via farming operations? http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/resourc eguide/ or the NEON website. Hard copies Cases are currently being reviewed and can also be ordered. will be posted as soon as approved by farmers.
160 Organic Research and Demonstrations at Kentucky State University
Michael Bomford Kentucky State University Frankfort, Kentucky
Only twelve Kentucky farms are certified ecological study comparing organic, organic operations, but many more of the conventional, and genetically modified state’s farmers are interested in organic sweet corn production systems agriculture. In April, 2005 Kentucky State (Contact Dr.John Sedlacek, 502-597- University (KSU) hosted a full-day 6582; [email protected]) workshop on organic agriculture, attended 3. The farm is home to a mobile poultry by thirty-three Kentucky farmers. None processing facility, serving small-scale had certified operations, but thirty-two pastured poultry producers. The facility said they were interested in organic enables small growers to bring their methods, seven claimed that they product to market, promoting the currently grow organically, and ten said integration of crop and livestock that they plan to certify in the near future. production encouraged by organic Since then, the author has contributed to production standards. (Contact Steve three more full-day workshops, and Skelton, 502-597-7501; numerous shorter workshops with an [email protected]) organic focus, developing relationships 4. The farm is the site of continuing field with more than 100 Kentucky growers evaluations of botanical insecticides interested in interest in organic production based on hot pepper and wild tomato practices. extracts, which will be suitable for use on organic farms, if commercialized The KSU land grant program already (Contact Dr. George Antonious, 502- strives to serve limited resource farmers. 597-6005; [email protected]). KSU researchers recognize that they can 5. The farm houses several aquaculture serve organic farmers, too, by developing facilities, reflecting KSU’s commitment systems that use local resources and to aquaculture as its program of promote resource cycling. distinction. KSU researchers are taking a lead in developing organic The Kentucky State University research aquaculture production methods, in farm has several projects of interest to anticipation of revisions to national organic producers: organic standards that will allow labeling of organically-produced 1. The farm serves as the National aquatic animals (Dr. Bob Durborow, Repository for Pawpaw Germplasm, 502-597-6581; [email protected]) and is the site of considerable research 6. A portion of the farms was certified related to this crop, which is native to organic in 1997, and continues to be the area, and well-suited to organic managed according to organic production. Among these studies is a standards. This land will be re-certified SARE-funded research project once the Kentucky Department of examining organic weed management Agriculture regains its certifier status. options for pawpaw growers (Contact It is the site of a 5-year study Dr. Kirk Pomper, 502-597-5942; comparing organic weed management [email protected]). tactics in terms of yield, weed 2. The farm is the site of a multi-year pressure, and soil quality. A wide
161 range of organic demonstration plots growers to try their hand at the have been established in this area, techniques they learn. Recent examples including a high diversity vegetable include workshops in which growers garden, winter and summer soil- helped erect an organic high tunnel, or building cover crops, and a low-input learned to graft pawpaw scions onto high tunnel for winter vegetable rootstocks. production (Contact Dr. Michael Bomford, 502-597-5752; Studies conducted on the ‘organic’ section [email protected]). of the farm are designed to determine best management practices for organic Research and demonstration projects at growers, not compare organic to the KSU farm are developed in conventional systems. For example, our collaboration with local growers, current weed management study integrating extension and outreach compares six different weed management components. We try to build on the tactics that could be used within organic success of local, innovative, successful crop production systems: hand weeding, producers. For example, our high tunnel shallow cultivation with a rolling cultivator demonstration builds on a decade of or spring-tine weeder, flame weeding successful winter vegetable production by between rows, whole bed flaming before Paul and Alison Wiediger, near Bowling crop emergence, and incorporation of corn Green, KY. Our organic sweet sorghum gluten meal after crop emergence. In both demonstration project was developed in sweet corn and vegetable soybeans the cooperation with Lawrence and Judie rolling cultivator has given weed control Jenkins, who operate an African-American and yields equivalent to those obtained “living history” farm near Danville, KY, with hand weeding, and superior to the selling syrup made from sweet sorghum other weed management tactics tested. juice extracted with a horse-drawn machine. KSU’s organic agriculture focus positions this 1890 land grant university to serve a Growers and extension agents visit the rapidly expanding grower base and cater KSU research farm regularly. Full-day to demand for locally-developed solutions workshops with a sustainable agriculture to challenges faced by the organic focus are held on the third Thursday of producers in the commonwealth. every month. These usually incorporate hands-on demonstrations, allowing
162 Organic Seed Production
Emily Skelton and Emily Gatch Seeds of Change Research Farm San Juan Pueblo, New Mexico Adam Smith Organic Ridge Farm Brookville, Kentucky
High quality seed serves as the foundation chapters of seed production. Climatic and of any productive agricultural system. environmental factors are often critical to Seed quality is defined by three factors: the health of seed. During a particularly genetic purity, the trueness to type of a rainy autumn, excess moisture on the given variety; physical purity, the extent seed heads of a mature seed head can to which a given seed lot is free of weed enhance growth of fungal diseases. seed, other crop seed, and foreign matter Harvest timing and handling greatly and seed health, which is measured by influence seed quality; a seed crop viability of the seed (germination percent), harvested too early can have an vigor (germination rate and normal abundance of immature seed that fails to seedling development) and the presence germinate, whereas a crop harvested too of seed-borne diseases. The production of late may suffer seed loss from shattering high quality organic seed that has been seed heads. Drying seed properly to selected for superior performance in recommended seed moisture levels affects organic systems and regional climates is a both immediate seed quality and the current challenge in the seed industry. potential for long-term storage. Proper Small farmers should be encouraged to storage conditions, particularly low participate in this process by saving seed relative humidity and low temperatures, both for personal on-farm use and for are essential if seed is to maintain vigor organic seed companies, which create beyond the current season. niche markets for seed producers. Seed production is a complicated and delicate Post-Harvest Seed Cleaning and process, one that requires years of Scalping experience to master. This paper outlines Threshing, scalping and fine cleaning the some of the factors and techniques critical seed affects germination and purity of a to the production of quality organic seed seed lot. However, over-handling or and provides a case study of a model rough handling in the harvest or threshing organic seed producer. stage can harm the fragile seed coats of crops such as soybeans. Seed lots can have much improved germination if light, The Story of a Seed immature, or dead seed is removed. If a The final quality of a seed is affected by seed lot is contaminated with seed of various factors at every stage in the cycle other species, quality can be improved if from seed to seed. Field production these weeds or other seed are removed. methods, including observing proper isolation distances to maintain varietal Harvesting can be identified as dry (okra, purity, enhancing soil fertility to promote brassicas, corn, beans and lettuce) or wet vigorous growth and fruit production, (melons, tomatoes, cucumbers and using drip irrigation to reduce foliar squash). After dry harvested seeds are disease, and following recommended brought in from the field and before organic pest and disease management further removal of plant parts and or weed practices are key players in the early
163 seed from the lot, the seed must be dried. accordingly with fans and/or screens. The best place for this is on a large screened table, off the ground and with Fine Conditioning by Seeds of Change fans nearby for increased airflow. After Seed arrives directly from growers to the sufficient drying, the leaves, sticks and Seeds of Change Research farm in New other plant parts present in the seed lot Mexico where its quality and purity is will be brittle and easily fall apart when further improved at our seed-cleaning crushed. If plant parts or small twigs still facility. Seed is initially evaluated visually bend when handled, separation from the for impurities such as plant parts, gravel, seed will be more difficult. For small scale soil and other seeds such as weeds or production, rubbing the seed and chaff another field crop. If necessary, seed is through a stiff screen made from simple dried on screened racks designed for this hardware cloth mounted on a wooden purpose. frame and suspended over a tarp is the best method. There are various hole sizes Seed lots can be improved in various ways available for the hardware cloth screen. through fine conditioning. Seeds can be This will remove all the large material sorted by weight, size, shape and color. from the seed. The hole size should allow We have several machines that use all of the good seed to fall through. gravity to separate seed by weight. These smaller seeds can be separated out using Once separation is complete, a 20 inch, a screen cleaner, such as a crippen or a three speed box fan blows away light chaff small hand screen held over a bucket. A from the seed. Place two rectangular bins machine called a color sorter can sort on the ground on a tarp outside with the seeds by the color of the seed coat. This box fan on top of a stool higher than the piece of equipment is so accurate that bins. Drop the seed from a pan held over seed lots that would previously have been the bins in front of the fan. The idea is to discarded due to the presence of a catch the viable, healthy seed in the first prohibited weed seed can be thoroughly bin and allow the light, immature, or dead cleaned and sold. The USDA sets seed and chaff to blow away. It may be standards for each weed seed and necessary to adjust the speed of the fan’s classifies them as noxious prohibited airflow and the placement of the bins. weeds (not one seed allowed in a seed lot) and noxious restricted weeds (each state For wet seeds such as melons, squash and determines the amount allowed within a cucumbers, a period of fermentation is seed lot). In order to sell a variety in any important to break down the gel coating state, Seeds of Change allows only the surrounding the seed and also to allow lowest amount of restricted weed seed in beneficial yeast to kill disease-causing any lot sold in our bulk catalog. bacteria and fungi. The seed is allowed to ferment in the juices from the fruit with a Seed Storage small amount of water added if necessary The viability and vigor of seeds in storage (too much water can cause the is determined primarily by the relative fermentation process to slow and the seed humidity and the temperature maintained to sprout). After two to three days at in the storage facility. A rule of thumb is temperatures between 70/ and 75/ F the that the sum of the relative humidity and seed is washed. Wash seed until only temperature (F) should not be more than heavy seed remains in the bottom of the 100; i.e. if the relative humidity is 60 bucket with very little skins or other plant percent, the ambient temperature should parts. Pour the wet seed through a small not be more than 40ºF. Seed moisture screen that holds the seed and allows the content should ideally be less than 13 water to go through. Dry the seed on percent. Above this level, storage fungi screens with fans blowing for at least one proliferate and seed respiration increases, week. When the seed is dry it can be ultimately decreasing the longevity and treated as a typical “dry” seed and cleaned vigor of seeds.
164 Portrait of a Seed Grower of crop groups, including okra, corn, Given the complexity of factors and tomatoes and peppers. They have processes that contribute to quality seed identified those crops that are suitable for production, an organic seed grower must production in their area and have demonstrate a unique set of developed field management, harvesting, characteristics combining experience, and cleaning processes that enable them curiosity, ingenuity, and patience. Some to consistently produce high-quality and of the criteria considered in the thoroughly cleaned seed. They are also development of a relationship between a involved in the production of tomato stock seed company and a grower are as seed, which has been selected and rogued follows: for improved disease resistance. Seed · Capacity to provide a unique offering producers like Adam are the backbone of that is currently lacking small seed companies and of the · Strong indication of longevity as a movement to develop and preserve seed producer (5-10 years) regionally adapted varieties. If the · Openness and cooperation current market growth for organic food · Environment of farm and seed continues, opportunities for · Size, climate, soils, bio-region, innovative growers committed to organic proximity to other seed farms agricultural practices will expand as well. (cross-pollination risk) · Skill level References · Infrastructure McCormack, Jeff. 2004. Seed Processing · Types of harvesting and seed- and Storage: Principles and practices cleaning equipment available of seed harvesting, processing, and · Farm plan (crop rotation, pest storage: an organic seed production control, irrigation manual for seed growers in the Mid- · Buildings (greenhouses, Atlantic and Southern U.S. Version structures for seed drying and 1.3. Copyright Jeffrey H. McCormack, storage) Ph.D. · Ability to expand in the future Fergson, J.M., Keys, R.D., McLaughlin, F.W., · Organic certification and J.M. Warren. Seed and Seed Quality: A Guide for Seed Producers, Adam Smith, a second-generation seed Farmers, and Home Gardeners. North producer who farms in northern Kentucky, Carolina State University Cooperative has demonstrated a superior capacity to Extension Service Publication AG-448. produce high-quality organic seed. He and his father produce seed in a number
165 Track Five
Alternative Enterprises
166 The Small Farms Industry Clusters (SFIC) Project
S.J. Goetz, K.Brasier, T. Kelsey and W. Whitmer The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania A. Rangarajan and D. Smith Cornell University Ithaca New York T. Gabe University of Maine Orono, Maine D. Kuennen University of Maryland-Eastern Shore Princess Anne, Maryland F. Mangan University of Massachusetts Amherst, Massachusetts
Project funded by the USDA/CSREES National Research Initiative, Small Farms and Rural Community Vitality Initiative, Grant No. 05-55618-15744
Researchers, development professionals • support, through social networks, and policy makers increasingly recognize growth and development of that industry clusters are critical to individual businesses, regional development and • share common inputs such as labor competitiveness. However, cluster with specific skills, research to date has not focused on • recruit support industries based agricultural producers. This project: upon the concentration of firms in examines the potential of, and variations an area, in, economic clusters of small- and • benefit mutually from new medium-scale farms for achieving knowledge generation that is agricultural economic development and location specific, and environmental management objectives; • work together to respond to new identifies the unique characteristics of market needs or societal demands, clusters that may support long-term farm such as environmental viability and the sustainability of management. surrounding rural communities; and engages farmers and development These latter features set clusters apart professionals as integral partners in the from traditional associations of firms or research/outreach process. farms, such as cooperatives. As an analytical framework, clusters provide an Clusters are concentrations of firms or ideal integrated and comprehensive tool businesses that: for assessing the interplay among • are located in relatively close economic, social, environmental and proximity to each other, biological factors related to small farms • compete with each other in similar and rural economic development. We markets, examine and compare clusters formed • cooperate with one another to around: enhance both technical skills and 1. traditional commodities (dairy, market access, wines, mushrooms);
167 2. agricultural practices or collective learning and sharing of philosophies (organic vs. non- resources is fundamental to the business organic production); and philosophy. 3. social or ethnic networks (Portuguese, Hispanic, female and Clusters have the potential to enhance disadvantaged farmers). biological and environmental management practices on small farms. In Ontario, Clusters may form spontaneously in a Canada, for example, several farmer region based on natural resource organizations joined together to create endowments and other unique their own environmental farm planning circumstances or historical accidents (e.g., tools rather than be faced with federal Finger Lakes wineries, mushrooms near environmental regulations. This voluntary Philadelphia). Or, they may be created as self-assessment, called the Ontario a result of local community and business Environmental Farm Plan, allows farmers action. At the same time, without on- to assess their own practices, and the going routine analysis, monitoring and plans are then evaluated by peer farmers. nurturing, clusters may cease to exist By taking this approach, the community of altogether, or they may relocate to other farmers felt that they could more clearly areas as relative competitive advantages demonstrate their commitment to change. For example, the sugar beet environmental stewardship without the industry that was started over 150 years need for additional regulation. The ago by Mormon settlers recently withdrew process also created a means for sharing completely from Utah to consolidate in innovation and fostering rich discussions Idaho (Salt Lake Tribune, August 20, on how to best blend agricultural and 2004). The closing of a major Kraft™ natural resource management goals. cheddar cheese manufacturing plant in Clusters potentially foster this same type Canton, NY is another example. Thus, a of rich exchange and innovation around region that currently enjoys clustering natural resource management. In the benefits has no assurance that they will U.S., in contrast, the USDA’s NRCS has last forever. A critical challenge for all had primary responsibility for farm bill U.S. regions is to determine their cost-share and implementation programs competitive advantage in the global to remediate negative environmental economy. Industry clusters can be a key impacts in agriculture. While some of vehicle for describing, understanding and these programs have been voluntary, and enhancing sources of regional others mandatory, none encourages competitiveness. groups of farmers to join together in responding to the programs. An essential idea behind clusters is that it matters not so much what the firms of a lusters may also provide the cultural and region produce, but how they do so. In social backdrop needed to encourage or clusters, firms compete cooperatively and pressure farmers to act to protect the they cooperate competitively with one environment or their products. As an another. This unique circumstance example, an immigrant farmer was assumes organization and communication discovered using stream water to wash patterns among cluster members that vegetables to be sold in a major have the potential to influence firms’ metropolitan market. While this practice competitiveness, management techniques, was acceptable in the farmer’s home environmental impacts, social support, country, it is not acceptable in the U.S., or and community relations. However, these permissible under FDA regulations. benefits extend beyond the individual Sensitivity to these types of cultural norms producer to the cluster as a whole, is essential to develop educational creating an environment in which materials and interventions appropriate for
168 the newly emerging important groups of interpreted and applied on these small immigrant farmers. Clusters may help to farms. Organic farmers are very willing develop the skills of new farmers at a and able to describe how their practices faster pace than if they worked in protect environmental resources. This is isolation. This sentiment is supported by tied to their philosophical orientation and research in the adoption and diffusion of is essential to the process of certification. agricultural technologies, which stresses Conventional farmers do not have the that trusted individuals, who are similar to regulations related to certification to each other, are likely to have greater “force” the environmental discussion. Yet effect on the absorption and integration of certain clusters of conventional growers information and adoption of practices. focus very closely on environmental This trust is most often built through issues, especially as they affect farm interaction within local networks. profitability. By understanding how the cluster supports environmental By understanding the social and cultural information flows and exchanges, we can networks that exist within clusters, we are design specific interventions to improve able to better understand how biological farm stewardship. and natural resource information is
A chart describing the mushroom industry participants. Thus, the framework directly cluster is included here for illustrative incorporates processing and marketing purposes; we are developing similar channels. In addition, cluster analysis diagrams for the agricultural clusters focuses on all of the legal and institutional selected for in-depth study. Cluster forces that impact the cluster and its analysis focuses explicitly on the profitability as well as sustainability. horizontal and vertical (marketing Linkages to other relevant clusters are channels) integration of food system also considered explicitly.
169 In a flat world, the need to help regions In conclusion, we argue that clusters are identify and pursue strategic branding critical for helping producers “make better activities has never been greater. things,” thereby distinguishing themselves Clusters are ideal for accomplishing this. in a flat world in which the production of In this context, Rosenfeld argues that we basic, undifferentiated commodities will have gone through three watershed increasingly move to the lowest-cost periods in the last 50 years: production sites. Important examples of existing regional brand identities include 1960s and 1970s: Making things Iowa 80 Beef, the Finger Lakes Winery cheaper Alliance, Vermont artisan cheese makers mass production (Taylorism) and the Tuscarora organic growers, and division of labor, advantage Mumm Napa valley. In this new economic based on cost environment, rewards will be greatest for 1980s and 1990s: Making things those who are able to provide their better customers with sophisticated and lasting quality and speed key, experiences, as opposed to mere automation commodities. Additional information TQM, JIT, flexible specialization about this project will be posted over time 2000s: Making better things at the following web-site: aesthetics, authenticity http://www.cas.nercrd.psu.edu/ design, innovation, uniqueness
170 Big Ideas for Small Farm Profitability; Strategies for Increasing Small Farm Profitability
Joan Scheel, Brad Zumwalt, Mark Hutchison, Marilyn Schlake University of Nebraska Lincoln, Nebraska
To succeed on a small farm, you can’t be • Center for Rural Affairs, afraid to think big. Success requires • Practical Farmers of Iowa, ideas, innovation, imagination and • Michael Fields Ag Institute. inspiration. It also takes information: How to identify potential niche markets. The grant’s main components consisted of Where the customers are. How to try applied research, case studies, producer produce into products that people want to clusters, and dissemination and education. buy. Where the risks are – and how to All of the outcome reports (case studies, avoid them. research projects, etc.) are available on the following two web sites: Food The North Central Initiative for Small Farm Marketing and Processing (FoodMap) Profitability is a four-state, multi- (www.foodmap.unl.edu) and Missouri institutional, farm-to-fork effort designed Alternatives Center (MAC) to improve the profitability and (http://agebb.missouri.edu/mac/). competitiveness of small and mid-size farms in the Midwest. FoodMap is a clearinghouse of research reports, case studies, and other industry The initiative brings together a unique and specific articles and links relating to value- powerful blend of producers, food and added market opportunities for farmers social scientists, marketers, extension and ranchers in the Midwest. MAC educators, economists, and others who contains a list of inks of Extension are attempting to identify, adapt and Guidesheets from some of the top apply practical, science-based, market- university research centers in the world. driven strategies that work. On these links you will be able to find information on a large variety of specialty This presentation discusses the marketing value-added products from Asparagus to information that can help small farms turn Watermelons, and Aquaculture to Worms! bright ideas into bottom line results. Project Results Background Big corporations pay big bucks for market The North Central Initiative for Small Farm research. At the North Central Initiative Profitability was funded by a grant from for Small Farm Profitability, you can the U.S. Department of Agriculture access science-based, market-driven CSREES and is a program of the University research at no charge. of Nebraska-Lincoln Institute of Agriculture and Natural Want to know what the market potential is Resources/Cooperative Extension for Midwest specialty cheese? The Services. The partners in the project Initiative has the data. Want to learn included: about high-end exclusive market for • Iowa State University, chestnuts? The initiative can tell you all • University of Missouri, about it. How about niche markets for • University of Wisconsin, beef and pork products? All the know-how
171 is available, absolutely free, in the case and market maturity. Local resource studies and research compiled by the providers supported the clusters, and it is Initiative. hoped cluster members will help apply knowledge learned from this initiative into There are over 20 applied research project their local communities. on everything from niche marketing to production research that have been Some of the examples of cluster projects provided by the initiative to help identify are: alternative products and the best way to • Chestnut Research Project. This deliver these products to consumers. project provided marketing and Initial research is focusing on pastured processing research on a unique poultry, specialty cheeses, specialty agricultural product. The chestnut barley, grass-fed beef and dairy, and cluster credits the research in raising hogs in hoop houses. All of the identifying a whole new market for research projects can be found on value-added chestnut products. www.foodmap.unl.edu. • Planning Guide for Prospective Winery. The project surveyed The specialty cheese report quantified the wineries, and wine retailers. market demand for specialty cheese. The Secondary information was report discusses real-world examples of collected to look at wine successful on-farm specialty cheese consumption and trends, operations as well as cost estimates for production and processing issues, very small to medium sized specialty capital cost opportunities for cheese plants. tourism and included case studies of successful wineries as well as The consumer research project consisted best practices. of a telephone survey of over 2000 • Meat Goat Markets. A report on households in the 4 state areas which marketing meat goats was asked consumers questions about interest conducted to determine where in locally grown foods. It examined markets exist for fresh goat meat. purchasing behaviors and attitudes and It also looked at competition, how confirmed consumer’s interest in locally fresh goat meat is purchased, and grown foods. The report discusses some competitive analysis of the fresh of the perceived obstacles in purchasing goat meat market. local foods and shows producers areas of interest to use when determining their Another area of the initiative was the case target market for their products. studies. Forty case studies were completed on a variety of value-added Key and unique to the North Central products. Seven case study categories Initiative for Small Farm Profitability are focus on strategies that have potential to farmer clusters working with researchers improve the efficiency, profitability, and to put science-based, market-driven competitiveness of small and mid-size results into action in the four-state region. farms. The case studies are designed to The clusters provide practicality and discuss key factors in the success of the relevance to the initiative’s objective of strategy. The cases address and draw increasing farm profitability. lessons from both success and failures of the strategy, and can be used to identify The clusters are made up of farmers and best practices. The case studies draw on ranchers in Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska and data as well as on subjective matter. This Wisconsin who have an idea or product, or is a great compilation of case studies that who are already working on an idea or can be used by individuals interested in product, for increasing small farm exploring new value-added activities for profitability. The clusters vary widely in their farm or ranch. Many different types the products being produced, location, size of value-added businesses are included.
172 The resources available from the North producers to serve a specialty industry, Central Initiative for Small Farm the one-of-a-kind information from the Profitability can help in identifying the North Central Initiative can help you most fertile areas in which to plant new assess opportunity, determine risk and ideas. Whether it is a niche market for develop a plan for success. your product, an innovative value-added approach, or teaming with a group of
173 Contributions and Challenges of Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Lessons from Iowa
Corry Bregendahl and Cornelia Flora North Central Regional Center for Rural Development Ames, Iowa Jan Libbey CSA Producer Kanawha, Ohio Karen Joslin Warren Wilson College Asheville, North Carolina
Introduction at least new to local organic food This panel presentation brings together a production) to share risk, share group of Community Supported information, and share markets. How do Agriculture (CSA) producers, members, these more formally organized multi- organizers, activists, advocates, and producer associations function? What researchers to discuss the unique unique contributions do they have to offer contributions and challenges of rural development and what challenges do collaborative CSA (cCSA) in Iowa. The they face? We sought to answer these topic is timely and important as farm jobs questions by conducting a study of in the Midwest are diminishing, rural collaborative CSA in Iowa. populations shrinking, and communities declining as agriculture is restructured and In 2005, the North Central Regional becomes increasingly consolidated. In Center for Rural Development received a response to these changes, alternative grant from the Leopold Center for food institutions (AFIs) have emerged, Sustainable agriculture to conduct one of which is CSA. CSA was adopted as research of cCSA in Iowa. Specifically for part of growing interest to relocalize this one-year project, we are studying the agriculture to reconnect consumers with role for-profit, multi-producer CSA plays in producers, the land, and their incubating small rural businesses as well communities. Since its inception, CSA has as defining other contributions cCSA been noted for helping create rural makes to AFI. We are also identifying the economic opportunities, conserving the characteristics of cCSA models that appeal environment, and reshaping community to members. We are collecting this relationships. Yet there are many different information through a combination of kinds of CSA arrangements and therefore interviews and self-administered surveys different anticipated impacts. A review of of cCSA producers and members. national CSA directories shows that most for-profit CSAs are owned and operated For the purpose of this study, we defined by a single proprietor or farm family, collaborative CSA as CSA in which multiple while very few are comprised of a well- producers collaborate to provide food or defined coalition of small-scale, fiber products to members of a CSA for collaborating farmers. Multi-producer which no single producer (or family) has ventures purportedly enable producers sole responsibility. At the same time, we (some of whom may be young or new—or acknowledge the varying degrees to which
174 collaboration takes place in all types of continuum of cooperation exists among CSAs; even owners of single proprietor small-scale CSA producers, ranging from owned CSAs (or sCSAs) engage in more formalized, long-term relationships collaborative relationships with other to complete independence and self- producers through formal agreements containment. Somewhere in between are such as contracts or informal means such varying degrees of informal, short-term, as a phone call or handshake. With this in dynamic collaborations (see Figure 1). mind, we are therefore suggesting that a
Figure 1. CSA Producer Collaboration Continuum.
Collaboration Independence
Cash for goods and services Exchange of goods and services No producer transactions Long-term relationships Short-term relationships No relationships Formal written contracts Informal verbal agreements No agreements Static relationships Dynamic relationships No relationships
We identified four formal collaborative Research Framework CSAs in Iowa. One chose not to Flora, Flora, and Fey (2004) have participate in this study. Three are presented the Community Capitals participating but only one has completed Framework (Figure 2) as a model to its participation so far. Results in this evaluate community development efforts. summary are therefore derived from only This framework was developed to help one collaborative CSA in Iowa. For communities track investments and updates, visit us on the web at outcomes related to development efforts, http://www.ag.iastate.edu/centers/rdev/p including the establishment and rojects/csa/index.html. maintenance of small, for-profit enterprises such as CSA.
Figure 2. Community Capitals Framework as an Evaluation Tool for Community Development.
175 This framework is useful for measuring a new to the area, having lived there for variety of community benefits that can five years or less; one in four are long- result from community and economic time residents, having lived in the area for development efforts. Instead of focusing more than 20 years. Two in five have at exclusively on economic factors, the least one child living in the household. model takes into account a wide variety of Half of cCSA households reported an investments and impacts, including those annual income last year of $70,000 or that affect the natural environment, social more. ties, human resources, the economy, local culture, and politics. We are using this Seven percent earned less than framework to assess the impact $20,000. participation in collaborative CSA has had Producer Profile: Almost half (47%) of on both producers and members as they responding producers are female, which relate to the creation of multiple types of corresponds to our sample population of community capitals. the producers. The average age is 43; the youngest is 27 and the oldest 70. One in Member Survey Methodology: For Flat three farmers is 35 years old or younger. Hills CSA (a pseudonym), we mailed With one exception, the rest are 43-55 surveys (via snail mail and e-mail for a years old. We can therefore characterize double mailing) to all current members, as this group as young and middle-aged well as former members in the past five producers. In addition, one in four years. We received 141 usable surveys, producers are “new,” having been for a response rate of 57 percent. Not involved in production for five years or quite half (44%) were current members less. One in four have been producing for while a little more than half (56%) were 6-10 years, and almost one in three have former members. Fifteen percent of the been involved in production for 20 years member respondents indicated they either or more. One in three producers have currently were or had been members of a lived in the area for five years or less. The single proprietor CSA. majority (58%) of producers do not have children living in their household. Producer Survey Methodology: We used the same methods to contact both current Income and marketing: Every producer and former producers who participated in respondent indicated that CSA is not their Flat Hills CSA, although the time frame only market. Over half (53%) sell at included the entire life of the CSA rather farmers markets; 42% sell to institutional than the past five years. We received 20 buyers such as restaurants; and 16% sell usable surveys for a response rate of 80 at local food coops. Over half (56%) sell percent. Sixty percent of producer their products through other means such respondents were current producers as mail order, custom orders, at grocery whereas 40% were former producers. stores, and farm stands. Despite taking a diversified approach to marketing local Results products, 61% of producers said that 25% Member Profile: Four in five respondents or less of their family’s needs are met by are female (corresponding to 9 in 10 their overall food and fiber product households that logged at least one income. Only one producer reported that contact as female with the cCSA all of the household needs were met by coordinator). Average age is 45 years. his/her overall food or fiber product About one in ten live on an acreage—a income. Moreover, 76% of producer term associated with living in the respondents reported that participation in countryside with the remainder living in cCSA provides them with 10% or less of town. The average length of residence is household income. These are sobering 14 years. One in four respondents are statistics, strongly suggesting that 176 producer participation in local food financial. We asked producers the extent systems is not financially viable. It is to which they agree that participation in therefore not surprising that 61% of cCSA helped them gain benefits according producers work off the farm and 73% for to a list of 52 questions. We ran whom it is applicable report their spouse rudimentary preliminary statistics to or partner works off the farm. summarize the benefits they experience. Below are the results organized by type of Motivation for participation: Why then do community capital along with summary producers choose to participate in local results from similar questions we posed to food systems? The reasons are not members.
Table 1. Producer and member benefits from participating in collaborative CSA.
Benefits derived from Producer Producer mean cCSA cCSA member participation in rank (n=20) member mean (n=141) collaborative CSA rank (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) Natural capital 1 2.30 1 1.92 Social capital 2 2.48 5 2.32 Cultural capital 3 2.52 2 2.20 Human capital 4 2.53 3 2.21 Political capital 5 2.79 6 2.42 Financial capital 6 3.02 4 2.30
In summary, all groups rank natural restaurants. In addition to the growth of capital benefits highest while political new local foods-based business, three in capital ranks low. Not surprisingly, four producers also credited CSA for producers rank financial benefits last in providing them with invaluable business contrast to members who rank it knowledge and support that helped them somewhere in the middle. However, social continue participating in local food benefits are enjoyed more by producers systems. This included encouragement to than members. enter into and grow for the local food market; greater understanding of local CSA as a business incubator: Some food consumer preference; the need for researchers have suggested farmers consumer education, trust, and markets serve as a business incubator to cooperation; the provision of a stable stimulate the growth and development of income while honing producers’ marketing small, farm-based businesses. Our skills; a sense of empowerment to research sought to discover whether the influence local food markets; same held true for CSA. We found that comprehension of the time demands 35% of current and former producers of marketing requires; risk sharing; focus on Flat Hills CSA reported participation in growing less labor intensive crops that CSA helped them start or continue new or have the greatest returns; gaining different farm-related enterprises. These exposure in other local food markets; and enterprises include four CSAs, a direct knowledge to help weigh the costs and market horticultural farm business, a benefits of operating CSA. (One in five venture that cultivates specialty crops for producers reported they currently own farmers markets and retail sale, and CSA.) expansion of a laying flock to supply local 177 CSA as a career incubator: In addition to farmers and companies identify viable serving as a business incubator, CSA is products and address production and training producers that prepare them for marketing issues). Of these seven careers outside of CSA. Nearly two in five producers, five (71%) credit collaborative producers (37%) report they have been CSA for 1) helping them serve in these employed in an agriculturally related positions by providing opportunities to position paid by an off-farm source since network that led to employment; 2) giving participating in CSA. These seven them an opportunity to share experiences producers have filled positions mostly in with and gain support from other the non-profit sector, but also the public producers; 3) increasing their knowledge and private sectors (e.g., co-owner of a of growing food; 4) increasing their sustainable foods marketing/distribution understanding of direct marketing company, college garden manager, and strategies; and 5) helping them food systems program specialist assisting understand producer group dynamics.
178 Assessment of the Current Meat Goat Industry in the United States
Sandra G. Solaiman Tuskegee University Tuskegee, Alabama
Introduction 500,000 head deficient in meeting current Goats are the most popular animals in the demands for goat meat. world, and goat meat and milk are the most consumed of all animal products. Ethnic populations and faith-based Goats are popular with small holders consumers have increased in the U.S. because of their efficient conversion of during the last decade, and this change feed into edible and high quality meat, may provide a great opportunity for meat milk and hide. Goats are also used as goat production. A small herd of meat holistic tools for land vegetation goats can be produced on 10 to 15 acres management and fire fuel load control. of pastureland and can fit into a majority With proper grazing management, goats of U.S. farmsteads and enhance small can eliminate noxious weeds, restore farm diversity and profitability. Goat meat native grasses and prevent fires through is also lean and healthier than other fuel load reduction. meats and can play a major role in the diet of health-conscious people. The purpose of this paper is to assess the current meat goat industry in the United States and to determine its future outlook. Assessing the Current Meat Goat The data presented in this paper is drawn Industry in the United States from three government sources—the 2000 Goat Farms in the U.S. population Census, the USDA’s 2002 According to the USDA Census (2002), the Census of Agriculture and the USDA number of goat farms increased more than 19% National Agricultural Statistics Service. In with > 12% increase in the goat population from the U.S., meat goat production has been 1997-2002; however, the number of farms gaining popularity in recent years selling goats increased by over 45%, and goat particularly because of a growing sales were up by more than 55% (Table 1). More population of ethnic and faith-based than 76% of the U.S. goat population is meat groups who consume goat meat. The goats with milk and fiber goats claiming national estimates, based on import data only 11.5% each (Table 2). only, indicate that the U.S. is more than
Table 1. Changes in all goat farms from 1997 to 2002 in the U.S. 1997 2002
Number of farms 76,543 91,462 Number of goats 2,251,613 2,530,466 Number of farms selling goats 29,937 43,495 Number of goats sold 843,773 1,314,310 ______
179 Table 2. Goat industry profile in the U.S.
Number %
All goats 2,530,466 100 Meat goats 1,938,924 76.6 Milk goats 290,789 11.5 Fiber goats 300,756 11.9 ______
The number of meat goat farms (over 250,000) in the U.S. can be increased by 18% with over a 57% attributed partially to a small increase in the number of meat increase in the numbers of dairy goats (Table 3). The number of goats (over 100,000), and a major farms selling meat goats increased increase in the number of meat by 48% with over 108% increase goats (over 700,000). The 71% in meat goats sold from 1997- increase in t he number of dairy 2002. Although there was a goats sold may have also drastic reduction in Angora goat contributed to the rise in the meat numbers (530,000) and sales, the goat market. increase in total goat population
Table 3. Changes in meat goat farms from 1997 to 2002 in the U.S. 1997 2002
Number of farms 63,422 74,980 Number of goats 1,231,762 1,938,924 Number of farms selling goats 24,539 36,403 Number of goats sold 532,792 1,109,619 ______
Imports and Exports of Goat imported--goat import was up 151% from Meat 3.36 MT in 1999 (Figures 1). The only The United States was a net exporter of exporters of goat meat to the U.S. are goat meat up until 1990. Exports ceased Australia and New Zealand with 92.5 % of due to increased domestic demand after shipments coming from Australia. As 1994. This shift is another indication of indicated by the figure, there is a sharp increased interest in goat meat increase in goat meat imports especially consumption nationally. In 2003, the U.S. from 2002 to 2003. This trend will most imported more than 18 million tons (8.46 probably continue unless there is an MT) of goat meat. With an average increase in domestic production. carcass weight of 35 to 40 lbs., the estimated 500,000 goat carcasses were
180
Figure 1. Changes in goat meat imported from Australia and New Zealand (1999 to 2003)
9000
- )
T 8000
0
0 7000 0
1 6000
(
t Australia
a 5000
e New Zealand
M 4000
t Total
a 3000 o
G 2000
1000 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Years
Goats Slaughtered in USDA-inspected population growth that promote meat goat Plants in the U.S. production. It must also be noted that the The number of all goats slaughtered at meat goat industry in general—is in its USDA federally-inspected plants in 2003 infancy; therefore, many on-farm has increased 45.1% from 1998 (Figure slaughters are not reported. 2). Meat goat numbers have shown a solid increase since 1998, and they likely will continue to increase due to trends in
181 Figure 2. Goats slaughtered in USDA-inspected plants in the U.S.
Goat Slaughtered at Federally Inspected Units
700000
d e
r 600000
e t
h 500000 g
u 400000 a
l U.S. S
300000
s t
a 200000 o
G 100000 0 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 2001 2002 2003 Years
Factors That May Have Affected Goat 2000, 51.7 % of the foreign-born Meat Consumption population was from Latin America and 26.4 % from Asia. It is projected that U.S. Population Changes the U.S. Hispanic population is rising at a The major contributing factor for the rise rapid rate and will reach over 100 million in interest in meat goat production in the or 25% of the population in the year 2050 U.S. is the shift in demographics. (Table 4). This group of immigrants has a According to the 2000 Census, the strong preference for goat meat and will foreign-born population in the U.S. is up add to the opportunity for this sector of 57% since 1990, from 19.8 million to 31.1 agriculture to grow. million and continues to increase on an upward trend that started in 1970. As of
Table 4. Projections of total U.S. population changes and changes by ethnic groups from 2000 to 2050 2000 % 2005 % 2050 % Total 281,421,906 295,507,000 419,854,000 Asian 10,242,998 3.6 12,419,000 4.2 33,430,000 7.9 Black 34,658,190 12.3 38,056,000 12.9 61,361,000 14.6 Hispanic 35,305,818 12.5 41,801,000 14.1 102,560,000 24.4 ______
Changes in Ethnic and Faith-Based Populations in the U.S. Having Preference for Goat Meat
Although ethnicity and faith tradition increase from 1990 to 2000 creates an undoubtedly overlap, as of 2000 over a opportunity for U.S. agriculture to produce million Buddhists and a million Muslims, new products to serve the food over 10 million Asians and over 35 million preferences of this ever-increasing Hispanics are reported as residing in the population (Table 5). U.S. (U.S. Census 2000). Again, this 182
Table 5. Percent changes in selected U.S. ethnic and faith-based population f rom 1990 to 2000 1990 2000 % change
Buddhists 401,000 1,082,000 170 Muslims 527,000 1,104,000 109 Asians 6,908,638 10,242,998 48 Hispanics 22,354,000 35,305,000 58 ______
Estimating Demand for Goat Meat Americans that consume goat meat. In in the U.S. total, there are almost 53 million people The largest group of ethnic consumers of that have preference for goat meat in the goat meat is the Hispanics with an U.S. (Table 6). There maybe others, but increase of 57.9% in population from due to lack of availability and marketing 1990 to 2000. Muslims, Asians and channels for goat meat, they can’t be Africans also consume considerable included. amounts of goat meat. Goat consumption is steady except for special holidays when Estimating Goat Meat Consumption goat meat consumption increases 3- to 4- The average number of persons living in a fold. There are increases in demand for U.S. household is 2.59 (Census 2000). For goat meat for Easter, the 4th of July and the ethnic populations under certain Muslim holidays such as Aideh consideration, a slightly higher number of Ghorban or Aideh Fatre. Among Chinese, 3 persons per household is used. goat meat consumption is usually higher Assuming conservatively that only 10% of in colder months, between October and these ethnic households consume goat February. Understanding these ethnic meat and without considerations for other traditions and matching the demand with part of the U.S. population, a total of 1.76 production require marketing education million households may consume goat and techniques. Also, the special handling meat. According to the Agriculture Fact and harvesting procedures may differ Book (2001-2002), Americans consumed according to different religions and on average annually 195 pounds of red traditions and can contribute to the value meat and poultry per capita in the year of the goat meat. Halal harvesting 2000. If every ethnic household (three procedures for Muslims and Kosher persons) consumes only 72 pounds of techniques for Jews may add value to goat goat meat annually, including holidays, meat. there will be a projected demand for 117.6 million pounds of goat meat. Estimating Populations Having Assuming a 40-pound carcass weight per Preference for Goat Meat goat, the total number of goats needed to An attempt will be made to estimate be slaughtered is 3.18 million per year demand for goat meat based on Hispanic, (Table 6). This is a modest estimate of the Asian, foreign-born African and Caribbean numbers of meat goats needed. A little populations in the United States. Based over 1.1 million meat goats were sold in on the U.S. Census (2000), there are the U.S. in 2002 and 1.15 million reported about 10.2 million Asians, about 35.3 goats were consumed in 2003 (Domestic million Hispanics and four million slaughter + imports). It should be noted Caribbean and African-born populations in that the demand for slaughtered meat the U.S. Among an estimated seven goats is more than 160% of meat goat million illegal immigrants (Census 2000), inventory in the U.S. over 50% are Mexicans and other Latin 183 Table 6T6 . Estimated demand for goats and goat meat in the U.S.
Total Population (Asian, Hispanics and others) 53 million Total number of households 17.6 million Households that consume goat meat 1.76 million Annual household consumption (lbs.) 72 Total goat meat consumed (lbs/yr.) 127.2 million Average goat carcass weight (lbs.) 40 Total goats in demand for slaughter 3.18 million Meat goats sold 1.1 million Meat goats consumed 1.15 million Meat Goat Inventory in the U.S. 1.9 million
Other Conditions Favorable to readily available. The high price of goat Increasing Goat Production meat along with the lack of availability prohibits its consumption. Women as Principal Farm Operators The number of women principal farm Challenges Encountered operators in the U.S. reached 13% in Major challenges associated with 2002. A goat is a smaller animal and very increased goat meat production are: popular with women producers. Consumer education; producer education; Increasing numbers of women farm organized markets and marketing operators may promote and encourage channels. Consumer education could meat goat production. Proper knowledge include: The dietary advantages of goat in goat husbandry, budgeting and meat; why people of all the old cultures marketing techniques will insure a (Chinese, Mayan, African, Middle Eastern, profitable agribusiness for them. and Greek) eat this meat; and widespread distribution of recipes for different goat Health Consciousness and Goat Meat meat preparations. Producers should be Quality educated on the best management Americans are conscious about what they techniques to raise goats for meat. Using eat, now more than ever. Poultry some superior breeds with fast growth consumption has increased from under 35 rates, especially those from South Africa, lbs. per capita in 1980 to more than 65 to have revolutionized meat goat production. 70 lbs. per capita. Three major factors have contributed to this increase: poultry However, the most important factor in the is a healthier product being leaner than growth of any industry is marketing. beef and pork; it is low cost, and it is Keeping in touch with state agricultural available. In comparison to poultry and and farmer organizations in developing other meats, goat meat is leaner with less new markets is important. Producers can fat waste, and it is high in iron and low in benefit from federally-inspected cholesterol. Research has indicated that slaughterhouses that can process goats as goat meat has a balanced proportion of well as enable interstate sales. With goat saturated:unsaturated fatty acids meat prices high, direct marketing may be (Banskalieva et al., 2000), and it is a rich desirable, either on-farm or using the source of conjugated linoleic acid (anti- Internet. Considerations should be given carcinogenic and only found in ruminants) to proper harvesting and handling (Chin et al., 1992). However, goat meat techniques of goat meat for Jewish is more expensive than poultry, beef, (Kosher) and Muslim (Halal) clientele. lamb and pork at this time and it is not 184 Value can be added in terms of desired opportunity for small farm producers to products such as specialty sausages and target these markets and diversify their other ready-to-eat meat products that can farm products. There is a great enhance marketing and profit margins. At opportunity for value-added products. the retail level, a recent survey conducted However, consumer as well as producer in the Southeast by Tuskegee and other education is needed and a marketing university researchers concluded that structure must be strengthened. retailers carrying goat meat confirm that purchasers of goat meat are indeed the References ethnic groups cited in this paper, and they Banskalieva, V., T. Sahlu, and A. L. Goetsch. should be provided the cuts and type of 2000. Fatty acid composition of goat muscles processing desired (which were ribs for and fat depots: a review. Small Rumin. Res. steaks and barbecue and ground goat 37(3):255-268. meat) (personal communication). Chin, S.F., W. Liu, J. M. Storkson, Y. L. Ha, and W. M. Pariza. 1992. Dietary sources of Conclusion conjugated dienoic isomers of linoleic acid, a There is an increased interest in goat newly recognized class of anticarcinogens. J. meat consumption in the U.S. Goats Food Compos. Anal. 5:185-197. slaughtered in USDA-inspected plants as U.S. Census. 2000. US Census Bureau well as goat meat imported from Australia (www.census.gov) and New Zealand have sharply increased USDA Census. 2002. Census of Agriculture since 1999. The U.S. has changed from a (www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/) net exporter to a net importer during the USDA National Agricultural Statistical Service. last decade. Increases in ethnic (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nass/livestock/pls populations in the U.S., especially -bban/lsan0305.pdf) Hispanics, Asians and Muslims, have contributed to this development. Also, goat meat is a healthy meat and fits the You may reach the author by phone: 334-727- designer diets of health-conscious 8401 or email: [email protected] Americans. Goat production is a great
185 Development of a Task Force to Provide Education and Leadership to an Emerging Meat Goat Industry
L. Tony Nye, Jeff Fisher and David Mangione The Ohio State University Extension Wilmington, Ohio
Background production and marketing of meat goats Interest in meat goats has grown rapidly through education and practical over the past 10 years. Goat is the most experience. frequently consumed meat in the world. In the United States, meat goat The objectives of the Ohio Meat Goat production is increasing because of goats’ Industry Task Force are: economic value as efficient converters of low-quality forages into quality meat, · Identify and access emerging milk, and hide products for many specialty ethnic markets having a preference markets. Preference for goats is growing for goat meat in their diet. in populations of health conscious, ethnic, · Develop producer networks, and faith based consumers. National alliances and/or cooperatives to estimates indicate current demand for meet the demands of emerging meat goats is nearly 500,000 head markets. deficient Goats are growing in popularity · Provide leadership for education as a youth project, and many are raising and research. meat goats for breeding or show. These interests are leading to viable commercial Extension members of the task force have value-added enterprises. Where resources been instrumental in developing are limited, meat goats may be an educational materials and events. County enterprise that a small farmer can raise agents published the Ohio Meat Goat efficiently, profitably, and become self- Production and Budgeting Fact Sheet, sufficient. which has been adopted by over 400 producers, as a guide for establishing this Engaging Resources value added enterprise. Agents have While meat goat production has been designed and conducted regional increasing, this enterprise did not have workshops, seminars, and on-farm tours supporting infrastructure relative to a to transfer knowledge to over 800 commodity based organization, university participants. Extension personnel led sponsored education and research, or well producers on a study tour of eastern known marketing channels. To address Pennsylvania and New York State these needs, a task force has been formed markets. Several task force members and directed by personnel of The Ohio have participated in a collaborative multi- State University Extension and consists of state initiative for marketing and producers, multi-disciplinary OSU faculty, production of meat goats. The need for ethnic and faith based community leaders, current information prompted the other state universities and colleges, Allied development of the Buckeye Meat Goat Industry, and other interested persons. Newsletter that is received by 500 The mission of the Ohio Meat Goat producers. A website is being developed to Industry Task Force is to enhance the enhance the exchange of production and marketing information to allow greater
186 access to emerging ethnic populations Developing an Industry having a preference for goat meat. The task force has successfully pursued http://south.osu.edu/cle/ and received $63,000 in Research and Extension grants. This funding is being Building Leadership Capacity used to conduct on going feasibility Leadership development has been a studies of ethnic markets, Ohio’s primary objective of the Ohio Meat Goat processing infrastructure, and Task Force. Producer members have been development of farmer/consumer instrumental in the formation of the cooperatives. A statewide survey revealed Buckeye Meat Goat Association. This a ten-fold increase in the adoption of meat group has developed by-laws and articles goats as a value added income generating of incorporation for the purpose of enterprise and provided baseline data on promoting and marketing commercial production demographics and marketing meat goat producers in Ohio. Three strategies. On-farm meat goat research producer-driven marketing networks have encompasses determining benchmark been established. Task force members economic data, breed comparisons, and are assisting in developing leadership forage utilization. Research and data among emerging ethnic and faith-based analysis is accomplished through consumers so they can establish the partnerships with multiple colleges and infrastructure and marketing of fresh universities. chevron. Producers have enhanced the effectiveness of their efforts by partnering Progress continues in the ability to market with agencies such as the Ohio a fresh and safe product directly to Cooperative Development Center, Ohio emerging ethnic and faith based consumer Tobacco Foundation, Heifer International, populations to capture the most value. Somalia and East African Organization, Behavioral changes include an increase in Jewish Family Services and Institute for farmers producing for emerging markets, Social And Economic Development. an increase in communication abilities between producers and markets, and This task force is taking a unique approach coordination for consumers, retailers, and to building infrastructure of the meat goat producers through functional marketing industry by utilizing a social approach to partnerships that fit the social and market development within emerging ecological paradigm. ethnic and faith based consumers. This foundation infrastructure will create value- There is a real opportunity for farmers to added opportunities for refugees in our network through co-ops or other ventures urban centers and small farms in Ohio. to build the meat goat industry. As with Additionally, economic development in the any commodity, capturing niche markets creation of agricultural jobs will do much can add value. Producers on the Ohio Meat for community development in the Goat Task Force can serve as examples for rural/urban interface. other developing enterprises. As the saying goes “If you build it; they will come.” Meat goats just may be a “Field of Dreams” for animal agriculture.
187 Diversified Species Grazing for Brush and Pasture Management
An Peischel Tennessee State University Nashville, Tennessee
A synergistic process in motion. Change is through other organisms which consume stressful and a challenge to your "comfort dead material and render it useful. zone". Accepting that there is something new to learn and interpret can make one The abiotic component (non-living uncomfortable but get ready - practice environment and exchange materials) using tools to apply new knowledge and affects vegetative distribution. These involve support from individuals already factors include the topography, altitude, doing similar endeavors. The integration of exposure/insolation, precipitation, knowledge from separate disciplines evaporation/evapotranspiration and (ecology, plant physiology, hydrology, soil. The water cycle is driven by energy climatology, forestry, soils, economics, from the sun and its distribution affects animal science, sociology and wildlife) vegetation more than any other single equals the Ecosystem and all factors affect environmental factor. There is a the vegetation distribution making up the continuum between the soil, plants and various plant communities. But ENERGY the atmosphere. (ENERGY FLOW), in pastoral agriculture is universal and can be used, stored, Plant growth requirements are sunlight concentrated, or spread with the primary and the ability of the soil to provide source being the sun. moisture, support, protection and nutrients. Vegetation that develops in an To obtain efficiency of the natural energy area is determined by soil characteristics flow - CONTROL - to use energy such as texture, depth, slope, organic effectively. Control the time of grazing, matter, pH and chemical the area to be grazed, the specie of composition. These soil characteristics are livestock grazing, the season of grazing, determined by soil formation affected by and the plant specie to be climate, vegetation, parent material, grazed. Understand the basic forces acting topography, time, and soil organisms. on an agricultural enterprise so that small amounts of energy input act as an There are many environmental factors amplification factor thereby increasing the that affect vegetation distribution in amount of sunlight harvested and relation to the management of lands. To marketed. be considered are topography, slope, precipitation, wind erosion and soil The biotic component is that of living mineral content. Many important decisions organisms, plants and animals. The are influenced by the plant community and herbivore, through browsing and grazing the factors that influence those affects frequency of plants grazed, the communities. degree of vegetation removal, the plant type grazed, different types of livestock Soil fertility can be enhanced by grazing grazing and the quality of vegetation management as it increases the amount of grazed. Other factors include pollination organic matter in the soil. If a specific and seed scattering by nutrient is lacking, it can be fed to the animals. Decomposition takes place animals as a mineral supplement and they can deposit it for you. Soil nutrients get
188 into the soil from the weathering of parent needed for rapid regrowth yielding higher material, cropping practices, rain, dust, quality forage so that livestock per acre wind and are recycled by plant roots in the can be increased as well as animal subsoil. Livestock deposit mineral performance. There is a point of no supplements in manure as they eat about return, approximately 2000 pounds of 50 pounds of mineral per year with 90% residual dry matter per acre. High residual passing through as dung and may also slow recovery rate as sunlight is urine. Livestock redistribute nutrients in a hard to capture, old leaves are less grazing system, therefore use good efficient producers than new leaves, the rotation management. ratio of non-photosynthetic material to green material and the leaf:stem ratio is Manure is great stuff and stressed. In lightly grazed paddocks with a interesting. Cattle dung (the average cow high residual dry matter, a decreased rate defecates 53#/da grazing) consists of of net photosynthesis available for new 29% potassium and 47% nitrogen, with growth and the old leaves shade the new urine (the average cow urinates 23#/day ones decreasing production. Leaf Area grazing) consisting of 70% potassium and Index (LAI) is a valuable tool for assessing 52% nitrogen. If grazing sheep, dung plant health. consists of 83% calcium, 15% potassium and 38% nitrogen with urine adding 16% The most important concept to remember calcium, 84% potassium and 61% - BIODIVERSITY must be nitrogen. If you have soils with too much maintained. Brush, range and pasture calcium, graze hogs as they excrete zero management is based on the physiology of calcium in urine or need higher levels of the plant and the ability of man to make calcium to change pH, graze horses with social, environmental and economically 44% excretion of calcium in the urine. The sound decisions. dung, besides being greatly appreciated by dung beetles, helps increase the The livestock used in a grazing regime physical characteristics of the soil must be under control - where they need (aggregation, friability, tilth, increases to be, how long they are to be there and water infiltration and retention and the number of animals that need to be decreases root-knot nematodes and other there. One does not want to overgraze the plant root pests). Healthy pastures, plant and deplete root reserves nor healthy soil microorganisms - high quality overrest the plants and decrease vegetation. biodiversity. In grazing management, use of animal behavior and herd effect allows The quantity and quality of vegetation concentrated animal energy input into a produced in a given time is dependent small area for a short period of upon the amount of sun energy a plant time. Animals of the same physiological can capture and convert to tissue. Plants condition need to be foraged as a mob and need a leaf area to photosynthesize but a the quality of feed on offer needs to canopy cover of more than 30% can satisfy their physiological decrease vegetation production. As plants requirements. Social dominance, herd are grazed, recovery time is dependent leadership, flight distance and species upon soil fertility, season of year, soil dominance need to be considered in mixed moisture content, temperature, degree of specie grazing as does sex of livestock, defoliation, time of removal, animal specie age and breed dominance. grazing and residual dry matter. Herding a mixed mob of livestock and Residual dry matter is the forage dry keeping them from being strung out takes matter remaining after a pasture has been patience and planning. Horses walk 5mph, grazed. Different plant species vary in cows 3mph, sheep stroll, goats are getting recovery time and climate effects recovery into trouble - then depending upon breed time. The correct amount of residual is of livestock, the British breeds do not like
189 to walk as far as the Continental grazing; 2) allocation of forage based breeds. And in the middle of the mob are upon quality or physical condition of the the livestock guardian dogs - Great livestock; 3) ability to manage plant Pyrenean guards reacting differently than species and 4) maintain a healthy Anatolian. The next factor inflicting itself is environment for diversity of vegetation the breed of stock dog and the ability of and livestock – a symbiotic relationship. the stockman to utilize that dog(s) ability. As a grazier progresses through Foraging of a mixed mob is complex. The management and budgeting of forage and different species graze at different times livestock, the unit must be treated as a during a 24 hour period, each specie "whole". All of the pieces need to be selects different plants and plant parts as considered together - nothing stands nor do the age groups within that specie, they functions alone - it is one continuous cycle require different amounts of water (size of of life. watering trough), and each specie has a unique mineral requirement. Resources Savory, Allan. 1998. Holistic Resource Management. Island Press, POB 7, Diet Preference Differences Covelo, NM. % of diet Bingham, S. and Savory, A. 1990. Holistic Resources Management Plant Horse Cattle Sheep Goat Workbook. Island Press, POB 7, Covelo, NM, 95428 Grass 90 70 60 20 Smith, B. 1986. Intensive Grazing Weeds 4 20 30 20 Management. Graziers Hui, POB 1944, Browse 6 10 10 60 Kamuela, HI. Stockman Grass Farmer. POB 9607, Jackson, MS, 39286. Genetic heritability of foraging is Holechek. 1998. Range Management: important in browse, range, and pasture Principles & Practices. Prentice Hall, operations. The Brahma does well on low NJ, 07458. quality feed and traveling to water ATTRA, Small Ruminant Resource whereas the Holstein needs high quality Manual. NCAT, PO Box 3657, forage and approximately 30 gallons of Fayetteville, AR, 72702. water per day. Know the economical Gerrish, J. and C. Roberts. 1999. Missouri production traits of each species and its Grazing Manual – M157. University of ability to adapt to environmental Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211 stress; the goal is to improve herd performance.
An important concept is the animal unit (AU). Know the number of animal units a specific area can accommodate, estimate the amount of forage available by type and allot different species accordingly.
Basic routine herd health management practices need to be kept updated. The manager needs to be very conscious of individuals when grazing mixed species. Fencing. The greatest is portable, solar powered electric fencing. Creativity in fencing allows: 1) maximum utilization of forage, allowing plants to rest before re-
190
A Place at the Table: Explorations in Heritage Harvest Areas Development
Duncan Hilchey Cornell University Ithaca, New York
Overview In this era of unprecedented globalization, Great Lakes wild rice, Cape Cod cranberry however, producers of these uniquely bogs, Indian River fruit district, wild American agricultural products are blueberry barrens of Downeast Maine, the struggling to find ways to adjust, evolve, Concord Grape Belt on the coast of and become sustainable. But this is eastern Lake Erie…these are but a few difficult to achieve in the current, place-based heritage agricultural regions culturally toxic economic environment of of the United States. The rich histories, least-cost labor, consolidation and cultures, and traditions surrounding these international competition. Traditional places hold untapped potential for commodities have gone through a rash of heritage tourism, as well as other bad news in recent years: cranberry gluts community and economic development are forcing industry restructuring; activities. Place-based community accusations of price fixing and water development is emerging as a new way to pollution in the wild blueberry barrens of thwart globalization and industrialization Maine have tainted the reputation of that by building on the unique characteristics industry; and poor weather and low prices and opportunities of a community. While are hurting the family-run vineyards in the they are generally overlooked by all but Lake Erie Concord Grape Belt and their food historians, folklorists, and allied processing and marketing gastronomes, food and agriculture businesses. Meanwhile the dissolution of together constitute the ultimate the Washington Apple Federal Market expression of place…for it is in the Order, along with cheap apple imports combination of local landscape and human from China, have put enormous pressure labor that distinct foods and cuisine are on North America’s fresh market apple created, reflecting the cultural uniqueness industry in Washington’s Yakima Valley. of a place. This view forms the basis of Industrial restructuring, including grower the traditional French concept of “guit de and processor consolidation, seems terroir” (a taste of place). almost inevitable. However, an alternative path to the future of these traditional commodities may be to capture and market their rich regional heritage as well as the enormous contributions they make to American foodways and working agricultural landscapes. National, state and local “heritage areas” already exist, building educational tourism around sites of significant events and developments in American history, such as wars, industries, canals, women’s rights, slavery, and the like.
191 We believe it is possible for traditional Cornell Cooperative Extension of American commodity regions like the Lake Chautauqua County), the Lake Eire Erie Concord Grape Belt to capture and Concord Grape Belt Heritage Association make use of their heritage in much the formed in 2004 and has 130 members same way. Yet to be determined is (most of whom are grape farmers). Local whether these regions have enough funding sources have been tapped along “heritage muscle” to draw tourists and with funds from the state’s Coastal consumer interest that will translate into Resources Program and legislative new sources of income and sustainability. member items. Projects underway include This is one among numerous questions an interpretive automobile trail with being addressed in our research on the information kiosks that covers 90 miles of potential of “agricultural heritage areas” the Grape Belt, a Concord Grape Heritage (AHAs). The first of its kind may be the Discovery Center, a “Culinary Bounty” Lake Erie Concord Grape Belt AHA (where program to promote local grape cuisine, we have been conducting exploratory and an effort to build a state-of-the-art work). grape research facility. A study of the economic impact of the grape and The Lake Erie Concord Grape Belt wineries industry is also underway, and a Heritage Area special label certifying the origin of Grape The “Concord Grape Belt” is the largest Belt products may be licensed in the viticultural area in North America outside future. Such labels and related product of California, encompassing a 30,000-acre information may educate consumers about swath of grapes that runs the length of unique regional agricultural products and eastern Lake Erie. The Concord Grape Belt tap their interest in wholesome products crosses the border of New York state and which contribute not only to improved Pennsylvania and includes approximately health but also to American cultural 1,000 vineyards. It is where Dr. Thomas identity. B. Welch expanded the production of America’s first commercial fruit beverage, Capturing the region’s untapped heritage and continues to be the headquarters for marketing potential may help this numerous grape processors. beleaguered industry and shed light on ways other struggling regional However, today the heart of the Grape commodities such as cranberries and wild Belt is also found in the New York State blueberries can stay competitive and county whose population is shrinking the sustainable. fastest — Chautauqua County. Furthermore, the region took a big hit when Welch’s moved its headquarters to It is in the combination of local Concord, Mass., in 2001, and with it dozens of high-paying management and landscape and human labor that administrative jobs. Despite these distinct foods and cuisine are challenges, numerous organizations and agencies came together in 2003 with created, reflecting the cultural assistance from Cornell’s Community, uniqueness of a place Food, and Agriculture Program in the Department of Development Sociology to explore how the Concord Grape Belt’s rich agricultural heritage could be the basis for sustainable development. Led by dozens of grape processors, cooperatives, organizations and agencies (including the Lake Erie Regional Grape Program, and 192 Presentation Key Points ο Culinary Bounty Committee ο Inter-industry Committee • Why “Placelessness?” – Private Policy • Potential Benefits of ο Mobility and lack of Agricultural Heritage Area rootedness. ο Preservation grants ο Value of individual desire ο Vineyard preservation over community welfare. ο Greater local appreciation ο Private space valued over ο Industry unity public space. ο Tourism development
• Why “Placelessness?” – Public • Concord Grape Belt Heritage Policy Association, Inc. ο Belief that unfettered ο Photo collections market will solve problems. ο “Foxfire”-style interviews ο Lack of intergovernmental ο Farm implement collections cooperation and agency ο Juiceries (like wineries) turfism. ο Wineries ο Lack of long-term regional ο Diversification opportunities planning. ο Grape-related recreation ο Lack of resources. and entertainment ο Concord Grape cuisine • Key Concepts and Principles ο Buy-local campaign ο Belief that unfettered ο Co-packing market will solve problems ο Shared-use kitchens ο Earth systems ο Institutional purchasing ο Terroir (France) ο Certified heritage products ο Topophilia ο Smart growth and “place- • Interpretive Trail based development” ο Roadside info kiosks ο Goldschmidt Hypothesis ο Maps ο Brochures • Concord Grape Belt Heritage ο Signage Association, Inc. ο Trails ο Heritage Committee ο Tours of vineyards and ο Museum Committee processing plants ο Tourism/Promotion ο Pull-over vistas Committee
193 REDTT Project Overview Dora Dominguez and Deb Franzoy Rural Economic Development through Tourism Las Cruces, New Mexico
~ Education Communication ~ Communication · Media Coverage ~ Collaboration · Web site - www.redtt.org · News Releases · REDTT is an economic development · Trails & Treasures Magazine project, designed to boost tourism · Writer Familiarization Tours development in rural New Mexico. · Event Calendars · Administered through New Mexico State University’s Cooperative Collaboration Extension Service. · Partners · REDTT’s service area includes 17 · County Tourism Councils Project counties, which encompasses a total Cost Share Requirements of 47 villages, towns and cities, 10 · New Mexico State University’s Native American pueblos and two Cooperative Extension Service Native American Tribes. (NMSU CES) · New Mexico Tourism Department Education (NMTD) · Annual Rural Tourism Conference · Bureau of Land Management (BLM) · Training Workshops · Tourism Association of New Mexico · Hospitality and Customer Service (TANM) · E-Commerce · Volunteer Management Why We Promote Tourism as Economic Development · Tourism Project Development · In the United States, the tourism · Events and Festivals industry is a half-trillion dollars-a- · FAM Tours year industry and is the nation’s · County Tourism Councils second largest employer with over 15.5 million people · Annual Rural Tourism Conference · In the thirteen years since its · The 2005 Annual Conference, inception, the REDTT project has hosted in Deming, New Mexico. The increased the number of New Mexico event entitled, “Making Tracks counties it serves from its three Along the Border,” attracted more original partner counties to currently than 180 tourism professionals and serving 17 counties. volunteers from throughout New · This year, REDTT awarded $51,000 Mexico. to support tourism projects in all 17 Networking opportunities with New Mexico counties. other tourism people · Since the project began in 1992, FAM Tours of area attractions REDTT has awarded $375,274 in Workshops on tourism issues grant funds to its member counties. Banquet and awards dinner · REDTT continues its mission to Keynote speakers on current provide technical assistance through tourism issues a team approach to rural tourism professionals and volunteers.
194 · Agtourism or Agritourism · Historical and Cultural Tourism "Travel and tourism makes it possible for Americans to get outdoors and learn about wildlife and conservation," U.S. Secretary Project Goal: To educate, train, of the Interior Gale Norton told the media, spread information and assist in “and the economic benefits are a tourism development of New Mexico’s tremendous boom to local communities." rural communities.
195 Working Trees for Livestock: Silvopasture: Agroforestry Systems that Combine Timber and Livestock Production
Richard Straight USDA National Agroforestry Center Lincoln, Nebraska
Agroforestry is a land management for forest industry to procure pulpwood system that incorporates trees and shrubs offshore, especially from South America. into farm and grazing lands. This Consequently, forest plantation owners combination of crops or forage with taller are finding it difficult to generate a profit trees is done in such a way as to take or even pay for the cost of a mid-rotation advantage of the biological interactions to thinning. This is creating a backlog of create economic benefits for the land unmanaged pine plantations with stagnate owner and environmental benefits for growth, a high risk for wildfire and insect society. These agroforestry trees have a damage, and low potential to eventually job to do, they are Working Trees for produce quality sawtimber. Agriculture. Silvopasture systems are an alternative One of the five agroforestry systems used pine plantation approach for providing a in the United States is called silvopasture. long-term supply of sawtimber with fewer Silvopasture systems incorporate timber mid-rotation plantation thinning production and livestock grazing on the operations. In past decades the plantation same piece of land and have the potential owner’s income was supplemented to provide an alternative approach to saw- through these mid-rotation thinnings. In a timber production of loblolly, longleaf, and silvopasture system the plantation owner’s slash pines. These systems are inherently income is increased through annual forage environment friendly and forest industry or grazing income. The establishment of would benefit from the increased profitable forage under the pine tree production of high-quality sawlogs. canopy is possible because there are many fewer trees planted in a silvopasture For many decades in the Southeast, the plantation, as few as 150 trees per acre, tendency had been to plant and grow rather than the more typical 600-900 southern pines in “fully stocked” trees per acre. Fewer trees means more plantations. This production method has light reaches the grass and legumes on worked in large part because there has the ground. been a strong domestic market for pulpwood which allowed pine plantations This dual-product land management to be thinned and creating profit for the system can increase on-farm income by as landowner. Thinning kept the stands much as 70% over a forage only or timber growing vigorously, improved their only management system. This is possible resistance to pine beetle attacks, and because of the interactions between the reduced the hazard of wildfires. At the end trees and forage, the more complete of the rotation a final harvest of quality utilization of sun light and soil nutrients, sawlogs was produced. and more intensive management by the producer. An effective silvopasture system In recent years the pulpwood market in includes a well-managed rotational grazing the southeastern United States has system and regular pruning of the trees to weakened. This is attributable to a supply create high value timber. shift that has made it more cost effective
196 wildfires. It is also possible to thin an existing pine stand to allow sufficient light to reach the understory so that a forage system can be established and managed.
Silvopasture systems and the necessary management components such as fencing, livestock water systems, tree planting, and forage improvement are eligible practices within the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Silvopasture could also qualify under southern pine beetle and wildfire prevention programs.
“In the 80’s, I found myself with high- Silvopasture trials and demonstrations priced real estate. I had to find a way to have been explored in the southeast for create some cash flow on my ranch. The more than 20 years. Although there has answer was grazing cattle under planted been only a minimal investment in pines--in fancier terms, silvopasture. research, these demonstrations still Everybody said raising cattle and pines illustrate the potential of silvopasture together wouldn’t work because the cattle systems for pine sawlog production. It would destroy the trees, but I’ve been also has many additional benefits such as able to double the return from my land providing habitat for quail and wild turkey, with this combination.” George Owens, being less susceptible to southern pine Chipley, FL beetle attack, providing ready access for pine straw raking, and reducing the risk of
197 Forest Certification for Landowners
Alyx Perry Wildlaw Southern Forests Network Asheville, North Carolina Harry Groot Next Generation Woods, Inc. Hiwasee, Virginia Kathryn Fernholz Dovetail Partners White Bear Lake, Minnesota
Forest certification is a system for about the ATFS certification program is evaluating and recognizing well-managed available at: www.treefarmsystem.org. forests and the products harvested from them. Forest management and forest The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) was certification offer several potential started in 1993 and has established opportunities and benefits for landowners, regional standards for certification including improved forest health, better assessments in the United States. The wildlife habitat, and marketing niches. FSC also offers group certification for landowners. There are about 40 FSC Forest certification started in the early group certificates in the United States. 1990’s as a market incentive and More information about FSC is available mechanism to differentiate responsibly at; www.fscus.org. managed forest products. Today, about 6% of the world’s forests are certified Master Logger Certification programs using a variety of different certification differ from the previous two programs in systems. In the United States, there are that Master Logger Certification certifies three major approaches to providing the operator not the forestland. The certification for family forests. The three Professional Logging Contractors of Maine primary certification systems for started Master Logger Certification in landowners are the American Tree Farm 2000. Several other states, including System (ATFS), Forest Stewardship Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and Council (FSC), and master logger Vermont have also initiated logger programs. certification programs. More information on the Maine program is available at: The American Tree Farm System (ATFS) www.masterloggercertification.com. was first established in 1941 and revised its certification program and auditing Forest certification is a relatively new tool standards in 2002. The ATFS offers group for evaluating forest management and certification to allow landowners to pool recognizing products from well-managed resources and have their lands certified forests in the marketplace. Landowners under a single, shared certificate. There interested in learning more about the are eight (8) ATFS group certificates in the opportunities offered by forest certification United States with a total of almost 3 and responsible forest management can million acres certified. More information contact the individual certification programs to learn more.
198 Specialty Niche Crop Profiles
Richard Molinar UC Cooperative Extension Fresno, California
$ 200,000 from half an acre?? Niche marketing means doing something $ 100,000 from 2 acres?? no one else is doing. It involves growing unusual specialty vegetable or ‘oddballs’. Are these kinds of returns (gross) possi- ble? The answer is yes-no-maybe. Where to Market: It depends on which way the wind is There are many marketing options and blowing. Your abilities as a farmer, pest oftentimes a farmer is selling at three or control advisor, fertilizer expert, irrigation more places on the list below. Some of specialist, soil scientist, and marketer all the markets on the list are easier to get play a key role. into, and others more difficult, as indi- cated in the “difficulty” rating (Table 1) The farmer proclaiming $200,000 income sold baby lettuces in fancy salad mixes to Several general principles apply to Niche fancy restaurants in the San Francisco Specialty crops Bay area and East Coast. Growing the •if everyone is growing it, it is no longer a plants is fairly easy [comparatively specialty Niche crop speaking] but it is growing the right crop, •any Niche crops eventually become at the right time, and marketing it ag- mainstream (baby lettuce, egg- gressively that determines whether a plant) large, small (or no) profit is made. EXAMPLES OF SPECIALTY ‘NICHE’ CROPS Generally speaking, “Niche” crops have a greater potential for making higher re- They are usually oddballs, odd shapes, turns per acre than the mainstream vege- odd sizes, different colors, grown out of tables. Niche and specialty crop can be season,, organic, foreign (ethnic) minia- used interchangeably. It is something ture, heirlooms, medicinal, gourmet, that not too many others grow. value-added (dried, frozen, pickled, pre- cut, chocolate covered, candied). At the same time the specialty crops are more labor intensive and have higher I will be referring to the Federal Market costs of production. All successful enter- News Reports (www.arms.usda.gov/ prises are predicated on three very im- marketnews.htm) and the cost and return portant points: 1/ researching the pro- studies from the UC Davis campus duction of the crop; 2/ researching the ( www.agecon.ucdavis.edu). market potential and places; 3/ diversi- fication and not putting all your eggs in one basket.
199 Difficulty getting into Potential for returns
1 Roadside stands ☹ ☺☺
2 Pick-your-own ☹☹ ☺☺
3 Processor contracts ☹☹☹ ☺
4 Terminal wholesale markets ☹☹ ☺
5 Local vegetable packing houses ☹☹☹ ☺
6 Specialty wholesale houses ☹☹☹☹ ☺☺ to ☺☺☺☺
7 Specialty retail stores ☹☹ to ☹☹☹☹☹ ☺☺ to ☺☺☺
8 Certified farmers markets ☹☹ to ☹☹☹☹☹ ☺ to ☺☺☺☺☺
9 Flea markets / swap meets ☹ ☺☺
10 Restaurants ☹☹☹☹☹ ☺☺☺ to ☺☺☺☺
11 CSAs (commun. supp. ag.) ☹☹ ☺☺
12 Internet ☹ ☺ to ?
13 Cooperatives n/a ☺☺
14 Agri-tourism ☹ to ☹☹☹ ☺☺
15 Institutional (school lunch, etc.) ☹☹☹☹☹ ☺☺ to ☺☺☺☺
Table 1: Difficulty Rating
JUJUBE or Chinese Date: Zizyphus jujube A Typical yield per tree is 60 lbs. of mar- Lam. The plant belongs to the Buckthorn ketable fruit and prices paid to the farmer family and is believed to have originated start out at $1.25 and drop to 60cents in China. The trees are long-lived and ex- later in the seasons ($ 7,000 to 14, 500 tremely hardy. No diseases or insects gross income to the farmer). Uses in- have been a problem in California. The clude: fresh, dried (date), candied, sub- main varieties are the Li, Lang, and Sher- stitute for dates/raisins, smoked, pies, wood and are generally spaced 15’ by turkey stuffing, medicinal tea, bread, 15’ (194 trees per acre). Cost to pur- pickled. chase trees is around $18.00.
60 lbs. x 194 trees x 75¢ per pound =$8,730
200 ASIAN CUCURBITS - bittermelon, sinqua, transplants early in the spring. 8-10" moqua, luffa, snake gourd, opo: fruits can be harvested fresh and used much like zucchini squash, with a typical Sinqua (Luffa): Luffa acutangula, is a yield being 1,000 30-lb. cartons per acre. member of the cucurbit family. Plantings Most of the costs are in the trellising and are usually trellised and started from harvesting as seen in Table 2.
UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, 2005
2005 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
TOTAL CULTURAL 211 1,044 1,706 76 145 83 90 105 83 791 11 11 4,355 COSTS
Harvest
Hand Pick 927 1,862 1,862 1,862 927 7,440
Haul 55 110 110 110 55 439
TOTAL HARVEST 0 0 0 0 0 981 1,972 1,972 1,972 981 0 0 7,879 COSTS
interest on oper- 1 8 19 19 20 27 40 53 67 -11 0 0 243 ating capital @ 7.65%
TOTAL OPERAT- 212 1.052 1.725 95 165 1,091 2,102 2,130 2,122 1,761 11 11 12,478 ING COSTS / ACRE
TOTAL CASH 20 2 45 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 301 381 OVERHEAD COSTS
TOTAL CASH 232 1,054 1,770 97 167 1,093 2,104 2,132 2,123 1,763 12 312 12,860 COSTS / ACRE
Table 2: Cost per Acre to Produce Bittermelon
The wholesale price in Los Angeles paid Mature fruits can also be harvested for to farmers July and August 2005 aver- the ‘luffa sponge’ sold in stores for aged $15-18.00 per 30-lb. carton as kitchen cleaning and for skin care. One seen in Table 3, the net returns per acre acre will yield about 20,000 sponges if will vary according to the yield and price left on the plant until fall. Prices on the received. internet for an 8-10” sponge is $10.00. $200,000 per acre!!
201 PRICE YIELD (30 lb boxes / acre) $/box 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 6.00 -5,856 -6,285 -6,713 -7,136 -7,562 -7,985 -8,407 9.00 -4,656 -4,485 -4,313 -4,136 -3,962 -3,785 -3,607 12.00 -3,456 -2,685 -1,913 -1,136 -362 415 1,193 15.00 -2,256 -885 487 1,864 3,238 4,615 5,993 18.00 -1,056 915 2,887 4,864 6,838 8,815 10,793 21.00 144 2,715 5,287 7,864 10,438 13,015 15,593 24.00 1,344 4,515 7,687 10,864 14,038 17,215 20,393
Table 3: Net Returns per Acre above Total Costs - Cucurbit
DAIKON. Raphanus sativus is a brother growing costs are about $3,00per acre, to the common radish. Roots are much 75% of which are harvest costs. larger than the radish and tend to have a milder taste. Daikon can be planted and From table 4 we can see that a profit can harvested almost year-round, however be made when prices are over $6.00 per the best quality comes from the fall- 40-lb. carton and yields exceed 450 spring harvests. Several pests that at- boxes per acre. The L.A. wholesale prices tack Daikon include aphids (which spread paid at the terminal market March a plant virus) and wireworms which cause through July were around $9-12. cosmetic damage on the roots. Total
UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
PRICE YIELD (40 lb boxes / acre) $/box 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 4.00 -588 -549 -518 -473 -433 -395 -357 6.00 312 451 582 727 867 1,005 1,143 8.00 1,212 1,451 1,682 1,927 2,167 2,405 2,643 10.00 2,112 2,451 2,782 3,127 3,467 3,805 4,143 12.00 3,012 3,451 3,882 4,327 4,767 5,205 5,643 14.00 3,912 4,451 4,982 5,527 6,067 6,605 7,143 16.00 4,812 5,451 6,082 6,727 7,367 8,005 8,643 18.00 5,712 6,451 7,182 7,927 8,667 9,405 10,143 20.00 6,612 7,451 8,282 9,127 9,967 10,805 11,643
Table 4: Net Returns per Acre above Total Costs—Daikon
202 LEMONGRASS. Cymbopogon citrates is lb). Total cost per acre (including har- propagated vegetatively from crown divi- vest) is about $9,000 per acre. sions. It is used extensively in Asian stir-fried dishes, as a hot-cold tea, flavor- Almost ½ of the total cost is for the tedi- ings in baked goods, and a fragrance in ous hand harvesting, and the other part perfumes, cosmetics, and soaps. It can of the total cost is for the installation of be grown as an annual or a short-lived the plastic tunnels to protect the plants perennial but requires at least 8 months from freezing weather in the winter. To from planting to harvest. The only minor make a profit the farmer needs at least pest observed in California has been a $8.00 per box and a yield of 1,000 boxes fungal rust on the leaves. An average to per acre. good yield is 1,400 boxes per acre (40-
PRICE YIELD (40 lb boxes / acre) $/box 1,010 1,110 1,210 1,310 1,410 1,510 1,610
6.00 -4,015 -3,909 -3,801 -3,695 -3,588 -3,480 -3,373 7.00 -1,995 -1,689 -1,381 -1,075 -768 -460 -153 8.00 25 531 1,039 1,545 2,052 2,560 3,067 9.00 2,045 2,751 3,459 4,165 4,872 5,580 6,287 10.00 4,065 4,971 5,879 6,785 7,692 8,600 9,507 11.00 6,085 7,191 8,299 9,405 10,512 11,620 12,727 12.00 8,105 9,411 10,719 12,025 13,332 14,640 15,947
Table 5: Net Returns per Acre above Total Costs— Lemongrass
SPECIALTY EGGPLANTS. Many differ- flea beetles, aphids, spider mites, various ent types exist here including Japanese, caterpillars, and Lygus bugs (which cause Thai, Filipino, Chinese, and Hmong etc. flower drop). The crop is harvested for Most have a sweeter, more intense flavor four months starting in July, with most than the traditional American round egg- growers averaging 2,000 30-lb. cartons plant. Chinese eggplants are usually per acre. The break even point is about transplanted in April when the weather $7.00 per box and 1,800 boxes per acre. and soil temperatures have warmed up. Care should be taken not to bruise the Pest problems include verticillium wilt, delicate skins of the fruit.
203 PRICE YIELD (30 lb boxes / acre) $/box 1,500 1,700 1,900 2,100 2,300 2,500 2,700
6.00 -2,009 -1,606 -1,201 -796 -393 12 417
7.00 -509 94 699 1,304 1,907 2,512 3,117 8.00 991 1,794 2,599 3,404 4,207 5,012 5,817 9.00 2,491 3,494 4,499 5,504 6,507 7,512 8,517 10.00 3,991 5,194 6,399 7,604 8,807 10,012 11,217 11.00 5,491 6,894 8,299 9,704 11,107 12,512 13,917 12.00 6,991 8,594 10,199 11,804 13,407 15,012 16,617
Table 6: Net Returns per Acre above Total Costs— Eggplants
BLUEBERRIES are a mainstream crop in The start-up costs for the first two years Michigan, Washington, Oregon, but in the to establish a planting are around California Central Valley they are still a $16,000, but depending on the variety, Niche crop. They start producing in a yields may be in the 20,000 lb. range per market window before the other states acre. As seen in the net returns’ table 7, start coming into production. Taste is at $1.11 per pound a farmer would need evaluated closely as well as yield. a minimum of 17,600 pounds to make a profit, and even less in succeeding years. Six years (and continuing) of testing has resulted in varieties that are adapted to 2003 Blueberry Taste Tests the climate in the Central Valley and de- Sharpblue termining the production techniques for Bluecrisp the region (soil acidification etc). Over Jewel 40 varieties are currently under evalua- Magnolia tion from a number of nurseries.
Table 7: Net Returns - Blueberries
204 Blackberry and Raspberry Production Opportunities for the Southeastern United States
Gina E. Fernandez and James R. Ballington North Carolina State University Raleigh North Carolina
Status of Crop in the United States (e.g. Harris Teeter, Food Lion, Whole Large-scale commercial bramble Foods). Test marketing of blackberries, by (blackberry and raspberry) production in the NCSU/NCDA & CS Specialty Crops the U.S. is located almost exclusively Program indicated that a market exists at along the Pacific Coast. In a recent grocery chains, gourmet restaurants and Census of Agriculture, California, Oregon, farmers markets. For example, Wellspring and Washington reported 76 percent of grocery (Whole Foods Chain) sold harvested U.S. raspberry acreage. Most blackberries from this NCSU/NCDA SCP acreage in Washington is destined for marketing project at the Raleigh store for processing and the California industry $3.99 to $4.99/quart, and they stated in aims towards the fresh market. However, their produce survey “sales were great”. off-season imports from other countries In addition to the above outlets, berries are increasing, enabling consumers to get can be sold to processors, for jams, jellies, fresh brambles nearly year round. wine and other value added products.
Bramble production is limited in the Worldwide blackberry production is southeastern United States (SEUS), but expanding with shipping to major interest in these high-income specialty markets, and the season-long availability crops is growing, as more and more has greatly increased the sale and consumers demand a local supply of these awareness of this crop. The SEUS fresh fruits. Blackberries are no longer produces blackberries at a time when considered a local crop of limited appeal domestic supplies are low, and prices outside of the South. Consumers are generally remain high throughout the demanding and grocery stores are paying production season. New varieties that and getting high prices for fresh berries. produce fruits their first year offer the Brambles offer growers an excellent potential to produce fruits during periods potential for profit, having both high value of time beyond our typical May-July peak. and great market potential. Net income can exceed $3,800 per acre from New raspberry cultivars from the Maryland established blackberry plantings which can and New York breeding programs do well last up to ten years. Adoption of these in high elevation regions of the SEUS and high-value crops may help the survival of there is a good chance for the release of small acreage and family farms as heat tolerant raspberries for piedmont production of traditional crops (e.g. areas in the next decade. Off-season tobacco) becomes untenable. production of raspberries and blackberries using new primocane fruiting varieties, Prospects and Opportunities for the tunnels, greenhouses or other forms of Southeastern United States protected culture could extend the Blackberries are being sold in North production season nearly year round. The Carolina markets as “gourmet berries” for SEUS could be a major supplier to that $3 or more per 1/2 pint. In the SEUS, worldwide market if production practices, blackberries have been traditionally sold post-harvest handling techniques and at pick-your-own farms or at roadside marketing strategies are developed and stands. A few of the larger growers sell deployed. their fruit to chain stores in the region
205 Growing Blueberries for Local Markets
Bill Cline North Carolina State University Castle Hayne, North Carolina
Overview Pre-plant considerations Blueberries are native North American Soil pH - Blueberries require a lower pH plants of the genus Vaccinium. Those than other small fruit crops. To reduce adapted to commercial production include pH, apply wettable sulfur (90% S) if pH is the highbush blueberry (V. corymbosum) above 5.3 for rabbiteye blueberries or 5.0 native to the northeastern states; for highbush blueberries. Use 1.0 pound rabbiteye blueberry (V. ashei) native to (2.5 cups) per 100 square feet on sandy the southeastern US; and lowbush soils to lower pH by 1 unit (for instance, blueberry (V. angustifolum, V. from 6.0 to 5.0). Apply 2.0 pounds per myrtilloides) in the managed wild stands 100 square feet for the same amount of of Maine and eastern Canada. Also, pH lowering on heavier soils containing recent hybrids between domesticated and silt, clay or more than 2% organic matter. wild species have resulted in “southern Try to achieve a pH of around 4.8; too highbush” cultivars uniquely adapted to much reduction can be detrimental to warmer climates. Commercial production bush growth. Apply sulfur at least 3-4 is mostly site-limited to well drained, acid months before planting, and take another soils with an organic matter content above soil test before planting. If pH is still 2%. However, blueberries can be grown above the acceptable range, additional almost anywhere if the right cultivars and sulfur can be applied. proper soil modifications are used. Limiting factors include pH, organic matter Organic Additions - If the soil contains less content, water availability, plant chill than 2% organic matter, the incorporation requirement and cold hardiness. of peat moss or well-decayed pine sawdust or bark will improve plant survival Interest in blueberries has increased and growth. Establish the rows on ridges dramatically in the last 5 years due to to provide the required drainage. Apply 4 exciting new information about the health to 6 inches of the organic material over benefits of blueberry consumption. the row in a band 24 inches wide and Blueberries produce high-value fruit in a incorporate thoroughly using a roto-tiller relatively small space, and are thus well to a depth of 6 to 8 inches. Preparing the suited for small, locally marketed or pick- beds in the fall will allow planting earlier in your-own plantings. In areas isolated the season (late Feb. to late March from commercial fields, blueberries are depending on the location). If the organic also a good candidate for organic material is incorporated in the fall, any production. This presentation covers the sulfur required to lower the pH can be basics of small-scale blueberry production added at the same time. Avoid opening a and marketing. The text below is adapted furrow, adding the organic material and from Blueberries for local sales and small planting directly in the pure organic pick-your-own operators, and it is material. Water and nutrient management available on-line at: is likely to be difficult in the pure organic http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/hi material and plants are more likely to l-202.html become weak and die. Organic material such as pine bark, wood chips, sawdust or pine straw can be used in a deep (3 to 4 inch) mulch layer on the surface after
206 planting. This surface mulch results in Cultivar selection - Cultivars (cultivated more uniform soil moisture, reduces soil varieties) recommended in one state or temperature and generally promotes region may be totally inappropriate for better bush growth and survival. Pine another area. In North Carolina, for bark, chips or sawdust have a pH of 3.5 to instance, both highbush and rabbiteye 4.5 and are more desirable than the same cultivars can be grown in the Coastal Plain mulches from hardwood with an and Piedmont. However, only highbush associated pH above 5.0. However, will consistently survive and produce fruit hardwood mulches on the surface have following the minimum winter been satisfactory. Avoid sticky hardwood temperatures below 10o F that regularly sawdust that will seal the bed and prevent occur in the Mountains. The rabbiteye water infiltration. species is more drought and heat resistant and will tolerate a wider range of soil Drainage - Provisions for drainage must types than highbush; for these reasons, precede planting. Soil maps or observing rabbiteye cultivars are easier to establish the soil profile may be helpful in predicting and grow successfully in the Piedmont and internal drainage. However, digging a dry on the drier soils of the Coastal Plain. well is the most effective way to assess More recently a group of cultivars referred internal soil drainage. Dig a hole(s) 6 to 8 to as southern highbush have been inches deep and observe water level released. These cultivars are intermediate following heavy rains. Water should not between highbush and rabbiteye in soil remain in the hole for more than 24 hours, and climate adaptation. Some specialized otherwise select another site or plant on southern highbush cultivars require very ridges high enough for the water level to little winter chilling and can be grown as reach 6 to 8 inches deep within 24 hrs. far south as subtropical Florida.
Irrigation - In most seasons and on most Pollination – In order to form a berry, soils, irrigation is absolutely essential the each blueberry flower must be visited by a year of planting. A system using micro- pollinating insect. Commercial growers in sprinklers is recommended and is more NC use honeybees for pollination (1 efficient than point-source drippers. Even hive/acre). Most small plantings are 2 drippers per plant often do not wet adequately pollinated by wild insects even enough of the soil surface. At least 50% of without the use of managed honeybee the area under the drip line should be hives. Blueberries are not fully self-fertile, wetted. The irrigation must be designed so growers are advised to plant more than for the higher output of microsprinklers one cultivar to encourage cross-pollination (about 10 gal per hr) compared with 1 or and improve fruit set and sizing. 2 gal per hr for drippers. Align the micro- sprinklers to avoid saturated soil around Sources of Plants - Blueberries are the crown of the bushes. The use of propagated vegetatively through the use automatic timers on drip or microsprinkler of cuttings. Both hardwood (winter) and irrigation systems can result in shallow softwood (summer) cuttings can be rooted root systems and root rotting if systems under mist without the use of rooting apply water daily. Apply irrigation no more hormones. While this can be accomplished than once every two days to reduce the by the backyard hobbyist or by a local chances of root rot infection. If the grower nursery, the best sources of uniform has no choice but to establish the planting plants for establishing a new planting are on a site prone to problems with frost nurseries that specialize in blueberry during the early spring (during bloom) propagation. Some commercial sources then overhead sprinkler irrigation should will sell single plants, while others require be installed to provide frost protection and minimum orders of 50 to 100 plants supplemental moisture.
207 Planting bushes, 6-12 inches of new growth is Nursery plants that are 2- or 3-years old adequate -- additional growth must be and 12-36 inches tall will transplant well. pruned away. This may result in a loss in The roots must be kept moist at all times production, but it is necessary to keep the between digging and replanting. Plant plants from becoming excessively large. bare-rooted bushes in late winter (Feb- Determine side-dressing requirement Mar) as soon as the soil can be worked; based on the amount of shoot growth and fall (Nov-Dec) planting has also been bush color. If the soil pH is slightly high successful on sandy soil in the in an established planting based on a soil southeastern NC Coastal Plain with bare- test, then side-dress with ammonium root plants, and in other areas with potted sulfate rather than ammonium nitrate. If plants. Highbush cultivars are spaced 4-5 the pH is 0.5 units or more above the ft in the row and 8-10 ft between rows; acceptable range, apply wettable sulfur in rabbiteye cultivars need 5-6 ft spacing in a narrow band under the drip line of the the row and 10-12 ft between rows. If bush at the rate of 0.1 pound per bush to organic mulch will be applied on the lower pH 1 unit. surface, plant to the same depth as the plants were growing in the nursery. Pest Control Without mulch, plant 1-2 inches deeper to Weeds -- If mulch is applied following allow for soil settling. Firm the soil around planting and replaced at the rate of 1 inch the plant with your feet and water per year, few weed problems should thoroughly. Prune approximately 2/3 of develop. Hand pull or hoe the occasional the top growth on bare-root plants and weed growth. If row middles are in sod, 1/2 on potted plants, leaving only 1-3 of mow often to reduce invasion by the most vigorous upright shoots. runnering grasses and to avoid production Remove any remaining flower buds of weed seeds that could blow into the (plump, rounded buds) on newly planted mulched area. If the bushes are not bushes. mulched, avoid deep cultivation since blueberry roots are very near the surface. Fertilization Hoe no more than about 1 inch deep. In Use caution -- blueberries are easily addition, hoe often (once every 2 weeks) damaged by excess fertilizer. Apply the when weeds are germinating, to reduce recommended amount and allow 4 inches competition and to avoid development of of rain or an equivalent amount of large, mature weeds. Pre- and post- irrigation between applications. In the emergent chemical herbicides are first year, do not fertilize immediately registered for controlling weeds in after planting, but wait until the first blueberry plantings. leaves have reached full size, then apply 1 tbs. of a special azalea fertilizer, 12-12-12 Insects – Insect pests encountered in or 10-10-10 within a circle 1 ft from the small, isolated blueberry plantings are plants. Repeat applications at usually generalists that feed on a wide approximately 6 week intervals depending range of plant hosts. In North Carolina, upon rainfall or irrigation, until mid-August japanese beetles, cranberry fruitworm, (in coastal NC). In the second year, cherry fruitworm and plum cuculio double the first year’s rates, but increase commonly occur on blueberry. Less the circle around plants to 1 1/2 ft. Make common in NC is the blueberry maggotfly. the first application when new growth The prevalence and importance of insect begins in spring. On bearing plants, wait pests varies by location, and control relies until growth begins in the spring, then on proper identification of the pest. apply 1 cup of complete fertilizer such as Diseases – Growers who start with 10-10-10 within a circle 3 ft from the disease-free plants and grow them in a plant. If more vigorous growth is desired, location isolated from other blueberries side-dress with 1/4 cup of ammonium can avoid many diseases. Plant-borne nitrate at 6 week intervals. For mature viruses and host-specific fungal pathogens
208 like mummy berry can be avoided in this fruiting shoots on each cane is less critical, manner. As blueberry bushes mature and and more suckers (shoots developing a age, pruning can be used to remove dead distance from the crown) will require or infected twigs and stems that harbor removal. fungal blight pathogens. Fruit rots can be greatly reduced by timely and complete Harvest harvest, followed by post-harvest cooling With good care, mature highbush and of harvested fruit. Fungicide sprays can rabbiteye plants should produce more often be omitted entirely. than 10 lbs each year. Rabbiteye cultivars can on occasion produce up to 25 lbs per Bird Protection - Birds love to harvest plant. Highbush blueberries will be of blueberries. They can consume the best quality when picked every 5-7 days complete crop from a small planting. One depending upon temperature. Rabbiteye inch by one inch mesh bird netting draped flavor improves if berries are picked less over the bushes or supported on a often; about every 10 days allows for framework is the only practical control. maximum flavor with few soft overripe fruit. At each harvest, every effort should Pruning be made to pick all ripe fruit. Picking Highbush - If the plants are cut back containers should be no larger than one- severely as recommended following gallon buckets to avoid overfilling and planting, little pruning will be required the crushing of berries in the bottom of the second year except removing all flower bucket. Avoid harvesting or handling fruit buds and any weak, damaged or diseased that is wet with rain or dew, as this will growth. Use a similar pruning strategy the significantly increase decay. Once third year with the exception that several harvested, “ready-picked” fruit for flower buds can be left on vigorous immediate sale should be placed out of shoots. In the fourth year, the bush the sun and kept cool and dry. Forced-air should be 4-5 ft tall and capable of cooling in a low humidity environment handling a crop, but carefully thin flower such as an air conditioned building can buds to prevent over-fruiting and severe significantly improve the shelf life of permanent bending of young canes under harvested fruit. Further extension of shelf the fruit weight. When bushes are mature, life requires refrigeration. remove old canes that are weak, diseased or damaged; cut back tall, vigorous shoots Potential for Organic Production to force branching at a lower level and to Blueberries can often be grown control bush height; and thin fruiting successfully without insecticides and shoots to reduce the number of flower fungicides outside of the commercial buds by about 50%. Prune during the production areas of southeastern North dormant season; late winter is most Carolina. Japanese beetles can desirable. occasionally cause damage to the fruit during ripening, but the foliage is quite Rabbiteye - During the first 3 years, resistant. Susceptible plants such as roses pruning is very similar to highbush; or grapes will usually be defoliated before however, excessively tall and limber injury is seen on blueberries. The low shoots will need cutting back to stimulate rates of fertilizer required make organic branching and strengthen the shoot. With sources a viable alternative. Horse manure mature bushes that are excessively has proven to be a suitable source of vigorous in spite of low rates of nitrogen and rock phosphate provides fertilization, cutting back the excessively adequate phosphorous. Weeds can be vigorous shoots in late July will help controlled with shallow cultivation or more control bush height and increase yield. desirably with mulch. Winter pruning of mature bushes is also similar to the recommendation for highbush, except detailed thinning of
209 For Further Information guide to IPM scouting in highbush Caruso, F. L. and Ramsdell, D. C. (editors) blueberries. Michigan State Univ. Ext. 1995. Compendium of Blueberry and Bull. E-2928. Cranberry Diseases. APS Press, St Southern Region Small Fruit Consortium -- Paul, MN. www.smallfruits.org Eck, P. and Childers, N. 1966. Blueberry Northwest Center For Small Fruits Culture. Rutgers University Press, Research – www.nwsmallfruits.org New Brunswick, NJ. NCSU Horticulture Information Leaflets -- Eck, P. 1988. Blueberry Science. Rutgers http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hi University Press, New Brunswick, NJ l/ Kuepper, G. L., et. al. 2004. Blueberries: 201 Suggestions for Establishing a Organic Production. Blueberry Planting in Western North Carolina ttp://attra.ncat.org/attra- 201-B Principles of Pruning the pub/PDF/blueberry.pdf Highbush Blueberry Meyer, J. and Cline, W. O. 1997. 201-E Blueberry Freeze Damage and Blueberry Pest Management. Protection Measures http://ipm.ncsu.edu/small_fruit/blueip 202 Blueberry Production For Local m.html Sales And Small Pick-Your-Own Pritts, M. P. and Hancock, J. F. 1992. Operators Highbush Blueberry Production Guide, 8207 Growing Blueberries for the NRAES-55, Ithaca, NY Home Garden Schilder, A. M. C., Issacs , R., Hanson, E. and Cline, W. O. 2004. A pocket
210 Information Resources for Alternative Enterprises
Robert Hochmuth University of Florida / IFAS Live Oak, Florida
Florida has perhaps the most diverse development, loss of farmland, and agriculture and natural resources in the reduced opportunities for farmers. country representing nearly $70 billion in output impacts in the state. Over 30,000 Educational information specific to the farms exist in Florida with small farms small farm audience needed to be accounting for over 90% of all farms in developed to make efficient transfer of the sunshine State. Small farmers own knowledge at the county extension and manage the majority of non-urban, program level. In the past, the privately owned land in the state. Due to information that would be useful to small the vast diversity of climate, soils, water farmers was difficult to find and was not resources, coastal areas, and natural well organized. County extension agents resources; small farmers in Florida have a needed information they could easily very wide range of alternative enterprises access and efficiently use to teach small available to them. Providing educational farm clientele. Florida has perhaps the information on these enterprises to small most diverse agriculture and natural farmers is quite challenging to the Florida resources in the country representing Cooperative Extension system. nearly $70 billion in output impacts in the Educational needs of small farmers in state. Over 30,000 farms exist in Florida Florida were identified as one of the with small farms accounting for over 90% statewide priority thrusts for Extension of all farms in the sunshine State. Small programs. As a result, the Small farmers own and manage the majority of Farms/Alternative Enterprises focus area non-urban, privately owned land in the was created under the Extension state. Due to the vast diversity of climate, Statewide Program Goal #1, “To Enhance soils, water resources, coastal areas, and and Maintain Agricultural and Food natural resources; small farmers in Florida Systems”. have a very wide range of alternative enterprises available to them. Providing Long range planning input from counties educational information on these throughout Florida identified the need for enterprises to small farmers is quite new small farm educational programs to challenging to the Florida Cooperative be developed. Input provided by small Extension system. Educational needs of farmers and allied organizations and small farmers in Florida were identified as groups in 2000 identified critical issues one of the statewide priority thrusts for facing Florida’s small farmers. The issues Extension programs. As a result, the included: Small Farms/Alternative Enterprises focus · Access to profitable markets. area was created under the Extension · Entrepreneurial and business skills Statewide Program Goal #1, “To Enhance development. and Maintain Agricultural and Food · Networking with other small farmers. Systems”. · Readily accessible technical information on small farms and Long range planning input from counties alternative crops and enterprises. throughout Florida identified the need for · Access to labor. new small farm educational programs to · Improving consumer relations and be developed. Input provided by small perceptions of farming. farmers and allied organizations and · Concerns related to urban groups in 2000 identified critical issues
211 facing Florida’s small farmers. The issues Agritourism included: Aquaculture · Access to profitable markets. Cut Flowers & Cut Foliage · Entrepreneurial and business skills Forages development. Forestry · Networking with other small farmers. Fruits & Nuts · Readily accessible technical Greenhouse/Hydroponic Crops information on small farms and Herbs alternative crops and enterprises. Livestock · Access to labor. Organic Enterprises · Improving consumer relations and Ornamental Crops perceptions of farming. Value-Added Opportunities Vegetables Providing this information to small farmers Wildflowers would increase profitability and improve Wildlife & Hunting their quality of life by making informed decisions. Developing information in an Other Miscellaneous Enterprises organized and easily accessible format The newly developed Florida Small Farms would improve the quality and efficiency website, http://smallfarms.ifas.ufl.edu, of extension agent program delivery. The was officially opened on the web in March development of a small farm website was 2005. During the first month, over planned to become the primary 33,000 hits were received on the site, educational program deliverable. This increasing to over 54,000 hits in April deliverable would serve the identified 2005. Feedback from county extension needs by the clientele of Florida. agents and farmers throughout the state verifies that the site is very useful and a The Florida Small Farms/Alternative very efficient way for farmers to access Enterprises Focus Team identified the information on alternative enterprises. primary topic areas needed to begin building the new website in 2004. Key Future program efforts from the Florida individuals were recruited to help build the Small Farms/Alternative Enterprises team information for the key topic areas. These include the initiation of several teams of individuals included University of regionalized small farms conferences in Florida and Florida A&M University county 2006, strengthening and updating the and state faculty and staff, growers, and website, identifying and developing key allied industry stakeholders. The key topic publications needed by small farmers, and areas include: improving small farm demonstration sites Small Farm Development across the state. Agronomics
212 Niche Market Opportunities: a Consumer-driven Approach
Stephan L. Tubene University of Maryland Eastern Shore Glen Burnie, Maryland
Introduction trends in support of ethnic food industry; U.S. food and fiber industry is driven by (2) discuss ethnic food trends in the U.S., consumers’ tastes and preferences. A (3) research strategies for developing more diverse U.S. population has over the specialty and ethnic vegetable markets; years influenced the way food is produced (4) document ethnic and specialty and distributed. Most notable changes vegetables’ production windows in the include consumers’ health Baltimore-Washington, DC area; and (5) conscientiousness, lifestyle, and explore possibility for extending ethnic consumers’ purchasing power. Most vegetables’ growing season. recently, a more diverse U.S. population spurred by emerging races and ethnic U.S. Demographic Trends groups has revolutionized the way food As indicated in Table 1, the overall U.S. will be produced and marketed in the U.S. population has become diversified in the last decade. Since 1990, Native Americans The goal of this paper is to discuss niche have more than doubled (110% increase), market opportunities in the Baltimore- followed by a considerable increase in Washington, DC area in the light of recent other ethnic groups, namely Asians food and demographic trends. More (64%), Hispanics (58%), and African specifically, the objectives of this paper Americans (22%). are to: (1) discuss U.S. demographic
Table1. U.S. Population by Race and Hispanic Origin (1990 and 2000) 1990 2000 Population Growth African American 29,968,060 36,419,434 21.5% Asian 7,273,662 11,898,828 63.6% Caucasian 199,686,070 216,930,975 8.6% Native American 1,959,234 4,119,301 110.3% Native Hawaiian1 - 874,414 - Other Race 9,804,847 18,521,486 88.9% Hispanic/Latino 22,354,059 35,305,818 57.9% Total Population2 248,709,873 281,421,906 13.2%
1Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 2Total population includes Hispanic/Latino even though listed separately in the table. Source: Census of Population and Housing, http://www.census.gov/population and http://factfinder.census.gov
213 Similarly, the diversity of the U.S. and Asians in Virginia (92%), District of population is also observed within regions Columbia (61%) and Maryland (51%). (Table 2). For instance, in the Baltimore- African Americans and Caucasians have Washington, DC area (District of increased but at a slower rate than that of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia), Native other ethnic groups. Population American population has increased in the projections predict a higher growth among last 10 years in both Virginia and the Hispanics (5%) in the next 20 years District of Columbia by 246 and 220 (2000-2020). percent respectively, followed by Hispanics in Virginia (106%) and Maryland (82%);
Table2. District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia Population Growth (1990- 2000) Percentage Change District of Columbia Maryland Virginia Total Population -5.7 10.8 14.4 African American -12.3 24.2 23.9 Asian 60.7 51.0 91.5 Caucasian 2.6 -0.1 9.2 Native Hawaiian ------Other Race 91.9 -- 226.4 Hispanic/Latino 37.6 82.2 105.6
U.S. Ethnic Food Trends cities (Kohls and Uhl, 2002). It is estimated that U.S. ethnic food markets account for $75 billion in annual According to Bellenger and Blaylock sales (Miller, 2005). According to Kohls (2002), three demographic trends that will and Uh (2002), consumers’ taste and shape the future U.S. food markets preferences shape the nation’s food and include more mature consumers, more fiber system. Food consumption patterns diversity, and more people to feed. A are influenced by physiological needs, more diverse population implies a shift in social conditions, and economic factors. food preferences as well as a notable expansion of the U.S. food repertoire. In The determinants of demand such as order to benefit from this diversity, U.S. income, and populations have influenced food suppliers must be aware and the U.S. ethnic food industry. In fact, knowledgeable of the differing preferences culturally-based food habits are one of the of population subgroups and able to last traditions people change when they creatively tap into U.S. consumers’ taste move to a new country. Given the ever and preferences. Ethnic and specialty growing U.S. ethnic diversity and vegetables consistently respond to this opportunity offered by untapped ethnic challenge. produce markets, excellent opportunities exist for U.S. consumers, food retailers, Developing Ethnic Produce Markets and farmers (Tubene, 2001). The nature of agriculture significantly influences the organization and complexity Ethnic populations not only introduce new of the food marketing system. Mostly, foods and food consumption patterns in fewer, larger, and more specialized farms the U.S., but also create new market are producing the nation’s food supply. opportunities for traditional foods. In some The key farm product and output cases, they have also fostered new forms characteristics that influence the food of food retailing, such as the bodegas marketing process are bulkiness, (small neighborhood food stores) in large perishability, quality differences, output
214 variations, and the geographic stores. In the Baltimore-Washington, DC specialization of individual commodities. area, farmers rarely sell their produce to The farm marketing problem has several wholesalers due to a high demand of dimensions, including the difficulty of ethnic produce escaping therefore, the adjusting farm output to rapidly changing imbalance of bargaining power between market needs, the price-taking status of farmers and marketing firms. farmers, the farm cost-price squeeze, the imbalance of bargaining power between Ethnic Vegetable Production Windows farmers and marketing firms, and Ethnic and specialty vegetables are usually declining pricing efficiency in agricultural stranger to temperate weather. Their markets (Kohls and Uh, 2002). natural habitat is tropical climate where the weather is hot and humid. Although Nevertheless, ethnic vegetable producers perennial in their natural environment, most likely utilize direct marketing outlets ethnic vegetables cannot resist cold such as farmers markets, pick-your-own weather making it difficult to be grown (PYO), farm and roadside markets, throughout the year in the Baltimore- community supported agriculture (CSA), Washington, DC area. mail order, and Internet marketing. They are not actually subject to the constraints In Maryland and Virginia, ethnic and of traditional agricultural market outlets specialty crops have adapted well to the since they operate in a monopolistic spring and summer weather offering a competition model rather than in a production window of about 4 months perfectly competitive market experienced ranging from May to September. Most by the traditional U.S. vegetable seeding takes place in the greenhouse in producers. Ethnic and specialty vegetable February while transplantation occurs in brand name is sufficient enough to May. Harvest occurs from early July to late differentiate itself from the mainstream September (Myers et al., 2004). agriculture commanding therefore, a premium price of a high-value niche Extending Growing Season product. Ethnic vegetables are grown in tropical climate where most crops are perennial. How farmers secure their own market In Maryland, the growing season is short outlets depend on the knowledge of the ranging from spring to fall (April to ethnic communities and the proximity of September). Ethnic vegetable production these markets. Farmers who are familiar season can be extended beyond the with ethnic communities find it easy to natural growing season using high tunnel penetrate such markets by building technology. More specifically, perennial personal relationships with store and vegetables such as edible hibiscus, and restaurant managers. This becomes hot peppers can be grown for a longer efficient when farmers are located near time period (May-December) whereas these markets. Rural and remote annual vegetables such as amaranth, communities may not enjoy such basil, and cilantro can be produced several privileges if located away from times throughout the year extending metropolitan cities. therefore the production window from 4 to 7 months offering therefore, the potential In the Baltimore-Washington, DC area, to double farmers’ income. farmers have already identified their own niche markets, which work well for them. Given the shortage of ethnic produce in Conclusion the region, available produce are The ethnic foods industry accounts for $75 immediately sold through these billion in annual sales in the U.S. Ethnic established market outlets. These niche and specialty vegetables have become a market outlets are mostly Pick Your Own, significant alternative agriculture in the farmers markets and international food U.S. On one hand, U.S. future
215 demographics predict a more diverse U.S. /markets/Food/ethnicfoodsmarket.htm population. On the other hand, research Myers, R. David, S. Tubene, M. indicates a promising future (of ethnic and Spicknall, and A. Hawkins. 2002. Ethnic specialty vegetables) for both consumers Vegetable and food retailers. Being aware of the Production Trials on a Plasticulture short production window for ethnic System for the Development of an vegetables in the Baltimore-Washington, Ethnic DC area, a growing season can be Food Market in Southern Maryland. extended using a high tunnel technology. University of Maryland. Tubene, Stephan. 2001. Agricultural References and Demographic Changes in the Mid- Bellenger, Nicole and J. Blaylock, Atlantic 2002. Changing U.S. Demographics Region: Implications for Ethnic and Influence Eating Habits. Food Review: Specialty Produce. Fact Sheet 793. Consumer-Driven Agriculture. Vol. 25, University of Maryland. Issue 1, spring Tubene, Stephan, 2005. 2002, USDA-ERS. www.marylandethnicvegetable.com Kohls and Uh. 2002. Marketing of Ethnic Vegetables Handbook. Agricultural Products, 9th Edition. U.S. Census of Population. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. http://www.census.gov/population Miller, Malinda. 2005. Ethnic Foods Market Profile. Iowa State University.http://www.agmrc.org/agmrc
216 Innovative Production: Taking the First Step: Farm and Ranch Alternative and Agritourism Resource Guide
Mark Rose USDA-NRCS Annapolis, Maryland
The agricultural and rural landscape is educational and outdoor activities. rapidly changing. Land is being converted Tourists and farm customers are to housing and other permanent uses at interested in farm culture and heritage so an alarming rate. One result of this they can better understand agriculture. transformation is the loss of prime This opens the door for farmers and farmland near all of the major cities and ranchers to provide an agricultural many rural towns. Some sectors of experience. The public is looking for agriculture are moving into what some interactive experiences close to home that people call an industrialization stage, or will help them get back to their roots. the very large and concentrated production of food and fiber. Rural America and the farm or ranch heritage and culture can help meet these Some farmers don’t want to expand their needs. The National Survey on Recreation operations, but few small farms can yield and the Environment estimated that 63 traditional farm products and compete million Americans visited farms annually successfully in this marketplace. Some during the 2000– 03 survey-periods. This agricultural sectors, for example tobacco, indicates that alternative enterprises and are in transition to new food and fiber agritourism would be a viable partner in production enterprises or to agritourism most rural community economic alternatives that will help them maintain development programs. or increase their farm income, sustain their lifestyle, and conserve their natural What is remarkable about these resources. alternative enterprises—be they production of traditional or unique crops or This transition into alternative enterprises livestock, direct marketing of traditional and agritourism is happening at an farm products, marketing value-added opportune time. Urban and rural products, or providing recreational, consumers alike are lining up, in several entertainment, or educational facilities—is areas of the country, for food, fiber, and that they all have a common theme: fun from the local farmer or rancher. farmers and ranchers are using their natural resources to keep their families on Market research and experience show the farm and their farms in the family. that: Consumers today are looking for local, fresh, organically or naturally grown Using the Resource Guide products and are, in most cases, willing to This guide is designed to help technical pay extra for them. More and more, staff and rural leaders assist farmers and consumers want to know who produced ranchers in taking the first step in their food and how it is produced. Thus, identifying alternative enterprises and they support local farmers and the agritourism opportunities. It is difficult for conservation of natural resources. a farm family to initiate this first step Children and adults are looking for the alone. Changing to a new enterprise opportunity to engage in interactive involves different production techniques,
217 processing methods, and marketing In addition to the First Step Resource activities. The entrepreneur must also Guide a CD-ROM of many resources identify and establish relationships with related to small farms, alternative new networks and organizations that can agriculture, business planning, agritourism help support the transformation to new and funding resources is also available. enterprises. These materials were first made available to technical assistance organizations and This guide is developed and organized to agencies in February 2004. Within six help farmers and ranchers through the months the 5,000 copies of the First Step assessment of their natural, family, and publication were distributed to NRCS, community resources. It is designed to Cooperative Extension and small farm provide a basic understanding of how the offices and organizations. Demand has far interaction of soil, water, animals, plants, exceeded supply. In November 2005 the air, and human resources, and the First Step reprint will be available for conservation of them, provide distribution from the Southern Maryland opportunities for the development of Resource Conservation and Development alternative enterprises and agritourism. office. The CD-ROM is currently being updated with anticipated release date of This guide will help the landowner to January 2006. inventory and understand the farm or ranch resources, think openly, think Funding for the reprint of the publication creatively, think of the unusual, but most and CD-ROM has been provided through importantly, think outside the box as they the following agencies and organizations: explore options for alternative enterprises Southern Maryland Resource Conservation and agritourism. & Development Council; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; USDA Basic questions asked throughout this Cooperative State Research Education and guide are: Extension Service; The Western Center for What can be done differently to Risk Management Education; Southern sustain the resources and the Region Risk Management Education family? Center; The Northeast Center for Risk What new enterprises might fit with Management Education; North Central existing farm and ranch Risk Management Education Center; USDA enterprises? Farm Services Agency Do markets exist for the products that can be grown or produced, the Publication/CD-ROM Orders: services that could be provided, or Southern Maryland Resource Conservation the kinds of recreational or &Development (RC&D) Council educational activities that can take 303 Post Office Road, Suite B4A place on a farm or ranch? Waldorf, Maryland 20601 What federal, state, and local 301-932-4638 grant, loan, or conservation [email protected] programs can be used to help www.md.nrcs.usda.gov/programs develop these enterprises? Are private funds available?
218 Helping Small-scale and Part-time Farmers Evaluate Alternatives; the Agricultural Alternatives Project at Penn State
Lynn F. Kime The Pennsylvania State University Gettysburg, PA 17325-3404 now being developed or revised include To meet the educational needs of small- enterprise leaflets on garlic, wine grapes, scale and part-time farmers, Penn State's cantaloupe, rabbits, earthworms, elk, College of Agricultural Sciences, with dairy goats, specialized lamb, feeder lamb, support from the USDA-Cooperative State spring and fall lamb, accelerated lamb, Research, Education, and Extension and business management leaflets on Service, the USDA-Risk Management enterprise budgeting, agritainment, and Agency, and the Pennsylvania Department roadside marketing. of Agriculture, has developed a set of 58 publications called “Agricultural Over the years the project has also Alternatives”. Most of the publications developed enterprise leaflets on introduce various alternative enterprises, accelerated lambing, asparagus, beef while others discuss important farm backgrounding, beef cattle feeding, beef management and marketing topics. The cow-calf, beekeeping, bell peppers, bison, enterprise publications help producers bobwhite quail, broccoli, cantaloupes, evaluate alternatives by providing cucumbers, dairy beef, dairy goats, dairy unbiased information on marketing, heifers, earthworms, eggs, elk, emus, production requirements, cost of fallow deer, feeder lambs, highbush production, and resource needs. Each blueberries, holiday lambs, meat goats, four to eight page publication also has a milking sheep, onions, ostriches, list of references, trade and marketing partridges, pheasants, potatoes, association information, and mailing and pumpkins, rabbits, red deer, rheas, snap web site addresses where more beans, spring lambs, strawberries, sweet information can be obtained. corn, swine, tomatoes, and veal. There are also publications available on Over the past three years the project has enterprise budgeting, fruit and vegetable issued several new and revised marketing, drip irrigation for vegetable “Agricultural Alternatives” publications. production, and irrigation for fruit and They include farm risk management vegetable production. Individual publications entitled Starting or “Agricultural Alternatives” publications can Diversifying an Agricultural Business, be downloaded in Adobe Acrobat (pdf) Developing a Business Plan, Agricultural format on-line at Business Insurance, Cooperatives, and http://agalternatives.aers.psu.edu. Financing Small and Part-time Farms. New and revised enterprise publications The Agricultural Alternatives Project is include Organic Vegetable Production, managed by Lynn F. Kime (extension Boarding Horses, Introduction to associate in Agricultural Economics) and Aquaculture, Apple Production, Peach coordinated by Jayson K. Harper (professor Production, Partridge Production, Pheasant of agricultural economics). If you have any Production, Small-flock Turkey Production, questions about the Agricultural Red Raspberry Production, Red Deer, and Alternatives Project, Lynn can be reached Watermelon Production. Some via e-mail at [email protected] or telephone at “Agricultural Alternatives” publications (717) 334-6271, ext. 313
219 Track Six
Program and Professional Development
220 Small Farm Teaching Activities Shannon Potter Maryland Cooperative Extension Easton, Maryland
Objectives Markets, Marketing/Business C Discuss Small Farm Course Planning C What is Cooperative Learning C One on one visits C What Teaching Activities are used C Farm and office C Developing Activities for programs Highlights Maryland’s Situation C Small Farm Short Course C Population 5,296,486 C Workbook C 19th most populous state C Survey of interests C Ranked 6th for population density C Teaching Activities and “Group Work” C 529.1 people per square mile C Panel of successful small farmers C Median Income C Decision making, production/growing C $52,868 a year in MD techniques, Marketing, Regulations, C $41,994 a year in US and Advice for a small farmer that is C Maryland has a growing population starting a business? with disposable income 2000 Census Data Results Maryland Agriculture’s Situation C 95% of participants rated the course C Land in Farms “Excellent” C 48% of farms are less than 50 C 98% of participants rated content, acres organization, creating interest, C Occupation involvement of participants, pace of C 62% report farming is not a delivery, and workbook materials as primary occupation good or excellent C 68% report working off the farm 200 days or more Outcomes C Maryland has Part-time farmers on C Participants were asked which farm small acreages practices would be incorporated as a result of this course: 2002 Census of Agriculture Goals of the Small Farm Program 90% Soil test C Introduce the agriculture industry and 88% Renovate your pasture enterprises available to small farmers 88% Try a new crop C Environmental stewardship, crop and 90% Incorporate IPM on farm livestock production strategies 90% Write a business marketing plan C Tools to develop a small farm 80% Try a new animal enterprise enterprise C Resources available to small farmers Participation C Small Farm Short-Course - 44 Types of Programs participants C Small Farm Short-Course C Workshops - 220 participants Held 3 small farm courses (6 week) C One on one visits - 72 participants C Workshops C Total – 336 participants Tourism, Equine, Direct Marketing, Greenhouse, QuickBooks, Small Small Farm Enterprises Business Development, Farm C Equine Pasture management,
221 renovation, equine opportunities, C 4 Steps to Rotational Grazing marketing C Hay Quality C Direct Marketing/Farm Markets Display C Business and Marketing design, product mix, marketing, C Enterprise Brainstorming customer service Activity C Greenhouse Marketing, business C Market it management Developing Activities Why Teaching Activities? C Be Creative Cooperative Learning C Assess the Audience – Some “Researchers report that, regardless of the participate more than others subject matter, students working in small C Keep within the Goals of the Class groups tend to learn more of what is Small Farm Teaching Activities taught and retain it longer than when the C Sample activities were shown as same content is presented in other examples instructional formats.” (Barbara Gross C Manual has been developed Davis, Tools for Teaching) including 10 Activities Teaching Activities 23 pages C Introduction to Agriculture Will be available Jan 1, 2006 C Small Farm Survey C Farm Information Sheet C Soils and Pest Management C Soil Testing C Pesticide Label C Livestock Management
222 Tips for Early Career Success in Programming for Small Farmers and Ranchers
David L. Marrison Ohio State University Extension Jefferson, Ohio
New personnel are often overwhelmed annually1. The educator should strive to with the breadth, depth, and diversity of include a balance of age, income, gender, providing educational assistance to small race and geographic distribution on their farmers and ranchers. Time management, committee. These groups are invaluable community needs assessments, in providing input for educational organizational skills, public relations, and programming and research. the development of a program emphasis are all key components for educators The educator can also use mail surveys to developing their local programs early in help ascertain programming needs. their career. The purpose of this abstract Surveys should be constructed so they are is to share tips for early career success in easy to respond to. After all, what busy programming for small farmers and farmer or rancher wants to complete a 15 ranchers. page survey in the middle of planting season? Educators should not attempt to get all the answers from one survey. It Getting to Know the People is also helpful to pilot test the survey with One of the most crucial steps in starting a a group of producers to make sure they new community outreach program is can understand the questions and make getting to know the needs of the clientele. sure all possible answers have been On-site visits, surveys, focus groups and accounted for. agricultural committees all can play a major role in determining the educational Educators can also use focus groups to needs of a community. Educators should ascertain the educational needs of their set a goal of meeting as many farmers farmers and ranchers. Methods such as and ranchers as possible on site during “Appreciative Inquiry” bring community their initial years of employment. These members together to assess present and meetings allow the educator to ask past programming, identify major trends, producers about their educational needs and identify common ground and goals for and their perception of the assistance that the future. Appreciative inquiry sessions you, as the Educator, can offer them. In are invaluable to educators who are addition, these on-site visits allow an completely new to their community as it educator to watch, listen, and feel for the allows them to understand the underlying producers’ unspoken needs. values and beliefs of a community. Educators wishing to learn more about A great way to ascertain programming how appreciative inquiry is being used by needs of a clientele group is to develop an educators in Ohio can contact Chester agricultural program committee. This Bowling at [email protected] or 614- committee should represent the present 292-8436 or review the website at: and potential areas of program emphasis. http://appreciativeinquiry.cwru.edu/ Include key leaders, producers and public officials. To keep the energy on the committee fresh, it has been suggested that members serve no more than two three-year terms with one-quarter to one- third of the membership changing
223 Organization & Time Management A question that all educators should ask “It is a great art to know what to is, “Does having a career mean giving up leave undone, to know how to weed your family life?” Some educators have out the less important things, and to found success in balancing family and spend one’s energies in doing the work by implementing a variety of things which will count.” 2 strategies. It is helpful for educators to use one calendar making sure to schedule One of the struggles for any educator is annual leave and important family and how to balance the educational and school events in first. These dates then research demands of their community with become non-negotiable when committees their personal life. It is vital that new are scheduling meetings and programs. educators put in place strategies to help Some educators place JFMF meetings (Just manage their time early in their career. for My Family) into their schedules. Administrator after administrator can cite Educators can also piggyback meetings examples of educators that have ruined into one night (one meeting from 6:00- their personal, and sometimes 7:30 pm and one from 8:00-9:30 pm) professional, lives due to poor time instead of being at the office two management. consecutive nights.
Prioritizing and organizing are two of the Communication by the educator is key. most critical aspects of time management. Communication with the organization’s It has been quoted that the average receptionist is vital for when clientele call educator wastes six weeks per year or stop by the office. The receptionist searching for lost information in messy needs to know where you are and the next desks or files. A loaded desk is not time you will be available to meet with always the sign of a very busy and clientele. Nothing is worse than a important person. It may just be the sign receptionist saying, “I don’t know where of disorganization. Educators should she/he is or when she/he will be back.” strive to develop a file system that Even though you could be at an important highlights different programming areas. meeting or working on an on-farm Some educators have adopted colors for research project, the clientele will leave files in each area. For instance, all thinking that you are out golfing! committee work and programming Communication with your spouse and information for water quality programs children is also key. It is helpful to the would be filed in blue file folders, whereas entire family to establish parameters. For information on forestry issues may be in a instance, the author’s family goal is to eat green file. dinner as a family each night (whether that is at the office, home or banquet). Additional ways for Educators to keep We also have established that work stays organized is by keeping clutter at a at work and home phones are not for minimum by utilizing a variety of storage business. items, storing as much information as possible on a computer to limit paper Ohio State University Extension offers clutter, and opening mail near the additional strategies with regards to time recycling box.3 Establish a to-do list of management, creating balance, dealing projects that are important and then treat with interruptions, organizing, setting them with priority. Another good strategy priorities and managing procrastination. is to complete more difficult tasks in off- These strategies can be found at: hour periods or at times when http://hr.ag.ohio- interruptions in the office can be state.edu/TimeMangWebsite/index.htm minimized. Some educators will flex their schedule to work late, early or on weekends to complete these tasks.
224 Media Relations References: One excellent way for educators to get a 1 Partners in Action, OSU Extension good start to their career is by developing Advisory Committee Guidelines a positive relationship with the local (1998). On-line. Retrieved media. Publicity for educational events October, 2005. through the news media can help increase http://leadershipcenter.osu.edu/Pu attendance and visibility of the local office. blications/Partners_In_Action/partn Educators should meet with local editors ers_in_action.htm to make the connection that you, as an 2 The Extension Workers Code Educator, are here to help them. Some (1922).Kansas State University. educators offer to write a weekly column Bulletin #33. On-line. Retrieved and send in pictures from agricultural October, 2005. events as a service to the paper. www.oznet.ksu.edu/historicpublicat ions/Pubs/exbul33.pdf Summary 3 Kutilek, L., and Flynn, B (n.d.) Getting to know the community, On-line. Retrieved October, 2005. developing time management and http://hr.ag.ohio- organization skills and developing a media state.edu/TimeMangWebsite/index. relations plan can help new Educators to htm be more successful early in their career.
225 Growing Places: Developing Informed Decision-Making for Beginning Farmers
Mary L. Peabody University of Vermont Extension Burlington, Vermont
The number of women aspiring to become skills of prospective farmers but also in farmers is increasing annually and raising the agricultural IQ of rural demographic indicators suggest that this communities and integrating under-served trend is likely to continue. Frequently audiences into the many service and these new farmers have some unique educational opportunities available. needs that have not been addressed in traditional Extension business Growing Places addresses the earliest management programs. In working with stages of business development (figure 1). this audience we have been challenged to During the pre-business planning phase it reconsider some of our fundamental is imperative that the individual articulate beliefs about farming and what constitutes clearly what they hope to achieve from the “success.” business and what resources they have to invest as well as understand their comfort The Women's Agricultural Network with respect to risk. (WAgN) opened in 1995 as a beginning farmer program with two primary Growing Places is an eighteen hour pre- objectives: i) to help women get business planning class that has proven connected to USDA programs and, ii) to useful to individuals exploring agriculture develop strong agricultural business as a business opportunity. Twelve to management skills. WAgN has since eighteen months after the class ends delivered outreach, education and participants are asked to complete a technical assistance to over 1600 follow-up survey. This helps us to track individuals and helped over 400 attain individual progress but also to see what their business goals. One of the lessons difference the class made. learned is that management education is most successful when considered within Results of follow-up surveys with class the context of the lifestage needs of the graduates indicate that approximately client. For that reason we have developed 44% of participants do, in fact, go on to a pre-business readiness class, Growing start businesses. Over half of the Places, which helps individuals address participants have gone to other workshops issues such as work-family-life balance, or classes to help them achieve their financial needs and expectations, and goals. About 20% of the participants community support as well as issues of report that the class helped them decide scope, scale, and production within the not to continue with their plans for an business. agricultural business. Given the many challenges faced by farmers we applaud This presentation addresses the processes both the decision to move forward and the that many beginning farmers engage in as decision not to with equal enthusiasm. they evaluate the feasibility of their business idea and the importance of The core of Growing Places is a values- informed decision-making on future based goal statement that participants are happiness. We will also discuss why we encouraged to write in the first week of believe pre-business readiness classes, class. That goal statement serves as a like Growing Places, are important not fundamental tool in the remaining classes. only for sharpening the decision-making Classes that follow include: decision-
226 making, resource evaluation, financial Of the 300+ individuals that have management, and marketing. The class registered for Growing Places the closes with action planning which helps completion rate is extremely high. In ten participants focus their energy on moving years, only 5 individuals have not toward their goal. For some participants completed the class. This speaks well for the class provides all the information the content of the class which students necessary for them to go on to complete consistently rate very high and the their business plan. For others, the manageable length of the class. In the support and structure of additional business plan writing class which lasts for classwork is needed. For those 14 weeks and consists of both Growing participants Growing Places is followed by Places graduates and others that have not a class in writing the business plan. This participated in Growing Places, the rate of class is a collaborative effort of UVM completion is much higher among those Extension and SBDC with additional that have attended Growing Places. We support from a variety of ag-related maintain that one reason for this is that organizations. Growing Places acts as a filter helping individuals to assess for themselves whether self-employment is a viable option.
WAgN BUSINESS START-UP CONTINUUM
Writing the Self-Assessment Business Implementation Planning Your Plan Exit
Is Agriculture Financing the Long-term a good Business Sustainability fit?
227 Developing Community Supported Agriculture Production & Marketing Tools for Extension-based Education to Limited Resource Small Farmers
Theresa J. Nartea NC A&T State University Greensboro, North Carolina
Justification and Description market through CSA, we have conducted a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is three year on-farm research and a production and marketing system that demonstration experimental trial in small farmers can adopt to reduce collaboration with NC Department of economic risk. Through CSA, customers Agriculture’s Research Station Division and pre-purchase a share of the harvest before NC Cooperative Extension-Ashe County. the growing season. This pre-payment method helps with start-up costs occurring The following educational tools (Items a to early in the season; reducing financial f., listed below) included on an interactive, burdens associated with operating loans or multi-media resource CD, have been credit cards. Although CSA is a profitable developed and can be readily adapted or alternative, adoption is slow. Due to the utilized by extension and research complex range of production, planning and personnel faced with the challenge of marketing skills involved in developing a teaching CSA to limited resource small successful CSA operation, it is difficult for farmers or other interested individuals: educators to teach CSA concepts to limited resource small farmers seeking profitable a.) Teaching worksheets alternatives. There is a justified need to produce an educational toolbox to teach b.) Share Distribution guide the fundamentals of CSA to limited c.) Production & marketing resource small farmers. calendar of events Objectives d.) Sequential planting and Objective 1: Develop research based CSA Sequential harvesting guide production and marketing tools that teach (calculation spreadsheet) how to plan, produce and market through e.) Educational consumer CSA. marketing brochure templates Objective 2: Utilize research and f.) Introduction to CSA (LR demonstration data to create on-farm, Audiences) presentation and research-based education tools that can teaching Handouts be adapted by educators who are teaching CSA to limited resource small farmers. Results As a direct result of our collaborative Objective 3: Demonstrate and evaluate horticultural research and marketing developed research based educational extension efforts, we have produced tools for use in educational trainings on research based CSA production and CSA. marketing tools educators can use or adapt to teach limited resource small Approaches farmers how they can plan, produce and To address the identified educational need market through CSA. to develop CSA production and marketing tools that teach how to plan, produce and
228 The uniqueness of these developed tools is Baldwin, Extension Program Leader for his that they provide tangible, reality-based leadership guidance and for providing his examples of how an entire CSA operation CSA demonstration field data to develop is planned out from the beginning (crop reality based CSA educational tools, to NC production based on customer needs) to Department of Agriculture’s Research the end (distribution of harvested crops to Station-Upper Mountain Faculty and Staff, customers). to NC Cooperative Extension Alternative Enterprises Area (Ashe, Alleghany, and Conclusions Watauga Counties) Specialized Agent, This collaborative effort reflects a well- Richard Boylan. rounded approach to developing research- based alternative agriculture educational References outreach tools that address both Brown. M. A. and J. M. Davis. 2004. production challenges and marketing skills Community supported agriculture in NC. needed to confidently teach others how to Horticultural Information Leaflet successfully conduct a CSA operation. 38. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publications. On-going educator evaluation tools are Raleigh, NC needed to determine the immediate and Evans, E. 2000. Vegetable garden long-term impacts of adapting and planting guide: spring. implementing the developed CSA www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/cons educational outreach tools for use with umer/quickref/vegetable/plantingg limited resource small farmers. Educators uide.html North Carolina State should apply regionally based knowledge University. Raleigh, NC. of agronomic data when teaching small Evans, E. 2000. Vegetable garden farmers how to use or adapt the planting guide: fall. developed CSA educational outreach tools. www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/cons Educators should be aware of regional umer/quickref/vegetable/fall_planti crop production variations and incorporate ng_guide.html North Carolina State historic regional climatic data (i.e. Last University. Raleigh, NC. and beginning frost dates, soil Evans, E. and L. Bass. 1997. Harvesting temperature, etc.) and location vegetables. Horticultural Information appropriate agronomic data (i.e. Crop Leaflet 8108. varieties, soil fertility requirements, etc.) North Carolina Cooperative for optimal educational impact when Extension Service Publications. Raleigh, adapting these CSA educational tools to NC reach limited resource small farmers. Gregson, R. and B. Gregson. 2004. Rebirth of the small family farm, a Outcomes and Impacts handbook for The primary outcome of developing this starting a successful organic farm set of CSA educational outreach tools will based on the community supported be to increase educator confidence in agriculture concept. Acres U.S.A. teaching alternative marketing strategies Austin, TX. such as CSA to risk-averse, limited Grubinger, Vernon P. 1999. Sustainable resource, small farmers. The ultimate vegetable production from start-up to impact of this collaborative effort is to market, increase the profitability and sustainability NRAES-104. Cornell University. of current and future small farmers who Ithaca, NY. are experiencing conceptual challenges of Halman, R. D. 1999. Community how to develop and market a CSA Supported Agriculture in Maryland. operation. University of Maryland Extension Fact Sheet Acknowledgements 765. College Park, MD. The author is grateful to: Dr. Keith Henson, M. and R. Van En. 1999.
229 Sharing the harvest: a guide to Madison, WI. community supported Marr, Charles. November 1992. agriculture. Chelsea Green Vegetable garden planting guide. Publishing Company. White River Junction, MF 315. Kansas State University. VT. Manhattan, KS. Horowitz, Shel. 2000. Grassroots Miles, A. and M. Brown (editors). 2005. marketing, getting noticed in a noisy Teaching direct marketing and small world. Chelsea farm viability. University of Green Publishing Company. White California-Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz, River Junction, VT. CA. Junge, S. K., Ingram, R. and G. E. Nartea, T. J. 2005. Triangle Farmers Veerkamp. 1995. Community Community Supported Agriculture supported agriculture… making the Website: connection (Out of Print). http://www.ncat.edu/~tjnartea/ A University of California. Davis, CA. Reality-Based Template for Kane, D. J. and L. Lohr. 1997. Maximizing adopting a multi-farm CSA at a shareholder retention in large corporation, see: southeastern csas, a step toward http://www.rti.org/csa/ long term stability. The University Swanson, P. 1997. Community supported of Georgia. Athens, GA. agriculture. NebGuide G00-1419- Macher, R. 1999. Making your A. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. small farm profitable. Storey Lincoln, NB. Publishing Company. North The New Farm ®. 2005. CSA Notebook: Adams, MA. www.newfarm.org/columns/CSA_notebook Madison Area Community Supported / The Rodale Institute. Agriculture Coalition. 2003. From asparagus to zucchini: a guide to farm-fresh, seasonal produce.
230 Typology of America’s Small Farms: Characteristics in 2003
Doris Newton and Robert A. Hoppe USDA-ERS Washington, DC
Farms vary widely in size and other number of small farms. characteristics. They range from very small residential and retirement farms to • Different policies affect diverse farms with sales in the millions. The U. S. family farms in different ways. Department of Agriculture’s Economic The variety of farm types—what Research Service (ERS) has developed a they produce and their differences farm typology that classifies farms into in characteristics, economic more homogeneous groups, based largely situation, and household and on operator occupation and farm sales business arrangements—make class. This method produces a more different policy instruments effective tool than classifications based on appropriate for different portions of sales class alone. the family farm population. · The typology identifies five groups of small • Commodity program payments family farms (sales less than $250,000): go mostly to high-sales small limited-resource, retirement, farms, large family farms, and residential/lifestyle, farming very large family farms. These occupation/lower sales, and farming farms produce most of the occupation/higher sales (see box). To commodities that farm programs cover the remaining farms, the typology have traditionally supported. also classifies all other farms into large · family farms, very large family farms, and • Small family farms are an non-family farms. Small farms account important factor in for 91 percent of the farm count and 71 conservation policies because percent of farm assets—including of the large share of farmland land—but only 27 percent of agricultural they hold. Policies addressing production (see figure). natural resource quality and conservation affect many small The small farm groups differ in their family farms. contribution to agricultural production, · their product specialization, program • If high-value enterprises are to participation, and dependence on farm be adopted by small farm income. operators—suggested by many small farm The diversity of today’s farms has some advocates—compatibility with implications listed below: part-time farming is important. Many small farms specialize in • Production is concentrated cattle for a very practical reason. among large family farms, very Cow-calf operations require limited large family farms, and hours of work, with some flexibility nonfamily farms. The nation as to when the work is performed. relies on larger farms for most of its food and fiber, despite the large
231 • The nonfarm economy is critical • Nevertheless, such measures to household operating small as extension education family farms. Because small- targeted specifically at small farm households rely on off-farm farms could help some small work for most of their income, farm families increase their general economic policies, such as income. Trying to raise earnings tax or economic development from farming may be particularly policy, can be as important to them appropriate for limited-resource as traditional farm policy. farmers. Even modest improvements in household income could be important to these low- income farmers.
232 Farm Typology Group Definitions for 2003
Small Family Farms Other Family Farms (sales less than $250,000)1
Limited-resource farms. Small farms Large family farms. Sales with sales less than $100,000 in 2003, and between $250,000 and $499,999. low operator household income. Household income is considered low if it is less than Very large family farms. Sales of the poverty level for a family of four in both $500,000 or more. 2003 and 2002, or it is less than half the county median household income both years. Operators may report any major Nonfamily Farms occupation except hired manage
Retirement farms. Small farms whose Nonfamily farms. Farms operators report they are retired2 organized as nonfamily corporations or cooperatives, as well as farms Residential/lifestyle farms. Small farms operated by hired managers. whose operators report a major occupation other than farming2
Note: The farm typology focuses on Farming-occupation farms. Small family the “family farm,” any farm farms whose operators report farming as organized as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or family corporation. 2 their major occupation. Family farms exclude farms organized as nonfamily corporations or cooperatives, as well as farms Low-sales farms. Sales less than with hired managers. $100,000. 1 • High-sales farms. Sales between The National Commission on Small Farms selected $250,000 in $100,000 and $249,999. gross sales as the cutoff between small and large.
2Excludes limited-resource farms whose operators report this occupation
233 Effective New Farmer Education Evaluation
Alexandra Bell University of Connecticut Storrs, Connecticut Eileen Eckert University of California Davis, California
Background The specific goals of this study were to: January 2000 marked the onset of a 4- 1. Describe the nature of proficiency, or year, multifaceted project dedicated to “know how,” among a sample of supporting the success of new farmers successful new farmers in the in the Northeast. The Growing New Northeast. Farmers project was a USDA grant- 2. Identify learning experiences that funded initiative managed by the New successful new farmers consider England Small Farm Institute in most significant to the development Belchertown, MA, which was responsible of their proficiency. for coordinating the efforts of over 170 3. Evaluate how different types of new service providers in a 12-state region. In farmer learning programs in the addition to supporting the development Northeast (including land-grant of a consortium of service providers, a university programs, cooperative “one-stop” web site resource for new extension, apprenticeship, youth farmers, and a policy tool kit for new programs, immigrant farmer farmer supporters and public policy programs, and farmer-to-farmer educators, the project supported programs) contribute to the empirical research designed to better development of proficiency among understand the experiences and needs new farmers. of new farmers. This article and the 4. Formulate recommendations based corresponding conference workshop are on study outcomes for individual about one of the research projects, a 2- farmers, learning programs, and year study designed to evaluate the policy makers for supporting the effectiveness of the variety of types of learning of new farmers in the learning programs available to new Northeast. farmers in the Northeast. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of For the purposes of this study, the study. In the workshop, participants successful new farmers were defined as will share their own experiences of beginning farmers who had completed effective farmer education and re-strategizing efforts and were on their contribute recommendations for way to becoming established farmers. enhancing educational opportunities and This definition is consistent with the services for new farmers. multifaceted typology of new farmers
developed by the Northeast New Farmer Description of the Study Network Project (Sheils, 2004). Table 1 This qualitative study explored how new provides a description of the three study farmers learn and apply the knowledge phases, the research questions that and skills they need to be successful, were answered in each phase, and the and the effectiveness of different types methods used to answer each research of new farmer learning programs in question. preparing new farmers for success.
234 Data Collection Methods activities they use, and how they The 10 new farmers who participated in engaged in the activities) are listed in Phase One of the study were selected the left vertical axis. The six different through a process of peer and service- types of learning programs are listed provider referral, which resulted in a list across the top horizontal axis. Notations of successful small-scale farmers in the grid boxes are based on analyses representing different farming of all the data and indicate the extent to approaches (e.g., conventional, which each type of program organic), commodities (e.g., vegetable, characteristically supported new farmers dairy, poultry), marketing strategies in (a) developing the requisite (e.g., direct, wholesale, CSA), and knowledge and skills, (b) experiencing geographic regions (e.g., mid-Atlantic, key learning activities, and (c) engaging upstate NY). The sample emphasized in a variety of learning contexts. The sustainable and organic practices to footnote to the table includes an reflect growing trends in the Northeast acknowledgement that variability exists and the USDA Small Farms Commission in the Northeast among programs in (1998) policy recommendations each category, and that the profile of emphasizing sustainable agriculture as a characteristics for any specific program profitable, ecological, and socially sound may be different from the overall profile strategy for small farms. The seven indicated in the grid. instructors who participated in Phase Conclusions Two were invited to participate via a Key conclusions based on study results similar referral process that included about successful new farmer learning referrals from peers and farmers. Six and the effectiveness of learning different types of new farmer learning programs in supporting new farmer programs were represented in the success included: sample including land-grant university programs, cooperative extension, 1. New farmers in the Northeast use a apprenticeship, youth programs, variety of learning programs during immigrant farmer programs, and the course of their learning and farmer-to-farmer programs. Data professional development, and they collection from farmer and instructor assess the value of a learning participants included on-site semi- opportunity based on a perceived structured interviews and observations match between their personal (completed between July 2001 and July mental model of farming and the 2002), follow-up conversations, and mental model portrayed by an collection of “artifacts” such as instructor and/or program. curriculum materials from instructors and marketing plans from farmers. 2. As currently designed, some Additionally, farmer participants programs excel at supporting specific completed a short survey of learning types of learning, yet no one type of activities, indicating activities they learning program in the Northeast perceived as most important to their excels at supporting the professional development. development of all the types of knowledge and skills new farmers Results need to be successful. Table 2 represents the researchers’ answer to Research Question 4 posed in 3. All learning programs can enhance Phase Two of the study. The grid is their effectiveness by supporting the constructed so that the results of development of all types of Research Questions One, Two, and knowledge and skills new farmers Three (i.e., the nature of proficiency need to be successful (i.e., domain- among successful new farmers, the specific, meta-cognitive, and 235 tacit/strategic) using methods that resources they have or need to incorporate problem solving, promote learners’ development of all discovery learning, hands-on the types of knowledge and skills experience, peer learning, and new farmers need to be successful articulation of mental models. and to develop a plan to enhance their resources in identified areas, Recommendations (b) testing out or adopting more problem-based curriculum and Key recommendations for new farmers, designing curricula around educational programs, and policy application of content to solve makers included: genuine problems, and (c) 1. Prospective and beginning farmers continuing professional development can complete a self-assessment of of instructors and service providers learning needs and interests and to maximize their effectiveness in develop an “individual learning plan.” facilitating new farmer learning. They can then identify learning programs with characteristics that References will meet their needs and interests. Table 2 can serve as a starting place Berton, V. (Ed.) (2001). The new for matching individual needs and American farmer: Profiles of interests with program agricultural innovation. Washington, characteristics. DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture/Sustainable Agriculture 2. Learning programs with Research and Education. complementary characteristics can Sheils, C. (2004). What does the term form formal or informal alliances or “new farmer” mean? In C. Shiels & partnerships to offer more balanced M. Descartes (Eds.), Working with and comprehensive learning new farmers: Topics in professional experiences for new farmers. For development (pp. 4-7). Belchertown, example, complementary programs MA: New England Small Farm for individuals entering farming as a Institute. first career include youth programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National a 4-year college degree program, Commission on Small Farms. (1998). and an apprenticeship program. A time to act (Publication No. 1545 Complementary programs for MP-1545). Washington, DC: Author. individuals entering farming as a
second career or beginning farmers with no farming background include For more information about this study’s cooperative extension services, methods, results, recommendations, and organization-sponsored workshops references please contact Alexandra and conferences, and farmer-to- (Sandy) Bell at the University of farmer programs. Connecticut ([email protected]).
3. Policy can support learning programs and other service providers in (a) completing self-assessments of
236
Table1. Study Phases, Research Questions, and Methods
Phase Research Questions Methods
One RQ1 What is the nature of Semi-structured on-farm Establish criteria on proficiency, or interviews with 10 which to evaluate the “know how,” among successful new farmers effectiveness of successful new representing six different learning programs by farmers in the types of enterprises and five finding out what Northeast? different states. Included makes new farmers RQ2 What activities help completion of Learning successful and what successful new Activities Survey. types of learning farmers develop Written profiles of 17 relate to their proficiency? “innovative” farmers from success. RQ3 How do successful The New American Farmer: new farmers engage Profiles of Agricultural in these activities? Innovation (Berton, 2001). Two RQ4 How do different Semi-structured on-site Find out how different learning programs interviews with seven types of learning contribute to the “exemplary” instructors of programs help new development of new new farmers representing farmers learn, and farmer proficiency? six different types of evaluate the extent learning programs and five to which each different states. program type meets Review of program marketing the criteria materials, curriculum established in Phase materials, and student One. learning “artifacts.” Review of publicly available materials from other programs. Transcript of web-based course for instructors (contributions of four participants).
237
Three RQ5 What implications do Data analyses. Use the outcomes in the outcomes have Establish trustworthiness by Phases One and Two for: data triangulation, peer to make a. Prospective and debriefing, member recommendations for beginning farmers in checking, farmer advisor facilitating learning their selection of reviews of transcripts and that promotes new learning programs? interpretations, and review farmer success. b. Service providers in of current literature. supporting new Collaboration with other GNF farmer learning? researchers, service c. Policy makers in providers, and farmers. making policy and resource allocation decisions to support new farmer learning?
238
Table 2. How Different Learning Programs contributed to the Development of New Farmer Proficiency (Phase Two)*
College Cooperative Appren- Youth Immigra Farmer-to- degree Extension ticeship programs nt farmer Farmer programs Services programs programs programs
RQ1 Proficiency Domain-specific X X X X X X knowledge Metacognitive skills x x X X x x Tacit and Strategic -- x X x x x knowledge Mental model development, x x X X x x articulation, and organization RQ2 Activities Discovery learning/ problem solving x x X X X X Activating events x x x x x x RQ3 How to Engage in Activities On-farm experience x x X x X x Self-directed informal learning x x x x x X with others Other farmers or -- x X x X X peers Experts X X x X X X Consumers -- -- x x x x Other-directed X X x x x -- formal education
X = Was a defining characteristic of this type of program x = Was a secondary characteristic of this type of program -- = Was rarely a feature of this type of program * The characteristics indicated in the grid are based on an overall assessment of data collected during Phase Two of the study. The researchers acknowledge that variability exists in the Northeast among programs in each category, and that the profile of characteristics for a specific program may be different from the overall profile indicated in the grid. Additionally, an individual farmer’s perceptions of the characteristics of a program in which he or she was involved may be different from the profile indicated in the grid. Program representatives can use the grid as a guide for self-assessment and program development, and new farmers can use the grid as a guide for identifying attributes of program types that may match individual learning needs and interests.
239 Adding Value to Outreach Activities
Eileen Eckert University of California Davis, California Alexandra Bell University of Connecticut Storrs, Connecticut
Introduction Activities.” Ideas and references are Cooperative Extension advisors and drawn from research and theory of adult other educators who work directly with learning and workplace learning, and farmers are acutely aware of the from our study of proficiency and its mounting pressures on small-scale development among small-scale farmers as agriculture is increasingly farmers, which was supported by a consolidated. They demonstrate their USDA grant to the New England Small personal commitment to Cooperative Farm Institute for the Growing New Extension’s mission in agriculture, in Farmers project. (Eckert, 2003; Bell & which “research and educational Eckert, 2005). programs help individuals learn new ways to produce income through The study that informs this workshop alternative enterprises, improved and paper was conducted in 2002-2003. marketing strategies, and management Ten small-scale farmers throughout the skills and help farmers and ranchers northeastern United States were improve productivity through resource interviewed and surveyed about their management, controlling crop pests, soil knowledge, skills, and learning. An testing, livestock production practices, additional 75 beginning farmers were and marketing” (U.S. Dept of surveyed about learning experiences Agriculture, ¶ 16). they perceived to be most beneficial to their professional development, and 17 Educators often define their profiles of small-scale farming responsibility to help farmers learn as a operations throughout the U.S. were matter of presenting information and analyzed to check and extend the sound advice, and they are dedicated to interview themes and survey findings. providing accurate and current research- Findings from this exploratory study based information. In fact, farmers’ concerned the nature of proficiency success depends not only on getting among small-scale farmers, how farmers information, but on their skillful develop proficiency, and the formal application, or proficiency, in using new education and informal learning information. Agriculture professionals activities that contribute to their can increase the likelihood that farmers learning. will apply new information by designing and conducting education and outreach Proficiency and its Development activities in keeping with how farmers The nature of proficiency. Individual learn and develop proficiency. We call proficiency, defined as the skillful such activities “value-added education.” application of knowledge (Sheckley, 2002), is comprised of domain-specific This paper is designed to provide knowledge, tacit knowledge, and background information to supplement metacognitive skills. Domain-specific active learning elements of the knowledge is factual knowledge and workshop “Adding Value to Outreach information, the kind of information 240 most frequently presented in education support and build upon an existing and outreach activities. Tacit knowledge mental model; however, occasionally a is known but not amenable to powerful “activating event” causes articulation or explanation; for example, farmers to question or even transform a farmer who “just knows” when an their mental models, or parts of their animal is ill and what is wrong mental models. In some cases, only a demonstrates tacit knowledge. threat such as that of the farm’s failure Metacognitive skills refer to an is a powerful enough activating event to individual’s ability to plan, monitor, and cause a farmer to examine and change evaluate actions, and transfer her or his mental model. knowledge and skills appropriately and effectively to new situations. Discovery learning and problem solving
occur within “ecologies”—i.e., the This knowledge and skills is self- totality of interactions between the organized in that individuals develop, farmer and his or her environments; the usually at a nonconscious level, their farm itself, family and others on the own way of making sense of what they farm, and other farmers, experts, and know and how they apply their often consumers. Feedback and advice knowledge. Farmers use mental models from experts and others play a role in to self-organize their knowledge and the development of proficiency, but that skills, and to guide learning, practice, role is not simple or straightforward. and problem solving. The mental model While the environment shapes the is an individual “mental map” or set of individual, in our study we found that assumptions about farming that includes through self-organization, the farmer the individual’s values and beliefs about also shapes her or his environment. the ideal and the actual domain of Farmers who were interviewed discussed farming; the role and relative how informal discussions with farmers importance of values, beliefs, from other farms played a role in the knowledge, and skills; and ways of development of proficiency. Coherence processing information and applying of mental models between the individual skills to learn and solve problems and the learning environment—in this (Eckert & Bell, 2005). For example, even case, workshops, conferences, and among operations of the same type we peers—contributes to individuals’ formal found farmers with different mental and informal learning from others in models of farming that directed their their ecologies. Farmers in the study farming practices (see Table 1). who were involved in direct marketing
tended to learn from their customers, in The development of proficiency. Farmers some cases even involving them in their in our sample develop proficiency operations; for example, explicitly through discovery learning and problem- involving CSA members in recruitment solving. Discovery learning refers to of new members. learning that occurs through trial-and- error as well as other activities Research on learning in work and school conducted with the goal of mastering a environments suggests that feedback is skill such as learning to use some an important element of learning, and equipment. Trial-and-error was a that autonomy support on the part of significant source of learning for the the person giving feedback is important farmers in the study. Problem-solving to how the feedback is received and differs from discovery learning in that it used. Support for autonomy generally is undertaken in response to a problem, takes the form of suggesting, advising, while discovery learning can be or presenting options rather than unintentional and incidental. Discovery framing feedback in directive terms such learning and problem solving tend to as, “In order to succeed, you must do 241 this.” Among farmers in our sample, the proficiency through their activities within self-determination of the farmer was the an ecology; that is, the physical salient element of whether and how environment of their farms and feedback was used. Farmers chose interactions with family members, peers, whether and how to implement feedback experts, and sometimes consumers. from experts based on their assessment These findings, taken within the context of its usefulness and fit with their mental of adult learning theory and best model. All of the farmers using practices in general, point to several sustainable practices talked about strategies that agricultural educators learning from communication with can use to support the development of consumers; neither of the conventional proficiency among the farmers with farmers mentioned communication with whom they work. We consider that consumers as part of their ecology. Self- these strategies add value to outreach determination on the part of the farmer and other learning-oriented activities. is a strong factor in learning with and from others. Some Strategies for Enhancing Learning and Adding Value to Education and The farm itself is an important part of an Outreach Activities ecology that supports the development · Trigger awareness of mental of proficiency. Research reviewed for models. Early in the workshop, this study did not specifically address find out what background the role of the physical environment in knowledge, beliefs, and interests the development of proficiency. In this your learners bring to the study, most farmers in the sample noted workshop or training, and use the importance of learning from the that information to tailor your unique environment of each farm. Their presentation or activities. You perceptions of the uniqueness of their might ask if there is a specific own farms may have been one of the problem they hope to solve by factors affecting the importance of self- attending the workshop and use determination and of self-organization that knowledge to tailor your for farmers. presentation or examples to their needs. To summarize, research findings on • Maximize learning with and from proficiency and its development in the others in the environment. Allow workplace in general, and among time during the workshop or farmers in particular, indicate that each training for people to think, farmer develops proficiency within an discuss, add to, and plan how to individual mental model that serves as a use the information you’re self-organizing mechanism for domain- providing. specific knowledge, tacit knowledge, and • Provide opportunities for metacognitive skills. Further, the mental discovery learning and problem model serves as a filter for experience, solving. Whenever possible, further learning, and transfer or make your workshop or training a application of knowledge and skills to “hands-on” activity, and involve new situations. The mental model is everyone. When a single person maintained and refined through is the hands-on demonstrator, discovery learning and problem solving. that person is the only one who The mental model is sometimes revealed gets the full value of the activity. and even transformed as a result of To make sure people can do what powerful experiences we call activating you’re teaching; have them events, events that challenge some actually do it, with guidance and previously unquestioned aspect of the feedback from you. mental model. Farmers develop 242 • Provide more opportunities for surprised at the positive results they get discovery learning, problem by making information more user- solving, and learning from others friendly and applicable—packaging, in the ecology. Get your learners marketing, and delivering information to involved. Have them critique the farmers in ways that they can use really information you present, have does “add value” to workshops and them discuss it with each other trainings. and with you, have them identify the barriers to applying the References information and see if they can Bell A. A. & Eckert E. (2005). Effective come up with solutions. Farmer Education Research • Respect your learners’ autonomy. Project Executive Summary and Avoid absolutes and one-size- Final Report (Report for the fits-all answers. Any time you tell Growing Northeast New Farmers someone they “must” do Project). Storrs CT: University of something in order to be Connecticut Department of successful, you undermine their Educational Leadership. sense of power and autonomy. Berton, V. (Ed.) (2001). The new • Enhance metacognitive skills by American farmer: Profiles of helping learners monitor and agricultural innovation. evaluate what they have learned Washington, DC: U.S. and plan their next steps. Near Department of the end of the session, pass out Agriculture/Sustainable index cards and ask learners to Agriculture Research and answer one of these questions, Education. then collect the cards and Eckert, E. (2003). Proficiency- address common questions: development spirals: • What is the most important Occupational learning among thing you learned from this farmers. Unpublished doctoral session? dissertation, University of • What is one point that is still Connecticut. unclear, or a question that Eckert, E. & Bell, A. A. (2005). Invisible was left unanswered? force: Farmers’ mental models • What could you do differently and how they influence learning on your farm after this and actions. Journal of Extension, session? 43(3), article 3FEA2. Available at • Provide opportunities to transfer http://www.joe.org/joe/2005june and apply what has been learned to /ent.shtml the unique environment of the Sheckley, B. G. (2002, May). Adult farm. Follow up, or give people the Learning: Factors that contribute to the opportunity to follow up development themselves. If the presenter or of proficiency. Presentation at trainer will not be available after Research Forum on Adult Learning, the workshop, provide another Empire State College, New York, NY. contact person who can help, or U.S. Department of Agriculture. have those learners who are willing Extension: Introduction, Yesterday, to exchange contact information so Today, Tomorrow, and Related Links. they can help each other. Retrieved July 16, 2005, from
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/ Educators who can incorporate one or extension.html more of these suggestions might be
243
Table 1. Comparison of Mental Models among Three Dairy Farmers
Name Description of Focal point(s) of mental Activities in keeping with operation model mental model Joe 300-cow dairy Success means becoming a Developing partnership, herd, goal is to “top dairy” by increasing evaluating decisions grow to 1000-cows herd size and meeting based on evidence, industry standards. “being involved in the top percentage of the farming community.”
Mary Doerr 36-goat dairy herd, Success means, “creating Scaling back dairy and (Berton, cheesemaking, balance,” by running a cheesemaking operation, 2001, pp. pasture, holistic operation and retailing instead of 17-19) “educational earning higher prices with wholesaling, diversifying retreat” Bed & a lower level of production farm activities Breakfast, goal is to and direct marketing. stay small and profitable through diversification
Gordon and 65-cow dairy herd, Success means maintaining Developing and refining Marion Jones pasture, goal is to commitment to quality rotational grazing (Berton, stay small and family life and economic system, careful financial 2001, pp. maintain balance in and environmental planning, hiring outside 68-70) keeping with sustainability. help quality family life
244 Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education: Supporting Diversity in American Agriculture
Jill S. Auburn USDA-CSREES Washington, DC
The Sustainable Agriculture Research and www.sare.org/publications/limited- Education (SARE) program aims to resource.htm This guide includes projects advance knowledge and use of farming where: and ranching practices that improve 1. Small producers in Appalachian profitability, environmental stewardship Ohio cultivated ginseng and other and quality of life. We do so primarily forest-farmed crops through competitive grants offered 2. Hmong and Cambodian farmers in through four regions, hosted by land-grant Massachusetts learned about universities under the direction of councils sustainable agriculture practices that include farmers and ranchers along 3. Latino and Native American with representatives from universities, farmers in New Mexico grew government, agribusiness, and nonprofit organic wheat and milled and organizations. We provide coordination at marketed flour the national level, and also cull 4. African American producers in rural information from grants and other sources Illinois marketed vegetables and into national books, bulletins, and chicken in Chicago electronic resources through our national 5. Small farmers in Kentucky learned outreach arm, the Sustainable Agriculture production and marketing methods Network (SAN). More details on the at monthly field days grants and information are at 6. Farm laborers in California gained www.sare.org production and marketing experience to be independent Sustainability is important to farms of all farmers sizes and types, though specific 7. Low-income, primarily African approaches to sustainability may vary American North Carolina farmers considerably across different scales and raised pigs on pasture setting. SARE is particularly relevant to 8. Tobacco growers in Appalachian small and medium-sized family farms, and Virginia and Tennessee switched to to minority and limited-resource farmers, vegetables and value-added for several reasons, including its focus on processing ecologically-based rather than capital- 9. Rosebud Sioux in South Dakota intensive methods; its commitment to raised vegetables to improve diets farmer-led innovation and farmer-to- and combat diabetes farmer information exchange; and its interest in marketing (including direct Many of these projects were led by marketing and ethnic markets) as well as community-based nonprofit organizations, production alternatives. often in partnership with Cooperative Extension or USDA agencies. The bulletin Some of the many SARE projects that details methods that have been found by have addressed minority, socially these projects to be particularly effective disadvantaged and limited-resource in reaching limited-resource producers, producers are featured in the SAN bulletin including: “Meeting the Diverse Needs of Limited- 1. Identifying the real barriers to Resource Producers: An Educator's Guide” participation in programs. which is on the web at 2. Creating effective materials
245 designed with appropriate literacy meeting. levels in mind. 4. Western SARE completed its third 3. Involving constituents in year of targeted funding for small developing programs, asking them professional development grants what they need to know and how with the Extension Indian they like to learn. Reservation Program. 4. Establishing trust by making 5. Northeast SARE has funded several commitments and honoring them. immigrant farming projects in 5. Working together side-by-side. recent years including the 6. Going one-on-one in training Northeast Network of Immigrant settings. Farming Projects. 7. Demonstrating in field settings 6. North Central SARE has offered rather than just classrooms. funds through its professional 8. Tapping community leaders to run development program specifically programs including for working with underserved paraprofessionals, volunteers and populations. specially-trained people. 7. SARE’s national Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) In recent years, the SARE regions and published a Spanish version of its national office have taken a popular bulletin on strategies for number of steps to better address hog producers “Estrategias diverse populations in American Economico-Ambientales en la agriculture, including: Crianza de Cerdos” and has 1. Southern SARE has established an contracted with an outreach Office of Minority Outreach which specialist to identify ways to reach includes a full time professional Latino audiences. staff position and support located at Fort Valley State University SARE’s leadership is eager to further develop 2. Southern SARE is continuing its its ability to reach minority and under- longstanding priority area in grant served audiences. Current efforts include programs that benefit limited- attracting minority and under-served resource farmers, and has farmers and educators to the next SARE established a new priority area of conference (in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin on women in agriculture August 15-17, 2006, see 3. Southern SARE provided travel www.sare.org/ncrsare/2006_national_conf scholarships to over 250 farmers erence.htm) and increasing interactions mostly minority farmers to attend a with 1994 land-grant tribal colleges. regional sustainable agriculture
246 Sustaining Agriculture at the Community College Level
Robin Kohanowich Central Carolina Community College Pittsboro, North Carolina
What role can the community college • Sustainable Agriculture Vegetable play in the sustainable agriculture Production Certificate movement? • Sustainable Agriculture Certificate Community colleges have the ability to combines livestock and crop respond to the education and training production needs of the local community. In order to • Livestock Production Certificate foster the growth of the sustainable • Certificates are focused, providing agriculture movement across the country, students with technical information we ought to be engaging the community needed to begin farming. Often, college resources. Certificate students have earned a 4 year university degree. The Sustainable Farming Program at CCCC grew out of a desire to address the Continuing Education Courses needs of the sustainable farm community • Flexible and responsive formatting in Chatham and surrounding counties. The • Focused topics such as “Cut Flower mission statement: A cooperative effort to Production”, “Sustainable Poultry encourage the development of profitable, Production”, “Raising Dairy Goats” environmentally sound, community-based • Typically evening or late afternoon farm enterprises classes, structured to suit students with full-time occupations Current Features of the Sustainable • Inexpensive! Farming Program • Community members and students An overview of where we are now: in the agriculture curriculum enroll • Associate Degree in Sustainable in the variety of Continuing Agriculture Education courses offered. • Continuing Education Courses in many aspects of Sustainability Land Lab component • On-campus, organic farm – the • Practical application of coursework “Land Lab” • Used by curriculum and continuing education programs Associate Degree in Sustainable • Work-study opportunities for Agriculture (A.A.S.) students The curriculum, designed as a two-year • Community Support Agriculture program, includes classes in soil, plant Project serving faculty and and animal science, organic crop students, provides a marketing production, biological pest management, experience for students sustainable livestock management, building and mechanical skills and How we got here agricultural marketing. Additional studies A collaborative, grassroots effort was key focus on the entrepreneurial aspects of to the successful development of the small farm ownership. Sustainable Farming Program. That collaboration included farmers, extension Credentialed Certificates in the agents, consumers, representatives of curriculum program several sustainable agriculture focused on Certificates focus on a specific aspect of Non Governmental Agencies, CCCC Small production: Business and Continuing Education
247 personnel. • About 2/3rds of the students are female Collaborators develop the program mission… Continuing Education students: A cooperative effort to encourage the • Ages range from 20 something to development of profitable, 65 + environmentally sound, community-based • Many mid-career folks have land farm enterprises and are looking for added income/ second career Certificate of Farm Stewardship • Often crossover from the degree In 1997 CCCC began offering the initial program for specific enterprise credential in the area of sustainability. focus Students completed core coursework, a production concentration and an Program challenges internship • Farming is generally entrepreneurial – community The Sustainable Agriculture college programs are often job- Curriculum Program development training focused began in 2000 • Fitting the farming calendar to the Selection of coursework was based on: school calendar • experiences with the Continuing • Finding suitable texts and teaching Education Certificate of Farm resources with a sustainable Stewardship agriculture focus • Feedback from students • Advisory group composed of Program Successes farmers and educators who have • Some continuing education courses been involved with the Program are in their 8th year and are still throughout it’s development popular • Other agriculture degree programs • Curriculum program still building, as models Fall 2005 is our best semester for enrollment Who are our students? • Several program graduates farm Degree Program students are typically: and sell produce at local markets, • Over 25 years of age work in produce departments and • Have some prior college experience in educational programs centered • Most will be first generation around agriculture farmers
248 Programming and Support for Beginning Farmers
Kathryn Ruhf New England Small Farm Institute Belchertown, Massachusetts John Mitchell Heirloom Harvest Community Farm Westborough, Massachusetts
The problem. Perhaps you have heard into or have begun farming. But traditional the startling statistics. There are twice as sources of information and learning don’t many farmers in the U.S. over the age of meet the needs of today’s new farmers. 65 as under 35. Twice as many farmers Yesterday’s new farmers were the sons of retire every year than are getting started established farmers -- heirs to their land, in farming and ranching. Over 400 million their knowledge, and their support acres of farmland will change hands in the networks. Today they are from a wide next twenty years. At stake are our range of backgrounds - men and women productive farmlands, bucolic landscapes, in their twenties and early thirties who local economies and food systems. In the were raised in the suburbs, immigrants face of these daunting trends, the from Asia, Latin America, and the question is: who will farm? Caribbean where agricultural traditions remain strong, people who grew up on Young farmers used to learn the trade at farms and hope to take over the family their parents' knees, or from relatives. farm or strike out on their own, and mid- Traditionally, farm succession included the life career changers and early retirees passing on of skills and knowledge as well including high school teachers, carpenters, as the farm business. Land grant attorneys, military officers. Their institutions and vocational high schools enterprises and marketing strategies run and colleges taught agricultural skills the gamut from traditional commodities to much more extensively. Extension agents organic produce, and grassfed livestock, traveled from farm to farm, providing one- for example. on-one technical assistance and spreading the latest farm techniques and news. These next-generation farmers may be Flourishing farm organizations such as interested in owning and operating their Future Farmers of America and the Grange own farms, creating a farm business on nurtured new farmers into a vital leased or rented farm land, or becoming community where sharing of resources salaried employees of farm businesses or and advice was standard. Today, it is agricultural education centers. They may much harder for next generation farmers have adequate capital, but no practical to acquire contemporary farming technical farming experience. They may have great and business skills. Much of the agricultural skills, but poor English, or traditional "support infrastructure" -- poor credit. Each of today’s new farmers suppliers and services -- has vanished. brings a unique set of skills and needs to his or her farming career, and requires Nonetheless, there are people who want to support and services that are responsive farm. Calls come in every day to the New to these differences. England Small Farm Institute and other farmer service organizations from people What is a “new farmer”? First, for this who want to pursue a career of some sort discussion, ranchers are included in our in production agriculture. Many creative, use of the term farmer. We begin with brave, and committed people want to get some basic terms and definitions.
249 • According to the US Department of providers from across the Northeast who Agriculture (USDA), a beginning committed to working with and advocating farmer is one who has operated a for new farmers from Maine to West farm for ten years or less. This is the Virginia. definition used for USDA’s Beginning Farmer Loan Programs. Some loan GNF addressed the need for a strong, programs require that a beginning responsive service network for new farmer also have at least three years farmers on many fronts: by funding and of farming experience. promoting new programs, generating new services and information, and creating a • A young farmer is a farmer under the supportive, well-connected community of age of 35. The Farm Bureau and the service providers to welcome, support, Farm Credit System have young and meet the needs of the Northeast’s farmer programs. A young farmer may new farmers. GNF was a special project be working with the older generation of the New England Small Farm Institute, on the family farm. the grant recipient. GNF built a network of service providers to raise awareness • Next-generation farmer is another about new farmer needs, spread the word term used to describe young people about effective programs, and encourage who will be the next generation of collaboration and effective referral. Two farmers. Sometimes – but not always - hundred and fourteen organizations and - the term specifically refers to the agencies signed onto the GNF Service next generation of the family to take Provider Consortium, one of the largest over an existing farm. regional agricultural service networks in the country. Consortium members • New farmer and small farmer participated in networking, professional agendas are sometimes confused in trainings, electronic discussions, policy policy discussions. New farmers are development, and regional conferences. not defined by scale or volume or They continue to share tools, information, income, but by their position on the resources and insights, and work together farm development continuum. At the on advocacy and services for new farmers. same time, many new farmers start GNF also sponsored the development of a small, have lower revenues, and farm cornucopia of new programs and part-time. resources for beginning farmers in our region. The project. In 1998, several Northeast organizations (FarmNet/Cornell University, GNF developed an innovative, interactive Pennsylvania Farm Link, Rutgers website for new farmers and service University, and the New England Small providers (www.growingnewfarmers.org). Farm Institute) came together in a project The "one-stop" site serves as an called the Northeast New Farmer Network information clearinghouse and virtual (NENFN). Their goal was to stimulate meeting place for new farmers and their regional thinking and new programming to service providers to connect with one and improve the number and success of new another exchange ideas. Features farmers in the region. NENFN was include: a searchable directory of followed by the Growing New Farmers programs, resources and organizations Project (GNF), a four-year initiative funded aimed at or helpful to new farmers; on- by USDA. line learning, where farmers and service providers can create, teach, and take on- GNF was conceived as a comprehensive line courses; and publications, links, and regional initiative to provide future other useful information for and about generations of Northeast farmers with the Northeast new farmers. GNF also support and expertise they need to sponsored two research studies – one on succeed. GNF brought together service adult learning methods most successful
250 with new farmer audiences, and one What do new farmers need? GNF examining the decision-making of new focused on four categories identified as farmers. major barriers for new farmers: • Access to knowledge, information and A typology of new farmers. We also training advanced a framework for understanding • Access to land and working with new farmers. From • Access to financial resources focus groups, surveys and direct feedback, • Access to markets we posited a typology of new farmers: Beyond these fundamental barriers, new Prospective farmers have not yet begun to farmers often experience inadequate farm. There are three phases of social supports from family, community, prospective farmers: and existing farmer and service networks. • "Recruits" might consider a career in That is why our approach – to create and production agriculture, for example, sustain a community of new and students in vo-ag high schools. established farmers and providers – was • "Explorers" are investigating a critical. farming future, and may be gathering information, but have not yet made a We conducted an inventory of all the commitment to farming. programs and services for new farmers in • "Planners" have made a choice to our twelve- state region. We identified pursue some sort of commercial many programming gaps and we reached production agriculture, but are not an important conclusion: to serve new actually farming yet. farmers most effectively, programs must be targeted specifically to the new farmer Beginning farmers also fall into several audience. Targeted programs are categories: specifically developed for and offered to • "Start-ups" have been farming for new farmers, and sometimes more three years or less. particularly to certain kinds of new • "Restrategizing" farmers, typically in farmers. Workshops on farm start-up or their fourth to seventh years, are finding land are considered targeted. making adjustments to their farming Relevant programs and services are not enterprises. These include changes specifically designed for new farmers. in farm size, crops, enterprise type, Many general programs -- for example, a market outlet, and land tenure. workshop on crop rotation -- may be • "Establishing" farmers are stabilizing relevant and valuable to new farmers. A their farm enterprise in the final general farm business planning course, on years of their beginning farmer the other hand, will not be very useful to a phase. start-up farmer with no financial or market history. It is clear that more targeted This expanded concept of the “new programs are necessary to meet new farmer” goes beyond the traditional farmers' particular needs. definition provided by USDA. It encourages regional service providers to What else is being done help new develop a more comprehensive farmers? While it might seem obvious understanding of their new farmer that next-generation farmers need "customers", and to develop more support, there is no history of attention to carefully targeted support services to new farmers and ranchers by the federal meet their different needs. People who and most state governments. For the first are exploring the possibility of farming, time in its 140-year history, the USDA has and those who are planning to farm are a Beginning Farmer and Rancher our future; they need special attention Development Program on the books. and services to nurture them along the Authorized in the 2002 federal Farm Bill, farming career path. this grant program is designed to help
251 develop a wide range of eligible programs aspiring farmers and ranchers. Across the for beginning farmers. This achievement country, there are about 15 “farm link” is the result of over a decade of work by a programs that connect farm seekers with national network of beginning farmer exiting farmers. Many of these programs advocates. This is good news. The bad also provide a wide range of other services news is that there is no money attached to for new farmers, including start-up the program; the program must be funded business planning, skill-based curriculum by Congress every year in its annual development, technical assistance and appropriations process. New farmer referral, as well as succession and transfer advocates must persuade the planning for exiting farm families. After appropriators to fund this important all, the full circle of farming career program. Perhaps we will fare better in opportunity has to include successfully the future. Perhaps more attention will be passing on the farm – the land and the focused on new farmers in the next Farm business – to the next generation, Bill. whether a family member or someone outside the family. The USDA Farm Service Agency administers several beginning farmer loan New farmers will be the stewards of our programs which are critically important. land and the producers of our food and The Farm Credit System also has a Young, fiber. New farmers will contribute to rural Beginning and Small Farmer program, and economies; new farmers will invest in land the Farm Bureau and Grange have young conservation; new farmers will innovate, and beginning farmer programs. And take risks, and be entrepreneurial in order while many vocational agriculture schools to thrive. Their survival depends on the are actively discouraging students from resources provided by a complex and entering production agriculture, FFA and engaged support network. The future is 4-H are shining lights of opportunity for theirs, and they depend on us.
252 Expand Your Horizons: Small Business Innovation Research
Charles F. Cleland USDA-CSREES Washington, DC
Introduction business firm at the time of award and The Small Business Innovation Research during the period of the grant award. (SBIR) program was established in 1983 Primary employment means that more as a technology transfer program with the than one-half of the project director’s time goal of moving technologies developed in is spent in the employ of the small university and government laboratories business and it precludes full-time out into the commercial marketplace. The employment with another organization. purpose of the SBIR program is to stimulate technological innovation in the SBIR is a three phase program. Applicant private sector, strengthen the role of small small business firms initially apply for a businesses in meeting Federal research Phase I grant that is usually limited to 6-8 and development needs, increase private months and to $70,000 to $100,000, sector commercialization of innovations depending upon the Federal Agency. The derived from USDA-supported research purpose of Phase I is to determine the and development (R&D) efforts, and technical feasibility of the idea contained encourage participation by women-owned in the proposal. Phase I grant winners are and socially and economically eligible to apply for a Phase II grant that disadvantaged small business firms in usually is made for a period of 24 months technological innovation. Each Federal and provides $225,000 to $750,000, Agency with more than $100 million of depending upon the Federal Agency. Only extramural R&D is required to set aside Phase I winners are eligible to submit 2.5% of these funds for an SBIR program. Phase II proposals. Phase II is the There are 11 Federal Agencies that principal research and development effort participate in the SBIR program and they and typically involves moving the are the Dept. of Agriculture, Dept. of technology from the proof-of-concept Commerce, Dept. of Defense, Dept. of stage to the prototype or pre- Education, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of commercialization stage. Phase III is the Homeland Security, Dept. of Health and stage when technologies developed during Human Services/National Institutes of Phase I and Phase II are commercialized. Health, Dept. of Transportation, There are no SBIR funds provided during Environmental Protection Agency, National Phase III. Instead, it is anticipated that Aeronautics and Space Administration, the small business firm will be able to and National Science Foundation. attract whatever additional funding it may require from the private sector or other SBIR Program non-SBIR Federal programs to achieve Government-wide the SBIR budget commercial success. exceeds $2 billion. The USDA SBIR program is one of the smaller SBIR USDA SBIR Program programs and it had a budget in FY 2005 The USDA SBIR program awards grants in of $19.2 million. Eligibility is limited to twelve broad topic areas. Applicants are U.S.-owned, for-profit, small business free to propose any reasonable proposal firms located in the United States. Single that addresses an important problem proprietorships, including farmers, are covered by one of the topic areas and thus also eligible. The primary employment of the ideas are investigator initiated.. the project director must be with the small Proposals are evaluated by a confidential
253 peer review system utilizing expert should emphasize how the results of their scientific reviewers drawn from project would be disseminated to other universities or government laboratories small farmers and provide benefit to the who meet in Washington as a review panel small farm community. Emphasis is to decide which proposals are most placed on the cultivation of alternative and meritorious and deserve funding. In specialty crops, production of specialty addition to the panel reviews, additional animal species, innovative ways to market ad-hoc reviews are solicited from top these farm products, improvements in scientists with expertise appropriate for farm management and farm safety, more each proposal who submit written reviews efficient use of natural resources in but do not travel to Washington to agriculture, and educational outreach participate in the panel. efforts to small farmers.
Research Topic Areas Examples of appropriate subtopics for The USDA SBIR program has a very broad research proposals from small businesses focus. Research is supported in the include, but are not limited to the following 12 topic areas: 1) Forests and following: Related Resources; 2) Plant Production and Protection; 3) Animal Production and (1) New Agricultural Enterprises - Efforts Protection; 4) Air, Water and Soils; 5) are needed to develop new agricultural Food Science and Nutrition; 6) Rural and enterprises that are small scale and Community Development; 7) Aquaculture; focused on specialty farm products, both 8) Industrial Applications; 9) Marketing plant and animal, and on innovative ways and Trade; 10) Wildlife; 11) Animal Waste to market these farm products through Management, and 12) Small and Mid-Size direct marketing, such as farmers markets Farms. In addition to the above topic or cooperatives where the financial return areas, research is also encouraged that to the farmer is optimized, or through addresses issues of anti-bioterrorism, specialty market outlets that offer a higher rural homeland security, and financial return. Emphasis is encouraged agriculturally-related manufacturing on organic and natural foods, specialty technology. animal products such as free-range poultry or natural beef, non-food specialty Small and Mid-Size Farm Topic Area crops such as medicinal herbs, and value- In FY 2006 the USDA SBIR program added added food and non-food products. a new research topic area on Small and (2) Farm Management - Efforts are Mid-Size Farms. The objective of the needed to develop tools and skills that are research area is to promote and improve appropriate for small farms that will the sustainability and profitability of small enhance the efficiency and profitability of and mid-size farms and ranches (hereafter small farms. New tools are also needed referred to as small farms). The vast that will enhance farm safety. majority of farms in this country are small Development of new risk management and they play an important role in the tools to facilitate better planning is agricultural sector. The viability and needed. Innovative ways to promote sustainability of small farms is important agro-tourism as a way to enhance farm to the Nation’s economy and to the profitability is encouraged. stewardship of our biological and natural resources. Small farms are also critical to (3) Natural Resources - Efforts are needed sustaining and strengthening the to develop farming methods scaled leadership and social fabric of rural appropriately for small farms that are communities and this topic area directed at more efficient use of natural encourages projects that emphasize how resources. Particular emphasis is needed their project would contribute to the well to develop sustainable farming practices. being of rural communities and institutions. In particular, applicants (4) Educational Outreach - Efforts are
254 needed to develop new tools to ensure American agriculture and rural that new generations of small farmers development. The Small and Mid-Size have access to the information and Farm topic area supports R&D resources they need to operate their small projects that have the potential to farms on a sustainable and profitable promote and improve the basis. sustainability and profitability of small and mid-size farms. Innovative The USDA SBIR program supports a ideas on ways to achieve these goals wide range of R&D projects focused are strongly encouraged. on important problems facing
255 Agricultural Wildcatters, Have They Hit A Gusher With Medicinal Plants?
Randy Beavers Sleepy Hollow Farm Dalton, Georgia
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary crops. Finally, one criticism traditionally defines a wildcatter as “one who drills charged to natural herbal products is the wells in the hope of finding oil in territory lack of standard levels of biologically not known to be productive”. Growers active materials from natural plants. Wild who produce medicinal plants often face collected plants have no predictable mix of many of the same challenges as bioactive ingredients, therefore cultivation traditional wildcatters. Unknown offers the opportunity to minimize this production potential or quality and variation at the point of production. markets which can, and often do, fluctuate wildly present significant risks. One example of the potential offered to Therefore, to coin a phrase, I refer to growers of medicinal plants is represented these growers as agricultural wildcatters. by Hydrastis canadensis (goldenseal), the Medicinal plant production is an area of primary crop at Sleepy Hollow Farm. agriculture which is just beginning to Goldenseal is considered by many flourish and as such, requires a greater authorities to be one of the most popular degree of technical knowledge to be medicinal herbs in the U.S. This successful. However, for those willing to popularity and the resultant increase in learn the specialized techniques required wild collection prompted the U.S. to produce a high quality product, the government to sponsor a resolution to rewards can be substantial. place goldenseal on the CITES Appendix List II in 1997. Brokers generally pay Several factors combine to make less than $20 per pound for wild collected medicinal plant production an attractive goldenseal while high quality, organically crop option, especially for small, limited grown goldenseal can command a price of resource growers. The market for $100 per pound or more. medicinal plants has been traditionally supplied from wild collected sources. While there remains much work to be However, overcollection from the wild may done in order to make medicinal plant have resulted in the decimation of many production viable for a greater number of native medicinal plant populations. growers, we believe that the current Current convention on International Trade trends toward increased government in Endangered Species (CITES) regulations regulation of herbal product quality and require certain listed herbs to have been the wild collection of medicinal plants cultivated for a specified number of years coupled with increased consumer before they can be exported. This has awareness of the origin of the source of resulted in many companies which the products they consume will effectively produce herbal products no longer mandate the development of cultivated purchasing raw material which has not sources of high quality medicinal plants. been cultivated with certified organic Will this result in a boom for producers? material receiving a premium price. The answer is still unknown but, for those willing to explore new territory and In addition, many medicinal plants can be measure their success in parts per million produced on farmland not being used for rather than bushels per acre, the other crops, such as forestland, and prospects of a gusher are getting more harvested before or after other regular probable everyday.
256 USDA/CSREES National Research Initiative New Funding Opportunity: Agricultural Prosperity for Small and Medium-sized Farms
Diana Jerkins USDA-CSREES Washington, DC
The CSREES National Research Initiative global markets and vertical integration, (NRI) competitive programs in 2005 and the increasing competition for farm sponsored a new program to support land for non-agricultural uses. Therefore, research, education, and extension the purpose of this program is to foster activities for small and medium-sized interdisciplinary studies to improve our farms. This presentation will review the understanding of the interactions between types of projects funded and opportunities the economic and environmental for the 2006 funding initiative. Integrated components important to the long-term research, education and extension viability, competitiveness and efficiency of projects were awarded to 15 grants for a small and medium-sized farms (including total of $5 million in 2005. These projects social, biological and other components, if were eligible for up to $500,000 for 2-4 necessary). These include small and years of support. Approximately $5 million medium-sized dairy, livestock, crop and will be available for awards in 2006. other commodity operations. While small and medium-sized farms account for less Sustaining the health and security of U.S. than 25 percent of the value of all agriculture requires improved profitability agricultural products sold in the U.S., the and long-term prosperity for producers long-term viability of these farms is critical and rural communities, with particular to the prosperity of rural people and attention to the viability and places as these farms account for competitiveness of small and medium- approximately 92 percent of all farms in sized operations. Prosperous small farms the U.S. Therefore, the program will also and rural communities are a function of foster interdisciplinary studies to enhance balance between economic, social, income accruing to small and medium- environmental and biological factors. sized farms through value-added activities Although prior research has been and in turn, their contribution to rural conducted on each of these factors, little prosperity. is known about the interplay between the factors, as related to small farms and rural The purpose of the Agricultural Prosperity economic development. for Small and Medium-sized Farms program is to foster interdisciplinary Small and medium-sized farms are studies and improve our understanding of challenged by limited economic the interactions between the economic, opportunities and increasing concerns social, biological and environmental about environmental quality, as indicated components important to small farms and by their low value of agricultural products rural economic development. Applicants sold, decreasing share of the food dollar, are expected to propose hypotheses that and the perceived trade-off between are testable and to use quantitative agricultural sustainability and economic approaches. Projects should address small viability. In recent years, these farms, rural agricultural communities, or challenges have been magnified by both small farms and rural communities changes in market conditions caused by when interrelated. tremendous demographic shifts, new
257 Concurrent Workshops
258 Getting Grants: Ten Things You Gotta Do To Get Money
Dr. Mark R. Bailey USDA – CSREES Washington, DC
Foreword: The information presented in your proposal this presentation was prepared to assist 5. Write the proposal logically and clearly those who have not had much experience 6. Develop a plan by which you will and/or success in preparing and evaluate your project against expected submitting proposals to various outcomes competitive programs, be they 7. Prepare budget with strong government sponsored, non-governmental justification-a budget narrative organization sponsored, or other entities 8. Know about the review process and who may sponsor such programs. The your reviewers presentation is generic in the sense that it 9. Fill out forms completely and correctly lays out a number of principles, 10. Schedule enough time when you are recommendations and “hints” that are “finished” for others to provide an honest based on common sense and over 20 and objective critique and for years of experience in research, research administrative requirements; Send to administration, integrated program arrive on time leadership and extension competitive programs. The hints and General Rules of the Game: Before recommendations are useful regardless of getting into the things you need to do to the type of grant program being get money, it is important that anyone considered or sponsoring organization. It contemplating preparing and submitting a goes without saying that there is no proposal ensure that their idea guarantee of successfully submitting and incorporated the following before they receiving a grant if all the principles, hints begin preparing a proposal. Can you meet and suggestions are followed, but at the the following tests with regard to your same time, the information presented proposal? should not be cause for any proposal to be · Is your idea appropriate to the rejected. MRB program to which you wish to apply to? Ten Things You Gotta Do To Get · Is your idea relevant to the Money: purposes of the funding program? The following recommendations provide a · Are you and your organization logical approach to organize one’s eligible to even apply (some activities and thoughts while going about programs are limited to particular the process of preparing a proposal for target groups or organizations? submission to a grant program. · Have you obtained and read program materials (if not, how will 1. Find the program right for you and your you answer these questions)? idea · Have in your mind an exciting 2. Become a “student” of the RFA/ and informative project RFP/NOFA (Request for applications; description for the program Request for Proposals; Notice of Funds manager and reviewers Availability) · Are you aware of what forms and 3. Develop a calendar of key proposal other paperwork is required as part preparation and submission events of your proposal? 4. Understand criteria used to evaluate · Do you know what the deadlines
259 and time frames are of the Finding the Right Program for You program? Can you get everything and Your Idea done in time? How do you find out about all of these · Do you feel comfortable calling programs? the program manager or director · Network - talk to friends, , with questions? colleagues, university folks- Ask them what they know about Finding the Right Program -- WHICH available funding programs and PROGRAM? whether your idea fits Many Federal and State agencies and · Examine some RFA’s even if they other organizations may have an array of are a year or two old…programs various programs? The National Science rarely change significantly year-to- Foundation, the National Institutes of year – Does your idea fit Health, and the National Research somewhere? Initiative have numerous programs they · When you think you’ve found the sponsor. The Cooperative State Research, right program for your idea or Education and Extension Service also has project, get the most recent a number of other programs that are not Request for Applications research based, such as the Community · In the RFA – Check on Food Projects Program, The agricultural eligibility…BUT not totally critical; risk Management education Program, the doesn’t matter who gets the grant SARE Program, and others. The US as long as you get some bucks, Department of Agriculture with its many right? Partnering goes a long way agencies has many funding opportunities. here and actually many programs Does your idea fit the aim of the program have partnerships and you are thinking about applying to? collaborators as important parts of · National Research Initiative (NRI- their evaluation criteria; If you or CSREES) your organization are not eligible, · Federal-State Marketing then work with someone who is Improvement Program (FSMIP- eligible AMS) · Outline main purposes of the · Capacity Building (CSREES Higher program-determine where your Education Programs) idea fits in; Mainstream? Or is it on · Community Food Projects the fringe? This increases the (CSREES) challenges! · Challenge Grants (CSREES Higher · Find out where the abstracts of Education Programs) previously funded projects · Integrated Programs (CSREES- are…great source of information research, extension or (most are now on combinations thereof) line…somewhere) · Small Business Innovation · Call the program contact and Research Program (Government- discuss your ideas relative to the wide, including CSREES) program in which you think it fits · Outreach and Assistance for · If your idea is covered but does not Socially Disadvantaged Farmers appear mainstream, you’ve got a and Ranchers (CSREES-often big challenge-competition is tough referred to as the “2501 Program”) and tight, and being on the · Multicultural Scholars Program periphery of a central theme or (CSREES-Higher Education major program goal does not help Programs) you · Agricultural Risk Management · Eligibility-do not waist your time if Education Program (CSREES and you are not eligible? Your proposal the Risk Management Agency, will be sent back or trashed. Call USDA) the program contact if you are not
260 sure. program contact · Deadline Dates: receive date vs. · Most RFAs contain directions as to transmittal (postmark) date (most how to prepare a proposal, often programs now use receipt dates). times including a topical outline If your proposal is late without any · Use this topical outline also for mitigating circumstances, it will be your Table of Contents format sent back or trashed. · If no outline, look at the evaluation · Indirect Costs - allowed? Limits? criteria, for these often give good Talk to your office of sponsored hints as to what folks are looking programs or cal the program for and their relative importance contact and discuss. · By becoming a student of the RFA · Is a Funding Match Required? you become seeped with Critical…if a match is required and understanding the key components you have none, guess what? of the program – its goals and · Major Goal of Purpose(s) of the areas of emphasis Program – will you be addressing · Your proposal will (better) reflect it? the key components in a logical, coherent way Become a “student” of the RFA · Reviewers first read the proposal The Request for Applications (RFA; summary to see if the proposal fits Notice of Funds Availability – NOFA; within the program; so your project Request for Proposals - RFP) is the key summary is one of the most document that provides all the important paragraph(s) you will information you need to develop, write organize, and prepare your proposal. Most include a format outline as well A Calendar of Events is your Friend as evaluation criteria. A calendar can help you organize your · You gotta understand the main work schedule. Note the following: purposes of the program BEFORE · Deadlines ARE NOT MADE to be you begin your proposal – that is broken usually upfront in the RFA! · A deadline is a deadline is a · Does your idea fit within the main deadline-no flexibility here! purposes? · “Back plan” two-three weeks from · Do not waste time applying to the the deadline noted in the RFA - wrong program…square pegs do that is when your proposal writing not fit in round holes needs to be done · Never hesitate to call the program · Establish a non-revocable “I am contact-there is always a point of finished” deadlines for various contact in every RFA; if the sections of your proposal program contact says your idea · Allow 2-3 weeks for review by fits, then it is up to you to properly calloused, insensitive experts who represent that idea in your could care less whether they hurt proposal your feelings; also allow time for · Once you are pretty sure your idea administrative review at your fits, then the fun begins, the university or organization drudgery, the toil, the work, the · Develop a detailed outline of your boredom, the challenge!!!! proposal and establish time periods · The RFA holds the info you need to for each major section; crosscheck prepare a competitive proposal your outline with RFA instructions · Directions, outline, evaluation and evaluation criteria criteria, deadlines · If you hurry a proposal, reviewers · Know the RFA forward and will see this and will raise questions backward…if something is about your scheduling and confusing, who do you call? The organizational skills…if they raise
261 questions on these issues, they will · The summary sets the tone for not be kind your proposal · Organize the proposals around the Criteria Used by Reviewers – Must RFA provided outline or evaluation Know criteria whichever is most logical Nearly all RFAs contain the criteria by · Reviewers will at least know you which proposals will be judged. It is read the RFA (in some proposal imperative that you understand and are evaluation panels or sessions, the familiar with the criteria, and their weights author has heard reviewers wonder if they are so noted. out loud as to whether the · RFA’s ordinarily contain a section applicant had actually read the on the criteria that will be used by RFA) reviewers to evaluate your · Following the prescribed format proposal; if you don’t see such makes reviewers happy and more criteria, call the program contact generous: an easier to read · Understand these criteria BEFORE proposal when compared to others you begin preparing your proposal gives the former a significant · Write them down; put them on advantage (assuming of course the mirrors, windows, desktops…get idea has relevance and legitimacy) ‘em down good-these are a major · Making reviewers work hard is like guide for you shooting one’s own foot…and that · Criteria often come with “weights” hurts! or percentages, or some other means of measure REMEMBER THIS: · Provides you with great · You make reviewers work hard by understanding as to where you not following directions and really need to put your efforts formats and that gives rise to one · Put yourself in the shoes of a of many of Bailey’s idioms: The reviewer, contemplating the degree to which you make a evaluation criteria, and then reviewer work hard decreases reading your proposal the probability of success exponentially Writing the Proposal – Logic and · Be logical in proposal construction Clarity · Your background description Easy to say, hard to do. This is hard and establishes the need for difficult work. Every word counts; Each your project and that it fits sentence counts. the program · Most Important 250 words (or · The need can be readily other limitations as provided by the identified with the purposes RFA you are working with) in the of the program…make sure entire proposal: THE SUMMARY or you tell them that in the ABSTRACT proposal – Be Explicit · The summary or abstract captures · Follow Directions; Follow Directions the essence of your proposal – –it is amazing how many proposals must be clear, concise, well do NOT follow directions! articulated and logical – usually · Have your proposal flow logically limited to half of what you “need” · Goals to write! · Objectives · Write the summary after · Methodologies with everything else is completed; make associated timelines sure it does what you need it to do · Expected Outcomes and – EXCITE YOUR REVIEWERS!!!! Impacts · The summary is often the only item · Evaluation-how you will read by all reviewers measure expected outcomes
262 · Your proposal’s mission is to make previous funded projects…what did they sure reviewers are convinced that: get? Is your budget over that maximum · The proposal goal(s) reflect specified in the RFA? Often your office of major purposes of programs sponsored programs or the equivalent will · That if you accomplish your have some sound advice! stated objectives, you will · Use the timelines to compute attain the goal(s) amount of time various people will · That if methodology is spend in carrying out the project followed, objectives will be (person months, for example) attained · While usually not part of the · That the expected results evaluation, unreasonable budgets are directly related to kill proposals for they create overall goals and purposes skeptics within reviewer ranks of program · Keep budgets within guidelines as · That you can do the job! provided in the RFA; budgets are · Reviewers must be convinced that: judged on the degree of · The evaluation plan you reasonableness given the proposed present will keep you on amount of work track and will identify · Understand what you are allowed problems that are subject to to spend on and what you are not solutions allowed to spend on · That the probability of your · Use the budget form provided and project success is then provide detailed justification acceptable – reviews think for each line item in a budget the project can be narrative; FOLLOW the budget line successfully accomplished, order found on the form (do not thereby making it a make reviewers work hard) contributor to the programs · The Narrative, or justification, purposes and goals should spell out how you compute · That the proposal NEEDS to each line item. be FUNDED (relative to · Salary: hourly rate times number other proposals) of hours times days; or on a · And another Bailey idiom: monthly basis If, through your proposal · Provide percentage of you create a reviewer benefits if not computed in champion(s), the probability indirect costs of success increases · Make sure the numbers add exponentially!!! up · Talk to program contact The Budget and Narrative about summer salaries – Many proposal submitters have a hard are they allowed? time with this part of a proposal. Budgets · Put yourself in the shoes of vary by type of proposal, region of the a reviewer who has read country the proposal comes from, and about 25 proposals and myriad other variables and factors. The their accompanying budgets test usually followed is the “test of reasonableness!” Is your budget, given Understand the Review Process - Who what you propose to do, and the people are the Reviewers and suppl9ies, travel, etc., included, is it In various competitive programs, reasonable? Many programs do not use proposals may be reviewed using many budgets as an evaluation factor, but a different techniques. CSREES’ National poorly justified budget or an inadequate Research Initiative, for example, as does narrative raises questions that go far the National Science Foundation and the beyond the budget per se. So look at National Institutes of Health use peer
263 panles to review proposals. In programs Dumb but Important Stuff: Filling out where relatively few proposals are the Forms received, the program may use a system Often a proposal will be accepted for of merit reviews, in house with usually an review, but certain information is missing, independent, out-of-house reviewer or or the forms are filled out incorrectly. two. It is important to understand how When this happens, questions are raised your proposal will be reviewed. that go far further than the form being · Reviewers depending on programs reviewed. If the abstract or summary are provided guidance on guidance says 250 words, and you provide evaluating proposals using 500 words, that is not looked on very evaluation criteria as published in positively! the RFA – most times, you have · Fill out all the required forms what the reviewers have completely…if you have questions · Reviewers discuss each proposal- who do you call????? The program strengths, weakness, qualifications, contact!!! probability of success, etc. · When the form asks for telephone · Remember, you can fool some of numbers, provide the telephone the people some times, but you numbers and not FAX numbers and can’t fool reviewers!!!! vice versa · Reviewers give individual scores · Make sure email addresses are and then when they meet as a complete; exceedingly important in group, they discuss the proposal the e-GOV/e-GRANTS world! and arrive at a “consensus score” · The amount requested on the · Reviewers are looking for proposals Coversheet should be the amount they can champion and those they you computed for your total can dismiss-make it hard for them budget; Make sure the numbers to dismiss yours are the same and consistent · By following directions found in the throughout your proposal RFA, you help the reviewers review · Make sure you as Project Director – they really like that! sign the Proposal Cover Page · Not following directions makes · Make sure the Authorized them work hard, they get angry, Organizational Representative (he cheap, and unforgiving, mean and or she who can approve cranky! expenditures) signs as well · Proposals in any given year are · Make sure the Summary Page (or judged against all other proposals equivalent) is filled out completely reviewed in the program in that · The Summary is the most year important words you will write as · For the most part, reviewers are part of the proposal people like you and me-always · Again, if have questions, call the busy, no time for extras National Program Leader or the · They take on the additional burden program contact of reviewing proposals gratis, thereby making great contributions Critique and Submission to the professions Most proposals that receive in-house · Your goal is to have your proposal critical reviews are often those that fare make at least one reviewer the best when evaluated. Most of us have champion, so think like one experienced the situation where we · For the most part (and I really become “too close” to that which we are mean most part) reviewers are fair doing, and fail to see some pretty stupid and objective; in panel situations, stuff…stuff that the conscientious reviewer they police each other will invariably see. SO: · Make sure you allow time for an in- house critique before submission
264 · Send it to someone who is not your programs. So learn the differences, and good friend…someone WHO: submitted another proposal to that · talks frankly, bluntly and program. Do not send the same proposal clearly; You do not want to two different programs without someone who beats around informing both programs that you have the bush done so. This should not prejudice either · has little sympathy for you proposal but not informing both programs or your ego can pose great problems in the future. · is smart, crafty and wise Most funding agencies are precluded from · Is insensitive to your fund the same proposal that has or is sensitivities being funded by another agency or · has had success in obtaining program. The following may prove useful grants in the past as you go about the process of · Incorporate relevant critique developing, writing, and submitting a comments as appropriate proposal: · eGOV/eGRANTS proposal system · Learn the details of as many will be implemented by all programs as you can – do not limit government agencies in the yourself to one agency or one relatively near future; make sure program, per se you submit proposal using correct · One program may fund an initial media (paper? Electronically?) study or project that leads to · DO NOT MISS the DEADLINE-and funding a continued project by make sure you understand when another program that is · If find two similar programs in one · If an “Act of God” occurs resulting or more agencies, use your basic in you being unable to make the idea and develop two related but deadline, call the program contact not duplicate proposals and submit immediately; you must document to both programs…make sure you the circumstances if you are to tell each program what you are receive an extension doing. Proposals are judged similar relative to the similarity of Final Proposal Preparation Words their objectives. Different Some final words… objectives basically mean different · Always assume luck is on your side proposals for luck never hurts · Be an entrepreneur…market you’re · If at first you don’t succeed, don’t your idea or proposals to other take it personally; be persistent programs and try and try again · Call and discuss basic ideas with · If have any questions, who do you the program contact – the key is to call????? The program contact, of find out whether your idea is main course! stream · Work the program contact hard – Leveraging Your Grant Dollars pump for hints for success; ask When resources are constrained, which specific questions relative to your they most often are, it makes sense to proposal or similar, previously leverage any grant dollars you may submitted proposals receive. One project in one program can · Partner with those who have lead to another project in another similar projects, thoughts, or ideas program. The proposal that can show · Use collaborations to bring in some leveraging of funds, when compared missing expertise – adds credibility to an equal quality proposal without to proposal (get specific letters of leveraged funds, usually wins the tie- commitment; make sure it is part breaker. Often, your proposal discusses an of your budget and budget idea that may have application in other narrative)
265 · Be persistent…in most competitive · Pester non-governmental programs, funding is not available organizations – Ford, Kellogg, to fund all the proposal that Aspen, and other reviewers recommend funding; foundations/grant-making entities hence you may have a very good with your thoughts and ideas proposal but because of limited · Use results of one study to bolster funds, your proposal ends up the need for an additional study falling below the funding loan. Use · Documented outcomes and impacts the reviewer comments to improve of those outcomes from previous your proposal and resubmit during grants provide your best credibility; the next solicitation period. if just starting, make sure · Do not limit yourself to just one reviewers know that (your vitae) source of funding; go after multiple sources!
266 Evaluating Your Small Farm Educational Program
Paula B. Ford Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas
At the end of this workshop you will: · When? · Understand why evaluation is · How? important. · What? · Know some basic evaluation terms. · Identify program records that Common types of evaluation might be critical to evaluation. information · Identify the types of questions you · Participant profiles and program want answered in your evaluation record information and appropriate instruments for · Participant needs and assets answering those questions. · Participant reactions to teaching, · Know where you can get additional facilities, logistics information and resources on · Changes in knowledge, attitude or evaluation. skills · Changes in behaviors and practices You want me to do what? · Longer term changes · Evaluation is a systematic way to answer questions that you (and Participant profiles and program others) have about project record information participation, quality, satisfaction, · Participant name and contact and outcomes. information · Age, gender, race, ethnic origin Why is evaluation important? · Employment · Are we reaching our target · Household status audience? · Location of residence · Are we meeting the needs of our · Education participants? · Income Levels · What can we do to improve our · Type of operation educational programs? · Do our educational programs have Important things to consider when a real impact on people’s lives. If asking for participant information so, what is that impact? · Work with your Institutional Review Board Where to begin? · Age at most recent birthday, years · What are you going to evaluate? Is of schooling completed, # in it an event? A series of events? A household, gender product? · Race/ethnic origin – More than one · Who will use the evaluation? You? category can be checked Stakeholders? Funders? · Residence – Zip code or county (in · Why are you evaluating? town or country)
Evaluation is about information. What Sensitive questions are often best information is going to be collected? asked in categories · Who? · Approximate gross value of farm
267 sales? Approximate family income workshop? last year? · Size of operation? Acreage? Animal Participant KASA changes units? · KASA – Knowledge, Attitudes, · Type of operation? Single family? Skills, Aspirations Partnership, Family-held · KASA changes occur in corporation? participants. · Off-farm employment? Number of · Can be collected in a number of full time employees? ways · How will information be used? Participant program records · Short vs. long-term changes · Attendance – all or part of program? Measuring KASA change · Where did they learn about · Pre/post testing often used in more program? formal programs. · How far did they travel? · Pre/post self-assessments often · Previous participation in extension used in less formal programs. programs? · Retrospective post-then-pre often more effective Participant needs and resources · Other means to measure KASA · Can be asked prior to, during and change – case studies, interviews, after program. diaries, document review · Identified through survey, case studies, interviews, focus groups, Post-then-Pre evaluation / or other instrument. retrospective pre/post · Can also be asked multiple times. · Can be more accurate if participants have limited Participant reactions knowledge to respond accurately in · Can be collected multiple ways pretest. · How will you use the information? · Administered at end of program, · Short versus long-term reactions asks participants to assess specific · Reactions to methods, teaching, knowledge, attitude, and skills prior logistics, etc. Post-event surveys to and after event. should be specific and only given if · Can be used to estimate future results will be used. change · Keep it short, sweet and as unbiased as possible. Measuring KASA change · Remember information is point in · Critical to identify specific time. educational outcomes – changes in · Protect anonymity. knowledge, attitudes, skills, and · Test your surveys prior to use. aspirations prior to the event. · Use the feedback you receive. · KASA outcomes can be placed into content categories. Examples of specific participant · Include some mechanism for response questions measuring unexpected KASA. · How useful did you find this workshop? (Likerd scale 1-5) What to do with KASA information · Rate the content, organization, and · Summarize changes in table materials used in workshop. · Graph using Excel · Evaluate the quality of the · Test significance of difference using presentations. statistical paired sample t-test or · Rate the logistics, meals, facilities, Mann-Whitney test etc. · Test at different times · How much would you pay for this
268 Presenting KASA change
Knowledge Pre Post area
Sources of 4.2 4.8 N Factors 3.8 4.7 associated with N availability Calculating 2.6 4.5 N loss N balance 3.0 4.7 equation
Behavioral outcomes Measuring behaviors · Behavior outcomes are changes · Identifying specific behavioral that occur in the program outcomes associated with project? participants. · Be specific – what will people do, · Anticipated behavioral changes can when will they do it and how long be measured immediately after will they do it? program, real changes require time. Other ways to measure behavioral · Behavioral changes best measured changes by combining self-assessment with · Interviews other forms of measurement · Case studies · Monitor use of resources Examples of behavioral outcomes · Changes in related measures – For · Participants will: instance, changes in demands for · Identify learning outcomes more information for at least one small farm · Photos, videos, diaries educational program they · Observation conduct in next year. · Conduct a retrospective Evaluation resources KASA test at 3 and 6 · Ask other educators. months after event to see · Work with stakeholders on whether learning outcomes evaluation. were achieved by · Don’t be afraid to ask new things in participants. different ways. · Analyze and present information to Advisory Group
269 Funding Opportunities
Bruce Pleasant USDA Rural Development Raleigh, NC
Rural Cooperative-Business Service What VAPG Grants Cannot Do Programs · Bricks and Mortar · Business & Industry Loan · Purchase, rent or install fixed Guarantees equipment · Intermediary Relending Program · Pay for production-related · Specialty Lender programs expenses · Cooperative Services · Pay cost incurred prior to · Value-Added Producer Grants application · Rural Cooperative Development · Pay cost of preparing application Grants Grant Amount Maximums (FY 2005) Value-Added Producer Grants Designed to help Agricultural Producers, · Planning Grant: $100,000 including cooperatives, to enter into value- · Working Capital: $150,000 added activities to accelerate the pace of · Requires cash/in-kind matches the transformation of the nation’s equal to requested amount agricultural economy into one focused on producer-owned, value-added business. 2004 NC VAPG Recipients · Red Gate Farms: Obtained a What is Value-Added? $50,000 grant for working capital · Incremental value realized by a to market processed natural pork producer as the result of: products · Change in physical state in a · Yadkin Valley Winegrowers commodity Association: Awarded a $250,000 · Differentiated production or grant for working capital to operate marketing a retail wine store at the Charlotte- · Product segregation Douglas Airport · Production of farm-based or ranch- based renewable energy 2005 NC VAPG Recipients · CL Henderson Produce: $29,600 Eligible Applicants · Old North State Winegrowers Co- · Independent Producers op: $150,000 · Farmer or Rancher Cooperatives · Agricultural Groups Old North State Winery · Majority-Controlled producer-based · 38 Charter members business ventures · Sells Grapes to Cooperative owned winery Eligible Purposes · Product is marketed through retail · Planning Activities (i.e. feasibility and wholesale outlets. studies, business plans, marketing · Members are assured market for plans) grapes · Working Capital Expenses for · Value-Added product increases processing and marketing value- returns to members added products (i.e. inventory, salaries, and office supplies)
270 Rural Cooperative Development · Collection, interpretation & Grants dissemination of principals, facts, and technical knowledge Rural Cooperative Development Grants are · Training and Instruction made for establishing operating centers · Providing loans and grants for for cooperative development for the purpose of cooperative primary purpose of improving the development economic condition of rural areas through · Providing technical assistance, the development of new cooperatives and research services and advisory improving the operations of new services cooperatives. Ineligible Uses of RCDG Funds Eligible Applicants · Bricks and Mortar · Non-Profit Corporations · Purchase or installation of fixed · Institutions of Higher Education equipment · Grants may not be made to public · Coat of preparing an application bodies · Costs incurred prior to date of grant approval FY 2005 Funding for RCDG · Operating costs of cooperatives · $7.3 Million funded 27 applications in 22 states Contact for More Information · Maximum Award : $300,000 USDA Rural Development · 25% matching requirement by 4405 Bland Road, Suite 260 applicant or third party in form of Raleigh, NC 27609 cash or in-kind Telephone: (919) 873-2031 Email: [email protected] Eligible Uses of Funds · Applied Research, feasibility, environmental & other studies
271 Formal Dinner Remarks
W. Thomas Phillips Director, Community Investments Pioneer HiBred International Johnston, IA
I. Thank you for the opportunity to enrolled at Iowa State. Wallace be here with such outstanding business has credited Carver for instilling in people — leaders in their field and him a curiosity about plant individuals who are committed to life-long genetics and how genetics affect learning. trait expression. A. Add anecdotal story here about B. Pioneer named its Conference what you may have experienced Center after George Washington during the day. Carver in honor of his world B. I, too, am committed to a lifetime famous work as a botanist and of learning. I finished my master’s agricultural chemist, and his degree just a couple of years ago. amazing influence with Henry It’s never too late. Wallace. Carver is well known for developing crop rotation methods II. Pioneer Hi-Bred International is and for discovering hundreds of dedicated to providing custom, crop- innovative uses for the peanut. He based solutions that improve and was also the first African American sustain lifestyles for people around to enroll at Iowa State College. the world. Carver earned his B.S. (1894) and M.S. (1896) degrees from Iowa A. We bring value to our farmer State and later became the customers as the world leader in school’s first African American the development and integration faculty member. of advanced plant genetics and C. The passion for plant sciences that technologies. Carver initially fed continued to B. Pioneer sells seed for corn, grow within Henry. He felt that it soybeans, sorghum, sunflower, had the potential to change the alfalfa, wheat and canola lives and impact the farming C. Pioneer also offers inoculants for practices of growers. corn and alfalfa silage, alfalfa hay, D. We were the first company and high moisture grain. anywhere to market hybrid seed D. We are committed to helping our corn. In 1935, the company customers be successful. changed its name to the Pioneer E. Pioneer understands that Hi-Bred Corn Company and was increasing populations, changing aggressively marketing its hybrid economies, and limited corn. cultivatable land impact how E. Wallace firmly believed that the farmers conduct their business. only way to provide a steady and dependable stream of improved III. Pioneer had a humble beginning as hybrids for farmers was to invest the Hi-Bred Corn Company, founded some of its profits into research to by Henry A. Wallace in 1926. develop new products. F. Pioneer’s early leaders put a A. A young Henry Wallace had business philosophy to paper that befriended George Washington captured Henry’s spirit and Carver while Henry’s father was intention when he first started the
272 business. We call it The Long Look. live and work. Simply, it is: · Produce the best products on A. We invest in programs that: the market’ - Reflect the strategic · Deal honestly and fairly with interests of the business our employees, sales - Add economic or social representatives, business value to communities associates, customers and - Support employees’ stockholders philanthropic and volunteer · Advertise and sell our products interests vigorously but without - Build upon our commitment misrepresentation to be a good neighbor · Give helpful management - Encourage, where possible, suggestions to our customers collaborative funding to assist them in making the programs that specifically greatest possible profit from address rural social and our products economic issues B. About 70 percent of the annual IV. The Long Look is still our compass contributions we make are that guides the business decisions we directed toward programs that make today as a wholly owned have a strong, strategic subsidiary of DuPont. relationship to Pioneer. Generally, these programs are in the areas of A. Pioneer’s mission remains agriculture, education with an unchanged from before DuPont emphasis on science and farm acquired Pioneer in 1999. We are safety. committed to creating new value C. For example, for our customers. Funding our - Pioneer has helped support research projects is key to our Farm Safety 4 Just Kids for customers’ success and the many years. A Central Iowa viability of the Pioneer business. mother who tragically lost B. In fact, Pioneer fits well into the her young son in a farm DuPont family of businesses. In accident in 1986 founded addition to Pioneer, DuPont, as this organization. With you well know, offers a complete support from Pioneer, Farm line of crop protection products for Safety 4 Just Kids is row crops, cereals, specialty crops, forming additional chapters fruits and vegetables. in communities throughout C. DuPont is focused on being the the United States. The world’s most dynamic science group conducts local company, creating sustainable children’s farm safety solutions essential to a better, activities to educate youth safer, healthier life for people and adults alike to help everywhere. And, reducing our keep them safe. environmental footprint. - Pioneer supports the Easter D. This is another way we give back Seals AgriSafe Program to to our communities, our help disabled farmers customers, and our world. return to the fields. - We have supported the V. Pioneer also gives generously to National FFA Foundation for develop, implement and provide more than 40 years. charitable programs that support Pioneer helps support the quality of life in the communities New Century Farmer where our customers and employees program, the American FFA
273 Degree Program, the Grain VI. Pioneer is committed to creating an Production improved, sustainable lifestyle for Entrepreneurship people around the world. Proficiency and Placement Proficiency, 2005 A. We do this through volunteer scholarships, the National and philanthropic investments Association of Agricultural as well as bringing value Educators, and the through agronomic solutions to Collegiate Convention. our farmer customers. - Pioneer also offers its B. Pioneer encourages and support to several higher supports volunteer efforts by educational institutions our employees such as Iowa State C. And, we set aside a percentage University, Tuskegee, of revenue each year for 1980s Land Grant and investment in programs that historically black colleges add economic or social value to and universities. our communities - We have support Minorities in Agriculture and Natural VII. Pioneer is focused on science, Resources, some of you solutions and customer success. may know this as MANRRS, and the Southeastern I wish each of you the very best in your Consortium for business. I hope you have enjoyed the Minorities in Engineering. conference so far. It has been my - And, many, many others. pleasure to join you tonight. Thank you
274 The Farm Bill Listening Session
The Farm Bill Listening Session was held at the Koury Convention Center, October 19, 2005.
Vernon Parker, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Civil Rights, and Floyd Gaibler, Deputy Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services received comments of behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture from a wide range of participants on what was seen as the most important components the new Farm Bill, slated to be written in 2007.
Also present were: Congressional representatives from G.K. Butterfield's office, North Carolina; Assistant Commissioner, Richard Reich, North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; Keith Weatherly, State Director of the Farm Service Agency in North Carolina; John Cooper, State Director of Rural Development in North Carolina, and Jacob Crandall, Assistant State Conservationist for NRCS in North Carolina.
The session was moderated by Marlin Bohling, farm director and broadcaster for the Southern Farm Network in Raleigh, North Carolina.
The session focused on six questions: How should farm policy address any unintended consequences and ensure that such consequences do not discourage new farmers and the next generation of farmers from entering production agriculture?
How should farm policy be designed to maximize U.S. competitiveness and our country's ability to effectively compete in global markets?
How should farm policy be designed to effectively and fairly distribute assistance to producers?
How can farm policy best achieve conservation and environmental goals?
How can federal rural and farm programs provide effective assistance in rural areas?
How should agricultural product development, marketing, and research-related issues be addressed in the next farm bill?
350 conference participants attended the Listening Session.
The Farm Forum listening session was recorded, and a full transcript is on the USDA website, http://www.usda.gov Release No. 0470.05
275 Exhibit Abstracts
276 Small Farmers' Outreach and Spanish) for questions, a popular website Technical Assistance Program (averaging 100,000 unique visitors per month), publications and presentations.
Since 1995, the Small Farmers Outreach For more information: and Technical Assistance Project at Teresa Maurer Alabama A&M University has had ATTRA, P.O. Box 3657 overwhelming success in assisting small Fayetteville, AR 72702 and limited resource farmers in North Alabama's underserved communities remain in profitable farming business. The Small Farm Project – University project offers a wide range of outreach of Arkansas at Pine Bluff services and technical assistance, including record keeping, farm financial This exhibit shows field and office analysis and planning, value-added activities associated with the Small Farm agriculture, idebtifying markets and Project. These activities include training marketing.alternatives, etc. This display and technical assistance being provided in purports to showcase some of the farm production, planning, land project's many success stories and share improvements, and diversification with our experiences with conference alternative enterprises. The pictures show participants working with limited resource farm visits at and before harvest of producers. This project is only one of the soybeans; farm planning being conducted many projects within Alabama A&M in the office using FINPACK Software to University's Small Farms Research Center help a farmer analyze his operation; a which offer assistance to small and farmer that improved his land by using socially disadvantaged farmers. It is EQIP to install irrigation and land leveling funded by USDA/CSREES's 2501 program. on his farm; and farmers who diversified their operation by adding goats and For more information: vegetables. Impact statements are also Duncan M. Chembezi included. E'licia L. Chaverst Larry Dejarnett For more information : James O. Bukenya Henry English Alabama A&M University Small Farm Project Director P.O. Box 700 University of Arkansas – Pine Bluff Normal, AL 35762-0700 Mail Slot 4906 1200 North University Drive Pine Bluff, AR 71601 The ATTRA National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service: A Free USDA - Economic Research Resource for Farmers and Service Educators The Economic Research Service is the The ATTRA National Sustainable main source of economic information and Agriculture Information Service provides research from the U.S. Department of technical assistance to farmers and Agriculture. ERS research and analysis ranchers across the US on sustainable help public and private decision makers agriculture and marketing of sustainably conduct business or formulate policy produced products. We do this through an related to agriculture, food, natural 800 tollfree telephone line (English and
277 resources, and rural economics. The ERS USDA – NASS: Fact Finders for booth offered a variety of publications U.S. Agriculture available as well as a demonstration of the ARMS Interactive Farm Data Resource The National Agricultural Statistics Service Tool. This website is an interactive data is a World leader in sampling, data query product that offers a “wealth of data collection, and estimation procedures for that describe farming in America—who, economic, environmental, and agricultural where, how, and with what outcomes.” surveys and censuses. The Agency also Individuals can use this tool to learn about creates a number of remote sensing and U.S. agriculture structure, agricultural Geographic Information System statistical production technology, and the viability of products and conducts ongoing applied farm business. research on statistical methodology and estimation approaches. Statistical ARMS is an annual survey and is USDA’s information on acreage, production, primary source of information on the stocks, prices, and income is essential for financial condition, production practices, the smooth operation of Federal farm resource use, and the economic well-being programs. It is also indispensable for of America's farm households. Sponsored planning and administering related Federal jointly by ERS and the National and State programs in such areas as Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), consumer protection, conservation and ARMS is the only national survey that environmental quality, trade, education, provides observations of field-level farm and recreation. practices, the economics of the farm business, and the characteristics of the Reliable, timely, and detailed crop and American farm household—all collected in livestock statistics help to maintain a a representative sample. And now, for the stable economic climate and minimize the first time, ARMS survey information about uncertainties and risks associated with the farm production, business, and households production, marketing, and distribution of include data for 15 selected States and the commodities. Farmers and ranchers rely whole nation. on NASS reports in making production and Information available includes: marketing decisions. The reports help • Structure and financial status and them decide on specific production plans, performance of U.S. farm operators, their such as how much corn to plant, how households, and farm businesses. many cattle to raise, and when to sell. • Status and trends in crop production practices for several field NASS estimates and forecasts are greatly crops. relied upon by the transportation sector, • Annual production costs and warehouse and storage companies, banks returns and published accounts for major and other lending institutions, commodity field crop and livestock commodities. traders, and food processors. Those in • First ever state-level estimates of agribusiness who provide farmers with farm financial status and performance (for seeds, equipment, chemicals, and other 15 selected states). goods and services study the reports when planning their marketing strategies. For more information: Doris J. Newton, Economist Analysts transform the statistics into USDA, Economic Research Service projections of coming trends, 1800 M Street, NW interpretations of the trends' economic Washington, DC 20036-5831 implications, and evaluations of alternative courses of action for producers, agribusinesses, and policy makers. These
278 analyses multiply the usefulness of NASS For more information: statistics. Marie Buchanan, Program Outreach Manager USDA/Risk Management Agency (RMA) For more information: Community Outreach and Assistance Dale Hawks Partnership Program Ray Garibay 1400 Independence Ave SW, stop 0801 USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Washington, DC 20250-0801 Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Wash., D.C. 20250 USDA Small Farms Coordinators Enhancing the viability and economic USDA – Risk Management livelihood of America’s small farmers and Agency: Working Together to ranchers is one of USDA’s top priorities. Preserve Family Farms USDA has a Department-wide group of Small Farms Coordinators, representing each mission area; individual agencies; Outreach Mission: To ensure that all and the Offices of Outreach, Civil Rights, farmers and ranchers, including women, Budget and Program Analysis, limited resource, socially disadvantaged Communications, Chief Economist, and the and other traditionally underserved General Council. Small farms coordinators producers consistently receive program provides a focal point to coordinate small information and technical assistance farm policy and programs within USDA. necessary to access and participate in all They are responsible for planning, USDA/RMA programs and activities. recommending and coordinating the implementation of small farms polices and RMA’s community outreach program funds programs. and supports a wide range of innovate outreach and assistance activities in farm For more information: management, financial management, Shirley E. Brown marketing contracts, crop insurance and Kathryn Hill other existing and emerging risk U.S. Department of Agriculture management tools. Room 112-A Whitten Federal Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Through partnerships and collaborations Washington, DC 20250-3810 with land grant institutions, Hispanic Serving Institutions(HSIs), associations of farmers and ranchers, state departments of agriculture and other non-profit USDA - Agricultural Marketing organizations, limited resource and Service traditionally underserved producers and ranchers receive risk management · National Organic Program training, as well as information · USDA Farmers Market opportunities and assistance necessary to Program—AMS Marketing Services understand (1) The kind of risks Branch addressed by existing and emerging risk · How to Direct Market Farm management tools; (2) the features and Products on the Internet appropriate use of existing and emerging · Locating a farmers market in your risk management tools; and (3) How to state make sound risk management decisions.
279 · How Local Farmers and School Bryan Surgeon Food Service Buyers are Building Sibyl Wright Alliances Food Safety and Inspection Service · Direct / niche marketing for Phone: 202-720-4923 ; Fax: 202-720- farmers, and other publications 8213 ; Email: [email protected] USDA/FSIS/OPHS/AEPFSB 1400 For more information: Independence Ave., SW, Aerospace Carmen Humphrey Center, Room 343, Washington, DC 20250 USDA, AMS phone: (202) 720-8317; fax: (202) 690- 0031 Rural Coalition / Coalicion Rural USDA-Food Safety Inspection Service / Food Safety Animal For nearly 28 years the Rural Coalition has Production worked with our diverse members to enact more just food, farm and trade policies. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection We’ve listened closely as small and limited Service (FSIS) is a public health agency resource farmers and farmworkers charged with ensuring that the United described the kind of farm policies and States’ supply of meat, poultry, and egg trade relationships that are most beneficial products is safe, wholesome, and correctly to them. In response, The SuperMarket labeled and packaged. FSIS undertook a Coop, an online market, was formed to large number of food safety and public bring these principles of equity and fair health initiatives to strengthen and trade to both farmers and consumers. modernize the Federal inspection The SuperMarket Coop program, and adopted a farm-to-table (www.supermarketcoop.com) offers strategy in pursuit of its broad public consumers home-grown food and health mission. handmade crafts that reflect the diversity of small farmers and rural communities FSIS does not have statutory authority across the continent while it guarantees with regard to on-farm operations. them a fair price. We’re pleased to display Rather, its role is to provide leadership some of those items at this conference and assistance for the development and and also to share information on our adoption of animal production practices advocacy work. Please stop by the Rural that will reduce residues and pathogen Coalition’s Fair Trade SuperMarket to shop hazards in food animals. FSIS’ Animal and and learn more about bringing fair trade Egg Production Food Safety Branch to farmers and to learn how you can (AEPFSB) has developed a comprehensive participate in our electronic policy network voluntary approach to promote food safety in preparation for the upcoming Farm bill. practices at the production level. AEPFSB is responsible for research coordination, For more information : producer education, liaison, and outreach The Rural Coalition activities to help ensure that only the 1012 14th Street, NW, Suite 1100 safest and best quality animals enter the Washington, DC 20005 food chain. For more information, contact Phone : (202) 628-7160 the Animal and Egg Production Food [email protected] Safety Branch, FSIS Small Farm Coordinator at 202-690-2683 or visit our website at http://www.fsis.usda.gov
For more information:
280 Safe and Efficient Drug Use on farms. Much of our effort has focused on Small Farms the development and marketing of farm made value-added products. We will have Owners and managers of small farms face a display of these products and offer them two major problems when considering the for sale to those attending the conference. use of drugs in their animals – lack of In addition, we will offer a DVD recording available drugs for the species most of of a hands-on medicinal plant production them are involved with and paucity of workshop held at Sleepy Hollow Farm. information on tactics they can use to Randy and Cindi Beavers will man the avoid harmful drug residues in animals booth and be available to discuss the and their products going to market. The projects. The information presented will first affects their animals and their income be usable by extension agents, policy directly while the latter can impact on the makers, researchers, and small farmers. whole industry as the public loose trust in Outcomes: Attendees will be presented the US farmer’s ability to produce safe with a model for medicinal herb production food. The talk will explain how limited are usable by those wishing to enter the drug choices, how farmers can agriculture on a part time basis or for optimize the situation through the use of diversification by existing farmers. their veterinarian for both advice and using her/his ability to use drugs outside For more information: their label legally. Similarly, veterinarians Randy & Cindi Beavers have direct access to FARAD fir residues Sleepy Hollow Farm avoidance strategies and up-to-date 1421 Boyles Mill Rd. enforcement policies. Dalton, Georgia 30721. For more information : Alistair I. Webb New Ventures / College of Veterinary Medicine Purdue University University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32610 A three paneled display: [email protected] 1. Three Rs of New Ventures; Do you: · Have an idea for a new agricultural Establishing a Viable Organic or food business? Goldenseal Production System · want to know if you have what it for Small Family Farms takes? · have a handle on the technology involved? Objective: Presentation of results of USDA · want to know if there’s a market SBIR funded projects. for your product or service? · want to expand your current This booth will be complementary to the business? oral presentation to be given by Randy Through New Ventures, agricultural Beavers entitled, “Agricultural Wildcatters, entrepreneurs tap into: Have They Hit A Gusher With Medicinal Research, Resources Relationships Plants?”. The booth will highlight our work to develop a USDA National Organic 2. Opportunities Program production system for the Agri-Tourism endangered medicinal plant Hydrastis Alpaca canadensis (goldenseal) and our efforts to Aquaculture make medicinal plant production a viable Indiana Farm Fresh Beef alternative crop for small, family operated Biofuels
281 Bison Some of the points that will be covered Commercial Kitchens include research indicating adequate Organic Production capitalization and operating capital, focus Pastured Pork of purpose, management execution and Free Range Poultry determining which customers to fire and Wineries which ones to keep are key issues for success. Based on case studies of more 3. Three Who Succeeded than 30 value added agriculture Clearspring Produce Auction businesses, the presenter will provide With the help of Purdue Extension, about checklist of how to make a business more 40 small farmers pooled ideas and successful and will explain a new tool, resources to establish the Clearspring called the Agricultural Marketing Resource Produce Auction, which rang up about Center that can provide producers training $430,000 in sales in 2003. They’ve and education to help improve their odds increasingly turned to Purdue for technical of success. The Web-based Center and management advice. features more than 75 commodities, and has more than 6000 links of marketing Momentum Food Service, Inc. resources. Included in the Website, After attending a Purdue workshop, Jose located at www.agmrc.org are extensive Morales forged ahead and turned an idea case studies and educational tools and into a successful food products business. templates. The Center averages more Morales put an empty facility back into than ½ million visitors each month. production and people back to work in a rural community. For more information: Mary Holz-Clause Windy Knoll Winery In 1994, Iowa State University Leser Winery & Vineyard – now known as 1111 NSRIC Building Windy Knoll – started in southwestern Ames, IA 50011 Indiana with 1.5 acres. Today with 10.5 acres and plans to expand to 25, the Good Natured Family Farms business produces award-winning wines. Owner Rick Leser credits research and Selling Your Local Farm Foods support from the Indiana Wind Grape to Supermarkets Council, the Southwest-Purdue The Good Natured Family Farms exhibit Agricultural Center, and other wine will highlight the line of local farm foods producers for his success. sold at a 29 supermarket chain in Kansas For more information: City, Kansas. Good Natured Family Farms Steve Engleking is an alliance of 40 small family farms Purdue Cooperative Extension Service within a 200 mile radius of the Kansas City 114 West Michigan Street, Suite 10 metropolitan area. These small family LaGrange, IN 46761 farms produce all-natural beef, free-range chicken, farmhouse cheese, glass-bottle milk, free-range eggs, pasture-raised Firing Your Customer and Other pork, grass fed bison, and several value- Tips to Ensure a Successful added products. The exhibit will showcase Business up-to-date marketing strategies including monthly newsletter mailed to customers Why are some value added agriculture through database mining, coupons printed businesses successful while others fail? on identified customers receipts, producer This proposed session will delve into photos and bio’s on check-out computer recent research examining this issue. screens, Kansas City ‘Buy Fresh Buy Local
282 promotion’, lots of local free publicity, and Answering questions on the telephone, in our new supermarket electronic CSA. This person, by mail or by email; Performing will be an exhibit that will demonstrate custom research and literature searches how a group of small family farms can across many types of sources, including partner with local independent databases that may be unavailable on the supermarkets and both can benefit and be Internet or to the general public; Making successful. referrals to appropriate subject experts; Providing access to unbiased factual For more information: information and resources ; and, Sharing Diana Endicott subject and technical expertise with other Rainbow Organic Farms d.b.a. Good organizations that serve the sustainable Natured Family Farms th agriculture community. 1976 55 Street Route 1 Bronson, Kansas 66716 For more information: William Thomas Stephanie Boehmer Alternative Farming Systems Mary Gold Information Center USDA/REE/ARS/NAL/PSD/IRSB/AFSIC Alternative Farming Systems Information The Alternative Farming Systems Center, National Agricultural Library, Information Center (AFSIC) is a dynamic 10301 Baltimore Avenue, Room 122 collection and distribution center Beltsville, MD 20705-2351 specializing in information about sustainable food production systems and Spray Drift Demonstration practices. AFSIC is a service-oriented team of librarians and subject specialists Table who facilitate rapid access to information The Spray Drift Demonstration table resources on alternatives to conventional provides an opportunity for farmers to agriculture. AFSIC responds to reference view drift. It varies wind speed, 0, 3, and and information inquiries on topics such as 8 mph. Pressure can vary from 20-50psi. sustainable cropping systems, alternative Tip selection is endless. Included will be crops and livestock, organic farming, and the latest technology for A. Soybean Rust aquaculture. AFSIC also identifies, and choices of nozzles and how they affect organizes and distributes information on drift because of increased pressure to alternative farming practices and markets, penetrate foliage. Drift is quantified by the including topic specific information residue on water sensitive paper. products. AFSIC serves a wide range of customers including governmental and For more information: academic researchers, growers, Eddie Johnson students/educators, policy makers, the Univ. of Maryland private sector, and the general public. Wicomico Cooperative Extension Since 1985, AFSIC has been an integral 28647 Old Quantico Road part of the National Agricultural Library, Salisbury, MD 21801 serving both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the public, and is considered a critical element of the overall USDA effort to insure a sustainable future for agriculture and farmers worldwide. Services of the Alternative Farming Systems Information Center include:
283 New England Small Farm Land Stewardship Project's Institute (NESFI) Farm BeginningsTM
First Prize for an exhibit by a non-profit Farm Beginnings™ is a comprehensive organization was awarded to New England farmer-led mentorship and training Small Farm Institute, a land-based program that helps beginning farmers get educational organization in Massachusetts. started farming. A combination of NESFI’s colorful exhibit informed seminars addressing sustainable attendees about three important aspects production, goal setting, business planning of its educational outreach program: and management, including financial • Exploring the Small Farm Dream: a planning and alternative marketing decision-making workbook and short practices as well as hands-on farm course designed to help aspiring experience with established farmers farmers decide if starting a commercial through mentorships and farm tours business is right for them. NESFI’s provide the foundation for this 10-month Explorer project offers train-the-trainer course. Unique to other courses, opportunities to service providers who experienced established farmers are the would like to offer the course to their presenters and mentors as well as new farmer constituents. continuing to guide the program. To date, • “Linking Know with Do”: a poster and entering the ninth year in Minnesota, Farm hand-out describing NESFI’s approach Beginnings™ has trained 225 people; over to self-directed, competency-based 60% of whom are farming, over 6,000 education for adult learners. A series acres in a diverse spectrum of enterprises: of “Learning Guides” that provide both dairy (cow and goat), beef, hogs, meat information and structured options for goats, sheep, poultry, wholesale supervised practice offers students an vegetables, Community Supported opportunity to become informed and Agriculture, organic grains and specialty competent practitioners. products such as flowers. • Cultivating a New Crop of Farmers: a decision-making workbook and short After seeing the successes in Minnesota, course designed to help experienced state collaborators in IL, MO, and NE are farmers decide if they are ready to currently being trained to offer Farm assume the important role of on-farm Beginnings™ in their states. This will mentor. This workbook, along with a provide the possibilities for more new On-Farm Mentor’s Guide, supports beginning farmers to carefully think NESFI’s development of a Northeast through a plan, develop networks with On-Farm Mentors’ Network, a group of established farmers, and gain hands- on farmers dedicated to improving on- experience to set themselves up for farm training opportunities throughout success in their farming endeavors. the Northeast. Information will be available about the All these innovative programs have been nuts and bolts of the Farm BeginningsTM developed with CSREES support, either program, success stories of beginning through its IFAFS initiative, “Growing New farmers going through the program and Farmers,” or through Northeast SARE. the transferring of the Farm Beginnings™ For more information : model to other places. Judith Gillan For more information: New England Small Farm Institute Cathy Twohig, Eric Klein 275 Jackson St. Land Stewardship Project Belchertown, MA 01007 103 W. Nichols Montevideo, MN 5626
284 American Indian Credit are increasing. To stay competitive, it is Outreach essential to develop management and business analysis competency among We have credit liaisons do education, greenhouse businesses. Comprehensive outreach and one-on-one work with Indian financial data and market analysis for the farmers, ranchers and youth on credit greenhouse industry are needed to enable work, organizing and pursuing agricultural managers to evaluate their businesses and interests make wise business decisions. These data For more information: will also allow us to investigate operating Lou Ann Kling efficiency (including input resources, National American Indian Credit Outreach Project labor, land, marketing practices, etc.), National Tribal Development Association assess profitability and financial risks of 691 8th Street greenhouse businesses, and provide Box Elder, MT 59521 valuable information to researchers and government officials for program planning and evaluation purposes. We collected Silvopasture: integrating thorough financial data from Northeastern growers according to size and market livestock and forest channel to address these needs. From the management data we have established production and financial benchmarks for the Northeastern Farmers and ranchers can increase profit greenhouse industry using the Rutgers in livestock production through Greenhouse Cost Accounting Program. We agroforestry practices such as silvopasture used the data to analyze input-output systems and windbreaks. Silvopasture relationships and profitability of systems in the southeast U.S. integrate greenhouse businesses, to analyze the intensive grazing systems and pine operation efficiency and dynamics of plantation management to increase profit, different types of greenhouse businesses, diversify income and provide and assess risks related to different environmental protection. Windbreaks can financial management strategies. In reduce stress on cattle, especially young addition, we assisted individual calves, during cold weather and increase participants in identifying strengths and their feed efficiency. weaknesses of their businesses by helping them evaluate the performance of their For more information: business against industry benchmarks, Richard Straight, Lead Agroforester how to track their costs using the State & Private Forestry, USDA Forest Greenhouse Cost Accounting Program, and Service assisting them in developing strategic USDA National Agroforestry Center planning skills. The analysis methods 38th & East Campus Loop East Campus, developed in this project will be applicable UNL to other horticultural business sectors. Lincoln, NE 68583-0822 For more information: Dr. Robin G. Brumfield Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Benchmarks for Small 55 Dudley Road Greenhouses New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520 Competition in the nursery and greenhouse industry has become fierce. The dominance of big box stores has put downward pressure on prices while costs
285 NRCS, North Carolina Activities For more information: working with Small Farmers Gerry Cohn American Farmland Trust Southeast Regional Office Display will highlight programs and 24 Court Square NW , Suite 203 activities NRCS conducts that are Graham, NC 27253 assistance to small farmers. Specific activities in North Carolina will be highlighted Marketing Cooperatives: Topic: The Sustainable Farming Program Successful Marketing of Fruits
For more information: and Vegetables by Minority Andy Smith Farmers USDA Natural Resources Conservation Are you tired of growing produce you can’t Service sell? Do you want to sell to buyers who 4405 Bland Road, Suite 205 pay premium prices for your produce? Raleigh, NC 27609 Operation Spring Plant, Inc. (OSP) provides training and technical assistance Planning for Agriculture to farmers in finding new markets and reduction of surplus produce to reap Planning for agriculture is as important as bountiful cash profits. Learn about a planning for development. It creates the community-based cooperative that assists framework for an economically and minority and limited-resource farmers environmentally sustainable agricultural develop appropriate production, marketing industry— an industry that creates job and farm management skills. OSP will opportunities, preserves the rural highlight impacts, partnerships and character of communities, provides habitat funding support from USDA, Golden Leaf, for wildlife and more. Effective plans focus Z. Smith Foundation, and various private on keeping land available and affordable agencies. We collaborate with North for farming or ranching, as well as Carolina A&T State University and NC ensuring it is economically viable. State University Cooperative Extension System, NC Department of Agriculture and The Exhibit will future the following key Consumer Services, county, state and points: quantify the economic federal government agencies, contributions of the agricultural industry, agribusinesses, community groups, and identify land that is the highest priority for other entities in helping farmers in North protection, engage stakeholders and the Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina and community to assess the benefits and selected Southern states. drawbacks of land use and economic development techniques, avoid policies For more information: and programs that create barriers to Dorathy Barker profitable farming or cause urban Phillip Barker conflicts, be comprehensive by utilizing Thomas Bullock multiple tools, focus on techniques to Operation Spring Plant, Inc. ensure the long-term viability and Henderson, NC 27536 environmental sustainability of agriculture, and develop a plan for agriculture that is either a component of the overall land use plan or a stand alone document.
286 Practical Information Available What can the Plant Materials for Small Farms Program do for Small Farms? Small-scale farms make up nearly 94% of As a result of the 1930’s Dust Bowl, the the farms in the United States. They United States Department of Agriculture contribute significantly to the nation’s food created Conservation Nurseries supply and to local economies. They throughout the country to grow and strengthen rural communities and distribute plants for the stabilization of contribute to a diverse and pleasing rural severely eroding lands. Over the past 65 landscape. Animal and animal products years these nurseries evolved into the account for more than $100 billion Plant Materials Program of the Natural annually in agricultural products. Resources Conservation Service. Today, A series of fact sheets addressing the the program includes 26 Plant Materials needs of smaller scale animal producers is Centers (PMCs) located nationwide to being developed by an interdisciplinary service all 50 states and territories. team of experts from land grant universities around the country. Currently The PMCs and Plant Materials Specialists there are seven fact sheets available cooperate with an array of public and online at: private conservation partners to select and http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/sma produce improved plants for conservation. llfarms/factsheet.htm. In addition, they develop technology to Current topics include: stewardship for address resource issues on all land uses, small farm owners, pasture grazing, particularly agricultural operations. The manure management, farm runoff, water Plant Materials Program has developed quality, stewardship for horse owners and practice standards, planting techniques managing animal mortality. Additional and other technology to specifically topic are under development and include address the conservation issues of small fact sheets on: livestock fencing, livestock farms. watering systems, small scale swine production methods, grazing systems for This exhibit will highlight the following swine and poultry, nutrient management, products and services relevant to small managing runoff with vegetative systems farms: and livestock waste management in humid coastal regions. · Seed production as an Alternative Enterprise These fact sheets are available in PDF PM Program distributes foundation format free of charge from the website. seed free of charge to eligible Versions that can be modified to reflect participants as well as the appropriate local needs are also available for a propagation, seeding and management nominal charge. techniques
For more information: · Vegetative Barriers for Soil & Water Mark Rice Conservation North Carolina State University Developed by Plant Materials Campus Box 7927 Specialists, this practice slows runoff, Raleigh, NC 27695 traps sediment, reduces gully erosion and encourages terrace formation. It takes less land out of production and cost less to install than a terrace. Cost per foot of row for a vegetative
287 barrier planted with switchgrass is Pasture-based dairy farming - $.02 versus $2.00 for a terrace. an alternative for family farms
· Culturally Significant Plants Pasture is an increasingly important component of family-based dairy farms in The Plant Materials Program has worked the Mid-Atlantic region of the humid with several groups and Tribal Nations in eastern U.S. Farmers themselves have order to ensure that plants historically been leaders in the growth and adoption used by the group for food and or fiber are of grazing as a competitive dairy preserved. management system. Existing knowledge of profitability and environmental impacts For more information: of dairy grazing systems is limited but Livia Marqués, Regional Plant Materials suggests that pasture-based dairies can Specialist be profitable with fewer environmental USDA-Natural Resources Conservation problems than confinement dairy farming Service systems. Dairy graziers need research East National Technology Support Center answers for questions about grazing 200 E. Northwood St., Suite 410 systems in order to continue to be Greensboro, NC 27401 practical, profitable, and environmentally sound. Preliminary results from a SARE- funded research project provide insights Blue Ridge Women in into how stocking rate may influence Agriculture production and health of cattle, nutrient flows within the system, and potential Blue Ridge Women in Agriculture is economic consequences. Leading dairy dedicated to empowering women and their graziers are asking for new information to families with resources, education and reduce current grazing system constraints, skills related to farming to overcome and they need reliable data and economic and social disparities that create management tools to help them achieve barriers and make their children a their business goals. Questions relate to population at risk. forage species combinations for optimal grazing in various environments, Blue Ridge Women in Agriculture is a management strategies to cope with grassroots project. BRWIA is seeking to seasonal variations in pasture quality and create working partnerships with groups quantity, stocking rates, supplementation who have related goals in agricultural strategies, crossbreeding, reproductive endeavors; present entrepreneurial and challenges, and other animal management sustainable agriculture workshops; and issues. Some questions can be addressed create a working partnership newsletter. in short-term trials but dairy graziers By linking organizations with similar goals, prefer the reliability of a systems approach BRWIA can combine resources to expedite to allow evaluation across entire lactations action toward making local agriculture and multiple years. Within long-term opportunities profitable and sustainable. studies of grazing systems, other research For more information: projects can be done, thereby increasing Sue Counts the effective output of information from Hollis Wild the system. Mary Mafuyai-Ekanem For more information: Blue Ridge Women in Agriculture Steve Washburn 971 West King Street North Carolina State University Boone, NC 28607 Box 7621, Department of Animal Science Raleigh, NC 27695-7621
288 Center for Environmental to collect nectar and pollen, they pollinate Farming Systems all different kinds of plants. They are an essential part of both our agricultural The Center for Environmental Farming economy including home and wildlife. Systems (CEFS) is an internationally How important is Pollination to the crops? recognized Center of Excellence for Dr. David Tarpy Entomologist with North Sustainable Agriculture supporting the Carolina State University says the value of growth of vibrant farms where healthy bee pollinated crops varies, but studies products are produced in ways that indicate that about 90 crops in the United steward the land and its people. CEFS is a States depend on bees, for pollination. leader in research, innovation and service Overall colony loss in the winter of 2004 for the agricultural community. The Center showed that 48% of colonies are where provides support for new and transitioning they are expected to be, while 24% are farmers, contributes high quality research below normal. Bees will travel as far as to the sustainable agriculture knowledge 55,000 miles collect pollen and nectar, base, and offers educational programs to they will visit over 2.6 million flowers to audiences within and beyond North produce one pound of honey. One out of Carolina. The 2000 acre CEFS facility is every three mouthfuls of food we eat located in Goldsboro, North Carolina and is comes from bee pollinated plants. A a joint program between NC State Cornell University study says pollinated University, NC A&T State University, NC agricultural crops are valued at more than Department of Agriculture, stakeholder $14.6 billion per year to our economy. groups and farmers. The Center consists For more information: of a farming systems research unit, an Martin Brewington organic unit, a small farm demonstration Larry Wright unit, pasture-based beef and dairy, units, North Carolina Cooperative Extension and a new alternative swine production Program unit. . P.O. Box 2280 For more information: Lumberton, North Carolina 28359 Nancy Creamer NC State, NC A&T SU, NC Department of Agriculture CEFS, NC State, Campus Box 7609 Food Safety Outreach Training Raleigh, NC 27695 for North Carolina’s Small Meat and Poultry City of the Bees Producers Honeybees are one of the most fascinating A cooperative agreement was signed insects in the world. Honeybees have a between North Carolina A&T State society of their own, and in many respects University and The Food Safety and each colony is like a small city. Inspection Service (FSIS) to develop The city of the bees have streets and outreach efforts on food safety practices alleys so its members can go where they for small animal producers in North need to go. The city is air-conditioned Carolina. This outreach project initiative during the summer to make sure its was designed to implement food safety residents do not get too hot, and heated in practices that are Hazard Analysis Critical the winter to make sure they do not get Control Point-compatible at the production too cold. level. The specific objectives of this project were to: 1) obtain assistance from Bees gather nectar and pollen from FSIS in developing the expertise needed flowers for food and for rearing their to participate in training delivery; 2) offspring. While bees are visiting flowers
289 conduct a train-the-trainer California poppy, dandelion, purple conference/workshop on food safety coneflower, or valerian. Farmers kept practices for Cooperative Extension Field records of their production methods and Employees; 3) host a experiences as part of a research conference/workshop on food safety endeavor to assess the potential of practices for small producers at A&T, and medicinal herbs to be a viable crop for 4) conduct an on-site demonstration at North Carolina. Thirty more farmers will North Carolina A&T’s Annual Cooperative participate in the program in 2005 and Extension Field Day, and provide a public additional herbs will be produced. Many of display at the National Small Farm the participants are current or former Conference showing the outreach tobacco farmers looking for ways to collaboration efforts between North diversify and increase the economic Carolina A&T and FSIS. Outreach activities viability of their farms. Because of the for this project are geared toward growing demand for organic herbs, all the underserved small producers with limited participating farmers are growing their resources. Specific production activities for herbs following the National Organic this targeted group include: sanitation, Program standards. Project staff work to biosecurity, feed and water safety, develop markets for the herbs that are vaccination and health, rodent and insect produced and help the farmers build control, and others. Implementation of lasting relationships with buyers from practices will assist small producers in around the country. Websites: reducing microbial, physical, and chemical www.ncherb.org; hazards during production and pre- www.ncspecialtycrops.org; slaughter stages. www.ncmedicinalherbs.org; www.ncorganic.org For more information: For more information: Willie Willis Woody Woodward and Libby Hinsley Ipek Goktepe NC State University/NC Specialty Crops Program Jimo Ibrahim Mountain Horticultural Crops Research and North Carolina A&T State University Extension Center 1601 East Market Street 455 Research Dr. Greensboro, North Carolina 27411 Fletcher, NC 28732
North Carolina’s Specialty The Sustainable Farming Crops Program Program This exhibit will feature the North Carolina The Sustainable Farming Program at Specialty Crops Program (SCP), a Central Carolina Community College in cooperative program between the College Pittsboro, NC is a unique and innovative of Agriculture and Life Sciences at NC program that addresses the training and State University and the Marketing education needs of new farmers. This Division of the NC Department of program is unique in that the program Agriculture and Consumer Services. The focus is on sustainable and organic exhibit will highlight SCP’s Medicinal Herbs production and the typical instructor is an for Commerce Project, which began in experienced farmer. 2004, when seventeen farmers across http://www.cccc.edu/Programs/Sustainabl North Carolina were selected to receive e_Agriculture.html technical assistance, seed, and a small grant to produce at least one acre of
290 For more information: production requirements, cost of Robin Kohanovich production, and resource needs. Each Central Carolina Community College four to eight page publication also has a 764 West Street, CCCC list of references, trade and marketing Pittsboro, NC 27312 association information, and mailing and web site addresses where more information can be obtained. Sustainable Agriculture Over the past three years the project has Research and Education issued several new and revised “Agricultural Alternatives” publications. Since 1988, the Sustainable Agriculture They include farm risk management Research and Education (SARE) program publications entitled Starting or has helped advance farming systems that Diversifying an Agricultural Business, are profitable, environmentally sound and Developing a Business Plan, Agricultural good for communities through a Business Insurance, Cooperatives, and nationwide research and education grants Financing Small and Part-time Farms. program. The program is part of USDA's New and revised enterprise publications Cooperative State Research, Education, include Organic Vegetable Production, and Extension Service, is managed in Boarding Horses, Introduction to partnership with regional land grant hosts, Aquaculture, Apple Production, Peach and funds projects and conducts outreach Production, Partridge Production, Pheasant designed to improve agricultural systems. Production, Small-flock Turkey Production, For more information: Red Raspberry Production, Red Deer, and Sean McGovern Watermelon Production. Some USDA/SARE “Agricultural Alternatives” publications PO Box 82234 now being developed or revised include Columbus, Ohio 43202 enterprise leaflets on garlic, wine grapes, cantaloupe, rabbits, earthworms, elk, dairy goats, specialized lamb, feeder lamb, Helping Small-scale and spring and fall lamb, accelerated lamb, Part-time Farmers Evaluate and business management leaflets on enterprise budgeting, agritainment, and Alternatives; the Agricultural roadside marketing. Alternatives Project at Penn State Over the years the project has also developed enterprise leaflets on To meet the educational needs of small- accelerated lambing, asparagus, beef scale and part-time farmers, Penn State's backgrounding, beef cattle feeding, beef College of Agricultural Sciences, with cow-calf, beekeeping, bell peppers, bison, support from the USDA-Extension Service, bobwhite quail, broccoli, cantaloupes, the USDA-Risk Management Agency, and cucumbers, dairy beef, dairy goats, dairy the Pennsylvania Department of heifers, earthworms, eggs, elk, emus, Agriculture, has developed a set of 58 fallow deer, feeder lambs, highbush publications called “Agricultural blueberries, holiday lambs, meat goats, Alternatives”. Most of the publications milking sheep, onions, ostriches, introduce various alternative enterprises, partridges, pheasants, potatoes, while others discuss important farm pumpkins, rabbits, red deer, rheas, snap management and marketing topics. The beans, spring lambs, strawberries, sweet enterprise publications help producers corn, swine, tomatoes, and veal. There evaluate alternatives by providing are also publications available on unbiased information on marketing,
291 enterprise budgeting, fruit and vegetable USDA NRCS marketing, drip irrigation for vegetable 501 W. Felix St, Bldg. 23 production, and irrigation for fruit and Ft. Worth, TX 76115 vegetable production. Individual “Agricultural Alternatives” publications can be downloaded in Adobe Acrobat (pdf) Perishable Agricultural format on-line at Commodities Act - PACA http://agalternatives.aers.psu.edu. The Perishable Agricultural Commodities The Agricultural Alternatives Project is Act, or PACA for short, is a Federal Law managed by Lynn F. Kime (extension that provides protection to growers, associate in Agricultural Economics) and shippers, distributors, and retailers dealing coordinated by Jayson K. Harper (professor in fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables of agricultural economics). If you have any by prohibiting unfair and fraudulent trade questions about the Agricultural practices, and by providing a forum that Alternatives Project, Lynn can be reached growers and others can use to settle via e-mail at [email protected] or telephone at commercial contract disputes. PACA is (717) 334-6271, ext. 313. administered by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the U.S. Department of For more information: Agriculture and is funded almost entirely Lynn F. Kime, Extension Associate by license and complaint fees that are paid Department of AERS by companies that buy, sell, or broker Manager, Agricultural Alternatives Project commercial quantities of fruits and 670 Old Harrisburg Road vegetables. This exhibit will tie directly Gettysburg, PA 17325-3404 into Mr. Coale's proposed presentation as a speaker (solicitation has been submitted) and provide detailed The Grazing Lands information on the various services of the Conservation Initiative PACA Program and other Fruit and "The Grazing Lands Conservation Vegetable Programs such as Market News Initiative's (GLCI) mission is to provide and Inspection Services. We will have high quality technical assistance on hand outs and fact sheets available as well privately owned grazing lands on a as CD's covering information on all Fruit & voluntary basis and to increase the Vegetable programs. awareness of the importance of grazing For more information: land resources. Basil W. Coale USDA-AMS PACA Branch Established in 1991, GLCI is carried out 8700 Centreville RD, Suite 206 through coalitions of individuals and Manassas, VA 20110 organizations functioning at the local, state, regional and national levels. The coalitions include livestock producer Washington State University's organizations, scientific and professional Small Farms Team; Putting the grazing resource organizations, conservation and environmental groups, Land Grant to Work for Family and state and federal natural resource and Farms agriculture agencies." Washington State University’s Small For more information: Farms Team (SFT) engages in Extension, Kim Stine research, and teaching activities that National GLCI Coordinator benefit small- and mid-sized family-owned
292 farms. The 40 SFT members help our The Economics of Organic and state’s farmers and ranchers manage the Grazing Dairy Farms new realities of small-scale agriculture. These producers face development Ten Land Grant Universities plus Ontario pressure, increased costs, and competitive have standardized accounting rules and global markets, but also enjoy advantages data collection procedures to gather, pool, that come with smaller scale production. and analyze actual whole farm financial They can more quickly adapt to emerging performance from many sustainable, small markets, tend to be viewed positively by farming systems which previously lacked their local communities, and are poised to credible financial data that producers need benefit from increased demand for farm for decision-making. products that are sustainably grown. SFT members represent a wide variety of Over 150 individual management intensive specialties, and are based in WSU rotationally grazing (MIRG) dairy farms programs, state agencies and non-profit contributed data to this project from 2000 organizations. through 2004. This is the largest and most comprehensive set of data for grazing At the farm level, SFT members apply the dairy farms on the continent (this may latest research to enhance agricultural also be true for the organic dairy farms production and marketing options for which are a subset of the grazing data). profitable, environmentally sound farming. Graziers are economically competitive. This includes traditional as well as new crop and livestock alternatives. At the The up-to-date conclusions of this USDA community level, SFT members work with IFAFS grant can be accessed at local partners to develop sustainable food http://cdp.wisc.edu. projects, promote improved nutrition, and spur economic development through Financial data in this report has been processing and marketing infrastructure. widely distributed to participating farmers, The team also helps to enhance farm county extension agents, vocational- viability by increasing consumer purchases agricultural instructors, lenders and of locally grown food. agricultural professionals both in and outside of the cooperating states. To meet the needs of these growers, WSU’s Small Farms Team has adopted the Procedures here can be expanded beyond following goals: dairy farms, creating a new paradigm by • Build public support for agriculture which Land Grant Universities and other • Help farmers adopt practices that institutions use farm financial data to help are sustainable—economically, socially farm families in all future enterprises. and environmentally For more information: • Unify farmers and consumers in Kriegl,T. Endress, J. Tranel, L., Tigner, R., developing local markets and community Heckman,Ed, Bivens, B., Taylor, P., food access Rudstrom, M., Rickard, T., Grace, J., Preserve Washington farmland for • Noyes, T., Little, C., Kyle, J., Williams, food and fiber production J.C., Molenhius, J., Frank, G. For more information: University of Wisconsin Center For Dairy Marcy Ostrom Profitability Washington State University 1675 Observatory Drive 7612 Pioneer Way East Madison, WI 53706-1284 Puyallup, WA 98371
293 Poster Abstracts
294 Animal Waste Management aforementioned standards or regulations Practices at Limited Resource by CAFOs may be difficult and costly if a farm has inadequate land and manure Farms in Alabama must be moved to other crop and pasture land. Also, most livestock operations, Duncan M. Chembezi, Kilungu including limited resource farms in Nzaku, Elicia L. Chaverest Alabama, may not have enough land in Alabama A&M University pasture or crop production to efficiently manage their farm-produced waste and Animal production is a major segment of manure. Thus, the main objective of this the U.S. economy. In 2002, U.S. farmers study is to contribute to the understanding produced nearly 86 billion pounds of meat of how waste management disposal and poultry products, more than 70 billion practices by limited resource farmers in table eggs, and 170 billion pounds of milk Alabama impact water quality in localities products. But in supplying households in which such small livestock and poultry with hamburgers, pork chops, and ice operations exist. The results could have cream, livestock and poultry farms also significant implications, especially in states generate more than 350 million tons of where livestock and poultry are a manure that must be disposed of. significant part of their agricultural Improper management of this manure has economy. been associated with the Total Maximum Daily Load of waste and nutrients found in For more information: our nation’s waterways. Under current Duncan M. Chembezi federal regulations, livestock operations Small Farms Research Center containing more than 300 animal units will Alabama A&M University have to obtain a discharge permit and P.O. Box 700 submit a proper manure management Normal, AL 35762-0700 plan. Land application is currently the most common and usually most desirable method of utilizing manure because of the value of nutrients and organic matter. Developing Marketing Niches Thus, recent policies and programs for for Small Scale and Minority increasing the efficient use of nutrients Producers and protecting water quality from nutrient runoff all emphasize the importance of Etaferahu Takele, Peggy Mauk properly handling animal manure. University of California Cooperative Under the new regulations, however, Extension “concentrated animal feeding operations” (CAFOs) would be required to meet Small farm ownership declines and under nutrient application standards as defined representation of Hispanic farmers have in a nutrient management plan. been the basis for the University of Unfortunately, these rules will not affect California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) small livestock operations with less than risk management educational program 300 animal units because they are, since 2000. Through funding of the individually, considered not to be major Western Region Risk Management pollutants. Even though these limited Educational program, the agricultural resource farms may individually not be economics farm advisors in cooperation major polluters or stream waste load with commodity advisors conducted contributors, the collective impact of educational and research programs that several limited resource operations in reached over 500 clientele. These some localities may be significant on a programs provided risk management tools particular stream segment. Meeting the including production and marketing
295 diversification, venturing in new and the farmers who produce their food; production and marketing, as well as labor educate citizens about the value and and personnel management importance of protecting farmland; and preserve small farms and the cultural In 2003, UCCE broadened its outreach heritage and resource they represent. This program further and cooperated with poster presentation chronicles the California State University San Bernardino development and impacts of the (CSUSB) for USDA funding which led to Agricultural Tourism Project, from the formation of the Inland Empire Small agritourism enterprises and farm trails Farm Initiative (IESFI). This program maps to media coverage to evidence of provided the medium for networking with ways the project has achieved its local and community agencies and further purposes. funding towards the development of new marketing channels and opportunities for For more information: farmers in the Inland Empire (counties of Desmond Jolly Riverside and San Bernardino). UC Small Farm Center One Shields Ave. This poster will discuss the cooperative Davis, CA 95616 efforts that have led to new funding for the development of new marketing ventures. It will also present the Outreach Methodologies for educational programs conducted that provided tools and skills for the feasibility Minority Small Farmers -what and sustainability of farmers in southern works, what doesn't work California. Richard H. Molinar For more information: University of California Etaferahu Takele 21150 Box Springs Road Many methodologies are used to Moreno Valley, CA 92557 disseminate information to small farmers, e.g. group meetings, breakfast meetings, hands-on classroom, hands-on field, radio, The UC Small Farm Program television, video, DVD, audio tapes, Agricultural Tourism Project newsletters, publications etc. Which methodology is used may vary from group Desmond Jolly, Eileen Eckert, Kira to group depending on ethnicities, O’Donnell, Kristin Reynolds available media in the area, resources available to the communicator, and University of California, Davis recipient characteristics (age, gender, education). Employing a Hmong program In 1998, the University of California Small assistant has contributed immensely to Farm Program, led by director Desmond the success of the small farm program in Jolly, launched the Agricultural Tourism Fresno County, California. Besides helping Project. Agritourism has long been a to establish trust with the community and cottage industry in California, with being fluent in their languages, Michael organizations such as Sonoma Farm Trails Yang makes numerous trips out to their and Apple Hill Growers’ Association farms to assist them with problems. Radio marketing farm visits and related tourism has been the most effective method operations to boost farm profitability. The utilized by Cooperative Extension for purpose of the Agricultural Tourism Project 'Hmong' small farmers. Establishing was to expand agritourism to new areas, partners such as USDA-FSA and USDA- increasing its potential to strengthen ties RMA with the radio broadcasts has between urban and suburban consumers contributed to the diversity in topics and
296 resulted in greater visibility for all of the For more information: organizations. Spanish radio has seen only Richard H. Molinar moderate success. Written materials can University of California be very useful but our experience has 1720 South Maple Ave seen a greater response from the train- Fresno, CA 93702 the-trainer and CBO's rather than from the individual farmer. We have materials in Lao, Hmong, Cambodian, Spanish, etc. Market Driven New & The bottom line is "get to know your Specialty Crop Production in clientele", and do not assume that the Southern California same method works equally well with all groups of people. Ramiro Lobo, Gary Bender, For more information: Mark Gaskell, Ben Faber Richard H. Molinar UC Cooperative Extension 1720 South Maple Ave Fresno, CA 93702 Globalization of agriculture and the proliferation of free trade agreements has resulted in increased foreign competition Soil Solarization as a Methyl and declining profit margins for Bromide Alternative for Small agricultural producers in San Diego County. This situation, combined with Family Farms escalating production costs (resulting from high land values, expensive water, Richard H. Molinar increased regulations, urban sprawl, and University of California high labor costs) paint a difficult picture for most small scale agricultural producers Small Family farms and limited resource in Southern California. growers, many of them ethnic minorities, and organic farmers in the San Joaquin The rapid decline in the profitability and Valley and other agricultural areas in acreage of Valencia oranges caused by California are at a disadvantage when it year round availability of Navel oranges comes to economically viable options for illustrates the devastating effects these pest management. factors can have on local agriculture. The Research and implementation projects current situation with the North American conducted at UC Kearney Agricultural Free Trade Agreement, and the pending Center, and on-farm in surrounding areas entry of Mexican avocados to California over the past 10 years have provided will have similar effects on the local guidelines and technical support for avocado industry. growers wishing to implement solarization and related techniques to provide non- Research efforts by the University of chemical soil disinfestation for a wide California Cooperative Extension Farm variety of specialty crops. The method Advisors in Southern California shows that utilizes the heat produced by the sun new or alternative crops can provide which is trapped under a clear plastic over suitable options for growers who cannot a period of several weeks during the warm compete growing conventional agricultural summer months. This non chemical commodities. However, the research also method can be utilized very easily by the shows that growers must have a good grower, requires no permits, is marketing strategy and grow these new or ecologically sound and environmentally specialty crops with specific market friendly, and safe to the family and windows or market niches in mind if they workers. are to be successful. Results and field observations focusing on blueberries,
297 lychees, longans, guavas and dragon fruit of sheep on dried bluegrass clippings. will be used as examples to highlight our Urine and blood from the sheep were approach to identifying and evaluating analyzed using GCMS to determine the new or specialty crops for commercial duration of elimination of 2,-D and MCPP. production in Southern California. The data demonstrated that sheep gain on both fresh and dry grass clippings with For more information: carcasses having acceptable quality. In Ramiro Lobo addition, the bluegrass produced high County of San Diego, MS 0-18; 5555 value silage when mixed with other Overland Avenue, Suite 4101; carbohydrates. (The herbicide residue data San Diego, CA 92123 is currently being analyzed and will be completed by July 1, 2005.)
Evaluation of Grass Clippings as For more information: Dennis Lamm a Feed Source for Sheep 9755 Henderson Road Brighton, CO 80601-8114 Anthony Knight, Dennis Lamm, Thomas McBride, Galen Brunk Colorado State University Production Systems to Cooperative Extension Improve the Efficiency and Tremendous quantities of grass clippings Profitability of Small are hauled to landfills daily creating a Livestock Family Farms burden to landfills and a missed opportunity for livestock producers. With Dr. Ray Mobley ever-increasing urban development Florida A&M University involving bluegrass turf there is an excellent potential in a sustainable Limited resource farmers in North Florida environment for feeding livestock fresh or and Southern Georgia have often ensiled grass clippings. Although some experienced difficulties in developing and lawn and turf pesticides state on the label sustaining their farms. The complexities that the clippings may not be used for of their production systems often result in livestock consumption, the three major inefficiency and low profitability. herbicides used on turf (2, 4- In light of the aforementioned problem, dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2, 4-D), 2- Florida A&M University (FAMU) has methyl-4-chlorophenoxy propionic acid collaborated with the University of Florida (MCPP), and Dicamba) have no label (UF) and Fort Valley State University restrictions for livestock. Consequently, (FVSU) to develop a program that will help appropriately handled grass clippings to alleviate production complexities for could be available for feeding to sheep and small farmers in North Florida and cattle. Southern Georgia.
Three studies were conducted with sheep The program under development is to evaluate the suitability of grass entitled “Production Systems to Improve clippings as a food source. The first trial the Efficiency and Profitability of Small involved a comparison of growth and Livestock Family Farms”. carcass characteristics of feeding fresh grass clippings as compared to other The primary objective of this project is to feeds. The second trial involved provide a unique, innovative, and cost determining which carbohydrate source effective animal health and production would work best to make the best quality system. Specifically, the system will be silage. The third trial compared the growth
298 geared toward reducing capital and from these crops. Insects and pathogens production costs such that efficiency and are not prevalent on the crop, although profitability will be realized. Colitotricum was identified in a green house observational study. Evaluations are being continued to provide technical For more information: information for producing the crop. Ray Mobley Cooperative Extension Program For more information: Florida A&M University C.S. Gardener 202-G Perry Paige South College of Engineering Sciences Tallahassee, FL 32307 Technology and Agriculture Research and Extension Program Florida A&M University Developing Hot Pepper as an Tallahassee, FL 32307 Alternative Crop Enterprise for Small Farmers Cultivating Success - C.S. Gardner, G.L. Queely, V. Sustainable Small Acreage Richardson, T. Hylton Farming Education Program Florida A&M University Jesusa C. Legaspi Theresa Beaver USDA-ARS University of Idaho
Small farmers need alternatives to Cultivating Success is a unique traditional crops in order to remain community-based education program competitive or fully engaged in offering courses that can be taken agriculture. In 1994, FAMU/CESTA, individually or in a series to earn a identified hot pepper (Capsicum spp) certificate in Sustainable Small Acreage production as a potential alternative crop Farming and Ranching. The courses are for farmers. Selected varieties were the open to academic students at the Scotch Bonnet, Caribbean Red and the University of Idaho and Washington State orange Habanero. The project dubbed ‘A University, and are open to community Hot Row to Hoe’ focused on field studies, members for Continuing Education Units. market identification and value added Courses are offered in many counties products. Field studies were carried out throughout Idaho and Washington. both on-station and on-farm and included response to inorganic and organic nutrient The program was developed source, spatial arrangement, and effects collaboratively between partners at the of disease and insect organisms. Market University of Idaho, Washington State identification and value addition addressed University, and Rural Roots. The overall fresh fruit sales and processing. program coordinated is based at the Participating farmers were initially University of Idaho. provided with input materials and technical advice. Farmers have shown a The objective of the program is to create high level of interest in the project and and implement new educational programs have been constantly involved in the that will increase the number and foster developments. To date approximately the long-term success of small acreage 10,000 seedlings have been distributed to sustainable farmers and ranchers in over 70 farmers and three cooperatives in Washington and Idaho. The program was 12 Counties in Florida and Georgia. Fruit developed for students and community -1 yields up to 6,000 kg ha at selling price members interested in starting a small -1 of up to $5.00 kg have been realized acreage enterprise, working in agricultural
299 service and support sectors or policy of purpose, management execution and development. determining which customers to fire and which ones to keep are key issues for Farmers and other community resource success. Based on case studies of more people are brought into the classroom, than 30 value added agriculture field trips taken to farms and other businesses, the presenter will provide agricultural venues, and farmer-student checklist of how to make a business more mentoring relationships are encouraged. successful and will explain a new tool, called the Agricultural Marketing Resource A 15-18 unit certificate is available for Center that can provide producers training students who complete two required and education to help improve their odds courses and one from each of three of success. The Web-based Center modules: features more than 75 commodities, and has more than 6000 links of marketing Required courses: resources. Included in the Website, Sustainable Small Acreage Farming and located at www.agmrc.org are extensive Ranching On-Farm Apprenticeship case studies and educational tools and templates. The Center averages more Business Module: than ½ million visitors each month. Agricultural Entrepreneurship For more information: Sustainable Food Systems Module: Mary Holz-Clause Science, Society and Sustainable Food 1111 NSRIC Building Systems Field Analysis of Sustainable Ames, IA 50011 Food Systems World Agricultural Systems
Sustainable Production Module: The Growing Growers Training Organic Gardening and Farming Program: An apprenticeship Organic Farming Practicum program for market gardeners Sustainable Agriculture serving Kansas City For more information: Theresa Beaver Edward Carey UI-PSES Kansas State University P O Box 442339 Katherine Kelly Moscow, ID 83844-2339 Kansas City Center for Urban Agriculture Mary Hendrickson, James Quinn, Firing Your Customer and Other Lala Kumar Tips to Ensure a University of Missouri Successful Business Dan Nagengast Kansas Rural Center Mary Holz-Clause Craig Volland Iowa State University Kansas City Food Circle
The Growing Growers Training Program Why are some value added agriculture facilitates on-farm apprenticeships businesses successful and others fail? complemented by workshops on critical This proposed session will delve into skills to train new growers and improve recent research examining this issue. the skills of existing growers to meet large Some of the points that will be covered demand for local and organically grown include research indicating adequate produce in Kansas City. The program is a capitalization and operating capital, focus
300 collaborative effort of K-State Research High Tunnels for the Central and Extension, University of Missouri Great Plains: A progress report Extension, the Kansas City Food Circle, and the Kansas Rural Center, and was , established in response to requests by Edward Carey Rhonda Janke, area organic growers for a training Sorkel Kadir, Kim Williams program to increase numbers of local Kansas State University organic producers. In the fall of 2003, we Lewis Jett, James Quinn developed the components of the University of Missouri program, including a curriculum designed Laurie Hodges to help apprentices gain a set of core University of Nebraska competencies through practical and Dan Nagengast theoretical training activities, including Kansas Rural Center one-on-one training by host farmers, reading, workshops and farm tours. During the 2004 growing season 11 High tunnels for the Central Great Plains is apprentices worked part time or a multi-state research, extension and volunteered on 8 host farms, and education effort begun in 2001 to investigate and promote the use of high participated in a series of 11 workshops tunnels (unheated greenhouses) as a tool and farm tours over the course of the for market farmers in our region. year. Based on self-assessment, Replicated research high tunnels were apprentices felt they gained considerable established at four sites and crop skill in most of the core competencies. production studies are ongoing, each with Both apprentices and host farmers differing emphasis as follows: expressed high satisfaction with the · Warm season crops – Columbia, program. At the start of the 2005 season, Missouri demand for the program increased, with · Leafy greens under organic and 25 apprentices with diverse backgrounds conventional management – placed on 12 host farms. Workshop Olathe, Kansas participation was not restricted to · Cut flower crops – Lincoln, apprentices, and over 200 trainees paid to Nebraska attend workshops during 2004, helping to · Strawberry production systems – generate funds to cover program costs. It Wichita, Kansas is still early to judge program success, but · Comparisons of high tunnel and 9 of 11 of the 2004 apprentices are field production, and collection of engaged in full- or part-time market meteorological data are conducted gardening in 2005. to assess benefits of these structures. On-station research is For more information: complemented by on-farm trials Edward Carey with multiple cooperators. K-State Research and Extension Center · Our research results and additional th 35125 W. 135 St. information on high tunnels are Olathe, KS 66061 disseminated through multiple extension and outreach activities, including · Research reports and extension publications, · Field days and farm tours, · A day-long workshop at the annual regional vegetable growers conference
301 · A website , www.hightunnels.org Information is currently being added to for growers and educators the website. The goals of the web-based · An E-mail listserv information site is to provide a source of High tunnels have been well-received by research-based information to county growers in our region, and are becoming extension agents, service providers, and an increasingly important component of family farmers to assist farmers with their their production systems, providing decision-making. The website can be season extension, and crop protection accessed at benefits that rapidly return the cost of http://www2.ces.purdue.edu/farmriskmgt investment. Since 2001, more than 100 or at growers report adopting these structures, http://sharepoint.agriculture.purdue.edu/c and interest remains high, indicating the es/farmriskmgt/default.aspx likelihood of continuing adoption. Educational programs to date have included the 2004 Kentucky Small, For more information: Limited-Resource/Minority Farmers Edward Carey Conference, the 2005 USDA-1890 Small Kansas State University Farm Education Conference in Nashville, 35125 W 135th St. TN, and the 2004 Kentucky Women in Olathe, KS 66061 Agriculture Conference. The project is sponsored through a USDA Risk Management Agency Outreach Retirement and Estate Planning Cooperative Agreement. for Small Farm Families For more information: Marion Simon Marion Simon Kentucky State University Cooperative Kentucky State University Extension Program Sharon DeVaney 400 East Main St. Purdue University Frankfort, KY 40601 Miessha Thomas, Heather Gray The Federation of Southern Cooperatives The “Third Thursday Thing” - Janie Hipp Sustainable Agriculture University of Arkansas Education at Kentucky State University David Wiggins USDA – RMA Marion Simon The Retirement and Estate Planning for Kentucky State University Small Farm Families website includes case studies and educational materials The Kentucky State University Cooperative targeting Women farmers, Native Extension program’s “Third Thursday American farmers, African American Thing” Sustainable Agriculture Monthly farmers, and Small Family farmers. Links workshops are designed to transition include governmental, non-profit and Kentucky’s small farmers from a tobacco educational websites that provide based agriculture to practical, sustainable research-based information on estate options. Kentucky’s topography ranges planning, investment planning, planning from the mountainous, highly erodible for medical needs, and short-term, Appalachian region, through the karst interim, and long-term retirement central Kentucky region, to the Mississippi planning strategies. There is an emphasis River bottomlands in the west. Kentucky’s on estate planning, property transfer, and small farms numbering some 80,000 multi-generational family decision-making. contribute more to Kentucky’s economy
302 than do small farms in any other state. As development of the Partners for Family small farmers and agricultural Farms to influence and expand local food professionals with Extension, Research, initiatives, local food marketing systems, USDA, state, non-profit and local agencies and value-added local meat marketing. seek answers and methodologies to help Partners include farmers, consumers, the sustain Kentucky’s small farm families as League of Urban Cities, the Kentucky they transition into sustainable farming Departments of Agriculture and Health systems that efficiently and effectively and Human Services, the University of utilize the family’s resources and the Kentucky, Kentucky State University, farm’s resource base. As they develop Morehead State University, Berea College, programs, they need to evaluate cropping, and Heifer Project, Intl. production, and marketing systems that not only consider profitability and For more information: economic sustainability, but also consider Marion Simon the quality of life, safety, stress Kentucky State University Cooperative management, community issues and Extension Program environmental quality. These systems 400 East Main St. must also reflect the diversity of the Frankfort, KY 40601 farming population and include an economic mix of traditional, alternative, low input, and organic production and Nutrition, Economics, and marketing systems. Field Demonstrations of Sunshine Bass “The Third Thursday Thing” was initiated in 1997 as a Southern SARE-PDP project to educate agricultural professionals about Carl D. Webster such issues and topics. Immediately after Kentucky State University the program started, farmers, consumer groups, and the public clambered to be The goals and objectives of this IFAFS included. “ Third Thursdays” then became project are to determine nutrient shared learning experiences that requirements and evaluate practical diets emphasized hands-on learning for hybrid striped bass (sunshine bass) to experiences. As a result of the program, allow farmers to feed the most nutritious, farmers not only receive educational yet least expensive diets, so as to reduce training, but they become directly involved operating costs; determine enzyme in Extension and Research activities and activities of larval white and striped bass; programming. This helps researchers to analyze the economics of production for focus their applied research into needed sunshine bass so that this segment of the topic areas. “Third Thursdays” provide a U.S. aquaculture industry can remain mechanism for KSU and other researchers profitable, while allowing small and to directly interact with farmers and to limited-resource farmers to be competitive identify farmers who share their interests by reducing production costs and and are willing to support, and participate providing economic data for management in, collaborative projects. decisions; implement regional, multi-state demonstrations (field trials) of sunshine “Third Thursdays” have had participants bass with interested farmers so they can from over 100 Kentucky counties, eight learn proper aquacultural techniques and European nations, and twelve states to develop markets for sunshine bass to ranging from the east to the west coasts. allow stakeholders the potential to Success stories include the development diversify farm incomes and crops; and to and passage of Kentucky’s H.B. 391to hold a national, science-based, producer- provide a system for home based oriented meeting on the data generated processing and local marketing and the from this project. This project will utilize a
303 system-wide approach to assist small and use of recommended cultural practices limited-resource farmers who will identified by the university in farm integrate nutrition, economics, information communities, utilizing farmers, their transfer, and field trials which will create a situations and environments. Farm tours unified and multi-faceted approach for and demonstrations are conducted where research, extension, and teaching of the participating farmers share their sunshine bass aquaculture. It will also experiences (results) with other farmers. attempt to incorporate farmer input so Instruction and demonstrations as a part that methods to improve efficiency and of this activity focused on livestock health profitability of sunshine bass for these and agronomic crop variety selection. As a farmers so they may reduce capital and result of participating in these farm input costs and/or diversify farm income demonstrations and tours, farmers are and crop production. better able to make decisions concerning their production practices, selection of For more information: varieties to use and overall management Carl D. Webster of their enterprises. Kentucky State University Aquaculture Research Center For more information: Frankfort, KY, 40601 Dawn Mellion-Patin Southern University Research and Extension P.O. Box 10010 Mini Experiment Stations in Baton Rouge, LA 70813 Small Farm Communities
Dawn Mellion-Patin, O. Bandele Professional Support for Southern University Beginning Farmers
Commodity specific and community-based Kathy Ruhf experiment stations in the state of New England Small Farm Institute Louisiana traditionally conduct research that supports large-scale producers. More often than not, these efforts do not benefit One of the biggest challenges facing US small farmers who, oftentimes, have agriculture today is farm entry. People limited access to capital and use different who want to farm or have started farm production practices. The Southern businesses face considerable barriers, and University Agricultural Research and traditional support services are not Extension Center agricultural scientist and adequate to meet the needs of these extension employees recruit small diverse new farmers. The Growing New farmers, who serve as model farmers, and Farmers (GNF) project was a four-year use their farms as demonstration sites for comprehensive effort to establish a farm tours and cultural practice responsive service infrastructure to demonstrations, with other small and provide new Northeast farmers with the mostly limited resource farmers. The support and expertise they need to primary objective of this arrangement is to succeed. provide community-based results from on the farm research in climates similar to Funded by USDA, GNF created a service the producers. The Extension agents and provider Consortium with nearly two 2501 Program staff work with researchers hundred member organizations from at the university and in some instances Maine to West Virginia. Project private companies, to design and plan the participants created a comprehensive, demonstration(s). The focus of this interactive website, conducted research, outreach activity is to demonstrate the launched programs and pilot projects,
304 trained professionals, educated policy Positive Response to "New" makers, and produced dozens of tools and Best Management Practice for resources for beginning farmers and their Chicken Producers service providers. As a consequence, the Northeast has the most far-reaching and well-established service network for Terry E. Heinard beginning farmers in the country – one USDA - NRCS that will be sustained beyond the end of its USDA support. This poster session will Overwhelming positive response by describe the project, display resources and chicken producers is seen to the feature the website. opportunity for cost share of Best Management Practice by USDA-Natural For more information: Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Kathy Ruhf Caroline County, located on the Eastern NESFI Shore of Maryland is a serious agricultural 275 Jackson Street, production county, with 75% of the farms Belchertown, MA 01007 in the USDA "small farm" category. Maryland NRCS offered for cost share through the Environmental Quality Learning from the Lacerator: Incentives Program (EQIP), concrete heavy use area pads to be installed at the Experience of a Farmer loading doors of broiler and roaster Research Group chicken houses. Chicken producers receive and deliver multiple flocks during Sue Ellen Johnson, Arnie the year, utilizing mechanical equipment Voeringer, Matt Rulevich, that creates soil erosion and manure Roy Bergeron deposition at the ends of the chicken The University of Connecticut and the houses. The access doors to many of the chicken houses are located on soils with New England Small Farm Institute high water tables and are adjacent to drainage ditches, this practice allows farm We will outline the experience we have management to affect a significant had developing one of five farmer-led reduction in environmental impacts with a research groups funded by NESARE. We small out of pocket cost. The heavy use will present the origination and formation area pads provide a solid surface that of the group, the progress of developing reduces the erosion caused by loading topic and finding additional funds, the unloading of chicken flocks. This surface membership dynamics, and evolution of also provides an impervious surface where the group. Twelve farmers have been any spilled organic material such as involved with this research group. We will bedding and manure can be removed and present their comments on the research stored in an animal waste storage facility. group process and discuss the overall Since this practice was first offered in outcome of the research group process on 2002 and for each successive year, the networking and program delivery. response has exceeded the available funds for assistance. This practice has a simple design, can be For more information: installed by the producer at little out of Sue Ellen Johnson pocket costs, and the EQIP program will NESFI reimburse producers for materials and 275 Jackson Street, labor at an established flat rate. Belchertown, MA 01007
305 For more information: various other recommended IPM Terry E. Heinard techniques (e.g. fecal egg counts). USDA - NRCS 640 Legion Rd., Suite 3 For more information: Denton, MD 21629 Susan Schoenian University Maryland Cooperative Extension Western Maryland Research & Education Center 18330 Keedysville Road Teaching Integrated Parasite Keedysville, MD 21756 Management (IPM) to Sheep and Goat Producers Mexican Farmers in Michigan: Susan Schoenian Preliminary Results University Maryland Cooperative Extension Juan Marinez, Bernardo Lopez Ariza Most sheep and goat producers are small- Michigan State University Extension scale, owning fewer than 30 females. An Javier Franco, Farmer obstacle to profitable production is gastro- intestinal parasites (worms), the primary The tremendous growth of the Hispanic health problem affecting grazing small population in rural America presents new ruminants. Worms have become opportunities as well as challenges for increasingly difficult to control because of agricultural agencies and rural widespread drug resistance. Maryland communities. For example, in Michigan, Cooperative Extension developed an the population of Hispanic farmers educational program, “Integrated Parasite increased by 163% from 1997 to 2002. Management (IPM)” to teach sheep/goat However, few research projects have producers modern, practical methods for attempted to explore how this new social effective worm control. IPM workshops are phenomenon is developing in this area. coordinated through county extension The purpose of this exploratory study is to offices and producer groups. Teaching understand the motivations that Mexicans format is 2 hours lecture/discussion and 2 want to operate their own farms, how they hours hands-on. Since 2004, seventeen are organizing the operation of these workshops have been held in six states, farms, and the barriers or problems that attracting 334 participants from 10 states. they face in this activity. 374 adults and youth participated in educational programs which did not The research was developed between include the hands-on part. Based on the August 2004 and May 2005. Several results of pre- and post-tests, producers reasons exist as to why the Mexicans want have increased their knowledge of internal to operate their own farms in Michigan. parasites by 30 to 40 percent. 334 First, for the Mexicans, the agriculture is producers and extension agents have been part of their cultural background. For certified in the use of the FAMACHA© Mexican farmers, agriculture has a strong system. Grant funds, which paid for relationship with values traditionally equipment and travel, are also being used maintained and affirmed within a family. to develop educational materials and fund The agriculture is part of a lifestyle that parasite-related research. As a result of they love and prefer. There are strong the Maryland IPM program, over 200 relationships between the types of farming producers are using the FAMACHA© eye and organization that they operate in their anemia chart to make deworming home country, and now we see the same decisions. Producers have implemented in Michigan. The organization of the farm is around the family nucleus. The
306 Mexicans organize their farms as a family $50,000.00 in value, and improvements business, where members of their families older than 1985. The resulting list was take some roles in the farm. Since the 450 potential clients. small holdings are not adequate to support the entire family, Mexican farmers As a result of our efforts, we designed hold off farm employment. Various types three workshops in the spring of 2004 of barriers or problems were identified averaging 36 participants, one in the which were organized in two main summer of 2004 with 18 participants and categories: (a) barriers directly related to two in the spring of 2005 averaging 12 the farmer –inside-barrier- and (b) participants. At each of these programs, barriers not related directly to the participants were asked for their future producer –outside barrier. program needs as part of the evaluation. The evaluations indicated knowledge For more information gained by 65% of the participants and Juan Marinez 46% indicated they would make Michigan State University Extension operational changes. Rm 11 Ag. Hall East Lansing, MI For more information: Tom Holman University of Nebraska Extension Targeting a New Audience: 4502 Ave. I Scottsbluff, NE 69361 Acreage Owners Workshops - Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska Enhancing Research and Tom Holman University of Nebraska Extension Extension Support for Small Farms: the Cornell Experience Based on numerous requests from a number of people who had recently moved Anu Rangarajan into the area, faculty stationed at the Cornell Small Farms Program Panhandle Research and Extension Center formed a committee to address the In this poster we will summarize our clientele’s problems. The nature of these experiences with fostering institutional calls indicated that the recent immigrants change within a leading land grant were unfamiliar with Western Nebraska university. In 2000, Cornell University and the unique climate of the area. established a Small Farms Task Group to Developing the program required that we identify small farm needs and to target this new audience. Ours was a strengthen research and extension unique and successful approach to programs for small farms in New York audience identification. State. Major programming gaps and barriers identified in 2000 included: The Scotts Bluff County Assessor was asked to develop a spread sheet that • Lack of research and education included: Assessor’s number, name, targeted specifically to small farms address, acreage, valuation of • Lack of visibility for existing efforts improvements and date improvements that serve, or could serve, small were constructed. He queried this for all farms properties not within the city limits. This • Lack of CALS departmental support query created a list of over 1500 potential for, and appreciation of Cornell clientele. This list was reduced by Cooperative Extension educators’ eliminating known land owners, parcels work with small farms over 40 acres, improvements less than
307 • CALS/CCE focus on production Extension Program’s Women in Agriculture efficiency and maximizing profits Program (WAP) has empowered women • Lack of understanding of, interest access to a wider array of resources than in small farm needs historically available to them. The goal is to help women plan their preferred futures Since that time the Task Group, together as they strive to overcome socioeconomic with the Cornell Small Farms Program, crises in times of change. WAP targets has helped to produce a significant shift women who are farm/ranchland owners, in attitudes and programming efforts operators, managers, laborers, wives, within the Cornell Cooperative Extension marketers and retirees with women (CCE) system. Successful efforts include: organizations, leaders and others • The Cornell Small Farms Website, delivering education and technical www.smallfarms.cornell.edu support. • Small Farm Quarterly magazine • CCE Grants Program for Small Farm As a result of the partnership program, Education more women and beginning farmers/ • Professional development programs ranchers are now becoming interested in for CCE and other service providers acquiring capital, assets, investing in • Small farm discussion groups and agriculture and managing crises. Many mentoring programs are making sound business decisions; • “Accountability Meetings” to engage financial practices; and new business farmers in program planning and ventures; product quality certification evaluation enabling them to meet market demands; while others modified production systems, As a result of these and other efforts, established agro-tourism, and purchased small farm operators in New York have a product liability insurance coverage. In growing appreciation for Cornell, the past five years, the economic impact particularly for Cornell Cooperative translates to approximately 1,700 women Extension. Next frontier: Enhancing CALS and their families increased their net farm research and teaching programs to better income by $16,749,500. WAP societal support small farms. benefits include well informed volunteers, improving quality of life for limited For more information: resources audiences and communities. Dr. Anu Rangarajan Cornell Small Farms Program Poster presentation of organizational 135C Plant Science Building, Department structures, selected cooperatives, of Horticulture businesses and other successful WAP initiatives. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 For more information: Mary Mafuyai-Ekanem Generations of Women in North Carolina A&T State University Agriculture and Economic P. O. Box 21928 Greensboro, NC 27420-1928 Solutions
Mary Mafuyai-Ekanem, Sheilda Sutton North Carolina A&T State University
Women play vital roles in agriculture, but face stiff challenges and limited opportunities in competing for resources in our society. North Carolina Cooperative
308 Women Willing Workers Evaluation of Garlic’s (allium Change Agents in Agricultural sativum) Anthelmintic Communities Properties to Control Internal Parasites
Mary Mafuyai-Ekanem, Mary Mulumebet Worku, Roberto James, Patricia Shapard, Sherri Franco, Keith Baldwin Lee, Sennie Liasane, Nelson James North Carolina A&T State University North Carolina A&T State University Parasites are known to cause diminished With tobacco buy-out now final, farmers health, growth rate and feed conversion. are dealing with great anxiety as they Producers wanting to treat this problem in transition from tobacco dependency into a accordance with organic standards are more uncertain future. It is difficult for using natural materials. To date, however, small-scale producers to find investment there is limited scientific evidence capital and other resources to operate a regarding the potency and effectiveness of profitable farm and maintain their families. these substances. Consequently, there is a Production inputs are expensive, energy need for controlled experiments to support (such as gas, heating, and cooling), labor, the use of these materials. One substance and other costs all have been steadily that is actively antibacterial and may have increasing. Farm prices received by good antiparasitic properties is Garlic growers have not kept up with production (allium sativum L.). The purpose of this costs. Creative producers sell enough to study was to evaluate a commercial, cover their production costs while the rest organically approved garlic product operate at a loss year after year. Some (Gempler s) as a dewormer and to producers are finding solutions in establish its dosing rates for goats. A team cooperatives, especially bulk purchasing of consisting of a researcher, an extension farm inputs and group marketing with specialist and a graduate student assigned multiple outlets. Many farmers are twenty female Boer goats, weighing 40 searching frantically for alternative crops kg, to four groups (0, ½ tsp, 1 tsp, and 2 and profitable enterprises to replace loss tsp), of five animals each. A comparison of from tobacco crops. For these reasons fecal egg counts (FEC) (for roundworms and many more, area women organized and coccidia eggs), packed cell volume the Willing Workers Small Farmer (PCV), FAMACHA scores, and body weight Cooperative (WWSFC), Inc to educate (BW) in GI parasite infected goats vs farmers in taking advantage of bargaining untreated animals was conducted. Data opportunities and resources that are were analyzed using the SAS general traditional unavailable in the community. linear model (GLM) analysis. The results of the FEC (roundworms and coccidian eggs), The WWSFC display will show how the FAMACHA scores, PCV and BW are Women in Agriculture Program structures represented in Table 1. FEC for and strategies brought dynamic social roundworms was found to be significantly changes with improvements to small positively correlated with FAMACHA scores family farms and communities in (r = 0.323, P#0.0015) and significantly Southeastern North Carolina. negatively correlated with PCV (r = - 0.338, P#0.0009), but not with any other For more information: parameters. The FEC for coccidia eggs was Mary Mafuyai-Ekanem significantly negatively correlated with North Carolina A&T State University PCV (r = - 0.207, P#0.0475): not other P. O. Box 21928 correlations were significant. High FECs for Greensboro, NC 27420-1928 roundworm and coccidia eggs were observed when low PCV values were recorded. PCV’s negative correlation with
309 FAMACHA scores indicates the presence of Plasticulture as an Alternative # anemia (r = - 0.332, P 0.0009). The for Small Farmers organically approved garlic extract did not reduce FEC or alleviate anemia at the concentrations tested. Martin Brewington, Nelson Brownlee, James Hartsfield, For more information: Larry Wright Mulumebet Worku North Carolina Cooperative North Carolina A&T State University Extension Service 1601 East Market St. Greensboro, NC 27411 Until recently, tobacco was the primary means of generating income on small farms in North Carolina. Tobacco demand Evaluation of Three Compost has dropped in today’s economy and with Sources for Strawberry Production the tobacco buyout now a reality, efforts are needed to find alternative crops that current and former tobacco farmers could Mary Helen Ferguson grow and market. The plasticulture N.C. State University system has helped an increasing number of farmers reach these goals. The Strawberries are an important horticultural Robeson, Columbus and Duplin County crop for the United States, accounting for Centers of the North Carolina Cooperative over one billion dollars of income in 2004, Extension Service, NC A&T State and one that small farmers can find University, and the Tobacco Trust Fund profitable. Compost is frequently utilized Commission are working with farmers in in organic production systems, and Southeastern North Carolina to plant restrictions on methyl bromide use have acreage in specialty crops that provide contributed to increased interest in relatively high per-acre returns. Today’s alternative disease management vegetable growers are looking for new strategies. Previous work has found ways to achieve higher-quality produce, compost to be effective in suppressing a superior yields and early spring markets. variety of soil-borne diseases, including A plastic laying machine and a water black root rot of strawberries. However, wheel transplanter was purchased for this the successfulness of compost region to help alleviate some of the cost incorporation as a component of disease farmers must incur. In 2004, ten farm management has varied according to the families planted twenty-six acres of source of the compost, among other produce using plastic mulch and drip factors. Our experiment investigates the irrigation. A survey of these farm families effects of three North Carolina compost indicated they generated over $50,000 in sources on disease, plant growth, nutrient farm income. This year three new availability and uptake, and yield in a producers have been added. Over 180 strawberry plasticulture system in small and part-time farmers have visited Goldsboro, N.C. these on-farm demonstration sites during extension sponsored tours. For more information: Mary Helen Ferguson For more information: Dept. of Horticultural Science Martin Brewington NC State University North Carolina Cooperative Extension Campus Box 7609 Service Raleigh, NC 27695-7609 P.O. Box 2280 Lumberton, NC 28359
310 Assessing Farm Safety For more information: Intervention among Youth and John Paul Owens North Carolina A&T State University Rural Farmers in North Carolina| 145 Carver Hall Greensboro, NC 27411 John Paul Owens, Benjamin Gray, Anthony K.Yeboah North Carolina A&T State University Metal Adsorption Efficiency of Granular Activated Carbon The agricultural sector contributes made from Peanut Shells with significantly to the economies of Ashe and Alleghany Counties located in northwest, Phosphate Treatment North Carolina. Because of their rural location, many of farms located in these Hong Yang, Salam Ibrahim, counties rely on adolescents to provide a Chung W. Seo significant amount of farm labor. North Carolina A&T State University Agricultural work is both physically Wayne E. Marshall demanding and has one of the highest accident rates of any occupation. County USDA-ARS Extension programs and researchers recognize the necessity of using youth Agricultural by-products, such as peanut shells, contribute large quantities of labor but also the importance of working with farmers to decrease conditions that lignocellulosic waste to the environment each growing season, but few, if any, result in harm to younger workers. Consequently, Extension has implemented value-added uses exist for their disposal. North Carolina currently ranks 4th in educational programs that target youth (14 to 17 years-of-age) to instruct them peanut production, producing 165 metric tons or 9.3% of United States production. on taking precautions to avoid accidents and to share these lessons with their This represents a potential of 40,000- 45,000 tons of peanut shells produced parents about general farm safety awareness. The objective of this research each year that have little value. This creates a need to convert these by- project was to assess Ashe and Alleghany Counties’ Cooperative Extension “farm products into useful, value-added products. Metal contamination of safety field day model” intervention program that targets rural youth and farm wastewater is a serious and ongoing problem. Since contaminated wastewater families. Data from a pre-test and post- test field day evaluation questionnaire and can easily find its way into both surface water and ground water, this problem focus groups on safety awareness were analyzed. The results indicated a should be of great concern to anyone who drinks water obtained from these sources. favorable evaluation of the field days and improved post-tests scores following the This study was to attempt to solve two problems of considerable environmental safety education intervention. The students’ farm safety knowledge improved significance to the United States in general and North Carolina in particular by and families reported making farm safety a priority. The results also indicated that converting peanut shells to activated carbons for use in adsorption of select through youth involvement in the safety field education experience safety cautions metal ions. Milled peanut shells were pre- treated with 50% orthophosphoric acid by were communicated to other family members. The evaluation also identified soaking the shells for 24 hours. The treated shells were pyrolyzed at different additional safety concerns that should be / addressed in future farm safety temperatures (350, 450, 550, and 650 C) and times (1 and 2 hrs) with air or educational programs. nitrogen. The resulting activated carbons
311 were washed with deionized water until no picture could be improved significantly if remaining phosphate acid and then dried farmers had access to a low cost efficient at 110 /C for 24 hours. The prepared processing system for washing and carbon was evaluated for adsorption packaging vegetables. With such a system efficiency of Cu, Pb, Zn, Cd and Ni in a on-site vegetables processing farm laboratory prepared solution and was operations would be cost productive compared with commercial carbons enabling the small farmer to market (NORIT C GRAN with phosphate activation directly to consumers, reduce marketing and DARCO 12 × 40 with steaming costs, and remain competitive with larger activation, North America, Atlanta, GA). farming operations. Currently, there is no The peanut shell-based carbon with simple conventional sanitizing method to excellent metal ion adsorption was ensure microbial safety of produce. prepared at 450 /C for 1 hr under air. However, chlorine dioxide and ozone have Such carbon has much higher metal ion shown to improve the microbiological absorption than commercial carbons. This safety of fresh fruits and vegetables and study demonstrates that a low-cost, high has potential as a sanitizing agent that volume, renewable commodity by- would be affordable to limited income products such as peanut shells could serve growers. The purpose of this study was to as a source for activated carbons with evaluate the efficacy of a simple wash metal ion removing potential, and also method using oxine (chlorine dioxide) shows that peanut based carbon has good alone or in combination with warm water. commercial potential to be used for Fresh vegetables obtained from local removing metal ions from wastewater sources were submerged for 5 minutes in treatment systems. It could also increase one of four conditions: (1) tap water, (2) the income of peanut farmers, especially 45°C warm water, (3) chloride dioxide, (4) small-scale farmers. warm water followed by chloride dioxide, and (5) ozone. Sample homogenates were For more information: analyzed for total bacterial counts, Hong Yang Enterobacteriaceae, and Staphylococcus Food and Nutrition Program aureus. The degree of disinfection was Department of Human Environment and monitored for log microbial counts Family Sciences reductions versus type of treatment. North Carolina A&T State University Results indicated that tap water could Greensboro, NC 27411 remove 50% of the initial microbial loads. Warm water at 45°C was able to further Affordable and Efficient reduce microbial loads. Ozonated water Sanitizing Techniques for with 1 ppm showed 3 log reduction of microbial population with 5 min. This Washing Vegetables Produced study demonstrated that oxine and ozone by Small Farmers were very effective in reducing microorganisms including pathogenic Hong Yang, Maysoun Salameh, bacteria in green leafy vegetables. These Salam Ibrahim, Chung W. Seo agents can be used as efficient sanitizers to simply and quickly wash self-produce North Carolina A&T State University on small farms.
A major problem facing rural America For more information: today is the rapid disappearance of small Hong Yang farms. This trend is expected to continue Department of Human Environment and due primarily to the lack of adequate Family Sciences income producing crops and low cost North Carolina A&T State University technologies to help small farms maintain 1601 E. Market St. sustainable incomes. This economic Greensboro, NC 27411
312 Benefits of Cover Cropping in Managing Woodlots for Conventional and No Tillage Supplemental Income Vegetable Production Godfrey Ejimakor, Erin Sills, Charles W. Raczkowski, Marsha Sarah Warren, Benny Gray McGraw, Keith Baldwin, G.B. NC A&T State University and Reddy NC State University North Carolina A&T State University The need for alternative or supplemental Two major contributing factors that have sources of income will intensify among been identified as major determinants of small farmers in North Carolina especially degradation of soil and loss of productivity the tobacco buyout program and the in the southeastern Piedmont region are: consequent end of the tobacco program. (1) excessive soil losses from improper Small woodlots, if properly managed, agricultural management, and (2) could serve as supplemental or alternative degraded soil properties from excessive income sources. This uses survey data to tillage using conventional farming assess the management practices of small methods. This study is aimed at small- woodlot owners in selected counties of scale vegetable producers that are in need North Carolina and Southern Virginia. of improving the quality of their soil. The Results from the survey of small woodlot objective of this study is to assess the owners are presented relative to the combined use of compost, cover crops and motives and management practices of the no tillage on the improvement in soil owners. quality relative to conventional soil management practices. In particular, we For more information: would like to know how organic matter Godfrey Ejimakor affects soil physical, chemical, and NC A&T State University biological processes, and how improved Dept. of Agribusiness, 145 Carver Hall processes can effect crop production over 1601 East Market St. the short and long-term. The study began Greensboro, NC 27411 in the fall of 2003 and an overall soil quality assessment was conducted after the harvest of pumpkins in 2004 and Molecular Tools for Truffle during the growing season of butternut Farmers: Rapid Identification of squash in 2005. Quantitative indicators of Tuber melanosporum on soil quality included soil aggregate Tree Roots stability, soil pore size distribution, plant available water holding capacity, infiltration, soil respiration, microbial Gregory Bonito, Omoanghe S. biomass carbon and nitrogen, C:N ratio, Isikhuemhen and CEC. This poster will emphasize North Carolina A&T State University results relevant to the effects of cover Rytas Vilgalys cropping in conventional and no-tillage. Duke University
For more information: Black truffles (Tuber melanosporum) are Charles W. Raczkowski prized edible mushrooms that form North Carolina A&T State University through a symbiotic mycorrhizal Dept. Natural Resources association between tree roots and the Greensboro, NC 27411 fungus. Truffles command a hefty price in the world market ($400-$2000 /lb), and due to a favorable regional climate truffle
313 production has the potential of becoming a The state of North Carolina has significant cash crop for North Carolina experienced economic devastation in the farmers. Seedlings of oak (Quercus) and furniture, textile, and tobacco industries hazelnut (Corylus) infected with the Tuber triggered by globalization and the fungus are produced and distributed by outsourcing of jobs. These economic commercial nurseries for transplanting setbacks have overwhelmed the tobacco into prepared soils. However, the difficulty industry with over $10 billion assessed of identifying truffle fungi on tree roots over 10 years to growers and owners of and the long lag time (4-10 years) before quotas, which are licenses issued by the the first truffles are harvested makes government to grow tobacco. Larger farming truffles risky business. Our farmers are expected to survive; however, laboratories have recently developed DNA- the small-scale, limited resource farmers based tools for rapidly and inexpensively will survive if there are no alternative verifying the presence of T. melanosporum enterprises suitable for adoption. on nursery and field rootstock. These developments will favor the success of Therefore, through a continuing project to truffle cultivation in North Carolina by initiate training and assistance in edible allowing farmers to verify root stock and medicinal mushroom, we present a quality and to monitor the effectiveness of training module that can be utilized by management strategies on truffle growth rural communities in North Carolina, in in their fields. Small farmers in North particular, Halifax – Edgecombe - Wilson Carolina are already engaged in truffle Presidential Enterprise Community and cultivation. This technology will help them tobacco dependent counties. This module to determine the success of their focuses on the business plan development cultivation practices, by knowing if the in rural North Carolina with emphasis on truffle fungus exists in the root stocks and shiitake mushroom. However, there is a plants in the fields prior to maturation and significant need for micro-entrepreneurial fructification of truffles. Successful training in counties outside of the study production of truffles by small farmers in area. Therefore, this module can be used North Carolina will lead to huge financial for various value-added enterprises. benefits on the parts of the farmers. Therefore, a tool that will help the small For more information: farmer in the line of production of truffles Jannety Mosley should be welcome at this point in time. North Carolina A&T State University A-21 C.H. Moore, Agricultural Research For more information: Facility Gregory Bonito 1601 E. Market Street Mushroom Biology & Fungal Biotechnology Greensboro, NC 27411 Laboratory School of Agriculture & Environmental Sciences Value-added Marketing of North Carolina A&T State University Greensboro, NC 27411 Edible and Medicinal Mushroom
Kelli Ennis, Kenrett Y. Business Plan Development for Jefferson-Moore Shiitake Mushroom North Carolina A&T State University
Jannety Mosley, Kenrett Y. The state of North Carolina has experienced economic devastation in the Jefferson-Moore furniture, textile, and tobacco industries North Carolina A&T State University triggered by globalization and the outsourcing of jobs. These economical
314 setbacks have overwhelmed the tobacco trays which closely duplicate the tobacco industry with over $10 billion assessed growing system; 10 inch bulb pots; plastic over 10 years to growers and owners of crates, and lay-flat bags. The production quotas, which are licenses issued by the systems, except the float trays, worked government to grow tobacco. Larger well for most cut flower species tested. farmers are expected to survive; however, However, of the flower species tested, the small-scale, limited resource farms will ageratum, gomphrena and sunflower did survive if there are no alternative not perform well in summer production. enterprises suitable for adoption. Lisianthus grew too slowly in winter production. An economic analysis of the Therefore, through a continuing project to production systems is currently being initiate training and assistance in edible conducted. and medicinal mushroom, we present a training module that can be utilized by For more information: rural communities in North Carolina, in Carl E. Niedziela Jr. particular, Halifax – Edgecombe - Wilson North Carolina A&T State University Presidential Enterprise Community and Dept. of Natural Resources and tobacco dependent counties. This module Environmental Design focuses on the value-added marketing of 1601 E. Market St. shiitake mushroom encouraging Greensboro, NC 27411 mushroom growers to promote various outlets for fresh and dehydrated shiitake. Taking Rural Tourism to For more information: the Next Level Kelli Ennis North Carolina A&T State University A-21 C.H. Moore, Agricultural Research Carol Kline, Jerusha Bloyer Facility North Carolina State University 1601 E. Market Street Greensboro, NC 27411 During the last ten years, tourism development has exploded as a means of economic and community development in Production of Specialty Cut rural areas where traditional industry is Flowers in a Tobacco waning. One of the biggest issues in Transplant Greenhouse developing the tourism product, however, is getting an entire community to work together. It is human nature to regard a Carl E. Niedziela Jr., Guochen Yang neighbor in the same industry as North Carolina A&T State University competition, especially in rural areas because of the historic need for citizens to The recent passage of the tobacco quota be independent and entrepreneurial to buyout program is forcing many tobacco survive. But, in tourism, where visitors farmers to look for additional sources of are attracted to an area because of the income. Profits from additional and/or wealth of activities, community members alternative crops grown in tobacco must work as a team to attract and serve greenhouses could replace some of the visitors successfully. lost income. A series of four greenhouse experiments are being conducted in a Madison County is one of the most privately-owned tobacco transplant tobacco-dependant counties in North greenhouse near Ruffin, N.C. to determine Carolina. Increasingly, farmers in Madison the suitability and feasibility of several cut County are trading their traditional crops flower species and production systems. for an alternative means of income. With Production systems tested included float its unparalleled natural beauty, rich
315 agricultural heritage, and proximity to this poster presents information on farmer Asheville, NC, the county is a prime visitor and consumer attitudes towards destination. However, the remarkable agricultural biotechnology. Group advantage is the inherent collaboration responses to targeted questions were used within the agricultural community. in assessing how consumers and producers perceived agricultural This case study highlights the esprit de biotechnology. Four specific areas of corps among Madison County farmers in inquiry were explored in the focus group their desire to develop value-added meetings: knowledge of the science of services on their property. In particular, biotechnology, key biotech issues, there was a strong desire to expand their perceptions of risks and benefits of knowledge base, confidence and biotechnology and the role of government. interactions with other community A qualitative approach was used in members by means of a thorough training analyzing data collected. Specific findings series offered throughout the year. As from the study and policy implications of well, an “internal familiarization tour” of findings are presented. the county was planned to afford farmers the means to visit and learn about the For more information: other tourism sites in the county. E. Ekanem Tennessee State University For more information: IAgER, Box 9610 Carol Kline 3500 John Merritt Blvd. Dept. Parks, Recreation & Tourism Mgt Nashville, TN 37209 NCSU , Box 8004 Raleigh NC 27695-8004 Organic and Conventional Farming Systems Knowledge and Attitudes of Soil Quality Comparison Producers and Consumers toward Ag Biotechnology Alan Sundermeier Ohio State University Extension E. Ekanem, M. Mafuyai-Ekanem, F. Tegegne, S. Muhammad, S. Singh In 2001, a replicated farming system Tennessee State University experiment was established in Northwest Ohio to gain a better understanding of This poster presents information collected what occurs with crop production and soil as part of a bridge grant project awarded changes when farmers transition from one by the USDA, under the Initiative for management system to another. The Future Agricultural and Food Systems treatments chosen for this experiment (IFAFS), to Tennessee State University represent a range of conditions (TSU). Research scientists and Extension experienced by farmers transitioning professionals from North Carolina A&T either to organic or other more diversified State University, the University of crop management systems. Overall, the Arkansas, Fayetteville, and the University experiment is addressing ways to maintain of Arkansas at Pine Bluff collaborated with production and economic viability while TSU on the project. Trained moderators building soil quality. Five replicate blocks and facilitators convened 1-hour to 1½ - were established of each of five farming hour focus groups meetings to gather systems: #1 – No-till conventional corn, answers to questions from focus group soybean, wheat rotation; #2 – Integrated participants in states collaborating on the reduced input tilled corn, soybean, wheat project. Using findings from the meetings, rotation; #3 – Organic corn, soybean, wheat rotation; #4 – Organic forage and
316 grain rotation; #5 – Organic multi-crop New and Small Farm College reported an rotation. Four years of multiple site soil average farm size of 86.2 acres with an sampling 0-15cm deep were analyzed for average length of ownership of 6.15 the following soil quality properties: total years. According to a pre-program survey, soil organic matter, particulate organic only 35.5 percent had previously attended matter, total nitrogen, microbial biomass an Extension educational program. nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, and bulk Participants were made aware of available density. After four years, total soil resources through instructors representing organic matter was 2.9% in farming OSU Extension, government agencies, system #1, compared to 3.7% organic elected officials, and private industry. matter in farming system #2 & #4, and Post-program surveys indicated 82.1 3.4% organic matter in farming system percent of the participants developed a #3 & #5. Soil data indicate that the plan or changed their existing plans for organic systems are shifting to greater use of their property after attending the biological control of the nitrogen cycle. New and Small Farm College. Participants evaluated the overall program a 9.3 out of For more information: a 10.0 scale, with 100 percent stating they Alan Sundermeier would recommend this program to other Ohio State University Extension small farmland owners. 440 East Poe Road, Suite 101 Bowling Green, OH 43402 For more information: J.F. Grimes The Ohio State University Extension Bringing Southern Ohio Farms 111 S. Nelson Ave., Suite 2 Wilmington, OH 45177 to Life Through the “Small Farm College” Development of a Task Force to J.F. Grimes, L.A. Nye, D.A. Dugan, J.C. Fisher, R.A. Sherman, Provide Education and R.D. Stephenson. Leadership to the Emerging The Ohio State University Extension Meat Goat Industry
Increased clientele requests from new and L.A. Nye, J.C. Fisher, D.A. small farm owners indicated a need for a Mangione, D.A. Dugan, comprehensive farm ownership and R. Lewandowski, management program. The “Southern D. Samples, W. Joslin. Ohio New and Small Farm College” was The Ohio State University Extension developed for landowners wanting to make the most of living on a small farm. Meat goats, as an enterprise, did not have Forty-two individuals from 11 counties supporting infrastructure relative to a participated in the eight-week program. commodity based organization, university Class topics included: Getting Started in sponsored education and research, or well the Planning Process, Sources of known marketing channels. To address Assistance, Agricultural Legal Issues, these needs, the Ohio Meat Goat Industry Inventory of Natural Resources, Financial Task Force was formed with a mission to and Production Record Keeping, Crops and enhance meat goat production and Horticulture, Animal Production, and marketing through education and practical Marketing. The course included a single experience. The objectives are: 1) identify day tour of successful alternative and access emerging ethnic markets agricultural enterprises within the having a preference for goat meat in their southern Ohio region. The clientele of the diet, 2) develop producer networks,
317 alliances and/or cooperatives to meet farm and agribusiness management demands of emerging markets, and 3) programming the Ohio Ag Manager Team provide leadership for education and was established in the summer of 2004. research. The team has developed the Ohio Ag Extension members of the task force have Manager website developed the Ohio Meat Goat Production (http://ohioagmanager.osu.edu/) and and Budgeting Fact Sheet as a guide for published a monthly electronic newsletter establishing this enterprise. Extension for Ohio's Agriculture and Business Educators have designed and conducted Community since July, 2004. The specific regional workshops, seminars, and on- goal of the monthly electronic newsletter farm tours to transfer knowledge to 1200 is to deliver information relevant to the participants. Education, production, and management of agricultural businesses in marketing topics are discussed in the succinct articles. Each article is linked to Buckeye Meat Goat Newsletter. full reports or websites providing the manager with more detailed information. Leadership development has been a Seven to ten articles are included each primary objective of the Ohio Meat Goat month. Some of the issues discussed Task Force. Producer members have been include budgeting, labor management, ag instrumental in the formation of the lending, farm custom rates and estate Buckeye Meat Goat Association for the planning. purpose of promoting and marketing commercial goat meat. Three producer- The newsletter is currently emailed to the driven marketing networks are developing 88 County Extension offices in Ohio and to relationships with ethnic and faith-based 259 farmers and agribusinesses who have consumers as a social approach to building subscribed to the Ohio Ag Manager the meat goat industry. This foundation electronic list serve. Many of these articles infrastructure will create value-added are utilized by County Extension Educators economic development for refugees in our in their country newsletters and news urban centers and small farms in the columns. Other farm organizations and rural/urban interface. publications such as the Small Farmer Magazine, Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio For more information: Farmers Union, The Ohio Farmer Magazine L.A. Nye have utilized articles in their publications. The Ohio State University Extension In addition, national publications such as 111 S. Nelson Ave., Suite 2 National Hay & Forage Growers Magazine Wilmington, OH 45177 have sought and received permission to utilize articles from the Ohio Ag Manager Newsletter.
The Ohio Ag Manager-A Team For more information: Approach to Providing Farm David Marrison Management Information Ohio State University Extension 39 Wall Street David Marrison, Chris Bruynis Jefferson, OH 44047 Ohio State University Extension
Due to budget cutbacks, the number of State Specialists in the area of Farm Management in Ohio was reduced to two A Hands-on Approach to in July of 2004 and then to one by Teaching Pesticide Recertification December 31, 2004. Recognizing the need to help maintain OSU Extension's
318 David Marrison, E. A. Draper, R.H. understand the new herbicides as a result Zondag, S. J. Hudkins, L.C. Ober of the hands-on teaching method. Ohio State University Extension For more information: David Marrison The State of Ohio has 17,500 farmers with Ohio State University Extension private pesticide applicator’s license to 39 Wall Street spray restricted chemicals in agricultural Jefferson, OH 44047 and horticultural operations. OSU Extension assists the Ohio Department of Agriculture by providing the mandated re- certification training. Each private Bridging Gaps in applicator must receive three hours of re- Programs and Services certification credits every three years. Extension Educators transformed the Linda J. Brewer, Garry teaching style for this mandated training Stephenson, Anita Azarenko from lecture oriented to a hands-on Oregon State University Extension approach. We show how County Agricultural Agents can “think outside the Service box” to develop interactive teaching units for even the toughest agricultural The Extension Service’s dominant pattern subjects. of directing programming toward large- scale, commodity agriculture leaves It was the goal of the teaching team to information gaps. Growers with highly revamp the instructional format of the re- specialized enterprises or cropping certification sessions for the counties of systems must sort through large volumes Ashtabula, Lake, Geauga, and Trumbull of university-generated information to find Counties in Northeast, Ohio. Eight fragments relevant to their concerns. sessions were taught in 2004-2005 with Oregon State University Extension Service 371 private pesticide applicators has put new life into the old concept of participating. The teaching team grower guide by effectively assembling incorporated hands-on diagnostic information focused on specific grower problems for weed identification, chemical interests, bridging crucial information selection, sprayer diagnostics, personal gaps. These “growers’ guides” use market safety equipment, and nozzle selection. segmentation to reach highly specialized Changing the instructional format from a niche marketers and practitioners of teacher centered to a student-centered emerging farming systems. Three new approach has received many compliments. grower guides integrate widely dispersed Anecdotal statements from the post- information so growers with specialized program questionnaire included comments interests may easily access pertinent like: "Great improvement over old university services, publications, and format", “best Extension program I have faculty expertise. attended” and "better than before-I really learned". In addition to assembling targeted information, the guides have created new Attendees indicated that 99% (n=368) and valuable partnerships between O.S.U. preferred the hands-on teaching approach. and clientele groups. For instance, The In addition, 100% indicated they Organic Farmers’ Guide to Oregon State understand personal protective safety University was a collaborative effort equipment better, 99% indicated they between O.S.U. and Oregon Tilth, the plan to evaluate their sprayer for potential major organic certification agency in the problems, 99% indicated they better region; support from the clientele group understand the environmental concerns came in terms of financial resources and when applying pesticides, and 97% better review. Concept and content of the
319 Specialty Seed Growers’ Guide has been resource inventory, SWOT analysis and an driven by the community of interest. introduction to financial statements and financial analysis. Session II focused on These guides are, first of all, tools for their financial planning and development of a intended audiences. Their development managerial accounting system. Between also reflects participatory thinking in a sessions II and III class participants variety of nominal and substantive ways. completed the transition to the new In subtle ways, these publications are accounting system and completed a risk symbolic of a paradigm shift and are assessed financial analysis of their reshaping the land-grant institution, operations. Session III addressed the enhancing the relevance of its mission, marketing components of the business and sustainability of its methods. plans. The business plans were completed in Session IV. Participants were For more information: introduced to their mentoring committee Linda J. Brewer and made formal presentations of their Oregon State University Extension Service plans. 203 Ballard Extension Hall Corvallis, OR 97331-3601 Comments and suggestions from participants, educators and administrators were collected and revisions of course Designing a Management Skills content and delivery for the second class beginning in November 2005 are Development Program: underway. A Texas Example For more information: William Thompson William Thompson Texas Cooperative Extension Texas Cooperative Extension P.O. Box 1298 Fort Stockton, TX 79735 Tomorrow’s Top Agricultural Producer (TTAP) is a program designed by Texas Cooperative Extension to develop business management skills of “Career Oriented” Integrated Small Scale Farms producers. Unique aspects of this program are the development of a Robert Godfrey complete, detailed business plan University of the Virgin Islands throughout the course of the program, and a mentoring team that was matched with A Model Integrated Small Farm for the each operation upon completion of the U.S. Caribbean and Pacific Islands M. program. The first TTAP class began in McGuire, R.W. Godfrey, J.W. Brown, M. the fall of 2002 and formal instruction Marutani and J.E. Rakocy, Agricultural concluded in January 2004. Mentoring Experiment Station, University of the activities were conducted throughout the Virgin Islands, St Croix, College of Natural remainder of 2004 and into 2005. Final and Applied Sciences, University of Guam. evaluations are in the process of being concluded for the actual program and the Island agriculture faces challenges such as mentoring experience. limited land and water, small local markets, competition from imported goods The first TTAP class encompassed 115 and high costs for inputs. This project hours of instruction during four sessions. was designed to evaluate a small scale, Session I covered the basic business plans integrated farming system for use in the and the planning process. During this Caribbean and Pacific islands. In the USVI session participants also began an assessment of their operations through a
320 a 2 ha farm was established to produce Craig Cogger tilapia, fruits and vegetables. Washington State University
The farm can collect and store rainwater Organic and conventional farmers 2 3 in a 4200 m catchment and a 500 m consistently rank nutrient management as storage pond. There are seven 80 m3 fish a top priority informational need. A key tanks, a150 m3 effluent storage pond, 1.2 concern is nutrient availability from ha of intensive crop production and a organic materials. water and effluent distribution system. With the Initiative for Future Agriculture Early work has focused on evaluating crop and Food Systems, we initiated two varieties, establishing markets and projects to address organic nutrient increasing productivity. In Guam, the management. The first is designed to farm was established on 1.5 ha of land. improve our ability to predict nitrogen The animal component consists of goats availability from organic soil amendments. on rotational pasture, layer hens on The second evaluates nutrient sloping straw bedding and tilapia in a management in the context of a holistic recirculating aquaponics system. The plant systems experiment, comparing effects of component consists of fruit and vegetable 12 organic management systems on production with a vegetable-green manure vegetable crop production, soil quality, rotation planted between rows of fruit and weed and pest pressure, and production vegetable crops, the plant component of economics. the aquaponics system and pastures. Effluent from the aquaponics system is Organic soil amendments: Composted and transferred to the fruit/vegetable uncomposted forms of broiler litter, yard production unit. The layer bedding is debris, dairy manure solids, and rabbit composted and used as mulch along with manure, along with other organic sources the green manure in the fruit/vegetable of nutrients, were assessed in field N unit. The primary problems that have uptake experiments at two locations. Each been encountered have been in the areas material was also evaluated using of plant protection, labor efficiency and laboratory incubations and modeling. We marketing. Financial analysis of both found that we could predict N availability systems will allow us to establish design based on C:N ratio and degree of criteria in order to optimize the profit decomposition of the materials. Broiler potential of the integrated system. litter supplied 20-25 lb available N per ton as-is, uncomposted rabbit manure For more information: supplied about 5 lb N/ton and yard Robert Godfrey trimmings supplied about 3 lb N/ton. Dairy University of the Virgin Islands, AES solids and composted yard trimmings did RR 1, Box 10,000 not supply enough N to be used as Kingshill VI 00850 fertilizers.
Organic systems: Treatments in the vegetable production experiment (12 combinations of amendment, cover crop, and tillage) were developed based on extensive input from local organic farmers. Preliminary results show that amendment affected soil organic matter, bulk density, potassium, infiltration rate, Predicting Nutrient Availability and crop yield but has not had a from Organic Materials measurable effect on aggregate stability or compaction. Tillage affected compaction and infiltration. Analysis of weeds,
321 biological activity, and production 52501-9708 can be accessed at economics, along with further analysis of http://cdp.wisc.edu. soil physical properties is in progress. We plan to continue this experiment for at The financial data in this report have been least 10 years. widely distributed to participating farmers, county extension agents, vocational- For more information: agricultural instructors, lenders and Craig Cogger agricultural professionals both in and Washington State University outside of the cooperating states. 7612 Pioneer Way East Puyallup, WA 98371 The procedures used here can be expanded beyond dairy farms, creating a new paradigm by which Land Grant The Economics of Organic and Universities and other institutions use Grazing Dairy Farms farm financial data to help farm families in all future enterprises.
Tom Kriegl For more information: University of Wisconsin Tom Kriegl University of Wisconsin Center For Dairy Ten Land Grant Universities plus Ontario Profitability have standardized accounting rules and Animal Sciences Building Rm 202 data collection procedures to gather, pool, 1675 Observatory Drive and analyze actual whole farm financial Madison, WI 53706-1284 performance from many sustainable, small farming systems which previously lacked credible financial data that producers need for decision-making.
Over 150 individual management intensive rotationally grazing (MIRG) dairy farms contributed data to this project from 2000 through 2004. This is the largest and most comprehensive set of data for grazing dairy farms on the continent (this may also be true for the organic dairy farms which are a subset of the grazing data). Graziers are economically competitive.
Because most organic producers experience a multi-year transition into organic production, the stages of progression of individual organic farms is being analyzed separately in this project, to better understand and fairly compare the financial performance of organic dairy farms. The average dairy farm that is receiving “organic prices” and has supplied data is economically successfull.
The up-to-date conclusions of this USDA IFAFS grant sponsored project #00-
322 Attendee List
323 Carolyn Adams Shawn Anderson USDA-NRCS Lincoln University 401 Oberlin Rd., Suite 245 111 Allen Hall Raleigh, NC 27605 820 Chestnut Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 Robin Adams NC A&T State University Dave Andres C.H. Moore Ag. Research Station NC Division of Forest Resources 1601 East Market Street DENR-DFR Greensboro, NC 27411 1616 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1616 Usman Adamu University of Arkansas Alton Arakaki 1200 North University Drive University of Hawaii Pine Bluff, AR 71601 Topical Plant and Soil Sciences P.O. Box 394 Yao Afantchao Hoolehua, HI 96729 510 Parksley Ave. Baltimore, MD 21223 Augusta Archuleta NMSU CES/RAIPAP Edoe Agbodjan P.O. Box 159 South Carolina State University 371 Alcalde Street P.O. Box 8103 Alcalde, NM 87511 Orangeburg, SC 29117 Bernardo Lopez Ariza Gary Alexander Kansas Black Farmers Association David Arthur 3325 South 119 Street USDA-NRCS Omaha, NE 68144 National Geospatial Development Center Gil Alexander 157 Clark Hall Annex, P.O. Box 6301 Kansas Black Farmers Association Morgantown, WV 26505 3325 South 119 Street Omaha, NE 68144 Larry N. Atkinson USDA-RMA Nasiba B. Alimova 4407 Bland Road New Mexico State University Suite 160 P.O. Box 36003, MSC 3169 Raleigh, NC 27609 Las Cruces, NM 88003-8003 Jill Auburn Alvin Alston USDA-CSREES-ECS United Farmers 800 9th Street SW, Rm. 4432 762 Redstone Drive Washington, DC 20024 Sumter, SC 29154 Mark Bailey Gwyndolyn Alston USDA-CSREES-ECS P.O. Box 567 800 9th Street SW, Rm. 4427 Warrenton, NC 27589 Washington, DC 20024
Gary Anderson Meghan Baker USU Extension North Carolina Cooperative Extension 325 W, 100 N 971 West King Street Ephraim, UT 84627 Boone, NC 28607
324 Tim Baker Gregory Beatty University of Missouri Extension US Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 160 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Kennett, MO 63857 Washington, DC 20460
Jean Baldwin Theresa Beaver NC A&T State University University of Idaho 1601 E. Market Street UI-PSES, P.O. Box 442339 Greensboro, NC 27411 Moscow, ID 83844-2339
Bob Barber Cindi Beavers University of Guam Sleepy Hollow Farm UOG Station 1421 Boyles Mill Rd. Mangilao, GU 96923 Dalton, GA 30721
Fletcher Barber Randy Beavers P.O. Box 8181 Sleepy Hollow Farm 306-E, Revere Road 1421 Boyles Mill Rd. Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dalton, GA 30721
Dorathy Barker Daniel Bedford Operation Spring Plant Virginia State University P.O. Box 1759 P.O. Box 9081, Room 204 Oxford, NC 27565 Petersburg, VA 23806
Phillip Barker Alexandra Bell Operation Spring Plant University of Connecticut P.O. Box 1759 Department of Education Oxford, NC 27565 Storrs, CT 06269-0293
Kevin Barnes Jeannie Benally USDA-NASS University of Arizona P.O. Box 1659 P.O. Box 3629 Richmond, VA 23218 Shiprock, NM 87420
Gina Bass Gary Bender National Tribal Development Assoc. University of California 345 Pelling Drive 5555 Overland Avenue #4 York, SC 29745 San Diego, CA 92123
Arun Basu George H. Bennack A&A Farms University of Texas 6089 NC Hwy 210E 1201 W. University Drive, AASA 160 Harrells, NC 28444 Edinburg, TX 78541
Ada Beatty Blake Bennett A&A Farms Texas Cooperative Extension 6089 NC Hwy 210E 17360 Coit Road Harrells, NC 28444 Dallas, TX 75252
Albert C. Beatty Geoff Benson USDA-NRCS. Room 6808 North Carolina State University 1400 Independence Ave., SW P.O. Box 5109 Washington, DC 20250 Raleigh, NC 27695-8109
325 Francis Benton-Gibson Ron Bown United Farmers USDA-NRCS P.O. Box 243 700 W Capital Avenue Manning, SC 29102 Little Rock, AR 72201
Roy Bergeron Richard Boylan 134 Government Circle Tom Bewick Jefferson, NC 28640 USDA-CSREES-PAS 8009th Street SW, Rm. 3438 Kim Bradford Washington, DC 20024 USDA-NRCS 200 East Norwood Street John Biernbaum Greensboro, NC 27401 Michigan State University Department of Horticulture Errol R. Bragg Plant and Soil Science Bldg. USDA-AMS East Lansing, MI 48824 1400 Independence Ave., SW Rm. 2646-S, Stop 0269 Christof den Biggelaar Washington, DC 20250 Appalachian State University Department of Interdisciplinary Studies Andrew Branan Boone, NC 28608 Carolina Farm Transition Network, Inc. P.O. Box 27766 Verna Billedeaux Raleigh, NC 27611
B. Bivens Corry Bregendahl Iowa State University Stephanie Boehmer North Central Regional Center for Rural Development Kellie Boles 107 Curtiss Hall 150 East Burr Blvd. Ames, IA 50011 Suite 200 Kearneysville, WV 25430 Linda Brewer Oregon State University Frank Bolick 203 Ballard Extension Hall Corvallis, OR 97331-3601 Michael Bomford Kentucky State University Andrea Brooks 400 East Main Street NC A&T State University Frankfort, KY 40601 Cooperative Extension Program P.O. Box 21928 Franklin E. Boteler Greensboro, NC 27420-1928 USDA-CSREES-ECS 800 9th Street SW, Rm. 4345 Okarasumaa Brooks Washington, DC 20024 Blake Brown Ann Bowens North Carolina State University USDA-NRCS P.O. Box 8109 2614 W. 43rd Street Raleigh, NC 27695 Gainesville, FL 32606 Elaine Brown 1405 S Harrison Suite 115 E. Lansing, MI 48823
326 Shirley E. Brown Thomas Bullock USDA-Office of Communication Operation Spring Plant Room 112-A, Whitten Bldg. P.O. Box 1759 1400 Independence Ave, SW Oxford, NC 27565 Washington, DC 20250-3810 Theodis Bunch Thomas Brown USDA-NRCS Lincoln University 101 E. Capitol Avenue, Suite B100 904 Chestnut Street Little Rock, AR 72201-3811 107 Foster Hall Jefferson City, MO 65102 Ben Burkett B&B Farms Whit Brown 32 Ben Burkett Road SCSU/1890 Research & Extension Petal, MS 39465 Rt. 1, Box 63 Plum Branch, SC 29845 Anthony Burns USDA-NRCS Nelson Brownlee 200 E Nortwood Avenue NC A&T State University Greensboro, NC 27401 P.O. Box 2280 Lumberton, NC 28359 Carl T. Butler USDA-OCR Robin Brumfield 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Rutgers, the State University of New Room 3038 Jersey Washington, DC 20250 55 Dudley Road New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520 Evert Byington USDA-ARS Everlyn C. Bryant 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Rm. 4-2288 University of Arkansas Beltsville, MD 20705 1200 North University Drive Pine Bluff, AR 71611 Jon D. Cain Purdue University Marie Buchanan P.O. Box 7 USDA-RMA Danville, IN 46122 1400 Independence Ave SW Mailstop 0801 Ted Carey Washington, DC 20250-0801 K-State Research and Extension Center James Bukenya 35125 W 135th Street Olathe, KS 66061 Stephen G. Bullen North Carolina State University Lawrence Carter P.O. Box 7102 Florida A&M University Raleigh, NC 27695-7102 215 Perry-Paige Building South Tallahassee, FL 32307 Fitzroy Bullock Tennessee State University Deborah Cavanaugh-Grant Cooperative Extension Service University of Illinois at Urbana- 3500 John A. Merritt Blvd. Champaign Nashville, TN 37209-1562 Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Sciences P.O. Box 410 Greenview, IL 62642-0410
327 Velma L. Charles-Shannon Basil W. Coale USDA-Office of Assistant Secretary for USDA-AMS Civil Rights PACA Branch 1400 Independence Ave., SW 8700 Centreville Road Washington, DC 20250 Suite 206 Manassas, VA 20110 E’licia L. Chaverest Alabama A&M University Craig Cogger Small Farm Research Center Washington State University P.O. Box 700 7612 Pioneer Way East Normal, AL 35762-0700 Puyallup, WA 98371
Duncan Chembezi Gerry Cohn Alabama A&M University American Farmland Trust Small Farm Research Center 24 Count Square, NW P.O. Box 700 Suite 203 Normal, AL 35762-0700 Graham, NC 27253
Charles Church Tammara Cole 2953 NC Hwy 194 Cherokee Reservation Cooperative Valle Crucis, NC 28691 Extension P.O. Box 456 Derrick Cladd Cherokee, NC 28719 Virginia State University P.O. Box 9081 Wade Cole Petersburg, VA 23806 4613 Harper House Road Four Oaks, NC 27524 Helen Clark 3025 W. Shangri La Cd. Neilson Conklin Phoenix, AZ 85029 USDA – ERS Washington, DC Norvel Clark 3025 W. Shangri La Cd. Chris Cook Phoenix, AZ 85029 USDA-NASS 1400 Independence Ave., SW Shashunga Clayton Washington, DC 20250 USDA-ERS 1800 M Street, NW, Rm. S-2024 Rodger Cooley Washington, DC 20036 Sue Counts Blue Ridge Women in Agriculture Charles Cleland 971 West King Street USDA-CSREES-CP Boone, NC 28607 800 9th Street SW, Rm. 2318 Washington, DC 20024 Jacob Crandall 4405 Bland Road John Clendaniel Suite 205 Delaware State University Raleigh, NC 27609 1200 North Dupont Hwy Dover, DE 19901 Laurence Crane National Crop Insurance Services Bill Cline 8900 Indian Creek Pkwy, Suite 600 North Carolina State University Overlook Park, KS 66210-1587 3800 Castle Hayne Road Castle Hayne, NC 28429
328 Nancy Creamer Nelson T. Daniels North Carolina State University Prairie View A&M University Campus Box 7609 P.O. Box 3059 Raleigh, NC 27695 Prairie View, TX 77446-2867
Tom Cresswell Marshall Dantzler North Carolina State University USDA-NASS Dept. of Plant Pathology and 1400 Independence Ave., SW Entomology Washington, DC 20250 1104 Williams Hall, Campus Box 7211 Raleigh, NC 27695-7211 Cecilia Davila Davila Farms Rozier Crew P.O. Box USDA-RD Hargill, TX 78549 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20250 Glenda Davis
DeShon Cromartie James A. Davis, III NC A&T State University NC A&T State University P.O. Box 21928 1601 E. Market Street Greensboro, NC 27401 Greensboro, NC 27411
Iris Cole Crosby Marti Day Alcorn State University 1000 ASU Dr., #750 Lary Dejarnett Alcorn State, MS 39096 Alabama A&M University 4900 Meridian Street Aisha L. Cruz P.O. Box 700 Texas/Mexico Border Coalition Normal, AL 35762 P.O. Box 127 San Isidro, TX 78588 Mary Dejarnett
Evelin Cuadra Jennifer Dennis Alcorn State University Purdue University 1000 ASU Drive 625 Agricultural Mall Drive P.O. Box 750 West Lafayette, IN 47907 Alcorn State, MS 39096 Melson DeShazior, Jr Gary Cunningham 8044 Dry Lake Road USDA-CSREES-OA Quitman, GA 31643 1400 Independence Ave., SW Rm. 305-A, Whitten Bldg. Sharon DeVaney Washington, DC 20250 Lock Dial Magid Dagher 6334 Shannon Road Alcorn State University Shannon, NC 28386 1000 ASU Derive, #1080 Alcorn State, MS 39096 Keith Dickinson Virginia Cooperative Extension Edsel Daniel 101 S West Street Farm Bureau Culpepper, VA 22701 P.O. Box 27766 Raleigh, NC 27611
329 Tom Dierolf Morris J. Dunn Heifer International North Carolina Cooperative Extension 212 S. Broad Street 4001-E Coya Drive Suite C Raleigh, NC 27610 Brevard, NC 28712 Denis Ebodaghe Roger Dixon USDA-CSREES-ECS USDA-FSA 800 9th Street SW, Rm. 4335 5024 Pleasant Grove Sch. Rd. Washington, DC 20024 Burlington, NC 27217 Eileen Eckert John Dockery University of California 5521 Highway 42E One Shields Avenue Elm City, NC 27822 Davis, CA 95616
Synetra Dockery Bruce Edwards USDA-FSIS Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma 3539 Governors Road 3355 S Purdue Lewiston, NC 27844 Oklahoma City, OK 73137-0968
Dora Dominguez Godfrey Ejimakor New Mexico State University NC A&T State University P.O. Box 3003, MSC 3HRTM Dept. of Agribusiness, 145 Carver Hall Las Cruces, NM 88003-8003 1601 East Market Street Greensboro, NC 27411 Unis O. Donovan British Virgin Islands Government Enoflok Ekanem Carrot Bay, Tortola Tennessee State University British Virgin Islands, VI IAgER, Box 9610 3500 John Merritt Blvd. Al Drain Nashville, TN 37209 USDA-NASS 1400 Independence Ave., SW Randy Eldridge Room 2646, S. Bldg. 23 Hatchery Road Washington, DC 20250 East Orland, ME 04431-0045
Dan Drost Michelle Eley Utah State University NC A&T State University, CES Dept. of Plants, Soils and P.O. Box 21928 Biometeorology Greensboro, NC 27420-1928 4820 Old Main Hill Logan, UT 84322-4820 Roger M. Elliott 3740 Stefani Road Rex Dufour Cantonment, FL 32533 National Center for Appropriate Technology Magde Elshafie P.O. Box 2218 USDA-Civil Rights Davis, CA 95617-0363 302 Curtis Square Complex Institute, WV 25309 David Dugan The Ohio State University Diana Endicott 740 Mt. Orab Rainbow Organic Farms Georgetown, OH 45121-1124 1975 55th Street, Route 1 Bronson, KS 66716
330 Bobby England Warshannebige A. Fernando Tuskegee University NC A&T State University Room 105, Campbell Hall 224-C Carver Hall Tuskegee, AL 36088 1601 E. Market Street Greensboro, NC 27411 Steve Engleking Purdue Cooperative Extension Service Kathryn Fernholz 114 West Michigan Street, Suite 10 Dovetail Partners, Inc. LaGrange, IN 46761 4801 N. Hwy61, Suite 108 White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Henry English University of Arkansas John W. Ferrell 1200 North University Drive Tennessee State University Mail Slot 4906 406 Joyce Lane Pine Bluff, AR 71601 Winchester, TN 37398
Kelli Ennis Melissa Fery NC A&T State University Oregon State University Agricultural Research Facility 1849 NW 9th Street A-21 C.H. Moore, 1601 E. Market Corvallis, OR 73301 Street Greensboro, NC 27411 Jeff Fisher The Ohio State University Joseph Eppes 120 S. Market Street Alabama A&M University Waverly, OH 45690 701 Hall Street Greensboro, NC 27409 Cornelia Flora Iowa State University Albert Essell North Central Regional Center for Rural Virginia State University Development P.O. Box 9081 107 Curtiss Hall Petersburg, VA 23806 Ames, IA 50011
Mack A. Evans Malaquias Flores Fort Valley State University 7612 Pioneer Way, East P.O. Box 4061 Puyallup, WA 98371 Fort Valley, GA 31030 Thelma Floyd Ted Feitshans 1400 Independence Avenue, SW North Carolina State University Washington, DC 20250 P.O. Box 7401 Raleigh, NC 27695-7401 Paula Ford Kansas State University Mary H. Ferguson 4A Edwards Hall North Carolina State University Manhattan, KS 66506 Dept. of Horticultural Science Campus Box 7609 Lisa Forehand Raleigh, NC 27695-7609 Arnold Foundin Gina Fernandez USDA-APHIS North Carolina State University 4700 River Road, Unit 146 170 Kilgore Hall Riverdale, MD 20737 P.O. Box 76098 Raleigh, NC 27695
331 Thomas Franklin Cassel Gardner Alabama A&M University Florida A&M University Rt. 3, Box 231 Cooperative Extension Program Marion, AL 36756 202-J Perry-Paige Bldg. South Tallahassee, FL 32307 Roberto Franco Kurt Gardner G. Frank Alabama A&M University Room 300, P.O. Box 1477 Deb Franzoy Normal, AL 27407 New Mexico State University P.O. Box 3003, MSC 3HRTM Ray Garibay Las Cruces, NM 88003-8003 Daisy Garrett Beth Fraser Mississippi Associate of Cooperative Organic Trade Association P.O. Box 22786 P.O. Box 547 Jackson, MS 39225 Greenfield, MA 01301 Gwen V. Garvey Travelia Free P.O. Box 8911 NC A&T State University Madison, WI 53708-8911 P.O. Box 21928 Greensboro, NC 27420-1928 Omar J. Garza UT-Pan American & Texas/Mexico James French Border Coalition Oxfam America P.O. Box 127 8016 W. Longview Road San Isidro, TX 78588 Partridge, KS 65766 Emily Gatch Paul Fricke Godfrey Gayle Joyce V. Fryar NC A&T State University 104 Blanchard Road Carver Hall Turkey, NC 28393 Greensboro, NC 27411
Jose L. Garcia Clinton George University of Missouri University of the Virgin Islands Department of Rural Sociology RRo2, Box 10,000, Kingshill 203 Gentry Hall St. Croix, VI 00850 Columbia, MO 65211 Hezekiah Gibson Joseph Garcia 1257 Loblolly Dr. New Mexico State University Manning, SC 29102 Cooperative Extension Service P.O. Box 159 Judy Gillan Alcalde, NM 87511 P.O. Box 937 Belchertown, MA 01007 Lupe Garcia Hispanic Commerce and Ranchers of Gilbert Gillespie America Cornell University 1065 D S Main Street 439 Warren Hall Las Cruces, NM 88004 Ithaca, NY 14853-7801
332 Connie Gillian Priscilla Graves Tennessee State University North Carolina Cooperative Extension 2222-A South Fayetteville Street David J. Glenn Asheboro, NC 27205 Michigan State University 151 E. Huron Avenue Steve Graves P.O. Box 116 Black Farmers Association Rogers City, MI 49779 1505 ½ Walnut Street Hopkinsville, KY 42240 Leslie J. Glover University of Arkansas Charnell T. Green 1200 N University Drive, Mail Slot NC Coalition of Farm and Rural 4906 Families Pine Bluff, AR 71601 351 Wagoner Drive, Suite 410 Fayetteville, NC 28303 Bob Godfrey University of Virgin Islands Peter Griffin UVI-AES SCSU 1890 Research & Extension RR 1, Box 10,000 121 Griffin Park Road Kingshill, VI 00850 Saluda, SC 29138
Daniel Godfrey John F. Grimes 2203 Hunters Ridge Drive The Ohio State University Pleasant Garden, NC 27313 119 Governor Foraker Pl. Hillsboro, OH 45133 Stephen J. Goetz Penn State University Ronald F. Gronwald Penn State Regional Center for Rural USDA-NRCS Development 200 E Northwood Street, Suite 410 7E Armsby Bldg. Greensboro, NC 27401 University Park, PA 16802-5602 Harry Groot Mary Gold USDA-Alternative Farming Center Martin Guerena Information Center ATTRA Project 10301 Baltimore Avenue, Room 132 P.O. Box 2218 Beltsville, MD 20705 Davis, CA 95617
R. Edmund Gomez Gabriel Gurley New Mexico State University Sampson Community College 371 Alcalde Street P.O. Box 318 Alcalde, NM 87511 Clinton, NC 28329
Georgia Good Ricky Hall Rural Coalition USDA-NRCS 991 Rodney Road 967 Illinois Avenue, Suite 3 Orangeburg, SC 29115 Bangor, ME 04401
Elvis L. Graves Charlotte Ham USDA-NRCS Tuskegee University 200 East Northwood Street 105 Campbell Hall Suite 410 Tuskegee, AL 36088 Greensboro, NC 27401
333 Maggie Hamm Brown J. Hawkins Carolina Farm Credit Operations Spring Plant, Inc. P.O. Box 1827 298 Church Hill Road Statesville, NC 28687 Macon, NC 27551
Natalie Hampton Dale Hawks North Carolina State University USDA-NASS Department of Communication Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW P.O. Box 7603 Washington, DC 20250 Raleigh, NC 27695-7603 Lee Hay Robin A. Hampton Alabama A&M University USDA-FSA 400 Flagpole Mtn. Road P.O. Box 547 Sylacauga, AL 35151 Concord, NC 28026-0547 Polly Hayes Katrena R. Hanks Seminole Tribe of Florida USDA-CSREES-CP P.O. Box 854 800 9th Street SW, Rm. 2452 Okeechibee, FL 34973 Washington, DC 20024 Lenora Haynes Tasha Hargrove Tuskegee University Tuskegee University Room 103, Campbell Hall 200G Campbell Hall Tuskegee, AL 36088 Tuskegee, AL 36088 Ed Heckman Ginger Harris Terry Heinard USDA-NASS, Room 2646-S USDA-NRCS 1400 Independence Ave., SW 640 Legion Rd., Suite 3 Washington, DC 20250 Denton, MD 21629
Towana Harris William Henning Alabama A&M University Cornell University 5294 AL Hwy 14 P.O. Box 456 Greensboro, AL 36744 Wayland, NY 14572
James Hartsfield 369 Rowan Road David Warren Helper Clinton, NC 28328 Farm Service Agency 4407 Bland Road, Suite 175 Larry Hartsfield Raleigh, NC 27609 NC A&T State University 107 B.C. Webb Hall Geraldine Herring Greensboro, NC 27411 USDA- Office of Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Gladys Hartwell 1400 Independence Ave, SW Alabama A&M University 4045 South Bldg. 5294 AL Hwy 14 Washington, DC 20250 Greensboro, AL 36744 Sharon Hestvik Tracy Harvey USDA-RMA North Carolina State University 1400 Independence Ave., SW Ag Center Dr., Room 102 Stop 0803 Nashville, NC 27853 Washington, DC 20250
334 Annette Hiatt Alma Hobbs Land Loss Prevention Project USDA-Office of Civil Rights P.O. Box 179 1400 Independence Ave., SW Durham, NC 27702 Washington, DC 20250
Edgar Hicks Robert Hochmuth Kansas Black Farmers Association University of Florida 3325 South 119 Street 7580 County Road 136 Omaha, NE 68144 Live Oak, FL 32060
Duncan Hilchey Horace Hodge Cornell University Prairie View A&M University Department of Sociology P.O. Box 2736 Ithaca, NY 14853 Prairie View, TX 77446
Curtis Hill Catherine Hodges South Carolina State University Hmong & Lao Assis. Association P.O. Box 7336 469 Sugarloaf Road Orangeburg, SC 29117 Troy, NC 27371
James H. Hill Tom Holman Fort Valley State University University of Nebraska Extension Southern Region SARE Program 4502 Ave. I 1005 State University Drive Scottsbluff, NE 69361 P.O. Box 4061 Fort Valley, GA 31030 Larry S. Holmes USDA-NRCS Kathryn Hill 5601 Sunnyside Avenue USDA-Office of Communication Beltsville, MD 20705 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250 Rickie Holmes NC A&T State University Lottie Hillman P.O. Box 21928 Alabama A&M University Greensboro, NC 27420-1928 435 McGruie Loop Russellville, AL 35654 Mary Holz-Clause North Carolina State University Aaron Hinkston P.O. Box 7609 USDA-NRCS Raleigh, NC 27695 3737 Government Street Alexandria, LA 71301 Sam Horn Little Big Horn College Libby A. Hinsley P.O. Box 370, 1 Forestry Lane North Carolina State University Crow Agency, MT 59022 Mountain Horticultural Crop Research and Extension Center Savi Horne 455 Research Drive Land Loss Prevention Project Fletcher, NC 28732 P.O. Box 179 Durham, NC 27705 Janie Hipp University of Arkansas Charles Houston 217 AA AEAB Mississippi Federation Fayetteville, AR 72701
335 Jessie Howard Patrick E. Igbokwe 5805 Highlawn Drive Alcorn University Greensboro, NC 27409-9283 1000 ASU Drive, #625 Alcorn State, MS 39096 Walter Howard 5805 Highlawn Drive Staci Ingram Greensboro, NC 27409-9283 USDA-ARS P.O. Box 509 Juliet Huam 1011 Forrester Drive, SE Alcorn State University Dawson, GA 39842-0509 1000 ASU Drive, #330 Alcorn State, MS 39096 Ariston Jacks University of Arkansas Liang C. Huam 1200 North University Drive Alcorn State University Mail Slot 4906 1000 ASU Drive, #750 Pine Bluff, AR 71601 Alcorn State, MS 39096 Charlie Jackson Carmen H. Humphrey Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture USDA-AMS Project 1400 Independence Ave., SW 729 Haywood Road, Suite 3 Room 2646-S Asheville, NC 28806 Washington, DC 20250 Darcel Jackson Denise Humphrey Hinds Community College NC A&T State University P.O. Box 1100 1601 E. Market Street Raymond, MS 39154 Greensboro, NC 27420 Karen Jackson Crystal Hurt University of Tennessee Concerns in Animal Agriculture 57 Bryant Road 7738 UNCG Station Lawrenceburg, TN 38464 Greensboro, NC 27402
J. D. Hutcheson Robert Jackson Virginia State University R. E.J’s Farm P.O. Box 9081 1789 Gap Creek Road Petersburg, VA 23806 Lyman, SC 29365
Mark Hutchison Tori L. Jackson University of Nebraska University of Maine 143 Food Industry Complex 5741 Libby Hall, Room 102 Lincoln, NE 69593-0930 Orano, ME 04469-5741 T. Hylton Arlanda Jacobs Jimo Ibrahim P.O. Box 2514 NC A&T State University West Helena, AR 72390 P.O. Box 21928 Greensboro, NC 27420-1928 Angela Jakes Florida A&M University Salam Ibrahim 215 Perry Paige Bldg. NC A&T State University Tallahassee, FL 32307 1601 E. Market Street Greensboro, NC 27411
336 Mary W. James Kenneth E. Johnson NC Willing Workers USDA-Office of Civil Rights 18108 NC Hwy, 53 E 1400 Independence Ave., SW Maple Hill, NC 28454 Washington, DC 20250
Maysia James Mae Johnson NC Willing Workers USDA-Office of Civil Rights 18108 NC Hwy, 53 E 1400 Independence Ave., SW Maple Hill, NC 28454 Room 6508-SB Washington, DC 20250 Nelson M. James NC Willing Workers Priscilla Johnson 18108 NC Hwy, 53 E USDA-CSREES-CP Maple Hill, NC 28454 800 9th Street SW, Rm. 2371 Washington, DC 20024 Kenrett Jefferson-Moore NC A&T State University Sue Ellen Johnson Agricultural Research Facility New England Small Farm Institute A-21 C.H. Moore, 1601 E. Market P.O. Box 937 Street Belchertown, MA 01007 Greensboro, NC 27411 Desmond Jolly Diana Jerkins University of California USDA-CSREES-CP Small Farm Center 800 9th Street SW, Room 2342 Davis, CA 95616-8699 Washington, DC 20024 David R. Jones Del Jimenez NC A&T State University New Mexico State University P.O. Box 21928 P.O. Box 159 Greensboro, NC 27420 Alcalde, NM 87511 Delvin Jones Daryl Johnson NC A&T State University SCSU 1890 Research & Extension 205-C Kenwick Circle P.O. Box 7336 Greensboro, NC 27406 Orangeburg, SC 29117 Doug Jones Denny N. Johnson USDA-AMS Johnnie Jones 1400 Independence Ave., SW NC Coalition of Farm and Rural Room 2646-S Families Washington, DC 20250 351 Wagoner Drive, Suite 410 Fayetteville, NC 28303 Eddie T. Johnson University of Maryland Julia Jones P.O. Box 1836 Alabama A&M University Salisbury, MD 21802 637 Broke Dale Drive Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 Joseph Johnson SCSU 1890 Research & Extension Lewis Jones P.O. Box 7336 Maryland Cooperative Extension Orangeburg, SC 29117 2122 Richard Henson Center, UMES Princess Anne, MD 21853
337 Ray Jones Joy Kirkpatrick USDA-NRCS 277 Animal Sciences Bldg. 1675 Observatory Drive Rufus Jones University of Wisconsin Lincoln University Madison, WI 53706 110 Allen Hall, P.O. Box 29 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0029 Marcie Kirkpatrick NC A&T State University Hugh M. Joseph P.O. Box 21928 Tufts University Greensboro, NC 27420 Friedman School of Nutrition 150 Harrison Ave., Room 121 Carol Kline Boston, MA 02111 Dept. Parks, Recreation & Tourism Management Karen Joslin NCSU, Box 8004 Wareen Wilson College Raleigh, NC 27695-8008 701 Warren Wilson Road Swannanoa, NC 28778 Louanne Kling National Tribal Development Aloyce R. Kaliba Association University of Arkansas 691 8th Street 1200 North University Drive Granite Fall, MN 56241 Pine Bluff, AR 71601 Robert A. Kluson Mamy Keita UF/IFAS – Sarasota County Extension 775 Cornniche Sud, BP 44 6700 Clark Road Republique DeGuinnee, Conarry Sarasota, FL 34241
Debi Kelly Randy L. Knapp University of Missouri University of Wisconsin Missouri Alternatives Center Room 13, Chippewa County 3 Whitten Hall Courthouse Columbia, MO 65211 711 North Bridge Street Chippewa Falls, WI 54729 Christine Kelly-Begazo University of Florida Darlene Knipe 1028 20th Place, Suite D University of Illinois Extension Vero Beach, FL 32960 4550 Kennedy Drive East Moline, IL 61244 Lynn F. Kime Department of AERS Jeffrey W. Koch Agricultural Alternatives Project Prairie View A&M University 670 Old Harrisburg Road P.O. Box 3059 Gettysburg, PA 17325-3404 Prairie View, TX 77446-3059
Calvin R. King, Sr. Robin Kohanowich Arkansas Land & Farm Development Central Carolina Community College Corporation 764 West Street 484 Floyd Brown Drive Pittsboro, NC 27312 P.O. Box 743 Brinkley, AR 72021 Charles Kome USDA-NRCS 200 East Northwood Street, Suite 410 Greensboro, NC 27401
338 Tom Kriegl Gary Lesoing University of Wisconsin University of Nebraska Center for Dairy Profitability 1824 N Street Animal Sciences Building, Rm. 202 Auburn, NE 68305 1675 Observatory Drive Madison, WI 53706-1284 Amnon Levi USDA-ARS Monique Kristofors U.S. Vegetable Lab 696 Abbey Court 2700 Savannah Hwy Benicia, CA 94510 Charleston, SC 29414
Kim Kroll Carlton Lewis 10300 Baltimore Ave. USDA-Rural Development Beltsville, MD 20705 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250 Jeffrey LaFleur Cape Cod Cranberry Growers Edgar Lewis Association USDA-Rural Business Cooperative 3203-B Cranberry Highway 1400 Independence Ave., SW East Wareham, MA 02538 Washington, DC 20250
Winona Lake Scott Jan Libbey USDQA- Office of Assistant Secretary One Step At A Time Gardens for Civil Rights 1465 120th Street 1400 Independence Ave., SW Kanawha, IA 50447 Washington, DC 20250 Mike Linker Donna C. Lamb North Carolina State University University of Maine P.O. Box 7620 165 East Main Street Raleigh, NC 27695 Dover-Foxcroft, ME 04426 Sennie Lisane Marsha Laux 580 Webbtown Road Iowa State University Extension Maple Hill, NC 28454 1111 NSRIC Ames, IA 50011-3310 Ramiro E. Lobo UC Cooperative Extension Larry L. Laverentz County of San Diego, MS 0-18 Office of Refugee Resettlement 5555 Overland Avenue, Suite 4101 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW San Diego, CA 92123 Washington, DC 20447 Bernadette Logozar Vicki LeBeaux Cornell Cooperative Extension Inter Tribal Ag. Council 355 West Main Street, Suite 150 100 North 27th Street, Suite 500 Malone, NY 12953 Billings, MT 59101 Theresa Lone-Hill Neal Leonard Oglala Lakota College Fort Valley State University 490 Piya Wiconi Road Kyle, SD 57752 Sennie Lesane NC Willing Workers John G. Looney 18108 NC Hwy 53 E 11 Surrey Lane Maple Hill, NC 28454 Durham, NC 27707
339 Jean Marie Luginbuhl David Marrison The Ohio State University Extension Patricia Lynch 39 Wall Street Jefferson, OH 44047 Terence L. Lynch USDA-ARS Dyremple Marsh 5601 Sunnyside Avenue Delaware State University Beltsville, MD 20705-5140 Cooperative Extension 1200 North Dupont Highway Daniel Lyons Dover, DE 19901 NC A&T State University Cooperative Extension Program Wayne E. Marshall P.O. Box 21928 Greensboro, NC 27420-1928 Chad A. Martin Indiana Cooperative Development Velma Maddox Center 1417 Chestnut Road 101 W Ohio Street, Suite 1200 Turkey, NC 28393 Indianapolis, IN 46204
Lesley M. Maduro Karla A. Martin BVI Government, British Virgin Islands Delaware State University P.O. Box 33101 1200 N. Dupont Hwy St. Thomas, VI 00803 Dover, DE 19901
Mary Mafuyai-Ekanem Larry Martin NC A&T State University 1207 Mills Road P.O. Box 21928 Mt. Oliver, NC 28365 Greensboro, NC 27420-1928 Erroll Mattox Patricia Maher Maryland Cooperative Extension University of Maine 2122 Richard A. Henson Center, UMES 5741 Libby Hall, Room 102 Princess Anne, MD 21853 Orano, ME 04469-5741 Peggy Mauk Allen A. Malone Teresa Maurer Prairie View A&M University NCAT/ATTRA P.O. Box 3059 P.O. Box 3657 Prairie View, TX 77446-3059 Fayetteville, AR 72702
Doug Mangione Karen McAdams
Bob Mants Patricia McAleer Tuskegee University USDA-CSREES-ECS Room 105, Campbell Hall 800 9th Street SW, Rm. 4338 Tuskegee, AL 36088 Washington, DC 20024
Juan Marinez Thomas McBride Michigan State University Extension Rm. 11, Ag. Hall Thomas McConnell East Lansing, MI 48824 West Virginia University Extension Service Scott Marlow P.O. Box 6108 Morgantown, WV 26506
340 Ruth McDaniel Steve Meredith North Carolina State University Lincoln University P.O. Box 29 Charles McDuffie Jefferson City, MO 65102
Marsha L. McGraw Dwight S. Meyer NC A&T State University Delaware State University 231 Carver Hall 1200 N Dupont Hwy. Greensboro, NC 27411 Dover, DE 19962
J.W. McGuire Glen O. Miller University of Tennessee Extension USDA- National Appeals Division 7777 Walnut Grove Road, Suite A-5 Dennis McIntosh Memphis, TN 38120 Delaware State University 1200 N Dupont Hwy. Stacy Miller Dover, DE 19901 WV University Extension Service 2092 Ag. Sciences Bldg. Lisa A. McKinley P.O. Box 6108 500 Concord Woods Morgantown, WV 26505 Smyma, GA 30082 Wes Miller M. Ray McKinnie NC A&T State University Smithson Mills 1601 E. Market Street, P.O. Box 21928 Mars Hill College Greensboro, NC 27411 34 West Oakview Road Asheville, NC 28806 Shirley B. McNeill NC A&T State University McAuthor Milton P.O. Box 21928 Alabama A&M University Greensboro, NC 27420 P.O. Box 87 Forkland, AL 36740 S. Pat Melendrez NMSU/Cooperative Extension Service Bertha Mitchell P.O. Box 159 348 Sheriff Garrett Road Alcalde, NM 87511 Ahoskie, NC 27910
Susan Mellage John Mitchell North Carolina State University Heirloom Harvest Community Farm P.O. Box 7609 P.O. Box 1031 Raleigh, NC 27695 Westborough, MA 01581
Dawn Mellion-Patin Larry Mitchell Southern University Agricultural 348 Sheriff Garrett Road Research and Extension Ahoskie, NC 27910 P.O. Box 10010 Baton Rouge, LA 70813 Melton Mitchell
David Meredith Robert Mitchell North Carolina State Grange 1734 Wilkesboro Hwy Martha Mobley Statesville, NC 28625 North Carolina State University 103 S. Bickett Blvd. Louisburg, NC 27549
341 Ray Mobley Ginah Mortensen Florida A&M University EPA’s Ag Center 202-G Perry Paige Bldg. South 901 North 5th Street Tallahassee, FL 32307 Kansas City, KS 66101
Allison Moe Chris B. Morton Concerns in Animal Agriculture Minnesota Food Association 3473 UNCG Station 14220-B Ostlund Trial North Greensboro, NC 27402 St. Croix, MN 55047
Maribel Mojica James Paul Mueller Alabama A&M University Georgia Mullen Richard Molinar Alabama A&M University University of California 1720 South Maple Ave. Tommy Mullen Fresno, CA 93702 Alabama A&M University P.O. Box 336 Christie G. Monroe Fransdale, AL 36738 Southern University P.O. Box 1000 Tony Mullen Baton Rouge, LA 70813 Alabama A&M University
Brad Moore D. Chongo Mundende P.O. Box 3185 Langston University Burlington, NC 27215-0185 P.O. Box 730 Langston, OK 73050 Jessie R. Moore 227 Quebec Road Hershel Muniz Harrellsville, NC 27942 NMSU/Cooperative Extension Service P.O. Box 159 William Moore Alcalde, NM 87511 227 Quebec Road Harrellsville, NC 27942 Gary E. Murray Alamance SWCD Maggie Moor-Orth P.O. Box 3185 Delaware State University Burlington, NC 27215-0185 1200 N Dupont Hwy. Dover, DE 19901-2277 Azeez Mustafa South Carolina State University
Hernando Morera Fathiyyah Mustafa Cherokee Reservation Cooperative South Carolina State University Extension P.O. Box 456 Linda Naeve Cherokee, NC 28719 Iowa State University 8 Insectary Brenda Morris Ames, IA 50011
Billi Morsette Theresa Nartea National Tribe Development NC A&T State University RR 1, Box 694 Cooperative Extension Program Box Elder, MT 59521 P.O. Box 21928 Greensboro, NC 27420
342 Arthur Neal Patricia W. Norman USDA-AMS NC A&T State University 1400 Independence Ave., SW P.O. Box 21928 Room 2646 Greensboro, NC 27420-1928 Washington, DC 20250 Rosa Northington Spencer Neale Virginia Farm Bureau Federation Tony Nye P.O. Box 27552 Agriculture & Natural Resources Richmond, VA 23261 111 South Nelson Ave., Suite 2 Wilmington, OH 45177 Carl Niedziela NC A&T State University Kira D. O’Donnell 1601 E. Market Street UC Davis Small Farm Center Greensboro, NC 27411 1 Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Will Nesby Tennessee State University Victor Ofori-Boadu 3500 John Merriot Blvd. NC A&T State University P.O. Box 9629 Nashville, TN 37209 Kevin Ogles USDA-NRCS Marvin Nesmith 200 East Northwood Street South Carolina State University Greensboro, NC 27401 3767 Nesmith Road Nesmith, SC 29580 Shandrach O. Okiror University of Arkansas Murray Nesmith 1200 North University Drive South Carolina State University Pine Bluff, AR 71601 P.O. Box 7336 Orangeburg, SC 29117 Rafael F. Olmeda University of Puerto Rico Theodore Nesmith College Station South Carolina State University P.O. Box 9031 96 Honey Bee Ave. Mayaguez, PR 00681-9031 Nesmith, SC 29580 Joseph Onyilagha Doris J. Newton University of Arkansas USDA-ERS 1800 M Street, NW, Rm. S-2024 Nan Poku S. Oppong-Agyare Washington, DC 20036 NC A&T State University 412 Stedman Street, SPt R David Nistler Greensboro, NC 27401 University of Florida P.O. Box 278, 2463 SR, 16 W David Orr Green Cove Springs, FL 32043-0278 North Carolina State University P.O. Box 7620 Ralph C. Noble Raleigh, NC 27695 NC A&T State University 1601 E. Market Street, Marcia R. Ostrom Webb Hall, Suite 101 Washington State University Greensboro, NC 27411 7612 Pioneer Way East Puyallup, WA 98371
343 Dean R. Oswald Kim R. Peterson University of Illinois Extension University of Nebraska 480 S. Deer Road 110 Ag. Hall Macomb, IL 61455 Lincoln, NE 68583
John Paul Owens Mahlon J. Peterson NC A&T State University University of Wisconsin 145 Carver Hall 227 1st Street West Greensboro, NC 27411 Altoon, WI 24720
William Owens Arthur Phalo 278 Gray-Owens Lane USDA-FS Henderson, NC 27537 1720 Peachtree Road Atlanta, GA 30309 Renita Page Sylvia Phillips Vernon Parker NC Willing Workers USDA-Office of Assistant Secretary for 18108 NC Hwy 53E Civil Rights Maple Hill, NC 28454 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250 W. Thomas Phillips Pioneer Community Investment Mitchell Patterson, Jr. Tom Philpot Kamalendu B. Paul Mavorick Farms Lincoln University Room 204 Young Hall Lorette Picciano P.O. Box 29 Rural Coalition/Coalicion Rural Jefferson City, MO 65102-0029 1012 14th Street, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 Mary Peabody University of Vermont Barbara Pierce 617 Comstock Road, Suite 5 Berlin, VT 05602 Larry Pierce
An Peischel Shannon Potter Tennessee State University Maryland Cooperative Extension 3500 John Merritt Blvd. Talbot County Nashville, TN 37209 P.O. Box 519 Easton, MD 21601 Cathy Perillo 7612 Pioneer Way, East Steven Pratt Puyallup, WA 98371 US EPA, Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue Alyx Perry Dallas, TX 75202-2733 P.O. Box 941 Asheville, NC 28802 Marshay Privott NC A&T State University Steve Peters P.O. Box 21928 Greensboro, NC 27420 Louis Petersen University of Virgin Islands Carolyn Prowell Cooperative Extension Service St. Thomas, VI 00802
344 James Richard Pursely GB Reddy Michigan State University NC A&T State University Department of Animal Science 1601 E. Market Street 1230 Anthony Hall Greensboro, NC 27411 East Lansing, MI 48824 David Redhage G. L. Queely Kerr Center P.O. Box 588 Charles W. Raczkowski Poteau, OK 74953 NC A&T State University Dept. Natural Resources Joseph Reilly Greensboro, NC 27411 USDA-NASS 1400 Independence Ave., SW Jim Radintz Washington, DC 20250 USDA-FSA 1400 Independence Ave., SW Mark Rice Washington, DC 20250 North Carolina State University Campus Box 7927 Igreta Ragin Raleigh, NC 27695
Noah Ranells Andre Richardson 110 E. King Street University of Arkansas Hillsborough, NC 27278 George Richardson Anusuya Rangarajan University of Arkansas Cornell University 1200 North University 135C Plant Science Building P.O. Box 4806 Department of Horticulture Pine Bluff, AR 71611 Ithaca, NY 14853 V. Richardson Madalene Ransom USDA-NRCS T. Rickard 200 East Northwood Dr., Suite 410 Greensboro, NC 27401 Louie Rivers, Jr. Kentucky State University Nancy Rasmussen 400 East Main Street Frankfort, KY 40602 Rhonda N. Rawlings USDA-NRCS C. Dale Roark 101 E. Capitol Avenue, Suite B100 NCCES Little Rock, AR 72201-3811 971 W. King Street Boone, NC 28607 Fred Reaves USDA-NRCS Mark A. Robbins 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Stop 5474 Province of British Columbia Beltsville, MD 20705 1767 Angus Campbell Road Abbotsford, BC V3G 2M3 Cedric L. Reddick USDA-NASS Aaron Robinson 1703 Barnett Court Tennessee State University Severn, MD 21144
345 Miles Robinson Pamela Rye Tuskegee University Tennessee State University G.W.C. Experiment Station 344 Old Hwy 149 105 Campbell Hall Cumberland City, TN 37050 Tuskegee, AL 36088 Lee Sammons Debbie Roos Tennessee State University P.O. Box 279 200 E. Market Street, P.O. Box 186 Pittsboro, NC 27312 Bolivar, TN 38075
Ursula Rosauer Grady Sampson New Mexico State University Cooperative Extension Service Luis Sandoval P.O. Box 159 Alcalde, NM 87511 Judi Schams
Mark Rose Joan Scheel USDA-NRCS University of Nebraska 339 Busch’s Frontage Road 143 Food Industry Complex Annapolis, MD 21401 Lincoln, NE 69593-0930
Phil Ross Marilyn Schlake Alamance SWCD University of Nebraska P.O. Box 3185 143 Food Industry Complex Burlington, NC 27215-0182 Lincoln, NE 69593-0930
Carol Roth Susan Schoenian University of Wisconsin University Maryland Cooperative 277 Animal Science Bldg. Extension 1675 Observatory Drive 18330 Keedysville Road Madison, WI 53706 Keedysville, MD 21756
Monika Roth Lora Lee Schroeder Cornell Cooperative Extension US EPA Region 4 615 Willow Ave. 1901 Dancing Fox Rd. Ithaca, NY 14850 Decatur, GA 30032
D. Wayne Rowland Sheila P. Schulterbrandt P.O. Box 1028 BVI Government, British Virgin Islands Henderson, NC 27536 Jost Van Dyke British Virgin Islands, VI Larry Roybal Chung W. Seo USDA-FS NC A&T State University 333 Broadway SW Carver Hall Albuquerque, NM 87102 Greensboro, NC 27411
Robert Rubin Patricia Shapard
Kathy Ruhf Richard Sherman New England Small Farm Institute Ohio State University Extension P.O. Box 11 100 Agricultural Adm. Bldg. Belchertown, MA 01007 2120 Fyffe Road Columbus, OH 43210
346 Vestel B. Shirley Adam Smith NC A&T State University Organic Ridge Farm 1601 East Market Street 835 AA Highway South Greensboro, NC 27411 Brookville, KY 41004
Sandy Shetler Andy Smith University of Illinois USDA-NRCS 4550 Kennedy Drive, Suite 2 4405 Bland Road, Suite 205 East Moline, IL 61244 Raleigh, NC 27609
Dee Shore Caleb Smith North Carolina State University Concerns in Animal Agriculture Department of Communication 2065 UNCG Station P.O. Box 7603 Greensboro, NC 27402 Raleigh, NC 27695-7603 Eddie Smith Alicia Simon Alabama A&M University USDA-CSREES-ECS 1105 Martin Road 800 9th Street SW, Rm. 4437 Greensboro, AL 36744 Washington, DC 20024 Robert R. Smith Marion Simon P.O. Box 457 Kentucky State University Cooperative Stuart, VA 24171 Extension Program 400 East Main Street Ellen P. Smoak Frankfort, KY 40601 NC A&T State University P.O. Box 21928 Jerri Lynn Sims Greensboro, NC 27420 University of Tennessee 2365 White Oak Sandra Solaiman McEwen, TN 37101 Tuskegee University 105 Milbank Hall S. Singh Tuskegee, AL 36088
Emily Skelton Clifford Somerville Seeds of Change Virginia State University 340 Highway 582 P.O. Box 9081 San Juan, NM 87566 Petersburg, VA 23806 Colleen Sparks Clifton A. Slade Virginia State University Ben Starr P.O. Box 9081 Greensboro, NC 23806 Tom Stebbins University of Tennessee Susan Smalley 6183 Admanson Circle Michigan State University Chattanooga, TN 37416 270 Plant & Soil Sciences Bldg. East Lansing, MI 48824-1325 Gary Stephenson Benton County Extension Helen D. Smiley 1948 NW 9th Street Mid-South Natural Organic Cooperative Corvallis, OR 97330 141 N. Manassas, #9A Memphis, TN 38105
347 Lynn M. Stephenson Alan Sundermeier 139 Lenna Court Ohio State University Extension Pittsboro, NC 27312 440 East Poe Road, Suite 101 Bowling Green, OH 43402 Robin Stephenson Ohio State University Edward Surgeon
Andrew Stevens Sabina F. Swift University of Hawaii Kimberly Stine 3190 Maile Way, St. John 307 USDA-NRCS Honolulu, HI 96822 501 W. Flex Street, Bldg. 23 Ft. Worth, TX 76115 Mickie Swisher University of Florida Ken Stokes 3008 McCarty Hall Texas A&M University Box 110310 1229 North US, Hwy 281 Gainesville, FL 32611-0310 Stephensville, TX 76401 Etaferahu Takene Frank Stonaker University of California Colorado State University 21150 Box Springs Road 1173 Campus Delivery Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Fort Collins, CO 80523-1173 Buffy Taylor Eric Stout Alabama A&M University Kentucky State University 160 Palm Dale Lane Atwood State Research Facility Sylacauga, AL 35150 Frankfort, KY 31030 Decetti S. Taylor Celvia Stovall Tuskegee University NC A&T State University Room 105, Campbell Hall P.O. Box 21928 Tuskegee, AL 36088 Greensboro, NC 27420 P. Taylor Michael Stovall Alabama A&M University Tommie Teacher Alabama A&M University Richard Straight P.O. Box 5 University of Nebraska Greensboro, NC 36744 USDA-National Agroforestry Center 38th & East Campus Loop Dawn Thilmany Lincoln, NE 68583-0822 Colorado State University B313 Clark Hall Clarence Summers Fort Collins, CO 80523-1172 SCSU 1890 Research & Extension P.O. Box 7336 Miessha Thomas Orangeburg, SC 29117 Federation of Southern Cooperatives 2769 Church Street Grace Summers East Point, GA 30344 NC A&T State University P.O. Box 21928 William Thomas Greensboro, NC 27420
348 Alton Thompson Anthony Tuggle NC A&T State University Tennessee State University 1601 E. Market Street, Webb Hall 315 John Rice Blvd. Greensboro, NC 27411 Murfreesboro, TN 37129
Harold Thompson Ben Turner North Carolina Cooperative Extension ISED Solutions Service 1900 L Street NW P.O. Box 1028 Suite 705 Henderson, NC 27536 Washington, DC 20036
Ken R. Thompson Catherine C. Twohig Kentucky State University Land Stewardship Project 103 Athletic Drive 103 W. Nichols Frankfort, KY 40601 Montivideo, MN 56265
Valentine Thompson Gladys G. Vaughn USDA-FAS USDA-Office of Assistant Secretary for 1400 Independence Ave., SW Civil Rights Washington, DC 20250 1400 Independence Ave, SW 4045 South Bldg. William Thompson Washington, DC 20250 Texas Cooperative Extension P.O. Box 1298 Jacob Waddy Ft. Stockton, TX 79735 Alabama A&M University Route 1, Box 70 Roy Todd Uniontown, AL 36786 USDA-NRCS 215 Third Loop Road, Suite 500 Billy Wade Florence, SC 29505 Alabama A&M University 105 Garner Road Luevenia Toodle New Market, AL 35761 NC Willing Workers 18108 NC Hwy 53E Virginia Wade Maple Hill, NC 28454 Alabama A&M University 4035 Hwy 77 Charlie Touchette Russellville, AL 35654 NAFDMA 62 White Loaf Road Wilda Wade Southampton, MA 01073 NC A&T State University P.O. Box 21928, Room 120 L. Tranel Greensboro, NC 27420
Stephan Tubene William Wade University of Maryland Eastern Shore Alabama A&M University 7320 Ritchie Hwy 4035 Hwy 77 Suite 210 Russellville, AL 35654 Glen Burnie, MD 21061 Robin J. Wager Elizabeth Tuckermanty Cape Cod Growers Association USDA-CSREES-CP 3203-B Cranberry Hwy 800 9th Street SW, Rm. 2340 East Wareham, MA 02538 Washington, DC 20024
349 Ron H. Walser Carl D. Webster New Mexico State University Kentucky State University P.O. Box 159 Aquaculture Research Center Alcalde, NM 87511 Frankfort, KY 40601
Francis O. Walson Darren Welch NC A&T State University P.O. Box 53 P.O. Box 21928 Preston, MS 39354 Greensboro, NC 27420-1928 Johnnie R. Westbrook Joe Walter NC A&T State University University of Florida 1601 E. Market Street 1317 Bonneau Blvd. Greensboro, NC 27411 Christmas, FL 32709 Bob Weybright Ruby Ward Cornell Cooperative Extension USU Extension 2715 Route 44, Suite 1 3530 Old Main Hill Millbrook, NY 12545 Logan, UT 84322-3530 David Wiggins Brent G. Warner USDA-RMA BC Ministry of Agriculture 4407 Bland Rd., Suite 160 Industry Competitiveness Raleigh, NC 27609 808 Douglas Street Victoria, BC V8W 9B4 Jessie Wiggins Alabama A&M University Sarah Warren 2031 County Rd. 7 Greensboro, AL 36744 Steve Washburn North Carolina State University Alfreda Williams Box 7621, Dept. of Animal Sciences Raleigh, NC 27695-7621 Andrew Williams USDA-NRCS Alponso Washington 3381 Skyway Drive Alabama A&M University Auburn, AL 36830 506 Kilpatrick Street Greensboro, AL 36744 Cinda Williams University of Idaho Michael Wasylkowski P.O. Box 442339 Delaware State University Moscow, ID 83844-2339 1200 N Dupont Hwy. Kandi Williams Dover, DE 19901 University of Arkansas
Robert Watson, Sr. Ricky Williams South Carolina State University 1890 Research & Extension Peter Williams 1313 Rockhouse Road Greenwood, SC 29646 Sherbert Williams 1505 ½ Walnut Street Alistair Webb Hopkinsville, KY 42240 University of Florida P.O. Box 100144 Gainesville, FL 32611
350 Theodore Williams Ann Wright SCSU 1890 Research & Extension 279 Wright Road P.O. Box 7336 Bladenboro, NC 28320 Orangeburg, SC 29117 Harold Wright Yarbrough Williams 279 Wright Road Operation Spring Plant, Inc. Fletcher, NC 28732 298 Church Hill Road Macon, NC 27551 Larry Wright
Robert Williamson Sibyl Wright NC A&T State University USDA-FSIS P.O. Box 21428 1400 Independence Ave., SW Greensboro, NC 27420 Room 2646 Washington, DC 20250 Hank Willie Navajo Nation Traditional Ag Outreach Johnny Wynne P.O. Box 7087 North Carolina State University Winslow, AZ 86047 Campus Box 7601 112 Patterson Hall Willie Willis Raleigh, NC 27695 NC A&T State University 101 B.C. Webb Hall Sheena Xiong 1601 E. Market Street Greensboro, NC 27411 Dante Yancey 240 W. Tulpehocken Street Alice-Brooke Wilson Philadelphia, PA 19144 Maverick Farms Gooden Yang 410 Justus Road NC A&T State University Valle Crucis, NC 28691 1601 E. Market Street Greensboro, NC 27411 Richard Winston Tennessee State University 3500 John A. Merritt Blvs. Guochen Yang Nashville, TN 37209-1561 NC A&T State University 1601 E. Market Street Brooke Witting Greensboro, NC 27411
Melvin Womack Hong Yang USDA-NRCS NC A&T State University P.O. Box 2890, Rm. 6025-S Dept. of Human Environment and Washington, DC 20013 Family Sciences 161 Carver Hall Stephen (Woody) K. Woodward Greensboro, NC 27411 North Carolina State University Mountain Horticultural Crops Research Ernest Yazzie and Extension Center Dine College 455 Research Drive Institute for Integrated Rural Fletcher, NC 28732 Development (IIRD) P.O. Box 7B Mulumebet Worku Tsaile, AZ 86556 NC A&T State University 1601 East Market Street Greensboro, NC 27411
351 Evelyn Young 6 Hill Circle Brandon, MS 39042
Lesia A. Young USDA-NRCS 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Stop 5474 Beltsville, MD 20705
Nathaniel Young 6 Hill Circle Brandon, MS 39042
Audrey Zeigler Tuskegee University Room 105, Campbell Hall Tuskegee, AL 36088
Rasa Zimlicki Oxfam America 8242 Candlebery Drive Mechanicsville, VA 23111
R. H. Zundag
352