Recognising the Value and Potential of Small Farms; Learning from the USA Department of Primary Industries, Victoria October 2002 ISBN: 1 74106 340 X Author: Julie Francis Department of Primary Industries Rutherglen, Victoria, Australia Phone: 02 6030 4500 E mail: julie.francis@ dpi.vic.gov.au Funds for this study were provided from: DPI’s Science Quality Unit – Scientific E xchange Program, DPI’s E cologically Sustainable Agriculture Initiative and DPI’s Graduate Extension Program. . © The State of Victoria, Department of Primary Industries, 2002 Disclaimer: This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of V ictoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any k ind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. Find more information about DPI on the Internet at www.dpi.vic.gov.au i B ac kgr o un d The Victorian Department of Primary Industries’ (DPI) Science Quality Unit provided funding for travel to the United States of America (as part of the Scientific E xchange Program) between March and August 2001. The International Programs Division of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), in part facilitated the visit. The purpose of the visit was to establish networks and learn from people involved with agricultural extension, alternative agricultural enterprises, innovative marketing structures, small farm policy and sustainable agriculture. Proposed outcomes of the travel included identifying opportunities to: • • • Include new and innovative extension tools into the delivery of extension packages by DPI to Victorian farmers; Link with scientists working in the areas of extension, training and new/emerging industries; and Contribute towards the development of a Victorian Future Family Farms initiative; A further purpose of the visit was to increase personal education and extension skills through formal training and from working with extension colleagues overseas. For further information about the exchange, or USA contacts, please email julie.francis@ dpi.vic.gov.au Ac kn o w l edgemen t s I would like to acknowledge the support of Larry Clark, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and staff from the Science Quality Unit and Graduate Program of DPI, in enabling my visit to the USA. I would also like to recognise the kindness of the farmers, USDA and Cooperative E xtension staff and their families who offered accommodation, transport and friendship throughout my trip. To all of them, I am most grateful. ii Modern agriculture in the USA has been highly successful at what it was asked to do; produce cheap, bulk commodities using as little labour as possible. But, that success has come at a price, and in many cases with hidden costs that are just now being recognised. Farmers have increased their reliance on government programs at the same time environmental quality has decreased, and we are still losing farms, especially the midsize ones. In addition, there appears to be no additional benefits to society from continuing down this path. Kirschenmann and Duffy, 2002. iii T abl e o f C o n t en t s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VIII 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Australian small farms 1.1.1 Values associated with small farms 1.1.2 Helping small farms grow and prosper 1 1 2 1.2 2 Learning from other small farm programs 1.3 Small farms in the USA 1.3.1 The impetus for change in USA – A Time To Act 1.3.2 Characteristics of small farms in the USA 3 3 5 1.4 7 How might small farms be targeted in Victoria? 2. SMALL FARM BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND MARKETING 9 2.1 The need for training and assistance 2.1.1 Entrepreneurial training 2.1.2 Generic small business training 2.1.3 Farmer involvement 2.1.4 Grant programs 2.1.5 Domestic focus needed as well as export 10 11 11 11 11 11 2.2 Marketing strategies used by small farmers in the USA 2.2.1 Developing market linkages with big business 2.2.2 The E- marketplace 2.2.3 Group marketing 12 13 13 14 2.3 15 Land zoning 2.4 Local food systems 2.4.1 Initiatives for small farmers 2.4.2 Education and promotion to consumers 2.4.3 Challenges to selling produce in local food systems 2.4.4 A state-wide approach 15 16 16 17 17 2.5 19 Innovative programs in the USA 2.6 What might Victoria learn? 2.6.1 Facilitating formation of marketing groups 2.6.2 Recognising the role of community organisations 2.6.3 Coordination of business development information 2.6.4 Encouraging entrepreneurs 2.6.5 Land zoning issues 21 21 21 22 22 23 iv 2.7 Case Studies - Co-operatives 2.7.1 Green River Marketing Co-operative 2.7.2 Cumberland Farm Products 2.7.3 West Kentucky Grower Co-op 23 23 24 25 3. DIRECT MARKETING 28 3.1 28 Consumer demands create new markets 3.2 Farmers’ markets 3.2.1 Organisation of farmers’ markets 3.2.2 Promoting farmers’ markets 3.2.3 Support for farmers’ markets 3.2.4 Iowa’s farmers’ markets 3.2.5 California’s farmers’ markets 3.2.6 Diversity of products 3.2.7 Customer loyalty 3.2.8 Added benefits of farmers’ markets 3.2.9 WIC farmers’ markets nutrition program 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 3.3 Benefits of direct marketing 33 3.4 Challenges of direct marketing 33 3.5 Innovative programs 34 3.6 What might Victoria learn? 3.6.1 Direct marketing in the green wedges 3.6.2 Benefits of supporting direct marketing 3.6.3 Developing markets for small farm goods and services 3.6.4 Specific focus on direct marketing 35 35 36 36 37 3.7 Case Studies 3.7.1 Roadside farm stand - Paul Dennison 3.7.2 Roadside farm stand – Billy Reid 3.7.3 Farm festival - Doug Bahl 3.7.4 Community supported agriculture - Angela Tedesco 3.7.5 Community supported agriculture - Ron and Jen Skinner 39 39 40 41 42 44 4. SUPPORTING SMALL FARMS THROUGH EXTENSION 46 4.1 47 Extension Providers in the USA 4.2 Challenges and opportunities for small farm extension in the USA 4.2.1 Accessibility of extension staff and programs 4.2.2 Staff interest 4.2.3 Communication 4.2.4 Partnerships with community groups 4.2.5 Support networks 47 47 48 48 48 49 v 4.2.6 4.2.7 4.2.8 Forestry extension New and emerging industries Value-adding opportunities 49 50 50 4.3 Innovative extension programs in the USA 4.3.1 Natural Resources Leadership Institute 4.3.2 The University of California Small Farm Program 4.3.3 Fresno County small farm initiatives 4.3.4 The North Central Region Small Farm Task Force 4.3.5 Alternative Farming Systems Information Centre 4.3.6 Conservation Technology Information Centre 4.3.7 CSREES Small Farms Program 4.3.8 SARE Professional Development Program 4.3.9 Stewardship for Small Acreages 51 51 51 52 53 53 54 54 54 56 4.4 What might Victoria learn? 4.4.1 Extension opportunities 4.4.2 Extension staff education 4.4.3 New and emerging industries 4.4.4 Community groups 57 57 57 58 58 4.5 Case study 4.5.1 Country Living field day 59 59 5. SUPPORTING SMALL FARMS WITH RESEARCH AND POLICY 61 5.1 Research 61 5.1.1 Research bias in the USA? 61 5.1.2 Is bigger better? 62 5.1.3 A new approach needed, with a small farm focus 63 5.1.4 Research opportunities 64 5.1.5 Innovative Research - Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program 65 5.2 Policy 5.2.1 Agricultural policies - subsidies 5.2.2 Regulation and program bias 5.2.3 Taxation policies 5.2.4 Insurance policies 5.2.5 Are small farm statistics providing the true picture for policy makers? 5.2.6 Innovative Policies - USDA Small Farms Program 66 66 67 68 68 69 69 5.3 71 What might Victoria learn? 5.4 Case Studies 5.4.1 The Appalachian Farming Systems Research Centre (AFSRC) 5.4.2 Leopold Centre for Sustainable Agriculture 5.4.3 Centre for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 72 72 72 73 vi 6. NEW SMALL FARMERS 75 6.1 Changing farm population 75 6.2 Small farm entry in Australia 75 6.3 Challenges to farm entry in the USA 6.3.1 Finding land 6.3.2 Funding 76 76 76 6.4 Support for new small farmers 77 6.5 Innovative new farmer programs in the USA 78 6.6 What might Victoria learn? 79 APPENDIX A - USDA SMALL FARMS POLICY 80 APPENDIX B - MAIL ORDER THE MODERN WAY 83 APPENDIX C - FOOD SAFETY FACT SHEET 86 APPENDIX D - CENTRE FOR RURAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP 89 APPENDIX E - NON-PROFIT FARMING ORGANISATIONS Dissatisfaction with traditional extension Practical Farmers of Iowa Commodity Grower’s Co-operative Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF) Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFF) 94 94 95 98 99 100 APPENDIX F - ALTERNATIVE ENTERPRISES FACT SHEET 101 APPENDIX G - REFERENCES 106 APPENDIX H - CONTACTS 108 APPENDIX I - ABBREVIATIONS 117 vii E xecut ive S ummar y E xecut ive S ummar y In both Victoria and the USA, increasing numbers of small farmers are now managing a growing amount of land. These farmers provide diversity in ownership, landscapes and agricultural production systems; delivering important cultural, aesthetic and environmental values. Small farms contribute to economies by generating wealth, providing employment and creating tourism opportunities. Small farmers can play a significant role in helping rural communities retain businesses and services; helping to maintain a more viable population. Larger populations also sustain community groups, which provide social capital.1 For these reasons it is important for Victorian institutions2 to consider small farmers in program and policy development. This report is based on a visit to the USA and reviews of two major American investigations into small farm policy. It is intended to provide an overview of current small farm issues in the USA and outline the potential of small farms. Discussion is also included on how this potential may be nurtured for the benefit of Victorians. The USA federal government has identified a range of values attributable to small farms and has developed policies and programs to support their continued existence. For small farms to be viable it is necessary to increase their profitability and experience in the USA has shown that there are many successful approaches towards achieving this outcome without increasing farm size; including: • Reducing farm input purchases through better management skills (including techniques such as rotational grazing and integrated pest management); • Reducing the length of the supply chain, from farm gate to consumer (direct marketing); • Group production and marketing to either increase volume produced (thereby opening new markets) or reduce the cost of inputs by bulk purchases or sharing of equipment; • Diversification (including agritourism); • On-farm value-adding; and • Intensifying operations (although this can be unpalatable for some small farmers and their neighbours, costly and/or can raise environmental and animal welfare issues). Direct marketing to consumers and development of local food systems3 are in their infancy in Australia. However, changing consumer preferences, including concern for environmental and social aspects of food production, should provide increased opportunities for small farmers to meet demand from targeted sections of the market. Direct marketing to these sectors will allow small farmers to access a greater share of the consumer dollar. Direct marketing and local food systems also serve a community building function and can help reduce the rural-urban divide. Facilitating the Social capital is described as the raw material that holds communities together through participation of members in community networks, reciprocity, trust, social norms and proactivity (Alston, 2002). 2 Institutions include the organisations formed by government, industries and communities and their policies and programs (Gleeson and Piper, 2002). 3 The local or regional food economy is an alternative marketing channel, based on face to face relationships, where small farmers play a central role by producing community food and fibre needs (NCSF, 1998). 1 viii E xecut ive S ummar y development of direct markets and local food systems may be a legitimate government policy, in view of the benefits they can provide to both local communities and the wider economy. For small farmers to take advantage of business and market development opportunities, training and support is required. Provision of such assistance will facilitate diversification, enhance viability and build the capacity of rural communities. Opportunities for Victorian institutions to assist small farmers in business development include: • Providing information and training in business development and marketing for entrepreneurs; • Facilitating networking and formation of cooperative business structures; • E nsuring a focus on domestic as well as export markets; • Coordinating information relating to small farm business opportunities; and • E nsuring laws and regulations do not unnecessarily or inadvertently hinder small farm business development. In addition to business development, small farmers need the support of well-rounded research and extension programs. It is likely that small farmers will benefit more from research and extension programs that are holistic rather than specialist in nature, unlike farmers on larger properties, who may require production information on specific commodities. Small farmers will also benefit from targeted programs that take account of resource and size limitations: Innovative businesses need to be designed to optimise the mix of labour, capital, and natural resources to the size and scale of the farm. Many [small] farmers are looking for opportunities to use knowledge- and management- intensive production systems, rather than capital- intensive methods (HAWCAEP, 2001, p31). In the USA, bias in past research, extension and policy has been identified. This bias was highlighted as being towards high input, high cost, large sized farms, producing bulk commodities. There may be a need to reflect on Victoria’s systems to identify if any unintended bias exists here as well. Suggestions to better cater for small farmers include: • E nsure small farmers are involved in stakeholder meetings and on steering committees; • E nsure extension staff and programs are accessible to all, this includes considering the times courses are offered and communication with multicultural clients; • Facilitate small farmer networks, as sources of information and learning; • Raise awareness, within Victorian institutions, of the values of small farms, to help ensure that future policy and research directions recognise and promote their benefits, and that small farmers are considered capable of providing creative opportunities to address environmental, economic and social concerns; • Place greater emphasis on business development and marketing skills for advisors working with this sector; • Initiate research and extension programs focussed on low up-front cost (often therefore also low technology) farm management strategies. This could have ix E xecut ive S ummar y • • • • • • • • applications for all sized farms. Rotational grazing and pruning of farm forestry trees are examples of low-cost strategies, which can improve economic and environmental sustainability; E stablish a research and extension initiative focussing on strategies to improve farm income for small farmers. Much work on diversification opportunities and increasing productivity contributes to this area, however research into other methods such as direct marketing and opportunities for groups of small farmers to work together, could be investigated further; Trial novel methods of extension delivery such as radio and training farms; Combine training of staff with community training as a cost effective way to build community capacity and improve partnerships between institutions and the wider community; Develop a specific small farm information centre; E mploy extension staff to focus on a range of topics relevant to small farmers (ie generalists, not specialists); Investigate the feasibility and application of establishing a program similar to the American program SARE (Section 5.1.5) for working with small farmers in Victoria. (Key points of SARE are that it was designed by farmers, encourages collaboration between farmers and government agencies, and farmers have a say in which projects receive funding); Investigate the small farm statistics available (the USA National Commission on Small Farms found that reliance on statistics with limited descriptive quality can lead to improper or ineffective policy decisions); and Focus on new farmers, including improving understanding of small farm entry; especially support for people who enter farming without any prior agricultural experience. In the USA, a large number of community groups exist with a specific focus on small farms and community education. These groups are often meeting the needs of farmers who are not well serviced by institutions. It may be beneficial to support the development and ongoing management of similar groups in Victoria. These groups often earn higher levels of trust from the community, and can facilitate the development of expertise in niche areas. Apart from their role of increasing community capability in rural areas, these community groups can be valuable partners for government and industry organisations. Community groups can support small farmers at the local level by coordinating a farmer network or a small farms program (for example, All Iowa Meals, Appendix E ); providing information, demonstration and training; and through assisting market establishment, such as promotion of small farm businesses and the benefits of buying direct from the farm. Strong institutional policy addressing small farms, combined with supportive programs, is critical to effectively improve the viability of our rural communities and the environmental management of much of Victoria’s land and water. Policy in the USA has established small farms as a recognised, important part of the federal Department of Agriculture’s clientele, with their own specific needs. x E xecut ive S ummar y Through partnerships between farmers, community members and other Australian and USA institutions, it will be possible for Victorian organisations to assist small farmers to reach their potential and provide a range of values for the community. By providing employment, diversity of ownership and production systems, small farmers can produce goods for all Victorians, attract visitors and money into rural towns and contribute to community vitality. In addition, small farmers can make a significant contribution towards sustainable land management. With new approaches to working with this sector, Victoria has the potential to set the standard in Australia for small farms contributing to innovative solutions for sustaining rural communities and the environment that will contribute to the quality of life of all Victorians. xi In t r oduct ion Aus t r al ian s mal l f ar ms 1 . In t r o duct io n 1 .1 Aus t r al ian s mal l f ar ms The number of sub-commercial farms4 in Australia has increased over time, in stark contrast to commercial farms,5 which have almost halved in the past forty years. While the contribution of sub-commercial farms to the gross value of agricultural production is estimated to be small (less than 5 percent), these farmers can have a substantial positive impact in rural communities (Hooper et al. 2002). In addition, in 2000, these farms operated almost 16.6 million hectares of land (much of it located in the high rainfall zone, near-urban locations). As such, these farmers have a significant role to play in management of the nation’s environment. Typically families operating or residing on sub-commercial establishments derive the majority of their income from non-farming activities (Hooper et al. 2002). Many of these farms are found within in Victoria, and as they are often relatively small in size, they are commonly referred to as small farms. There is no single widely accepted definition of this term and it should be acknowledged that there are farms of small size which are classified as commercial, and that the perception of small can vary throughout the state from less than 10 hectares (ha) up to 300ha, depending on land use and neighbouring property sizes. In this report, the term small farms is applied loosely, and the need for a common description is noted. 1 .1 .1 Val ues as s o c iat ed w it h s mal l f ar ms Small farms can: • Contribute to local economies, generating wealth, providing employment and creating tourism opportunities; • Create of areas of ‘green space’ around cities where land prices are too high for larger farms to exist; • Provide environmental value as they can include significant parts of catchments and ecosystems; • E mbody a diversity of ownership, landscapes and agricultural production systems; this diversity has cultural, aesthetic and environmental values; and • Help rural communities maintain a viable population and therefore retain businesses and services. Large populations can also sustain community groups, which provide social capital6 and social support networks (Alston, 2002). Weaker Sub-commercial farms are defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) as establishments with an estimated value of agricultural operations (E VAO) of between AUS$5,000 and AUS$22,499. In 2000, there were 33 674 establishments in Australia in this category (Hooper et al. 2002). 4 Commercial farms are defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to be farms with an estimated value of agricultural operations (EVAO) of $22 500 or more. There were just over 100 000 of these establishments in 2001. (Hooper et al. 2002). 5 Social capital is described as the raw material that holds communities together through participation of members in community networks, reciprocity, trust, social norms and proactivity (Alston, 2002). 6 1 In t r oduct ion S mal l f ar ms in t h e U S A networks and a loss of trust seriously erodes a community’s viability. Alston (2002) suggests: “In forging a new agenda for rural revitalisation, governments have to move away from economic rationalist policies and develop people focused policies relevant to rural people.” 1 .1 .2 H el pin g s mal l f ar ms gr o w an d pr o s per Given that small farm establishments are increasing in terms of the number of people involved and land area managed, the Department of Primary Industry’s (DPI) priority of: Sustainable growth with a smaller footprint achieved through capable communities applying knowledge of ecosystems, will be difficult to achieve without involving small farmers. The Victorian government has recognised the value of family and small farms and has resourced DPI to implement a Future Family Farms for Victoria Initiative (FFF). FFF was established to “grow a diverse and prosperous family and small farm sector to improve regional economies, the environment and rural living.” The Victorian government has also funded a project to investigate environmental education and training for small and lifestyle farmers, through the E cologically Sustainable Agriculture Initiative. Whilst these programs are in the developmental phase, it is prudent to examine how other nations are addressing the strengths and challenges associated with small farms. 1 .2 L ear n in g f r o m o t h er s mal l f ar m pr o gr ams The United States provides a valuable learning opportunity, having targeted communityled programs to assist small farmers since the 1970s, and adopting a federal government small farms policy from 1999 (Appendix A). The issues faced by the agricultural sectors of the United States of America and Australia are similar, and include the cost-price squeeze7, increasing average age of farmers, environmental degradation, growing numbers of large intensive farms and small lifestyle farms, with a resultant ‘squeeze’ on mid-sized farms, declining rural populations and increasing demands from consumers in regard to food quality, safety and environmental protection. The Science Quality Unit of DPI funded the author of this report to travel to the USA to experience small farm programs first hand and meet with some of the farmers, extension officers and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) policy makers involved. This report on small farms draws on the author’s experience in the USA in 2001 together with two major policy reviews carried out in the USA, one of which is A T ime T o Act; an investigation into small farms by a National Commission on Small Farms (NCSF), released in 1998. The other is, Making Changes: T urning Local Visions into N ational Solutions. Agriculture and Rural Development Policy Recommendations from the Agriculture Policy Project.8 The Henry A. Wallace Centre for Agricultural and 7 8 Returns from agricultural products do not increase as fast as rising costs over the longer term. http://www.winrock.org/wallace 2 In t r oduct ion S mal l f ar ms in t h e U S A E nvironmental Policy (HAWCAE P) published this paper in 2001. It was the result of a five-year project designed to engage people at the local, regional and national levels in the development of long-term, pro-active policies for USA food and agriculture systems. The purpose of this report is to document some innovative small farm initiatives occurring in the USA, to consider the values of small farms and to identify opportunities for Victorian institutions9 to assist small farmers to reach their potential, in order that all of society can benefit from their continued existence. This report is divided into six chapters. This first chapter provides background information on how the USA is addressing small farm issues. This chapter also includes suggestions from experienced American program leaders on how Victoria could start to develop targeted programs to contend with similar issues here. The remaining chapters concentrate on five different themes: small farm business development and marketing; direct marketing; supporting small farms through extension; supporting small farms with research and policy; and new small farms. These chapters provide information on each topic, drawn from the aforementioned policy reviews, other documents and the author’s experiences. E ach chapter contains sections on ‘innovative programs in the USA’ and ‘what might Victoria learn?’ Most chapters also conclude with one or more case studies. 1 .3 S mal l f ar ms in t h e U S A 1 .3 .1 T h e impet u s f o r c h an ge in U S A – A T ime T o Ac t In 1979 the USDA’s Secretary of Agriculture initiated a study of the structure of agriculture. This was designed to examine the condition of farming and its place in the American food system. In 1981 the finalised report A T ime to Choose, warned: … unless present policies and programs are changed so that they counter, instead of reinforce or accelerate the trends towards ever-larger farming operations, the result will be a few large farms controlling food production in only a few years. General consensus is that the warning in the 1981 report was not heeded but rather policy choices made over the following two decades perpetuated the structural bias toward greater concentration of assets in fewer and larger farms and agribusinesses (NCSF, 1998). In 1997 the USDA established a thirty member National Commission on Small Farms (NCSF) to examine the status of small farms in the nation and to determine a course of action for the USDA to recognise, respect and respond to their needs through changes in policies, practices and programmatic approaches.10 In 1998 the Commission outlined eight policy goals for a national strategy for small farms (see Section 5.2.6). This report was entitled A T ime to Act and provided recommendations to Congress and the USDA aimed at improving the well-being of the nation’s small farms and supporting the Institutions include the organisations formed by government, industries and communities and their policies and programs (Gleeson and Piper, 2002). 10 http://www.usda.gov/oce/smallfarm/commission.htm 9 3 In t r oduct ion S mal l f ar ms in t h e U S A contributions they make to American society. The following year the USDA Small Farm Policy was established (Appendix A). The Commission’s term expired after two years, in 1999, and was replaced later that year by the Advisory Committee on Small Farms.11 The Advisory Committee’s duties are to monitor and evaluate the impact of government and private sector actions that relate to small farms; review USDA programs and strategies to implement small farm policy; and advise the Secretary of Agriculture on actions to strengthen USDA programs. The Committee includes four of the original authors of A T ime T o Act. The NCSF outlined a number of values of small farms that are important to society in its report, A T ime T o Act. The following quote is a brief summary: Small farms contribute more than farm production to our society. Small farms embody a diversity of ownership, cropping systems, landscapes, biological organisation, culture and traditions. Since the majority of farmland is managed by a large number of small farm operators, the responsible management of soil, water and wildlife encompassed by these farms produces significant environmental benefits. Decentralised land ownership produces more equitable economic opportunity for people in rural communities and offers selfemployment and business management opportunities. Farms, particularly family farms, can be nurturing places for children to grow up and acquire the values of responsibility and hard work (NCSF, 1998, p13). T ime to Act identified that there had been indifference to the needs unique to small farms, for the last several decades. The NCSF asserted that if the potential contribution of small farms was to be realised, the USDA must make concerted efforts to identify and nurture this potential. The Commission contended that small farms should be a focus of the USDA because they comprise over 90 percent of all farms and on average earn a negative return on equity: It is these farms that are most in need of public attention to create greater economic opportunities for their long-term viability (NCSF, 1998, p51). 11 http://www.usda.gov/oce/smallfarm/committee.htm 4 In t r oduct ion 1 .3 .2 D es cr ibin g S mal l F ar ms C h ar ac t er is t ic s o f s mal l f ar ms in t h e U S A Small farms in the USA are described as those with: Annual gross receipts under US$250,000, on which day-to-day management and labour are provided by the farmer and/ or the farm family who owns the production or owns, or leases, the productive assets. There are two components to the description, one is economic and the second is that the owner/operator must be the primary decision maker. Denis E bodaghe, Small Farms National Program Leader, Cooperative State Research E ducation and E xtension Service (CSRE E S), an agency of the USDA, stresses that the Americans have a description rather than a hard and fast rule, or definition, of small farms. Under the above description, small farms make up 91 percent of all USA farms (Hoppe, 2001). Sub categories of small farms have been determined by the Economic Research Service (E RS), an agency of the USDA. These are based primarily on occupation of the operator and sales class of the farm. The sub categories reflect operators’ expectations from farming, position in the life cycle, and dependence on agriculture; they are identified in the Box on the next page. Small farms accounted for only 33 percent of the value of total agricultural production in the USA in 1998, but they produced larger shares of particular commodities: 62 percent for hay, 54 percent for tobacco, 49 percent for soybeans, 47 percent for wheat, 47 percent for corn, and 40 percent for beef (Hoppe, 2001). Because of their sheer numbers they also accounted for a large share of assets owned by farms (69 percent) including land (68 percent). As custodians and managers of the bulk of farm assets, small farms play a major role in natural resource and environmental management (Hoppe, 2001). 5 In t r oduct ion D es cr ibin g S mal l F ar ms U S A E c o n o mic R es ear c h S er vic e F ar m D ef in it io n s Small Family Farms (sales less than US$250,000) • Limited-resource farms. Small farms with sales less than US$100,000, farm assets less than US$150,000, and total operator household income less than US$20,000. Operators may report any major occupation, except hired manager. • Retirement farms. Small farms whose operators report they are retired.* • Residential/ lifestyle farms. Small farms whose operators report a major occupation other than farming.* • Farming-occupation farms. Small farms whose operators report farming as their major occupation.* • Low-sales farms. Sales less than US$100,000. • High-sales farms. Sales between US$100,000 and US$249,999. Other Farms • Large family farms. Sales between US$250,000 and US$499,999. • Very large family farms. Sales of US$500,000 or more. • Non-family farms. Farms organised as non-family corporations or cooperatives, as well as farms operated by hired managers. _________________________ *E xcludes limited-resource farms whose operators report this occupation. Source: Structural and Financial Characteristics of US Farms: 2001 Family Farm Report. E ditor: R. Hoppe. 6 In t r oduct ion 1 .4 How Vic t o r ia? A N ew S mal l F ar ms P r ogr am migh t s mal l f ar ms be t ar get ed in As Victoria begins to focus deliberately on small farms it is useful to learn not only how organisations in the USA address small farm issues and assist small farmers, but how they establish specific small farm programs. This section provides ideas from some small farm leaders in the USA. Karen Armstrong-Cummings, a member of the USDA Small Farms Advisory Committee, said that the USDA initially discussed the values (economic, social, environmental) of small farms and decided government had a role in sustaining them rather than letting economics take its course and have them die out. She recommended that as a small farms initiative is developed, it is critical to determine the real objective of the program. Karen also suggests that it is of utmost importance to consult with farmers about what a small farm program should involve (bearing in mind there will be a lot of complaints as well as positive feedback). Mike Duffy, Leopold Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa (Section 5.4.2), believes it is necessary to make an active decision about which part of the farm population will be targeted by any new program. He says although it is not possible to meet everyone’s requirements, it is important not to alienate people by excluding them. He suggests the sector most requiring attention is the medium sized farms (with gross sales of between US$20,000 and US$500,000), as they are declining either by being amalgamated into large farms or divided into small hobby or retirement farms. When the Leopold Centre was established, core values were determined; specifying what the Centre wanted to achieve and how it would do so. One decision taken, was that the Centre would not be involved in policy, however, a recent suggestion has been that it could analyse policies but not necessarily advocate any. Mike suggests Victorian institutions initially consider what a small farms program could realistically encompass. For instance he asks will the program be involved in research, demonstrations, policy analysis, farmer unionising, exit programs (for farmers who are in such financial trouble that they will never make their farm viable), farm financial planning or other topics? Mike also says it is important to determine the definition of a family farm at the very beginning of any new program, as it can become quite an issue further down the track. For example he says that in the USA there have been difficulties classifying multiple family farms, where a number of children and their spouses all work partly for their parents’ farm as well as running their own farm businesses. This can result in classifications of one large and three small farms and it is important to determine if only three, or all four, farm businesses are eligible to participate in small farm programs. If the family farm is the primary focus then Mike suggests definitions should be based on who carries out the labour. The large sales figure (up to US$250,000) makes the description of small farms in the USA broadly encompassing. Concern about the high cut-off was raised in numerous places throughout the country, and from many people, farmers through to policy makers. Neil Hamilton, USDA Small Farms Advisory Committee, suggests Australia and/or Victoria should spend time developing an appropriate description of small farms. He 7 In t r oduct ion A N ew S mal l F ar ms P r ogr am believes that the description in the USA is too encompassing, so that most farms fall into the small farm category, and then most agricultural policy can be considered to be small farm policy. 8 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g Oppor t un it ies 2 . S mal l F ar m B us in es s D evel o pmen t an d Mar ket in g The growth and efficient management of resource based industries, such as agriculture, underpins the economy generally and the vitality of rural and regional communities in particular (NRE Agriculture Business Plan 2002-2003). The Victorian state government aims to work with the food and agriculture sector to increase the productivity of natural resources used, by increasing the value generated per unit of natural resource input. Increasing value will be achieved through expanding markets for produce, increasing produce value and reducing costs (NRE Agriculture Business Plan 2002-2003). The need to expand markets and increase the value of agricultural products is also recognised in the USA, particularly for small farmers. The National Commission on Small Farms (NCSF) recommended in 1998 that the USDA focus on rural development activities, which contribute to the generation of greater economic opportunities from small farms. Small farms have unique opportunities and challenges, in regards to increasing the value generated per unit of natural resource input, which are different to those of large farms. In the USA it is recognised that small farmers can develop a competitive edge through creative financing, specialty production and niche marketing (NCSF, 1998). The Iowa Food Policy Council (2001) stated that niche, high-value food and agricultural markets can give Iowa producers and processors a competitive edge over traditional commodity agriculture. The HAWCAE P (2001) and NCSF (1998) studies have suggested a need to explore new marketing avenues for small farms, such as direct farm-to-consumer markets,12 local value-added processing and farmer-owned co-operatives. Susan Harkins originally established markets with local restaurants for organic vegetable and herbs. These customers now purchase from her new enterprises – fish and shrimp, which she produces on her 20 hectare farm. 12 Small and mid-sized farmers are increasingly using direct marketing strategies to earn a greater share of the consumer dollar to boost economic returns from agriculture. Direct marketing consists of sales of agricultural products from farmers, or groups of farmers, directly to end consumers. These arrangements shorten the supply chain and allow farmers to increase their share of the food dollar. Direct marketing enterprises include farmers’ markets, roadside farm stands, community supported agriculture (CSA), pick-your-own farms and agritourism. Further detail is provided in Chapter 3. 9 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g 2 .1 T r ain in g an d As s is t an ce T h e n eed f o r t r ain in g an d as s is t an c e Both the HAWCAE P and NCSF reports recommended that agricultural extension programs should emphasise market development education and technical assistance to small farmers in addition to production assistance. It was acknowledged in the HAWCAE P (2001) report that new start-up co-operatives and farmers engaged in other agricultural value-added marketing efforts need professional assistance. “Small farmers may have ingenuity, but lack other critical business skills.” Successful new operations need access to sound financial, legal, and marketing support, in order to provide business planning and development, financial management, product development, and market research, analysis and execution (HAWCAE P, 2001). Seed money is needed for feasibility analyses to identify areas offering the greatest potential for the least risk. Capacity is also needed to conduct research and development to bring new products to market (HAWCAE P, 2001). Staff from Community Alliance with Family Farmers (a non-profit organisation) and the USDA discuss with a farmer the possibility of a regional environmental labelling scheme which could be applied to his strawberries and flowers. The HAWCAE P and NCSF investigations revealed that a more comprehensive approach is required from government to support alternative business development and marketing systems. A variety of small programs involve research, demonstration, and implementation of alternative marketing systems and locally owned, value-added enterprises. However it is noted that there has not been a strategic plan, strong coordination, or significant funding for these concerns: T here is no single, existing program that focuses on alternative marketing research and outreach, despite the needs of many farmers for enhanced local and domestic marketing options and for increasing the share of the food dollar retained on the farm (HAWCAEP, 2001, p26). It was suggested in both small farm studies (NCSF and HAWCAE P) that market development efforts undertaken in the Sustainable Agriculture Research and E ducation program (SARE – Section 5.1.5) could be used as a model. Also, the SARE Professional Development Program (Section 4.3.8) was noted as a process through which extension officers could gain new training in small farm business development and operation. 10 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g 2 .1 .1 T r ain in g an d As s is t an ce E n t r epr en eu r ial t r ain in g The NCSF suggested that extension efforts could assist small farmers by developing entrepreneurial training and development in natural resource based industries. This could focus on learning from established farmers and small business entrepreneurs, with extension officers participating as co-learners. E xtension officers could be most helpful by serving as facilitators and resource providers. This training should include the development of community based entrepreneurial networks to provide continuous training, mentoring and support for new business start-ups within a community (NCSF, 1998). 2 .1 .2 Gen er ic s mal l bu s in es s t r ain in g It has also been recommended that the USDA establish a pilot program to integrate Small Business Administration (SBA) programs with USDA programs (HAWCAE P, 2001). SBA is a federal government program which provides training, counselling and other forms of management and technical assistance to current and prospective small business owners. 2 .1 .3 F ar mer in vo l vemen t The HAWCAE P study made some strong recommendations in regard to particular USDA programs and the need for small farmer involvement in the management of the projects. For example, including small farmers, community and non-profit organisations in strategic planning processes. Also the establishment of ‘state small farm business councils’ to assess current small farm needs and then develop strategies for addressing those needs. 2 .1 .4 Gr an t pr o gr ams Another recommendation to USA federal government was the establishment of an Agricultural Community Revitalisation and E nterprise Program: A grant program to stimulate and expand economic opportunity and revitalise the economies of agricultural communities through self employment, high-value agriculture, new markets, valueretaining enterprises, local and regional food identity (branding) and production geared to consumer preferences for social and environmental benefits (HAWCAE P, 2001). 2 .1 .5 D o mes t ic f o c u s n eeded as w el l as expo r t Numerous small farmers in the USA are frustrated that extension services are unable to provide assistance on business and marketing alternatives for small farmers. However many of these opportunities are based on domestic markets. Part of the problem is that a strong policy bias has existed toward mass marketing of industrially produced, 11 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g Mar k et in g S t r at egies generic agricultural products, over local, regional, identity-preserved13 or specialty products. There is also a bias toward public funding for developing export markets over domestic ones (HAWCAE P, 2001). The same is true in Victoria. Although opportunities for increasing the value of food products exist locally, current DPI programs that provide marketing information and assistance for farmers, are specifically targeted to developing export markets. 2 .2 Mar ket in g s t r at egies us ed by s mal l f ar mer s in t he U S A Agricultural production in the United States can be divided into two types of operations. One segment of the agricultural sector is made up of a relatively small number of large, highly specialised farms that produce the majority of the nation’s agricultural output. These operations typically need considerable amounts of capital, hired labour, purchased inputs and often are part of a marketing system based upon contracts (HAWCAE P, 2001). Almost one third of the total value of production on farms in the USA is generated under contractual arrangements, mostly under marketing contracts (NCSF, 1998). The other segment of the agricultural sector, representing the vast majority of American farms, consists of small and mid-sized operations that often use farmproduced inputs, are more diversified, and rely less on hired labour. These farms individually produce small quantities of foods such that mainstream marketing channels are increasingly unable or unwilling to deal with them (HAWCAE P, 2001). Most of these farms fall under the USDA’s small farms description (Section 1.2). It has been suggested that: T he interactive effects of a concentrated processing sector and the gradual replacement of open markets with integrated ownership and contract production does not bode well for small farm agriculture (Submission to the NCSF, 1998, p55). There is a need for small farmers to be market focussed, not production oriented: T he kind of marketing that makes a small-scale farming operation profitable today is niche marketing: finding out what customers need or want and providing it (Humphrey and Mussen, 1995, p35). S Specialty potatoes on sale at farmers’ market in an urban centre. A traceback system is in place so that any product can be traced back through the production line to its roots. 13 12 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g Mar k et in g S t r at egies Small farmers are able to market towards the segment of the consumer market that is attracted to products that represent certain environmental and social values, which are not as easily identifiable in the industrialised food stream. Some small farmers pursue marketing strategies that promote their ‘smallness.’ In natural food stores an increasing number of products contain labels identifying the farm family, the location of the farm and the stewardship efforts taken to grow or raise the product (NCSF, 1998). Small farmers in the USA are aware of the increasing need to concentrate on market development, as evidenced by some of the key issues to arise during the North Central Region Small Farm Workshop in 2001. Some of the most popular topics raised by the participants were consumer education, linking producers and consumers and educating producers about what consumers want. As a result of the workshop regional opportunities were identified, including; developing entrepreneurial skills, business planning, training and assistance, from beginner to advanced levels; and developing a regional "one stop” source of information on marketing. 2 .2 .1 D evel o pin g mar ket l in kages w it h big bu s in es s In the USA, government has sometimes facilitated the development of market linkages for small farmers. The Rural Business Cooperative Service, an agency of USDA, implemented a memorandum of understanding between USDA and Burger King (fast food chain store) to expand opportunities for a small farmer organisation to provide tomatoes to local Burger King restaurants. The Service also worked with small farmers to establish a supply agreement with a local Wal-Mart Super Centre (a very large chain store supermarket). 2 .2 .2 T h e E - mar ket pl ac e The internet is providing a new avenue for marketing for some small farmers. One opportunity for internet marketing of food is available at http://www.communityfood.com/ (see Box below). Jay Ruski, California, sells cherimoya (a fruit related to custard apples) using the internet. E-sales have been successful to the extent that he no longer sells at farmers’ markets. One customer he has gained is a nearby wholesaler, who now comes to his farm to pick up the produce. However, for distant customers it is necessary to have an effective system in place to supply and deliver the product in top condition. Appendix B contains an article from the Cooperative State Research, E ducation and E xtension Service (CSRE E S), providing more details on internet marketing. 13 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g Mar k et in g S t r at egies C o mmu n it yF o o d.c o m CommunityFood.com was developed by the Community Alliances of Interdependent AgriCulture, in partnership with the non-profit organisation, Food Routes Network, to provide an affordable, practical presence for products created by ‘community-friendly’ food businesses and family-farm operations. CommunityFood.com and Foodroutes.org aim to support and promote communitybased, local food systems that are ecologically sound, economically viable and socially just through affordable and targeted information, marketing, finance and technical assistance. The mission of the two websites is to serve the information, networking, marketing and purchasing needs of sustainable-food-and-farming activists, community-food enterprises, farm-and-ranch cooperatives and associations, and the food-concerned public. A webbased resource centre has been developed along with on-line resource directories and a ‘marketplace.’ The marketplace is designed to help agricultural and rural-based businesses expand market share through an on-line trading community using the CommunityFood storefront, classifieds, and auction markets. Source: http://www.communityfood.com 2 .2 .3 Gr o u p mar ket in g Because of the difficulties associated with individuals establishing new niche market opportunities, smaller-scale producers in the USA are developing innovative and cooperative market development and access strategies (HAWCAEP, 2001). The NCSF witnessed numerous examples of successful co-operative businesses throughout the country whilst conducting their small farm review in 1997 (NCSF, 1998). A growing interest among farmers to engage in cooperation was identified — whether through alliances, networks, or formally structured co-operative business organisations. A group of farmers gathers in Iowa. However, co-operative development has its share of problems and criticisms. The HAWCAE P study suggested that information and assistance in co-operative development are needed in a variety of areas, including greater support and knowledge of the business and marketing skills necessary for a successful co-operative. The report also 14 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g L an d Z on in g recommended that research be conducted on promoting the entry of small and new farmers into co-operative businesses. The USDA provides some financial and technical assistance for the development of co-operatives, and the NCSF suggests the priority for this assistance should be towards projects that will primarily benefit small farm operators. 2 .3 L an d z o n in g It is important to recognise that business development can lead to new dilemmas for farmers. Neil Hamilton, an agricultural lawyer in the USA, reports that the very nature of ‘agricultural activity’ is changing as many farmers, especially those located near to cities, consider adding farm-based agritourism ventures (eg corn field mazes, petting zoos) to expand their economic opportunities (Hamilton, 1999). Two interesting questions being raised in Kentucky are; where is the line between value-adding on farm, and industry; and when do the rules of industry start affecting farmers? A farmer in Kentucky produces and processes beef jerky and there is concern that he may soon be classed as industry, not agriculture. If that is the case, he will be told to relocate (to more expensive land) in an industrial estate, which could put him out of business. Susan Harkins, a nearby small farmer, suggests that the size of hatcheries and piggeries and the effect they have on neighbours makes intensive agriculture more like industry, rather than this farmer’s beef jerky enterprise. Hamilton (1999) suggests that traditional land use tools such as zoning and subdivision planning will need to be re-examined. He acknowledges that tension could be caused between zoning for agricultural and commercial purposes and that this could adversely impact on the operation of direct farm marketing ventures such as roadside stalls. 2 .4 L o c al f o o d s ys t ems The local or regional food economy is an alternative marketing channel, based on face to face relationships, where small farmers play a central role by producing community food and fibre needs (NCSF, 1998). The Iowa Food Policy Council has reported to Iowa state government that: With hard work, cooperation, and innovation, the state can build a food system which offers all Iowans an abundant, nutritious, and high quality diet, based on Iowa grown food, and at the same time create economic opportunities for Iowa’s farmers, communities, and businesses (IFPC, 2001). A segment of consumers in the USA are so committed to the local food systems ideal, that they will not buy produce that has been imported from other states or countries. The NCSF (1998) suggested that the USDA should develop an inter-agency initiative to promote and foster local and regional food systems for the benefit of small farms, rural 15 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g L ocal F ood S ys t ems community citizens, and low income people14 in rural and urban areas. This could also include development of regional identities for local foods or eco-labels to describe stewardship practices. It was also recommended that the USDA conduct a feasibility study investigating local purchasing of fresh farm and food products for federal agency cafeterias including visitor’s centres in national parks. 2 .4 .1 In it iat ives f o r s mal l f ar mer s Local food systems initiatives that are benefiting small farmers include: • E ncouraging schools and other large institutions to provide locally produced food in cafeterias; • E ncouraging restaurants to provide locally produced meals, where every ingredient is grown or raised within the region; and • Direct marketing strategies such as farmers’ markets, pick-your own operations, community supported agriculture (CSA), and roadside stands (see Chapter 3 for further information). 2 .4 .2 E du c at io n an d pr o mo t io n t o c o n s u mer s Consumer education is often listed as a high priority of farmers involved in direct marketing and local food systems. The Cooperative E xtension Service takes a role in promoting the values provided by agriculture so that people understand “agriculture is not just for producers, it is for everyone” (CE S, 1994). Karen Armstrong-Cummings, USDA Small Farms Advisory Committee, suggests food education needs to include where food comes from and how to eat healthily. It is important to recognise that the marketing of local foods as described here is an initiative within a local area in the USA. It is not to be confused with regional branding, which is used to gain recognition for produce in other areas of the country, where it will compete against local foods from those regions. Also, producers are generally not targeting All food sold at this store is displayed with information on agricultural practices used (conventional or organic) and where the produce was grown. Often direct marketing in the USA does not increase the price for consumers, and in fact may lower the price of products. The farmer is increasing profitability through shortening the supply chain, not through charging a price premium. 14 16 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g L ocal F ood S ys t ems mainstream consumers, rather they aim to sell to people who are interested in the philosophy of local food systems and seek out the alternative marketing channels. Community organisations, which support small farmers, often play significant roles in promotion of local food systems (for example, Practical Farmers of Iowa, Appendix E ). 2 .4 .3 Ch al l en ges t o s el l in g pr o duce in l o cal f o o d s ys t ems A significant barrier to increasing direct marketing and value-added agricultural activities is the ability of small-scale farmers and food processors to comply with food safety, labour and environmental regulations at the federal, state, and local levels. The HAWCAE P (2001) study suggested that efforts to ensure a safer food supply should not regulate the small-scale producer or the direct marketer out of existence. Similar concerns were raised at the North Central Region Small Farms Workshop held in Illinois March 2001. However for the public benefit, it is critical not to compromise food safety. A number of E xtension Services provide information on food safety for direct marketers. An example is provided in Appendix C. Growers involved in niche marketing have repeatedly identified that developing a customer base requires much time and effort. A particular problem in parts of the USA is that there are few independent restaurant owners to work with; due to the dominance of chain restaurants. In California, Carol Shennan, Director of the Centre for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, suggested that there are so many people growing organic foods that there can be competition between growers. As such finding local larger markets such as schools and hospitals may help relieve competition at the farmers’ market level. 2 .4 .4 A s t at e-w ide appr o ac h In order to provide the foundation for a more comprehensive food system vision for Iowa, the Iowa Food Policy Council made policy recommendations to the governor (equivalent to a state premier in Australia) in 200115. Two examples relating to local food systems are documented below: Develop an aggressive market ing plan t o raise awareness of t he economic and social benefit s of buying Iowa-grown foods. T his plan could include support from the Governor’s office, educating our children, a tangible campaign for consumers, recognition of the achievements of local food producers and processors, additional support and guidelines for farmers’ markets and an Iowa food directory and database. Recommendations include: • Use of Iowa-grown foods whenever the Governor is speaking at various events and functions that include meals; • Investigate the potential of more Iowa-grown foods being served at the Iowa Capitol; 15 http://www.iowafoodpolicy.org/home.htm 17 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g L ocal F ood S ys t ems • Declare an “Iowa-grown Food” week or day in the public schools;· • Colleges and universities have an Iowa food day every spring and fall on their campuses; • Include Iowa grown food as part of the educational curriculum; • Provide information to communities concerning the nutritional value of food, particularly outlining the benefits of buying locally grown, fresh harvested, vine-ripened produce; this could be through a partnership of Iowa State University Extension, State government, Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI), and Iowa N etwork for Community Agriculture (IN CA); • Launch a “$10 a week” campaign to encourage consumers to commit $10 of their family’s weekly grocery purchases to Iowa-grown foods; • Create an Iowa Food Award recognising the contributions of a group or individual to the betterment of Iowa’s food system; • T he Department of Agriculture and L and Stewardship could provide support and guidelines for farmers’ markets, which would help strengthen farmers’ markets and integrate other Iowa food products into the markets; and • Create an Iowa food directory and database for use by consumers and processors. T he Governor should set in mot ion a st at e init iat ive t o increase inst it ut ional purchases of Iowa-produced food product s. The justification for this recommendation is: A very small percentage of fruit and vegetable production in Iowa is marketed to or through institutional markets. A significant barrier to such marketing is the lack of market linkages. However recent projects have shown that if institutional buyers request locally grown foods, intermediate distributors and others in the traditional marketing chain will be motivated to develop marketing linkages with Iowa producers and build the marketing infrastructure that can become the basis of expanded market activity. T he tax payer-supported institutions of Iowa can be a great catalyst for spurring economic development of marketing mechanisms and infrastructure. Serving Iowa grown produce through public agency food services will provide Iowa public employees high-quality, fresh food and will increase public agency awareness and support for Iowa’s emerging local food system (IFPC, 2001). 18 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g 2 .5 In n ovat ive P r ogr ams In n o vat ive pr o gr ams in t h e U S A There are numerous strategies through which agencies and community groups have assisted small farm business development and marketing in the USA. A few such examples are listed below, which may also be relevant to Victoria. • The North Central Region Small Farm Workshop, 2001, promoted local small farm foods on the opening night, with farmers providing the produce and promotional brochures, and local chefs preparing the food at the conference centre. Participants were able to sample different foods and read the accompanying information whilst listening to welcoming speeches. • The Food and Nutrition Service of the USDA initiated a Small Farms/School Meals Program, in 1997, which now includes the publication of a step-by-step guide to bring small farms and local schools together and a series of workshops on developing partnerships that promote the creation of farm-to-school initiatives. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/SmallFarms/small.pdf • Nebraska E DGE (E nhancing, Developing and Growing E ntrepreneurs) is an umbrella organisation for rural entrepreneurial training programs. In 2000, in partnership with NxLeveL Training Network (private company) and Sustainable Agriculture Research and E ducation program (SARE ) the 10-session course " T illing the Soil of Opportunity: A Guide for Agricultural Entrepreneurs" was developed. Over 20 states are using the curriculum to help agricultural producers explore their own innovative ideas. It is designed for participants to identify marketing opportunities and different distribution channels, and to analyse costs of production. E DGE works in partnership with numerous organisations to deliver the training, and each region adapts the course to meet local needs. Fees vary in each location and all courses are kept small (25 participants maximum) to facilitate networking and learning. http://nebraskaedge.unl.edu/national.htm • The Centre for Rural E ntrepreneurship is an initiative of a national policy institute (http://www.rupri.org) and a private foundation (http://www.emkf.org). The primary goal of the Centre is to be the focal point for efforts to stimulate and support private and public entrepreneurship development in communities throughout rural America. E xtension activities include technical assistance; a web site for sharing rural entrepreneurship work, research and policy information (http://www.ruraleship.org); an electronic newsletter; and seminars on rural entrepreneurship topics. The Centre also offers a “policy academy” process to help localities and states build entrepreneurial friendly polices and programs. Further information is available in Appendix D and a related report, Rural Entrepreneurship Initiative, is available from the author for loan. • The Lighthouse Farm Network is an initiative of Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF), a non-profit organisation (more detail is available in Appendix E ). The Network aims to build a community of farmers and other agricultural professionals who readily share information about farming systems that are profitable yet rely less on chemicals. Every month, 1400 farmers and 19 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g In n ovat ive P r ogr ams other agricultural professionals meet at breakfast meetings, lunch meetings or field days to share technical information about biologically-based farming practices. Each month over 2,000 people receive Farmer to Farmer, the network’s newsletter. There are monthly meetings in fifteen regions around the state. There are three essential components which draw farmers to the Network: Technical Support 1. Organised forums for farmer-to-farmer information sharing. 2. Participation of university research and extension personnel with the Lighthouse Farm Network community. 3. Helping farmers develop long-term stewardship plans for their farms that include interaction between people, land and economics. Community Building 4. Building an inclusive (and fun) Lighthouse Farm community and social network. 5. Increasing access to and availability of products and services which benefit the Lighthouse Farm Network community. 6. Working with other CAFF programs to create linkages between farmers and agricultural professionals, organisations and institutions. 7. Focusing on policy in furthering the goals of the Lighthouse Farm Network. Public Outreach 8. Showcasing to a broad community successful and profitable farms that are part of the Lighthouse Farm Network. 9. Expanding the Network to all important agricultural regions in California. 20 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g 2 .6 Mes s ages f or Vict or ia W h at migh t Vic t o r ia l ear n ? Victorian institutions need to acknowledge that business and market development opportunities and challenges differ between small and large farms. An initiative to assist small farm businesses could encourage sustainable growth; support the development of capable, innovative communities; and help generate employment in rural areas. It was evident in the USA that farms could remain viable without increasing in size or intensifying by: • Decreasing the cost of inputs (for example, through improved farm management or cooperating with neighbours for bulk purchases); • Shortening the supply chain (such as through direct marketing or value-adding on farm, or within a co-operative business); and/or • Diversifying into new higher-value products or services (agritourism), However, in order for these opportunities to be realised farmers will need professional assistance, particularly in the areas of business development and marketing. Possible roles for Victorian institutions in assisting small farm business development are outlined below. If institutions do consider new small farm initiatives, the inclusion of small farmers on steering committees and grant approval boards will help build networks, as well as empower small farmers, as they can influence where research and extension dollars are directed. 2 .6 .1 F ac il it at in g f o r mat io n o f mar ket in g gr o u ps To increase volume and consistency of supply and minimise capital expenditure, it can be advantageous for small farmers to work together to grow and market their produce. In the USA co-operative businesses are common. Information on group marketing options will be a significant help to small farmers. The former Department of Natural Resources and E nvironment’s (now DPI) guide on group business structures and its funding of the Co-operative Federation of Victoria to produce a manual about establishing and maintaining co-operatives, were positive steps in assisting small farmers to investigate the possibilities of group marketing (CFV, 2001 and Cahill, 2001). These publications should be promoted to ensure awareness of the resources. It may also be beneficial to compile a list of training opportunities and other references on group marketing. 2 .6 .2 R ec o gn is in g t h e r o l e o f c o mmu n it y o r gan is at io n s Non-profit organisations in the USA play a key role in assisting small farm businesses, through networking, promotion, demonstration and training. Such groups are also important in forming social capital. Social capital has been described as the raw material that holds communities together through participation of members in community networks, reciprocity, trust, social norms and proactivity (Alston, 2002). Social capital is a key ingredient for a thriving rural community, according to Alston. Government support of non-profit groups which promote and assist small farmers will not only help to provide benefits to small farm businesses but will generate social capital through the organisations themselves. 21 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g Mes s ages f or Vict or ia Partnerships between government and nonprofit groups and other bodies (such as Shire Councils) may be beneficial to assist small farm business development. For example, through aiding the establishment of local food system ventures as demonstration models for other regions. Community groups are important sources of business information and training for many small farmers in the USA. 2 .6 .3 C o o r din at io n o f bus in es s devel o pmen t in f o r mat io n Another activity that Victorian institutions may wish to facilitate is the integration of relevant small business programs, training and literature into small farm business development initiatives. E ducational establishments would need to ensure that opportunities to participate are easily accessible. To some extent this role is undertaken by FarmBi$ but the value of a specific small farm business development initiative should be investigated. The issue of start-up capital is a significant barrier to many small farms. In the USA there appears to be more funding available through grant and loan programs to assist new business establishment (see case studies on Kentucky co-operatives, for example, Section 2.7) than in Australia. However, Victorian institutions could promote and provide information to small farmers on any grants that are available in a coordinated approach, linking also with federal agencies such as Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia. 2 .6 .4 E n c o u r agin g en t r epr en eu r s Many new small farmers come from non-agricultural backgrounds and bring an entrepreneurial element to their communities and industries. Often these farmers have skills in marketing or business and may have more money available to invest on the farm, than traditional farmers. In the USA it is recognised that it is valuable to assist entrepreneurs, through education and training, networks, grant programs and mentoring. A feasibility study of providing such services could be investigated as a joint initiative between Victorian institutions. 22 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g 2 .6 .5 Cas e S t udies L an d z o n in g is s ues The issues associated with land zoning and classification of value-adding processes (such as beef jerky or agritourism) can potentially be a barrier small farmers trying to further develop their businesses. Victorian institutions should start to address these issues as they emerge. A commonly identified issue for farmers, large or small, in Australia, is the lack of security in running their business, because of changing laws and regulations. DPI and the Victorian Farmer’s Federation have been involved in the production of ‘Living Together in Rural Victoria’ fact sheets to encourage community acceptance of agricultural practices. 2 .7 C as e S t udies - Co -o per at ives The University of Kentucky Cooperative E xtension Service works with several horticultural marketing co-operatives within the State. The Service assists small farmers by making agricultural equipment available for loan. E xperience shows that farmers tend to borrow the equipment in their first year and buy their own in the following year or two. Because most fruit and vegetable producers in Kentucky are relatively new, having diversified from tobacco or beef, the major role the E xtension Service plays is in providing production and harvesting information, and establishing variety trials. Below are three case studies of horticultural co-operatives in Kentucky. 2 .7 .1 Gr een R iver Mar ket in g C o -o per at ive The Green River Marketing Co-operative first received profits in 1998, however a group had previously worked in loose co-operation. E stablishment of the Co-operative was aided by grants from private business, Farm Bureau (somewhat akin to the National Farmer’s Federation in Australia), Commodity Growers Co-operative (a government funded organisation, Appendix E ), the Tobacco Alternative Fund (money obtained from law suits against tobacco companies, which has been earmarked to help tobacco farmers diversify) and the Kentucky Department of Agriculture provided half a million US dollars in grant money for equipment, administration and buildings over two years. In addition the county (local) government sold the building and land at half price to the Cooperative and University of Kentucky Cooperative E xtension provides some personnel time and equipment. Cabbage, cantaloupes and pumpkins are major products of the Co-operative, members have also grown peppers, squash and tomatoes. Cabbage is considered a transition crop, for farmers to leave tobacco and start horticultural production. Cabbage can be produced using tobacco equipment and is low input, but provides little profit and requires considerable handling in the Co-operative. The Co-operative is not competing with Florida or California, the two major horticulture producing states. Rather the staff consider themselves to be filling a niche, a window of opportunity when the climate is best in Kentucky. In 2001, 66 farmers were members of the Co-operative, compared to 12 in the first year of operation. The average area under 23 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g Cas e S t udies horticultural production for each farmer is one hectare. Members are generally located in south-central Kentucky. The membership fee is US$50. The contract between growers and the Co-operative specifies the amount and variety of vegetables that each farmer will produce. The Cooperative also tries to specify the time of planting. The business retains 15% of the profits as commission or a marketing fee, which is later redistributed to members or invested in equipment, as the business was set up as a non-profit marketing co-operative. The farmers buy packaging boxes, but hire the boxes used to transport produce from the farm to the Co-operative. Ten to twelve people are employed at the Co-operative throughout summer. The Cooperative uses a USDA grader for the produce, which suits the E xtension Service staff, because then it is an independent person rejecting or accepting each farmer’s produce. The Co-operative uses the label “Kentucky, Where Quality Grows,” developed by the state government. The Co-operative markets cantaloupes through a large marketing firm based in Florida. The buyer pays for and arranges the trucking. The marketing firm does not impose labelling restrictions, so the Co-operative intends to develop their own label to build loyalty now, and in future conduct their own marketing. One board member of the Co-operative has been involved in dairy, beef and tobacco production, and in the last ten years, cabbages. He also grows cantaloupe seedlings. Before the Co-operative was established he found his own horticultural markets and says he made more money this way. However he believes that a community needs to cooperate because there are a limited number of direct sales that can be made and with individual marketing not all farmers can be involved. 2 .7 .2 C u mber l an d F ar m P r o du c t s The Cumberland Co-operative was established with government funding and relied on this heavily for the first ten years. It has now been running for 30 years in southern Kentucky selling tomatoes, pumpkin, capsicum and cabbage. Over winter the facilities are used to store tobacco. The annual membership fee is US$5, which sometimes does not cover the cost expended in following up unpaid members. As such, the Co-operative may abolish the fee or charge a onceoff lifetime membership. 24 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g Cas e S t udies Farmers deliver produce to the Co-operative where it is sorted, washed and packaged. The Co-operative has a range of buyers including supermarkets, wholesalers and processing companies (eg a salad-making operation). The Co-operative takes a 14 percent commission and divides the rest of the profit between farmers on a per pound of produce supplied basis. Vegetable production is generally not the members’ main occupation, rather tobacco, beef or grains are traditionally grown or the farmer has off-farm income. As such, Cumberland Farm Products and the E xtension Service are heavily involved in providing production information to growers. Most farms have 2ha or less involved in vegetable production, the largest producer has about 5ha. The Co-operative sells fertiliser, insecticides and seedlings to farmers however there is a growing incidence of farmers buying inputs from elsewhere. The Co-operative reached a peak membership in 1987, with 618 growers, this has since declined and throughout 1996 – 2000 there were less than 200 members. In 2001 the Co-operative had 260 members. Acreages of tomatoes and cabbage have not changed significantly from 1987, suggesting remaining members have larger areas under production. The only specifications the Co-operative imposes on growers are the variety of vegetable and a ten day time frame, in which the planting must be carried out. Growers must also commit, through a marketing agreement, how much product they will grow. Although the organisation does not wish its members to sell produce to anyone else, not even for direct marketing Community Supported Agriculture operations, they know this occurs. Some members of the board of directors are involved in this practice so at this stage the Co-operative staff cannot act on the issue. 2 .7 .3 W es t K en t u c ky Gr o w er C o -o p The E xtension Service helped a group of growers to establish the West Kentucky Grower Co-op in 2000. It was financed by selling shares in the business. A government grant of US$605,000 from the Tobacco Alternative Fund has enabled the Co-operative to purchase new equipment and a federal grant of US$400,000 provided crates and office equipment. Membership fees are US$100 per year. A goal of the Co-operative is to keep small farmers on the land through enabling them to diversify their enterprises. The Cooperative leases a facility with coolers and warehouse, located near a major highway. In peak season the Co-operative has an average of nine trucks per day passing through and employs 80 people. In the first year of operation, the Co-operative grossed US$2.4million. The major product of the Co-op is sweet corn, and in 2001, 526ha were planted between 60 growers. Traditionally, sweet corn was grown on a small scale for roadside stalls. The Co-operative has an alliance with a Florida based Co-operative which sells sweet corn from southern states and now sells Kentucky corn later in the season. Contractors used by the Florida Co-operative travel to Kentucky to harvest the crop. This is useful because sourcing labour can be a problem for Kentucky growers. The E xtension Service facilitated the alliance with Florida and had previously organised experts to speak to local farmers to facilitate the establishment of a co-operative. 25 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g Cas e S t udies Besides corn, trials are being conducted with three varieties of squash and tomatoes. Four hectares of peppers were established in 2000 and 40ha planted the following year. A person with many buyer contacts in Florida is hired through summer to market the vegetables (except corn). The West Kentucky Grower Co-op will only accept certain varieties of vegetables and sells between June and August; a window of opportunity before production in other states can out-compete them. However, the Co-operative is considering growing pumpkins and autumn broccoli or brokering Mexican produce in the off-season. The aim would be to organise a farmer-farmer alliance rather than working through other brokers. The rationale behind this diversification idea is that buyers, like consumers, want variety not just peppers and corn. Daryl Fryman, General Manager, West Kentucky G rower Co-op, with squash seedlings, purchased in bulk to reduce the cost to members. The Co-operative specifies that all vegetables (except corn) must be grown on black plastic, this increases the size of the vegetables, makes them a darker colour and helps them mature earlier. This specification helps ensure uniformity of the crop. The Cooperative organises seedlings and purchases black plastic in bulk to reduce the cost to farmers. The Co-operative can also provide equipment for planting and harvesting. There is no requirement for all of a member’s produce to be marketed through the Cooperative, only the amount they commit to at the beginning of the season. The board of directors of the Co-operative consists of farmers. According to the E xtension Service, investors are both farmers and city people who wish to see agriculture continue in the State. Because the business is set-up to make a profit this reduces its eligibility for some government grants. However the organisation pays commission to a person to help them obtain grant funding and have received grants from the USDA for travel to find markets and to pay for a financial controller. The Co-operative also employs a manager and assistant manager, full time. A crop scout from an agribusiness company is paid to determine planting, spraying and harvesting schedules. The full time staff then relay this information from the crop scout to growers through visits and phone calls. Three private corn seed companies are conducting variety trials on land of members. The results will be provided to the Co-operative which will then run a field day with the E xtension Service’s help. The Co-operative uses the Kentucky logo in order to support the state initiative but feedback from the buyers is that a logo ‘Grown in Kentucky’ would be better than ‘Kentucky – Where Quality Grows.’ 26 B us in es s D evel opmen t & Mar k et in g Cas e S t udies An issue for the Co-operative is getting farmers to appreciate the need for high quality produce. Many farmers do not like to see food wasted and because they will eat food which is blemished they expect consumers to do the same. Farmers are very involved in and committed to the Co-operative and if necessary will stay to help pack at the end of the day after the hired labourers have finished their shifts. President of the Co-operative, Rick Kamuf, works on his family’s farm, which is over 2000ha in size. Approximately 80ha are used for vegetable production. This includes 28ha of potatoes, between 10 and 40ha of sweet corn, 4ha bell peppers, 12ha of cabbage and broccoli and 12ha of tomatoes. All except the tomatoes are sold through the Co-operative. Rick says he has reduced the amount of corn he is growing because his land needs a rest and it allows other farmers to be involved. The trend of the members is to branch out from just corn and try other vegetables, even if on just half an acre (0.2ha). Rick believes the golden rule is to find your niche and windows of opportunity, not to go out and plant ten thousand acres of a commodity. State logo for Kentucky grown produce. 27 D ir ect Mar k et in g 3. N ew Mar ket s f or S mal l F ar mer s D ir ect Mar ket in g In Australia, direct supply relationships between larger farmers and supermarket chains have been established as a result of improved communication technology (Barr, 2002). In the USA, small and mid-sized farmers are increasingly using direct marketing to sell agricultural products to end consumers. Through this shortening of the supply chain they are earning a greater share of the consumer dollar and boosting economic returns from agriculture. Direct marketing enterprises are described in this chapter and include farmers’ markets, roadside farm stands, community supported agriculture (CSA), pickyour-own farms and agritourism. Direct marketing is closely linked to local food systems (Section 2.4). 3 .1 C o n s u mer deman ds c r eat e n ew mar ket s Increasing consumer interest in less processed, safe, high-quality foods and in foods produced in ways that protect the environment and enhance the quality of life for producers has opened up new opportunities and potential markets for small farmers (HAWCAE P, 2001). Although this trend, and the product demand it has generated, is small in comparison to the demand for conventional food products, it has grown sufficiently in the last decade to merit attention from producers, policy makers and researchers (HAWCAE P, 2001). E stablishing a direct farmer-consumer relationship can provide a small farmer a competitive advantage and give consumers assurance that their purchases are returning value to the farmer, the environment and their community (NCSF, 1998). Although this assurance is only verbal, or sometimes backed up by inviting consumers out to see the farm for themselves, the personal relationship and trust often is sufficient for many direct market consumers in the USA. The National Commission on Small Farms (NCSF) suggests it is important for the USDA to assist in linking county and city governments and support their efforts to link urban consumers with farmers who are producing food with attention to stewardship of natural resources. In Australia such initiatives may need stronger credibility to provide assurance, such as an audited environmental management or quality assurance system. 3 .2 F ar mer s ’ mar ket s One of the most well known forms of direct marketing in the USA is farmers’ markets; where growers sell directly to consumers at regular (usually weekly) markets in urban settings. Over 100,000 growers are estimated to be involved in over 2600 farmers’ markets throughout the USA (Gradwell et al. 2001). Sales at farmers’ markets totalled US$1 billion in 1999, with most of the money going directly to small family farmers. Farmers’ markets are said to “repersonalise” food purchase and consumption as they enable interaction between producers and consumers (Gradwell et al. 2001). 28 D ir ect Mar k et in g 3 .2 .1 F ar mer s ’ Mar ket s O r gan is at io n o f f ar mer s ’ mar ket s Farmers’ markets usually operate at specific locations on certain dates. Many markets establish rules and limit stall space, often keeping a waiting list for stall vacancies. These markets can be organised by the Chamber of Commerce, a city association, a community organisation such as Rotary, farmers themselves and/or extension (usually extension staff help only in the initial stages). Farmers’ market in California. Barbara Lovitt is a farmers’ market specialist at the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. She says that market organisers who are voluntary tend to “burn out.” Barbara suggests that vendors pay a fee so that a market manager can be employed. Payment can also ensure the vendors feel they have a stake in the market, and encourage them to participate every week. Many markets charge a weekly fee for growers to participate, usually either an up-front payment or a percentage of gross sales. In Iowa, the manager of a farmers’ market determines the boundaries of where eligible produce can be grown. Barbara points out that if the area is too small and there is a hail storm that wipes out significant parts of the region’s crop, then that rule will hurt the market. Barbara advocates a variety of products should be available at a market, not just fruit and vegetables, but products such as baked goods and arts and crafts. Others suggest that dissociation from groceries has a negative impact and makes the market more like a fete or fair, reducing returns to food producers. 3 .2 .2 P r o mo t in g f ar mer s ’ mar ket s Advertising for farmers’ markets can be inexpensive but labour intensive – for example, asking local businesses to put notices in waiting rooms and staff rooms. Another method is to print flyers that non-food local businesses (eg pharmacists, hardware stores) can place in shopping bags. Newspaper articles are another method of advertising and Barbara Lovitt suggests these could include a list of the latest produce available at the market, a recipe and, if applicable, a list of upcoming guests. 29 D ir ect Mar k et in g 3 .2 .3 F ar mer s ’ Mar ket s S u ppo r t f o r f ar mer s ’ mar ket s New York, Massachusetts, Washington and New Mexico all have farmers’ market associations, but not necessarily with any state government input or state coordinator as in Iowa. Some south-east states have markets as well, North Carolina has five and the state government provides a link to them from their marketing web page http://www.agr.state.nc.us/markets/facilit/farmark/index.htm. A non-profit farmers’ market association has recently been established in Iowa, and for many years the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship has provided assistance to all markets. The Department has developed a manual and other items (for example, promotional stickers and copies of rules that existing markets have developed) for people who are interested in establishing a market. California has a number of markets, promoted through the Californian Small Farm Centre (Section 4.3.2). Promotional sticker for Iowa produce. Farmers’ markets can be a useful tool for small farmers and communities and traditionally Cooperative E xtension have had little to do with them. As such, it has been suggested that Cooperative E xtension staff should be trained in direct marketing techniques and promotion of farmers’ markets. It is recommended that the trained extension personnel should then work with farmers and others to support events that feature locally produced agricultural products (HAWCAE P, 2001). An extension of farmers’ markets is urban and suburban agricultural fairs. Fairs can feature produce from local farmers, and foods prepared by local restaurants from locally grown products. The HAWCAE P study (2001) recommended that the USDA should fund and provide technical assistance for such fairs. 3 .2 .4 Io w a’s f ar mer s ’ mar ket s Iowa farmer's markets generally only contain Iowa grown produce, however there is no regulation from Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. There are over 125 markets in Iowa, all of which are organised differently. For example, in Iowa’s capital city, Des Moines, one market operates 4-8pm Thursdays and local stores stay open late, there is live music and beer for sale. Private businesses and the Chamber of Commerce donate funds (to hire security, pay a manger and cover overhead costs) and Parks and Recreation provide tables and chairs. The local radio station sets up a stall and provides the equivalent of US$30,000 worth of advertising. A market in another town has a different guest each week. For example, flower growers (instead of just fruit and vegetables); the Chamber of Commerce (promoting any upcoming festivals); the Aquatic Centre (promoting their opening and giving away passes); the historical centre (selling books); and cubs (selling lollies and homemade goods). There are eleven farmers markets per week in Des Moines. The population of Greater Des Moines (includes outlying suburbs) is 250, 000. The Saturday market is the biggest and is very cosmopolitan – with a large range of produce. Barbara Lovitt says it is important to encourage Asians/Hispanics, or any local community of another culture, to grow for the market, because then the farmers’ market will attract customers from different demographic sectors. 30 D ir ect Mar k et in g 3 .2 .5 F ar mer s ’ Mar ket s C al if o r n ia’s f ar mer s ’ mar ket s Farmers’ markets in California need to be certified and locations and producers are approved by County Agricultural Commissioners. Producers need to be actively working the land that they own, rent, lease or sharecrop. Also the produce must have been grown within California. The number of growers at a market ranges from 5 to 100. Most products (fresh fruit, vegetables, nuts, eggs, honey, flowers and nursery stock) do not have to be in standardised packs of certain sizes or with labels. Jams and meats may be sold but these products need to comply with other standards (Humphrey and Mussen, 1995). California’s farmers’ markets have strict rules regarding their operation and many people in the USA suggest that this is partially due to a number of large fruit and vegetable growers and companies influencing government policy to increase regulations, which reduces the number of farmers’ markets and therefore diminishes competition. Californian markets require a lot of paperwork because of the high number of regulations and therefore often paid managers run more than one market (in states requiring less paperwork volunteers are more likely to be willing to manage markets). 3 .2 .6 D iver s it y o f pr o du c t s Mark Gaskell, a small farm Cooperative Extension officer, noted that many of California’s farmers’ markets are saturated now and it is difficult for new growers to be involved unless they have a very different product. Market managers have the final say in the number and type of stalls allowed at the market. Generally a manager will limit the number of stalls selling the same product, to ensure variety for consumers, and reduce competition between growers. The Santa Barbara market is on the coast, so fish is sold there as well as farm products. Because of the need for varied products Mark believes that products such as coffee, not traditionally grown in California, may have a niche role. Market managers would be likely to allow a new stall at a market if a new product was available for consumers. 3 .2 .7 C u s t o mer l o yal t y Jennifer Lenet has been growing berries, chestnuts and avocados for four years on the central coast of California. In peak season she receives six times the supermarket price for blueberries at most of the eight farmers’ markets she attends. At the beginning of the season her price is comparable to the supermarket price, but the stores reduce their price as more berries become available in the peak production period. Jennifer says she receives the premium price because her customers are loyal, they prefer the taste of her berries than what is available in supermarkets, and because her produce is organic. Jennifer tries to look Jennifer Lenet with Mark Gaskell, small farm advisor, inspecting raspberries. 31 D ir ect Mar k et in g F ar mer s ’ Mar ket s after her customers and provide them with products they want, for instance, she provides a mixed berry pack consisting of raspberries, blueberries and blackberries. There are potentially twelve markets, which Jennifer could participate in, but the time required to attend all markets in the region would not provide enough return to justify the lost time on farm. 3 .2 .8 Added ben ef it s o f f ar mer s ’ mar ket s Farmers’ markets have become known for providing other services or benefits to consumers beyond fresh and novel products. For instance, farmers’ markets are often part of agritourism programs. In addition, many markets provide a festive atmosphere with live music and other entertainment, so food shopping is couched within a larger social event (Abel et al., 1999, cited in HAWCAEP, 2001). One of Iowa's farmers’ markets is open one day per week between 4 - 5:30pm, to allow people to come after work. Located in the court house square, in the middle of town it is a major social event for the community (population 2380). Other benefits conferred by direct marketing initiatives are discussed in Section 3.3. 3 .2 .9 W IC f ar mer s ’ mar ket s n u t r it io n pr o gr am WIC (Women, Infant and Children) is a federal government program where nutritionally at risk women, infants and children are given food vouchers that they can redeem in supermarkets. In the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program farmers’ markets coupons are issued and these cannot be used in supermarkets or vice versa. Markets in Iowa are involved in the program and two people at Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship administer it. The staff on the Iowa Farmers’ Markets Nutrition Program need to certify individual producers and whole markets. Sometimes they may need to verify where produce was grown (if there have been allegations from other vendors), because for the WIC program all produce must be Iowa-grown. Not all farmers’ markets are in the WIC program, or even all vendors within one market. Markets have to meet certain criteria - they have to be open a certain number of hours and have at least five Iowa grown fruit and vegetables for sale. Generally markets become WIC certified, so they attract more consumers from different demographic sectors. Vendors receive a sign to display if they are part of the WIC program (and there are regulations governing how to display that sign). 32 D ir ect Mar k et in g 3 .3 Ch al l en ges an d Oppor t un it ies B en ef it s o f dir ec t mar ket in g Direct marketing has been acknowledged as serving a community – building function, through interaction between local farmers and non-farmers in a community. Direct marketing relationships, by their very nature, encourage the creation of social capital – a type of social resource associated with trust and networks, useful for purposes beyond the direct marketing business (Sharp et al. 2002). For example, building a coalition of support for agriculture in a rural-urban setting, or networking between farmers to improve their businesses. Direct markets are often specialty markets appropriate for small farmers who have the capacity to move smaller amounts of product or wish to experiment with novel crops and products and gain customer feedback (NCSF, 1998; HAWCAE P, 2001). Direct marketing is of particular importance to small farmers when their produce is too specialised, too perishable or the volume too small to sell through conventional channels. Use of direct marketing opportunities can allow farmers to experiment with diversifying into new products. This is beneficial because an analysis of the profitability of small farms in the USA indicates that diversification is a significant factor explaining differences in the level and variability of income between higher and lower performing small farms (Hoppe, 2001). A roadside store is a good option for farmers on major roads near urban centres. 3 .4 C h al l en ges o f dir ec t mar ket in g Although many benefits are generated from direct marketing, producers in the USA acknowledge challenges, particularly the large amount of time and effort it takes to develop customers for direct markets. According to one farmer in the USA, “the easiest part is to make a product that tastes good, the hardest part is distribution and sales” (Humphrey and Mussen, 1995, p6). Karen Armstrong-Cummings, a member of the USDA Small Farms Advisory Committee, says that farmers cannot rely on direct marketing to make a living, at least not if they only have one product. Similarly, Dan Morrical, an extension officer in Iowa, said direct marketing is a tremendous challenge, it’s not easy and it takes a lot of time. 33 D ir ect Mar k et in g In n ovat ive P r ogr ams Another problem with direct marketing is volume. For instance, half a hectare of peaches can produce too many kilograms of fruit to be able to sell it all at a farmers’ market within a short space of time. Direct marketing to consumers may be a great opportunity for small farmers in Australia, but most likely only for those farmers close to large urban centres. Hurdles, such as a willingness of consumers to change their shopping habits, and their expectations of year –round availability of produce, would need to be overcome for direct marketing businesses to prosper. Food safety is another challenge for farmers involved in direct marketing, this is referred to in Section 2.4.3. Further information on benefits to consumers, communities and producers involved in direct marketing, and challenges facing direct marketers, is contained in Iowa CAFÉ , a resource and workshop manual on community agriculture and food enterprises. (Available from the author of this report). 3 .5 In n o vat ive pr o gr ams A number of innovative government programs and policies are in place in the USA to assist farmers involved in direct marketing enterprises: • The USDA has designed a Farmer Direct Marketing Action Plan to assist small farmers (http://www.ams.usda.gov/directmarketing). A week of the year has been designated National Farmers’ Market Week. Also, a bibliography of information on direct marketing strategies, for academics, extension staff, nonprofit groups and farmers has been created. The Washington DC USDA office manages a farmers’ market outside their building each week and this is now being repeated at other federal properties (http://www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/USDA_markets.htm). • A number of government agencies and non-profit groups provide directories of direct marketing businesses for farmers, retailers, restaurateurs and consumers. For example, Farm Fresh 2000 is a publication by the Iowa state government which lists contact details (free of charge) for farmers’ markets, pick-your-own strawberry producers, fruit and vegetable growers, honey producers and Christmas tree producers, to assist consumers in locating Iowa grown products. The USDA Farmers’ Market Directory, lists nearly 3000 markets operating throughout the country (available in hard copy or on the web http://www.ams.usda.gov). • Various Cooperative E xtension Services provide fact sheets for direct marketers. For example, Kentucky Cooperative E xtension developed a folder for the direct marketing of vegetables, which is held in all the state’s extension offices. (http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/agpubs.htm - see ID-134 – Marketing options for commercial vegetable growers; ID-107 – Understanding produce marketing for Kentucky’s direct markets; ID-106 – Promotion and advertising for Kentucky’s direct markets). The Kentucky Cooperative E xtension Service also provides notes on storage tips/requirements and recipes for vegetables, which farmers can hand out to their customers. These are available both on the web 34 D ir ect Mar k et in g Mes s ages f or Vict or ia and in extension offices. The Extension Service suggests farmers place their own label sticker on the handouts as a marketing / promotional initiative. 3 .6 W h at migh t Vic t o r ia l ear n ? Many Victorian institutions embrace mission statements based on the concept of sustainable economic, environmental and social development. This may be possible to achieve in some areas of the state through fostering direct marketing. Direct marketing is not well established in Australia, whereas in the USA there are over 2600 farmers’ markets generating US$1billion in sales in 1999 and over 1000 Community Supported Agriculture enterprises exist (Gradwell et al. 2001). Harvest day on a Community Supported Agriculture farm. There is a need to investigate further the benefits that direct marketing enterprises might produce for communities within Victoria, and how viable different schemes may be. This might best be carried out through a joint research project between institutions, with communities being trained to be able to conduct much of the market research and trials themselves. The following sections outline the relevance of direct marketing to areas around Melbourne, the benefits of direct marketing and the case for government involvement in development of such enterprises. 3 .6 .1 D ir ec t mar ket in g in t h e gr een w edges Direct marketing should be of particular interest to the Victorian institutions with the advent of the Melbourne 2030 strategy. Through this strategy ‘green wedges’ will be established in rural areas around metropolitan Melbourne. In these areas priority in planning and development will be for agriculture, conservation, natural resource-based uses, tourism and the protection of important water catchments. Direct marketing initiatives would be well placed to meet the green wedge purposes of providing productive agricultural uses and tourism, preserving open rural and scenic landscapes and also potentially contributing to the biodiversity and environmental health of the city. 35 D ir ect Mar k et in g Mes s ages f or Vict or ia Proposed green wedge legislation includes changes to planning controls, which will limit retail premises to markets, plant nurseries, primary produce sales, and restaurants, only if they are used in conjunction with agriculture. This legislation would allow, and encourage local food system initiatives such as pick-your-own operations, farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture, roadside stands and restaurants promoting locally produced food. Melbourne 2030 aims to achieve a fundamental change in the relationship of rural areas to metropolitan Melbourne. Direct marketing can help achieve this, particularly through the social relationships it can build, reducing the urban-rural divide. Direct marketing enterprises could be a significant new opportunity for many farmers in green wedges who need to adapt to new regulations. 3 .6 .2 B en ef it s o f s u ppo r t in g dir ec t mar ket in g Farmers, the USDA and universities in the United States have recognised the value of direct marketing as a means for small farmers to increase profits and diversify businesses. The direct marketing opportunities in Australia may be fewer, because of the smaller consumer market and the large distance for many producers to access highly populated regional centres, but they could still be quite beneficial for some small farmers. Around regional centres, there may be opportunities for marketing local food as part of tourism initiatives, for example either in restaurants or high profile regular markets, which might attract the growing retiree population, who may be looking for day trips outside of urban areas. Direct marketing can: • Enhance a sense of community and reduce the rural-urban divide; • Generate income for small farmers; and • Lead to improvement in environmental quality because the improved return farmers receive for their products may allow them to invest in natural resource management. Also, consumers who are interested in locally produced product (and social values of food production) are often also demanding environmental responsibility/ accountability. 3 .6 .3 D evel o pin g mar ket s f o r s er vic es s mal l f ar m go o ds an d There is an economic argument for government involvement in establishing direct marketing enterprises. If small farms and the values they provide are considered important enough to be retained in our state, they need to remain economically viable. Although it is not the role of government to help individuals for private benefit, there may be a role for policy makers in facilitating the development of a market for small farm goods and services within the mainstream economy. Drawing on Australia’s Productivity Commission’s (Byron et al. 2002) work on markets for environmental goods and services, some concepts can be extrapolated to small farm values. 36 D ir ect Mar k et in g Mes s ages f or Vict or ia Byron et al. (2002) suggest that market based policy instruments can harness the innovative capacity of the private sector and make government policy catalytic, particularly where the absence of markets is the dominant feature. This (absence of market) is the case with values for small farms. Lack of markets reduces information available to decision makers to make appropriate choices, and this can reduce the overall wellbeing of society. In the USA there are a range of functioning markets for goods of small farms, through direct marketing enterprises, which use smallness of farm size and family farming as selling points. The current absence of a mainstream market for goods and services from small farms in Australia may be due to the low number of buyers and sellers, and uncertainty over the nature of the service being provided. In the USA a percentage of consumers, albeit small, are aware of the values provided by small and family farms and are willing to pay for these services. Byron et al. (2002) acknowledge that (for private conservation initiatives) challenges to marketing services can be educating and convincing the public of the mere existence and benefits of the service. Byron et al. (2002) note that it is costly to bring buyers and sellers together to establish a market. They state “Markets are not costless. In fact, the costs of establishing a market can be so high that markets fail to form — the so called ‘transaction costs’ may exceed the expected gains from trade.” Potential costs include the seller’s costs of identifying prospective buyers and revealing their willingness to pay and vice versa. E ven where the costs of identifying potential clients and informing them of the product are low, other hurdles exist (Byron et al. 2002). An example provided by Byron et al. is the Calgar Springs Sanctuary located near Gosford on the Sydney-Newcastle freeway. Despite being on a major tourist route, “red tape” has prevented any sign on the freeway to inform potential visitors of its existence. Government, through DPI extension and agribusiness programs, could potentially aid small farmers in overcoming some of these transaction costs. E xtrapolating from the work completed by Byron et al. (2002), it can be suggested that by government taking actions that reduce transaction costs and improve information: • The innovation and initiative of the private sector may be tapped, unleashing new technologies and investment towards small farms; and • The resulting markets lower the cost of small farm policy, making previously unviable action feasible. Byron et al. suggest a fundamental step, after the problem and its underlying causes are understood, is to remove unnecessary legislative and regulatory constraints to potential markets. 3 .6 .4 S pec if ic f o c u s o n dir ec t mar ket in g The Agribusiness Group of DPI has an export focus, their charter is: T o provide leadership to companies, colleagues, allies and primary producers and to respond to opportunities from key export markets in a strategic and market driven manner. As such, they are unable to provide much support to domestic marketing. Admittedly most USA small farmers have not had significant government assistance in developing 37 D ir ect Mar k et in g Mes s ages f or Vict or ia direct markets, however the presence of non-profit farmer groups assisting small farmers makes a significant difference. Few well-established groups with a focus on small farmers exist here, partly due to the lower total number of farmers in Australia. If direct marketing is to become established in Victoria, institutions will need to concentrate on developing local niche markets. Development of niche markets and local food systems would include promoting the opportunities available with direct marketing, and assisting farmers to surpass initial hurdles such as food handling regulations and legal requirements, lack of post harvesting handling information and instruction, and lack of appropriate scaled technology and infrastructure to support local food systems. Promotion of the concept to the wider community would also be beneficial. Some consumer guides to Victorian Food and Wine already exist, such as the North E ast Valleys Seasonal Indulgence Food and Wine Guide, available at tourist information centres. This guide was funded by winegrower industry groups, local councils and a Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services grant. The recent compilation of a report on Community Supported Agriculture opportunities in Australia by DPI staff was a positive step towards promoting this form of direct marketing. Gippsland would be an ideal location to run a pilot program to promote and support direct marketing concepts because of the success of two recently established farmers’ markets in that region and the proximity to large urban centres. If Victorian institutions employed staff to handle producer enquiries and provide links to more information or suggestions on how to overcome challenges in direct marketing, this would help to put the state at the forefront of enhancing small farm opportunities. 38 D ir ect Mar k et in g 3 .7 C as e S t u dies 3 .7 .1 R o ads ide f ar m s t an d - P aul D en n is o n Cas e S t udies Paul Dennison is a Kentucky horticultural producer who traditionally only grew tobacco. The local extension officer, Chris Clarke, convinced Paul’s wife to trial vegetables in 1990. Now the Dennisons grow 12.5ha (30 acres) of tobacco and 16.5ha (40 acres) of pumpkins and sweet corn. They sell some wholesale, some through a co-operative and some through their roadside stand. They buy flowers, other fruit and vegetables and garden plants to sell in the store; all are grown in Kentucky. Paul says the difficulty in moving to vegetable production is that he no longer has a guaranteed price, like he did with tobacco. Paul says his wife has a natural flair for marketing. They also attend marketing conferences that the extension agents hold. They have a good relationship with the extension agency, which has established a blackberry variety trial on the farm. At the farm they have a petting zoo and, for part of the year, a straw bale maze, for children’s entertainment. Paul believes it is important to provide for children, to encourage their parents to come. They also hold field days, an antique tractor day (including live music), sometimes have a portrait photographer available on the veranda, and school children come on excursions to pick pumpkins. The store was originally a few tables in front of the house, then they built onto the barn, over time they added a floor, heating and had it fully enclosed. The store is open from early April until Christmas. Dennison’s Roadside Market. 39 D ir ect Mar k et in g 3 .7 .2 Cas e S t udies R o ads ide f ar m s t an d – B il l y R eid Billy Reid has a farm store, Reid’s Orchard, outside of Owensboro, Kentucky. The farm and store has been in the family for 128 years. Billy grows 28ha (65-70 acres) of apples, 1.25ha (3 acres) of peaches, 1.25ha (3 acres) of strawberries (half of which are used for a pick-your-own operation) and 0.1ha (0.25 acre) of thornless blackberries and raspberries, also for pick-your-own. E ighty percent of what is grown on the farm is sold in the store, the remainder to supermarkets. Billy also leases some land to a company for a golf driving range. He says he would make a lot more money by subdividing his land for housing. Billy says the petting zoo on the farm and the E. coli levels for cider production come under increasingly tough health regulations. The paperwork this creates for small operators is a significant challenge, he says. The non-profit Horticulture Society of Kentucky obtained grant funding for a number of small growers to buy small pasteurising equipment, so now all his cider is pasteurised. Billy has an integrated pest management program which has reduced his chemical use by 80 percent. Improved spraying equipment and high density planting has also helped. However he says that consumers do not understand that the levels are greatly reduced, if they see you spray once they get upset. Consumers also expect year round availability of produce because they are used to the supermarkets. Billy buys in some vegetables and seedling flowers for his store. The 83ha (200 acre) farm is run by Billy, his father and one full time employee. The store employs two full time staff. In October they hold an apple festival. This attracts 24, 000 people and 7000 cars. He has land set aside especially for parking, which he also cuts hay from. The festival involves 19 food booths and 19 craft booths. Reid’s Orchard. 40 D ir ect Mar k et in g 3 .7 .3 Cas e S t udies F ar m f es t ival - D o u g B ah l Doug grows 30, 000 pumpkins on 12.5 hectares (30 acres) on his family’s farm in Iowa. These pumpkins supply the local supermarkets and surplus product is sold to other stores. The family holds an annual pumpkin festival on the farm. Six years ago Doug planted Christmas trees, the first of which were to be cut in 2002. Some ornamental Indian corn, squash and gourds are grown specifically for the festival. Doug has no problem in finding markets for his pumpkins, and has adequate information from extension officers on production aspects. The festival has been run twice, in 2001 it attracted 5000 people. Doug buys apples from a local producer to sell at the festival. He also visits craft shows, identifies people and products he likes and invites them, for a small fee, to participate in his festival. He believes having some crafts encourages more people to the festival. In future he is considering buying the crafts to re-sell them himself. Doug identifies a role for the E xtension Service to facilitate networking of people like him with other small producers who have roadside stands, so they can be part of the festival too. The E xtension Service currently produces a brochure of where to find pickyour-own berry farms, but nothing about his enterprise. Brochures that promote a number of small farms avoid government providing individual benefits, whilst helping establish a market for small farm goods and services. Government support in helping establish a market in the mainstream economy should in the long run reduce the need for government support of small farms, as the goods and services will be valued in commercial markets. Doug says in the first year the festival was difficult to organise, but the second year was a lot easier. Part of the difficulty is that Doug works full time, 370 kilometres away from the family farm. The sales from pumpkins, Christmas trees and the festival are to raise money so that Doug can buy the family farm. Challenges for Doug relate to insurance. He cannot obtain crop insurance for fruit and vegetables and although he has liability insurance for the festival he is concerned that if someone did sue the insurance would not provide adequate coverage. 41 D ir ect Mar k et in g 3 .7 .4 Cas e S t udies C o mmu n it y s u ppo r t ed agr ic u l t u r e - An gel a T edes co Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is an agricultural production/marketing system where a farmer (occasionally farmers) produces fresh vegetables, fruits, herbs and flowers (and sometimes meats, eggs, fibre or preserves) directly for local community members; delivering the products weekly. CSA sees the sharing of the production risks spread equally between the farmer and the consumer. Members pay for their food up front, before the season commences, and are then kept involved in the farm’s activities with field days, newsletters and open invitations to visit the farm. If there is a drought or some other impact on yield then the members accept that risk. Angela runs Turtle Farm, a certified organic CSA and pick-your-own strawberries business, located just outside of Iowa’s capital city, Des Moines. Angela started her CSA business with friends as customers. Numbers increased in the second year through word of mouth and now she has customers who allow her to place advertising flyers in their stores. She is also listed on an internet CSA site and has her own website – http://www.turtle-farm.com. Angela considers her business to be a small CSA, she has 90 customers who receive one box of fruit and vegetables per week. She also grows flowers and herbs which are available for sale. She splits the CSA load into two delivery days per week. She has three drop off areas where customers pick up their boxes; two front porches and a church. The customers return the boxes, which can be collapsed for transport, each week. Turtle Farm employs one full time and one part time person. Membership costs US$375 for a year. Alternatively people can work for their membership fee by contributing three hours every harvest day (once per week) for 20 weeks. In 2000 she had 4 customers take up the labour offer. A difficulty for customers with this option can be transport and child care. Angela Tedesco, Turtle Farm. Angela says that CSA is not a model for all consumers interested in direct marketing or fresh produce, some people might prefer farmers’ markets for instance. To be interested in a CSA the customer needs to use a range of vegetables so that they do not feel they are wasting money on food they do not eat. Also CSA only suits people who do a lot of cooking (as opposed to eating out). Sometimes customers will share a box between two families. CSA farmers work together through organisations such as Iowa Network for Community Agriculture (INCA). They have a philosophy of forming a support network, not competition with each other. Through INCA, CSA farmers buy wax delivery boxes in 42 D ir ect Mar k et in g Cas e S t udies bulk (minimum 600). Non-profit organisations such as INCA often rely on government support to operate. Turtle Farm is 8.3 hectares (20 acres) in size and only one quarter of this land is under cultivation for saleable product– 0.83 hectares (2 acres) for pick-your-own strawberries and 1.25 hectares (3 acres) of produce for the CSA. Flowers, herbs and a cover crop of buckwheat to reduce weeds and to be turned into the soil to increase organic material, are grown on some of the other land. These plants also harbour beneficial insects says Angela. The remaining area is sown to grains and legumes such as rye, oats, red clover and lucerne, as well as some raspberries on a hillside to stabilise soil. Hay is made from the lucerne, which is spread over the raspberries and garlic (perennial plants) before winter. The area under cultivation for saleable product is rotated each year. The farm is located on a highway, which is ideal for the pick-your-own strawberry enterprise. Angela says the location of the farm for the CSA business is not critical. Angela lives in Des Moines, she only has a small hoop house for seedlings and storage shed on the farm. She also has a deep (180 metre) well for trickle irrigation. She did not want a shallow well because of nitrate pollution that can occur from livestock faecal matter and fertilisers from other farms in the catchment. Angela uses trickle irrigation because it uses less water, is targeted at the productive plants (not to weeds), and is directed away from the foliage, which helps avoid disease. Irrigation line damaged by coyotes, insects or people will be managed in the future with equipment to bury the lines. Angela maintains open communication with her customers, for example she welcomes her CSA customers to visit the farm at any time and organises specific events for her members. In summer she runs a field day and invites a beekeeper to the farm and hires draught horses to drag an antique potato plough, so that children and other customers can follow, picking up the potatoes. In the autumn she organises a dinner in Des Moines for members, where everyone brings a plate of food. A weekly newsletter is provided to customers with information about farm activities, an outline of the week’s vegetable varieties and a recipe. Angela believes it is important to educate her customers, for instance if she sees a snake she will write about it in the newsletter and explain how snakes are important to keep rodent numbers down. 43 D ir ect Mar k et in g 3 .7 .5 Cas e S t udies C o mmu n it y s u ppo r t ed agr ic u l t u r e - R o n an d J en S kin n er Ron and Jen Skinner own a four-year-old CSA enterprise serving the towns of San Luis Obispo, Pismo and Arroyo Grande on the central coast of California. Membership costs US$540 per season. Because of the farm’s distance from towns Ron and Jen do not offer an option of working in lieu of a membership fee. They provide 180 boxes per week of mixed vegetables, fruit, edamame (edible soybean) and flowers, for 32 weeks of the year. They deliver the produce in eskys so it can sit out on a porch for some time without spoiling. However they are concerned about customers using the esky for meat at a BBQ, which could have health ramifications if not cleaned properly. A newsletter is included with the produce every week. The farm also sells produce at a farmers’ market, which contributes only 5% of the farm income but takes up one day per week in labour. As such this part of the business may be phased out and the CSA enterprise will be the sole focus. Kyle and Ron Skinner, Huasana Farm. The CSA enterprise started by using word of mouth and membership has increased each year. In the first year Ron and Jen had 25 customers, then 50, then 100 and in 2001 they had 180. The business also received newspaper coverage which helped boost numbers, however these customers are not as committed as the original members and some have been dropping out because 2001 was a difficult year and therefore the farm did not grow as many different varieties of vegetable as previously. Ron provides a pro rata refund if members drop out, so that he does not attract bad word of mouth. Ron would like to obtain credit card facilities because some customers have a low disposable income and have difficulty providing money up front, even if they have the option of several payments. Ron and Jenny’s core group of customers is very supportive, and when Ron suggested a discount for long term members they rejected it. These customers primarily wanted to support the farm and felt that receiving discounted food would jeopardise this. The farm employs three full-time staff as well as Ron and Jen, they now have part-time summer help as well. Ron found the first three years of managing the business very easy and only had complaints about excess food supplied. However in 2001 there were complaints of not enough food. Ron says the expansion was difficult and next year he will not expand past 200 members and he will ensure he hires extra help early in the season. 44 D ir ect Mar k et in g Cas e S t udies Ron says that the timing of crops is very important to avoid climate stresses on plants. The produce is grown on 1.8 hectares. ‘Compost tea’ is sprayed for disease prevention and vinegar is used on weeds. No other sprays are used, which Ron believes offers a marketing advantage. In future Ron wants to organise better storage for root vegetables – garlic, onion, potato and sweet potato. Then he could mechanically harvest them all at one time, but use them in the boxes over an extended period. The farm has an open day/farm tour in spring, which most recently attracted about 150 people. In autumn the Skinners hold a party with children’s activities, live music and a recipe contest (with books as prizes). Ron says his customers are buying more than just vegetables, they are buying a service, which includes delivery, newsletters, a party and flowers. Newsletter and some of the produce supplied in a weekly delivery. School groups often come out to the farm and at least one customer will visit per fortnight – the farm is always open to members. To improve customer service Ron and Jenny run surveys three times per year asking what products their members would like to receive in the boxes. 45 E xt en s ion S uppor t in g S mal l F ar mer s 4 . S uppo r t in g S mal l F ar ms t h r o ugh E xt en s io n Many Victorian institutions use extension or education programs to achieve their goals and build relationships with the wider community. It is important to ensure that extension is far reaching and not exclusive of certain groups. Various people involved with small farms in the USA contend that adequate support does not exist for the small farm sector. The National Commission on Small Farms (NCSF) stated that: Small farmers have the potential to meet specific market niches, but this potential has never been intentionally pursued by USDA. Small farmers have unique needs, constraints and opportunities that have often been overlooked in the design and delivery of USDA programs. For small farmers to survive in the fast-changing agricultural industry that is dominated by large-scale production and concentration in the food processing sector, creative financing, specialty production, and niche marketing could serve to develop a competitive edge for small farmers (NCSF, 1998, p75). It has been suggested that extension and research is biased towards large farms in the USA and focuses on the production of commodity crops, not on the development of specialty products in an integrated farming system (HAWCAE P, 2001). Small farmers need advice as to how each enterprise fits into a multifaceted farming system that may include off-farm earnings and farm-based businesses. The HAWCAEP study found that in the USA: T he research and Cooperative Extension System16 is currently not well prepared to provide this type of support, in part because its staff tends to be trained as subject-discipline specialists and thus delivers advice and ideas along disciplinary lines (HAWCAE P, 2001, p25). The HAWCAE P (2001) study suggests that lack of training and extension for small farmers is a particularly pressing problem for the increasing percentage of new farmers who were not raised on farms, and need to learn basic farming practices. Another area where extension is sometimes inadequate for small farmers’ needs, is in non-traditional industries. Here small farmers can be far more experienced in particular production or niche marketing strategies than extension staff, who have backgrounds in traditional agriculture. 16 See Section 4.1 for a description. 46 E xt en s ion 4 .1 S er vice P r ovider s E xt en s io n P r o vider s in t h e U S A The two major extension/outreach services in the United States are the Cooperative E xtension Service, based in state universities, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), a part of the USDA. A body that links the two services and provides another information provision role is the Cooperative State Research, E ducation and E xtension Service (CSRE E S), a USDA agency. There are also other government and university based information providers aligned with CSRE E S. Other information providers include private consultants, agribusiness consultants (for example, Monsanto representatives), the Farm Bureau (a lobbying group with some similarities to Australia’s National Farmer’s Federation) and a number of non-profit organisations offering information and training. See Appendix E for further information about non-profit groups. More detailed information on extension systems in the United States is available in another report by this author, ions on A gricultural E xtension in the USA . University of California Cooperative Extension Service small farm advisor, Richard Molinar, inspects specialty horticultural crops. 4 .2 Ch al l en ges an d o ppo r t un it ies f o r s mal l f ar m ext en s io n in t h e U S A 4 .2 .1 Ac c es s ibil it y o f ext en s io n s t af f an d pr o gr ams Identified constraints on continued skill development for small farmers include time of course offering and lack of transportation (NCSF, 1998). The NCSF noted that having extension staff available on weekends or after business hours might help to accommodate schedules of small farmers. It would also result in staff being accessible for community meetings and other extension activities. Community groups are often better able to address the accessibility issue. For example, the Tehachapi Resource 47 E xt en s ion Ch al l en ges an d Oppor t un it ies Conservation District, California, has been running a campaign to eradicate the weed Yellow Star Thistle. They ensure that the contact and phone number provided on pamphlets and articles is available at night and on weekends. Small farm field days run by the Extension Service in Kentucky are held on weekends or evenings, to accommodate people with off-farm income. The NCSF suggested that some extension tools and documents need to be altered to improve access for small farmers. They propose a need for low paperwork applications for small grant and loan requests; documents in appropriate languages; and multi-lingual staff. Language barriers and other cultural aspects can be a significant challenge for extension staff. This is particularly evident in California, where many small farmers are Hispanic. All small farm extension officers in that state are bilingual. It has been suggested that many of the Hispanic small farmers in California do not have much contact with extension officers because of their suspicion of government. Another contributing problem is that many Mexican farmers in California only rent land, so the small farm extension officers do not start research trials with them, because they might not be farming the following year. 4 .2 .2 S t af f in t er es t E nthusiasm towards small farms and the perceived importance of these operations affects the quality of extension support. The NCSF (1998) suggested USDA personnel should work in an environment that rewards initiative to deliver small farm programs effectively and to solve problems of small farmers quickly. Many programs or regulations hinder the viability of small farmers and it is easy for USDA staff to say that “this is the way it has always been and we cannot do anything about it.” The NCSF reports that this attitude does not result in the USDA being seen as a partner. Changes in government policy and a focus on small farmers may change this situation. 4 .2 .3 C o mmun ic at io n Communication and cooperation within and between the various organisations offering small farm programs is needed in order to effectively meet the needs of small farmers (NCSF, 1998). Programs are currently dispersed through many USDA agencies including the CSRE E S, NRCS, Forest Service, Farm Services Agency, Food and Nutrition Service and Agricultural Marketing Service. The NCSF found that USDA agencies do not effectively communicate among one another. 4 .2 .4 P ar t n er s h ips w it h c o mmu n it y gr o u ps The NCSF believes that because research and extension institutions are increasingly under-funded and over-extended it is important to partner with community organisations to improve communication. These groups are usually funded through government grants. Community based organisations that work directly to assist small farmers in local communities have distinct advantages over government agencies or the E xtension Service, through identifying needs and earning trust. At the same time the USDA and Extension Services possess resources, knowledge and different levels of credibility that non-profit organisations lack. Collectively these institutions have the potential to 48 E xt en s ion Ch al l en ges an d Oppor t un it ies leverage their strengths to create a framework to best serve the needs of small farm operators (NCSF, 1998). The NCSF recommends that the USDA continue to fund training, newsletters and other educational materials through partner organisations. (More information on non-profit community organisations is available in Appendix E ). The NCSF suggests there is a need to develop innovative ways to improve access to learning opportunities and encourage participation by farmers. They suggest that the USDA could offer certificates of completion for course/meetings, and encourage businesses to provide a discount for services to participants, or for communities to recognise them by a congratulatory posting. However it would probably be difficult to establish such an initiative unless government provided an incentive to the businesses that were to be involved. 4 .2 .5 S u ppo r t n et w o r ks It is important to recognise the value of support networks for small farmers. These can be critical for information exchange and can mitigate feelings of isolation (NCSF, 1998). New farmers or farmers diversifying into different crops can benefit from direct feedback from other farmers with greater experience. Extension professionals can foster the development of such groups (NCSF, 1998). Group learning about native pastures in Texas. 4 .2 .6 F o r es t r y ext en s io n About 58 percent of forest land in the USA with the potential to produce commercial quantities of timber is owned by small farm operators and non-industrial private owners (NCSF, 1998). E xtension is needed to ensure sustainable forestry for conservation and economic purposes. Agroforestry offers small farm operators a means for economic diversification, with the added benefits of providing windbreaks, biodiveristy and wildlife habitat (NCSF, 1998). The NCSF recommended that Natural Resource Conservation Service staff should include potential commercial values of timber and woodlots in every whole farm plan they assist with, so that documentation is available to prove loss of property to the Internal Revenue Service in the event of a natural disaster. 49 E xt en s ion 4 .2 .7 Ch al l en ges an d Oppor t un it ies N ew an d emer gin g in du s t r ies The HAWCAE P (2001) study suggested that Cooperative E xtension Service personnel need to be able to provide assistance to small farmers regarding alternative and organic farming systems, agricultural development, direct marketing and value-added agriculture. Susan Harkins, a Kentucky farmer, said that many farmers are reluctant to be the first into a new industry, they need demonstrations and people in the extension service to provide information. Currently, she contends, extension officers are unable to provide information regarding either new products or organic production. The Iowa Food Policy Council (IFPC, 2001) recommended to state government that cross training of existing extension staff should be carried out to increase their technical expertise in production, marketing and processing technologies related to fruit and vegetables. (Soybeans and corn dominate Iowa’s food production.) The NCSF recommended that CSRE E S should encourage universities to offer courses in sustainable agriculture and organic farming. In 2000 the USDA developed a series of fact sheets on new and emerging industries, entitled ‘Alternative enterprises for higher profits and healthier land,’ an example is provided in Appendix F. 4 .2 .8 Val ue-addin g o ppo r t u n it ies An example of a value-added farming practice, that many people believe could be further promoted for small farmers in the USA, is food processing. Food and processing research and technology improvements have focused on the large producing and processing infrastructures, while small producers have been generally ignored or underserved (HAWCAE P, 2001). The Iowa Food Policy Council recognises a need to train Iowans in processing and preserving to ensure year-round availability of Iowa produce (IFPC, 2001). Susan Harkins hopes to build a certified kitchen on her farm in Kentucky for honey and shrimp processing and would use it to demonstrate and train both small farmers and extension staff. Both the NCSF and HAWCAE P studies suggest that universities with food technology and processing research and development programs should make greater efforts to expand program development to include small-farm operators and those interested in developing co-operatives to produce value-added products. It is worth noting that whilst food processing for small farmers may be an opportunity, promoting this concept will lead to a need for new skills in operation of equipment and business training, as well as raising issues of capital investment. 50 E xt en s ion In n ovat ive P r ogr ams 4 .3 In n o vat ive ext en s io n pr o gr ams in t h e U S A 4 .3 .1 N at u r al R es o u r c es L eader s h ip In s t it u t e http://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/Forestry/NRLI.htm The Kentucky Natural Resources Leadership Institute runs a series of courses through the University of Kentucky, including training on leadership, policy making, communication, facilitation and conflict management. The course is available, by invitation or application, to extension officers, other government agency staff, educators, farmers and community leaders. This results in a diverse pool of experience and increases the learning opportunities. Susan Harkins, a small farmer in Kentucky, said the state’s first organic marketing cooperative broke down because no one had the skills to keep everything and everyone together to work through the problems. She said farmers need to be aware of their options so they can choose the best business structure for their situation (eg co-operative versus company), and also need training in leadership. Susan has since attended the Kentucky Natural Resources Leadership Institute course and believes the skills she acquired would have been useful to avert the breakdown of the organic co-operative . 4 .3 .2 T h e U n iver s it y o f C al if o r n ia S mal l F ar m P r o gr am http://www.sfc.ucdavis.edu/ The Small Farm Program is a University of California (UC) Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) statewide program. The Program provides production and marketing information to farmers not reached by traditional extension programs. Feedback from farmers is that this program is an excellent model for addressing small farm issues. The UC Small Farm Program came about because of a lawsuit against the E xtension Service for not reaching minority groups. Because minority groups tend to operate small landholdings a small farms program was established in 1979. The Small Farm Program consists of the Small Farm Centre at its core; six county-based farm advisors (extension officers); the Small Farm Centre Workgroup;17 and an external advisory committee18. The Small Farm Centre organises and coordinates statewide conferences, workshops, tastings and symposiums, and supports advisors, farmers’ markets (Section 3.2) and farm organisations in regional and local programs. 17 These 85 people work for the University of California in agricultural research, education and extension (not necessarily specific to small farms). Some members were invited to be a part of the group, others offered to be involved. The advisory committee consists of people from small farm communities, including farmers and representatives of farmers' markets, sustainable agriculture groups, farm organisations, County Agricultural Commissioners and other organisations that represent farmers and farm workers. 18 51 E xt en s ion In n ovat ive P r ogr ams Staff at the Centre publish a range of manuals, proceedings, pamphlets, leaflets and a quarterly newsletter on small farm topics. The newsletter, Small Farm News, includes information on upcoming events, relevant publications, topical issues and provides profiles of farmers and farm advisors. The Centre receives phone inquiries from across the nation and their website attracts questions from people around the world. Requests for information from the Small Farm Centre are addressed through four avenues: • Literature kept on file at the Centre; • A nearby farmer who helps the Centre staff; • Six Californian small farm advisors, based in different counties around the state; and • The Small Farm Centre Workgroup. The Small Farm Centre provides education on pesticide safety, especially for farmers who speak a language other than E nglish. This is achieved using booklets written in different languages and illustrated with Asian farmers; CD-ROMs in Spanish; and videos and audio tapes (a script of the video) for Hmong and Lao farmers, because many of them do not read. All of the small farm advisors are bilingual. The Small Farm Centre caters for urban people as well as farmers. It provides information on farmers’ markets and Community Supported Agriculture businesses (Section 3.7.4), which urban people can access, and educates about food safety. 4 .3 .3 F r es n o C o u n t y s mal l f ar m in it iat ives Richard Molinar is a small farm advisor in Fresno County, California. He has initiated a number of extension projects for small farmers in the region. For instance, with his assistant Michael Yang, he runs an extension program on an Asian-speaking radio station. The 30-minute broadcast has aired every two weeks since February 1998. The program involves discussion of different agricultural topics, with listeners able to call and ask questions. Since the radio program's inception, calls and visits by Hmong farmers to the local Cooperative E xtension office have increased dramatically. Richard has also established the Small Farm Resource Network for Fresno County to improve coordination between a number of programs. This network involves 25 different groups, and quarterly meetings are held; however not all members are fully committed and at best only half attend. The groups include the Cooperative E xtension 52 E xt en s ion In n ovat ive P r ogr ams Service, the Agricultural Commissioner (who is responsible for farm chemical use in the county), many USDA agencies, such as Farm Services Agency, Rural Development, Housing and Urban Development (for farm worker housing issues) and grass roots associations involved with conservation trusts or representing cultural groups such as Hmong Americans, Hispanics and African Americans. The Network also has an electronic mailing list for members to keep in contact. In 2001 Richard organised the establishment of a 16 hectare (forty acre) Small Farm Resource and Training Centre near Fresno, California. The land was purchased by the American Farmland Trust, an organisation which buys land and places a covenant over it so it will always be farmland. Two hectares (five acres) of the farm will be set-aside as a demonstration site for different irrigation systems and organic farming. The rest of the land is available to new farmers in the USA (even if they have farmed for many years in another country) to lease for horticultural production. Richard is able to assist the farmers in trying out new agricultural techniques, for 2-3 years. The aim is to help new farmers gain confidence before they move on to their own land or other leased land. 4 .3 .4 T h e N o r t h C en t r al R egio n S mal l F ar m T as k F o r c e The North Central Region Small Farm Task Force is composed of extension professionals representing the twelve north central states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin. The task force is developing a coordinated effort across the north central area to meet the needs of present and future small-scale agriculture. A major part of this effort is the development of a Sustainable Small Farm Information Network (SSFIN) http://ssfin.missouri.edu. Some states have their own small farms website, such as Illinois: http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/~ asap/smallfarm/smallfarm.html The SSFIN is designed to provide quick and easy access to a range of sustainable agriculture information related to small farms. It was established to assist farmers, educators and other information providers in exploring alternatives to traditional enterprises and ways to fit new alternatives into sustainable whole- farm systems. The Task Force also organises North Central Small Farm Workshops. 4 .3 .5 Al t er n at ive F ar min g S ys t ems In f o r mat io n C en t r e http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic The National Agriculture Library hosts the Alternative Farming Systems Information Centre. This Centre is a part of the USDA and often helps answer inquiries from statebased organisations such as the Californian Small Farm Centre and the Missouri Alternatives Centre, as well as taking individual inquiries. The Centre provides information on sustainable agriculture as well as alternative agricultural products; in the form of books, journal articles and referrals to experts and organisations. 53 E xt en s ion 4 .3 .6 In n ovat ive P r ogr ams C o n s er vat io n T ec h n o l o gy In f o r mat io n C en t r e http://www.ctic.purdue.edu An innovative approach to providing a consistent extension message to farmers in the USA has been the establishment of the non-profit Conservation Technology Information Centre (CTIC). The Centre differs from those previously described in that it is formed by government in partnership with academic institutions and private organisations, including agro-chemical companies, machinery dealers, supermarkets and magazine publishers. CTIC promotes environmentally and economically beneficial natural resource systems. It is designed to act as a clearinghouse, facilitator and sponsor: • As a clearinghouse it reviews and communicates new research, technologies and innovative approaches. The Centre also refers inquiries to specialists. • As a facilitator of national messages and activities. Working with public and private sector partners to assure consistent messages reach those who influence farm management decisions. • As a sponsor of conferences and tours to increase communication and understanding between the public and private sectors involved with natural resource management decisions on cropland. Although CTIC is targeted towards larger farmers a similar approach could be adapted for small farm extension. 4 .3 .7 C S R E E S S mal l F ar ms P r o gr am http://www.reeusda.gov/smallfarm/ The Small Farm Program run by Cooperative State Research, E ducation, and E xtension Service (CSRE E S), includes a toll-free phone number for small farmers, allowing easy access and quicker response time to their questions and/or information inquiries on small farm issues. There is also an email address to direct inquiries through. The Program administers an electronic mailing list and organises a biannual small farm conference. The website provides links to a range of resources and contacts, and the Program’s newsletter; Small Farm Digest. 4 .3 .8 S AR E P r o f es s io n al D evel o pmen t P r o gr am http://www.sare.org Sustainable Agriculture Research and E xtension (SARE ) Professional Development Program (PDP) is a national program. Grants are available to sponsor professional development in sustainable agriculture concepts and practices, using workshops, tours and meetings for the Cooperative E xtension Service, the Natural Resource Conservation Service and other agricultural professionals. Administered and funded by SARE , the Professional Development Program has received annual federal funding of approximately US$3 million to US$3.5 million since its inception in 1994. The courses 54 E xt en s ion In n ovat ive P r ogr ams generally include class and field based instruction and are often taught by innovative farmers. “Off the Beaten Path in South Carolina” was a SARE PDP funded program to expose agricultural advisers to alternative farming practices. It featured two farm tours that brought extension officers and others to non-traditional southern agricultural enterprises, including alternative livestock and specialty plant farms, pick-your-own strawberries, a dairy farm and a Community Supported Agriculture operation (Section 3.7.4). The North E ast Region SARE PDP recently awarded US$533,046 in grants to train Cooperative E xtension and other agricultural professionals who work with farmers in the methods and concepts of sustainable agriculture. In 2001, funded projects included training in holistic management and whole farm planning, organic agriculture and organising and energising inner city neighbourhoods with urban gardening projects. In Vermont, SARE PDP funding was used to run a Professional Development Conference on organic agriculture. It was recognised that Cooperative E xtension and USDA staff do not always serve the organic farming community adequately, largely because of a lack of familiarity with its growing and marketing practices. The conference featured leading farmers, educators and researchers in organic agriculture; with the goal of helping extension officers understand organic practices, engage with farmers, document and share the knowledge gained on organic farms. Extension professionals learn from innovative farmers. In Iowa, a PDP grant was used by the non-profit group Practical Farmers of Iowa to educate extension professionals on local food systems19. Partners were the Iowa Network for Community Agriculture, the Leopold Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (part of Iowa State University), and representatives from NRCS and Cooperative E xtension. A series of workshops were held around the state, and some farmers were paid to attend these to provide a balance to discussions and make presentations as a part of the proceedings. (See Appendix E for more detail). Local food systems include farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture, selling direct to hotels and schools, pick your own operations, roadside stalls and agri-tourism. Further information Section 2.4. The manual produced with the PDP funds, Iowa CA FÉ , may be borrowed from the author. 19 55 E xt en s ion 4 .3 .9 In n ovat ive P r ogr ams S t ew ar ds h ip f o r S mal l Ac r eages The University of Nevada Cooperative E xtension Service, in conjunction with extension professionals from other western USA states has designed a set of teaching materials to be used to teach land stewardship to lifestyle farmers. Lifestylers are described as “those who live on small acreage properties because they embrace the pastoral, back-to-the-land lifestyle, and not because they necessarily intend to derive income from the property.” For this reason, small farm production or marketing is not included in the curriculum. The teaching materials are assembled on a CD-ROM, Living on the Land20. The disc contains lesson plans, worksheets and Powerpoint Presentations covering five modules; goal setting and property inventory, soils, water, plants and animals. The authors acknowledge the need to customise the material to local needs and individual audiences, and suggest that the presentations supplied be modified. An ‘instructor’s guide’ included on the disc outlines methods to determine local needs, evaluate the lessons, deliver the program (adult learning techniques), and how to budget for and promote the lessons. The disc is an excellent template for extension officers to use when targeting lifestyle farmers. The project was funded by the SARE Professional Development Program (Section 4.3.8). Living on the Land, a CD-ROM of teaching materials to be used with lifestyle farmers. 20 The CD-ROM is available for loan from the author. 56 E xt en s ion 4 .4 Mes s ages f or Vict or ia W h at migh t Vic t o r ia l ear n ? The state government’s commitment to extension is well supported by the training opportunities available to extension staff and the establishment of the ‘Development of Appropriate E nvironmental E ducation and Training for the Small and Lifestyle Farm Sector’ project in 2001. There are also programs in the USA targeted towards small farmers, which could be adapted to Victoria’s needs, some of these are outlined below, along with other suggestions for Victorian institution’s, based on USA experiences. 4 .4 .1 E xt en s io n o ppo r t u n it ies Particular small farms extension ideas from the USA that may have application in Victoria include: • Using non-traditional media to communicate, such as radio; • E stablishing specific small farm information centres and employing small farm extension officers; • E nsuring availability of staff outside of normal business hours; • Coordinating programs targeted to small farmers (within and between institutions); • E ncouraging extension officers to help form support networks for small, new and diversified farmers; and • Running training courses for a combined audience of extension staff and community members. General extension findings and recommendations based on USA experiences can be found in Reflections on Agricultural Extension in the United States of America, by Julie Francis, May 2002. 4 .4 .2 E xt en s io n s t af f edu c at io n Education of extension officers is critical to ensure extension systems are relevant and up-to-date. Victorian institutions can learn from the frustration of some small farmers towards the E xtension Service in the USA, despite the one-on-one contact available. The frustration arises from many extension staff having a linear, rather than a systems, approach and lack of knowledge outside of particular subject areas. Many small farmers are pioneering new production and marketing systems and extension officers are often unable to assist in these new areas. Victorian institutions should acknowledge the possibility of the same frustrations arising here, and put in place programs to train staff in new disciplines and importantly, to learn from pioneering farmers. The USA has the SARE Professional Development Program, which is designed to teach agricultural professionals sustainable (and often alternative) agriculture concepts, and is generally taught by innovative farmers. This approach could be adapted in Victoria. Also the USDA has recently released a CD-ROM – Alternative E nterprises and Agritourism, Farming for Profit and Sustainability, Tool Kit, which is another useful tool to educate extension staff. 57 E xt en s ion 4 .4 .3 Mes s ages f or Vict or ia N ew an d emer gin g in du s t r ies The issue of extension for new and emerging industries is a challenge. DPI does not have technical expertise for a vast range of new industries, so has found it difficult to provide up-to-date information on these topics, and no longer runs the Farm Diversification Information Service. The Department can however help producers source education through the FarmBi$ program. Victorian institutions will need to work together to be able to provide relevant information on new and emerging industries to small farmers in this state. 4 .4 .4 C o mmu n it y gr o u ps It is important that institutions acknowledge the value of community organisations to small farmers. It is recognised that community based and non-profit organisations are often better at reaching small farmers and gaining trust, than government or E xtension Services (NCSF, 1998). These organisations can run projects that are of great economic, environmental and/or social importance to small farmers and their communities, for example see case study on PFI – Appendix E . Regional Agribusiness Forums could potentially organise and manage projects of high value to small farmers and communities in Victoria. However these organisations will need government support for their continued existence. Groups in the USA earn some revenue from projects they run and membership fees, but are also reliant on government grants and private donations. It may be beneficial for government to carry out an investigation into the public benefits that could be conferred from providing financial support to community and non-profit organisations such as Agribusiness Forums, not just for project work but to assist in administration and management. 58 E xt en s io n 4 .5 C as e s t udy 4 .5 .1 C o u n t r y L ivin g f iel d day Cas e S t udy The Country Living Field Day is run on a farm in Ohio and provides small farmers with information on marketing, production, business planning, alternative production systems and alternative livestock. It was first run in 1994 and 1000 people visited. In 2001 the attendance was 4481 people, from 12 different states. The Field Day includes 30 to 40 half-hour seminars run mainly by farmers, plus some one to two hour workshops. Activities for children are provided to allow parents to attend seminars and workshops without distraction. Coordinator, Mike Hogan, (Cooperative E xtension) says the day is meant to be fun and educational. It is not a country fair, so people selling crafts cannot participate. No fast food vendors are invited, rather the local church committee and local Amish school provide food, along with some specialty agricultural producers selling products such as bison and emu. Mike now combines activities with other groups; the local cattle organisation run their “fall round-up” at the field day and they plan to combine with a farmers’ market as well. At noon all activities stop and a mock farm accident scene is played out in a central location, to educate about farm safety. Field days are a popular activity for small farmers. In 2000 there were over 50 agricultural commercial exhibitors, as well as agricultural government agencies and finance organisations. Sites cost US$50, US$60 or US$75, which is considered cheap compared to similar events. Out of pocket expenses, such as tents, toilets, key note speakers and advertising cost approximately US$16,000. There is no entrance fee (which helps keep liability insurance levels low), however funds are raised through corporate sponsorship and sales of extension publications and hats. The event rotates between four willing farmers in the area, who provide their farms without reimbursement. Mike suggests that there may be an opportunity to run some practical on-farm demonstrations, such as farm forestry pruning, in future. 59 E xt en s io n Cas e S t udy Advertising includes sending flyers to extension officers, news releases and more recently, billboards. In 2001, 400 volunteers assisted and whilst this is helpful Mike acknowledges the time commitment to manage them is a challenge. More information is available at http://carroll.osu.edu/clindex.htm. 60 R es ear ch an d P ol icy Is R es ear ch bias ed? 5 . S uppo r t in g S mal l F ar ms R es ear ch an d P o l icy 5 .1 w it h R es ear c h Within Australia, Barr (2002b) suggests that to improve productivity more efficient methods of farming need to be adopted, and these practices often require increasing the scale of farming enterprises. However there are many farmers who are unwilling or unable to expand the size of their operations, but who do wish the farm to be commercially viable and therefore need to generate more output per unit input on that land. This is of particular importance in Victoria given the Melbourne 2030 strategy and the zones which are being established to “safeguard the opportunity for productive agricultural uses.” Determining how to improve viability of small farms in peri-urban areas may require a new focus in agricultural research. 5 .1 .1 R es ear c h bias in t h e U S A? The USA’s agricultural policy and research system was criticised in the mid-nineties for emphasising agricultural productivity which benefited mainly larger farmers and agribusiness interests, while focusing less on the needs of smaller-scale farmers, rural communities and environmental concerns (US GAO, 1996a; US OTA, 1995, cited in HAWCAE P, 2001). The National Commission on Small Farms (NCSF) reported, in 1998, that relatively little publicly funded research had focused on improving farm efficiency and income through management – the type of research most applicable to small farmers. Knowledge is needed that will enable farmers to adjust their management strategies to reduce capital expenditures, produce products of higher value and capture a larger share of the food dollar (HAWCAE P, 2001). In the past, publicly funded research has sometimes been biased towards large farmers. The NCSF has suggested that much agricultural research has focussed on improving efficiency by using ever greater levels of capital to enable fewer people to produce the nation’s food and fibre. This is particularly noticeable in Iowa. Mike Duffy, Associate Director of the Leopold Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (Section 5.4.2), Iowa, suggests that farmers can get caught on the ‘technology treadmill,’ which is a vicious circle. Farmers tend to get bigger to justify large machinery, and the extra cost of inputs 61 R es ear ch an d P ol icy Is R es ear ch bias ed? such as genetically modified seed (eg Round-Up Ready beans). This results in them having more of their own labour available as the Round-Up Ready beans need less weeding and the large machinery reduces time in the field. So to justify the extra labour, they take on ever larger areas. Dave Dukes, an Iowa farmer says that prime farmland value has increased rapidly because of the constant expansion of farms, and that land is now very difficult to obtain in Iowa. Dukes and one hired helper run a 526ha (1300 acre) mixed farm, including Round-Up Ready soybeans. Dukes’ experiences back up Mike’s claim that Round-Up Ready crops do not provide a yield advantage or command a price premium, their chief advantage being that they require less labour. Some have suggested that the research community is not biased toward larger farms, rather it is biased towards non-farm activity at the expense of farm activity (Smith 1992, cited in Hamilton, 1994). This line of argument is based on the concept of agriculture consisting of three sectors, input (eg agro-chemical companies), farming (the actual agricultural activity) and marketing (what occurs between the farm gate and the consumer). The shift of activity from farm to off-farm reduces returns to farmers to cover their own labour costs and requires farmers to either increase production or use their excess labour in non-farm pursuits (Smith 1992, cited in Hamilton, 1994). An example of sector-biased research is the development of the high technology (input sector ) hormone bST, which can increase dairy cow milk production. Research on a management based technology such as intensive rotational grazing (farming sector ), may result in a similar increase in dairy productivity and farm profits, but as it does not result in a marketable product it is less attractive research for private providers. The NCSF states that conventional agriculture adds less and less value to food and fibre on the farm and more and more in the input and post-harvest sectors. We spend more on capital and inputs to enable fewer people to produce the N ations’ food and look primarily to off-farm processing to produce higher value products. Sustainable agriculture strives to change this trend by developing knowledge and strategies by which farmers can capture a larger share of the agricultural dollar by using their management and skills to cut capital and input costs – so a large share of the prices they receive for their products remain in their own pockets – and by producing products of higher value right on the farm (NCSF, 1998, p98). 5 .1 .2 Is bigger bet t er ? Hooper et al. (2002) identify advantages that large Australian broadacre farms have, including: • Economies of scale; • Large volumes of produce, which enables them to more easily establish strategic alliances and enter into long term relationships with buyers; 62 R es ear ch an d P ol icy N ew Appr oach t o R es ear ch • Greater separation of management and labour roles, which frees managers to take more advantage of information available for marketing products and managing the farm business; and • More bargaining power when acquiring inputs such as chemicals and fertiliser because they are buying larger quantities. However, many of these benefits can be captured by small farmers working together in groups. Mike Duffy has conducted research showing that to some extent it is a myth that bigger farms are more efficient. There are economies of size but these disappear more quickly than most people realise, he found. After the initial economies of size are achieved, the cost per unit of production remains relatively flat (Kirschenmann and Duffy, 2002). For corn and soybean production in Iowa this levelling out occurs at 120-240 ha. Kirschenmann and Duffy (2002) note that: Another serious problem in US agriculture is the chronic financial hardship faced by many farmers. T here are numerous reasons for these financial problems, but a major one is the nature of today's production system. Farmers basically pass money through the farm. T hey produce much more but they also spend a great deal more to reach those production levels, and as a result their net income is essentially flat. 5 .1 .3 A n ew appr o ac h n eeded, w it h a s mal l f ar m f o c u s There are suggestions that the paucity of management based technology research is a result of the private sector’s unwillingness to contribute funds to public research, or conduct its own research in this area (Smith, 1992, cited in Hamilton, 1994). Smith concluded that: If there is a societal objective to maintaining farming, farms and farming communities, we should have devoted public research to that alternative research. In addition, as the larger farms in the USA become increasingly integrated into supply chains, their operators are relying less on traditional research and extension systems and more on other sources - private or industry bodies (HAWCAE P, Small farm operators often benefit from alternative production techniques and tools, such as small scale machinery. 63 R es ear ch an d P ol icy N ew Appr oach t o R es ear ch 2001). As such the farmers who rely on the traditional, government, research and extension systems are increasingly likely to be small farmers, and interested in a range of strategies to improve farm management and income. The HAWCAE P study suggested the challenge for the public research sector is to create new on-farm opportunities for farmers who are increasingly pursuing off-farm employment due to a lack of farm profitability. Innovative businesses need to be designed to optimise the mix of labour, capital, and natural resources to the size and scale of the farm. Many farmers are looking for opportunities to use knowledge- and management- intensive production systems, rather than capital-intensive methods (HAWCAEP, 2001, p31). The NCSF recommended that the USDA design and implement a small farm research initiative (including biological, social and economic research). They also suggested that by 2002, at least two thirds of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service and Cooperative State Research, E ducation and E xtension Service (CSRE E S) research portfolios should be targeted to small farms. Other recommendations were that the overall impact of each major USDA research initiative should not negatively impact on opportunities for small farmers; and small farmers, and people who work with them, should be included on selection panels for research funding. 5 .1 .4 R es ear c h o ppo r t u n it ies The HAWCAE P (2001) study identified opportunities for research, and extension, that would benefit small farmers such as the development of specialty products, value-added agriculture, business diversification, business planning and niche marketing, rather than focusing on the production of commodity crops. In a submission made to the NCSF, Mark Gaskell, a small farm advisor in California, stated: T he opportunities that exist for small scale agriculture have to do with relatively minor crops, specialty crops, high value crops, in many cases organic fruit and vegetable production, and those types of commodities are not currently served by traditional experiment station structure or traditional USDA programs. Organic vegetables grown for the Community Supported Agriculture market. 64 R es ear ch an d P ol icy In n ovat ive R es ear ch P r ogr ams E xperience in the USA shows that opportunities for small farmers to generate more output per unit input, without increasing size, include: • Reducing the costs of inputs through better management skills (including techniques such as rotational grazing and integrated pest management); • Reducing the number of “middlemen” or length of supply chain, from farm gate to consumer (direct marketing); • Group production/marketing to increase volume (thereby opening new markets) or reducing the cost of inputs by bulk purchases or sharing of equipment. • Diversification (including agritourism); • On-farm value-adding; and • Intensifying operations (although this can be unpalatable for some small farmers or their neighbours, or too costly, and can raise environmental and animal welfare issues). 5 .1 .5 In n o vat ive R es ear c h - S us t ainabl e Agr icul t ur e R es ear ch an d E du c at io n (S AR E ) pr o gr am SARE is a national initiative responsible for administering a competitive grants program to research sustainable agriculture and achieve positive social, environmental and economic impacts (http://www.sare.org). Karen Armstrong-Cummings, USDA Small Farms Advisory Committee, says the strength of SARE is that it was designed by farmers, and farmers in the team determine which projects receive funding. SARE Producer Grants are available for farmer-led research. Groups can also apply for grants through the SARE Professional Development Program (Section 4.3.8), so often farmers and research or extension agencies work together for funding. Carol Shennan, Director of the Centre for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems (Section 5.4.3) says a change in agricultural research across the country is the shift towards involving farmers in research. Carol believes the development of farmer research teams and demonstration farms is helping farmer-to-farmer communication and farmer morale. SARE has four separate funding programs: • Research & E ducation Grants fund projects, generally ranging from US$30,000 to US$200,000, led by universities or non-profit organisations in an interdisciplinary approach. • Agriculture in Concert with the E nvironment (ACE ) was established in 1991 in cooperation with the US E nvironmental Protection Agency (E PA). ACE projects find and expand ways to prevent agriculture-related resource degradation with EPA/SARE matching grants. • Producer Grants are for farmers conducting on-farm research or demonstration projects that typically run between US$500 and US$5,000. • SARE Professional Development Program (PDP) Grants sponsor professional development in sustainable agriculture concepts and practices, using workshops, tours and meetings for the Cooperative E xtension Service, the Natural Resource Conservation Service and other agricultural professionals. Administered and funded by SARE , the Professional Development Program has received annual federal funding of approximately US$3 million to US$3.5 million since its inception in 1994. The courses generally include class and field based instruction and are often taught by innovative farmers. 65 R es ear ch an d P ol icy 5 .2 P ol icy B ias P o l ic y Participants in the HAWCAE P study believe there is a need for appropriate policy to support diversified farms and a market for the specialised outputs that can be produced by these farms. They suggested that policies to support small and diversified farms require an emphasis on appropriate technology, financing, marketing and processing. The NCSF (1998) noted that small farmers need to be considered viable forces in shaping community-level economic development. The Commission also stated: Federal farm policy should recognise that large scale agriculture is not and should not be the only model for agricultural production, but that multiple and diverse models are necessary for economic, ecological and social stability in our food and agricultural system. T his approach requires a new way of thinking about the contributions of small farms. It requires recognition that small farms produce social and environmental goods of value to society that warrant public support (NCSF, 1998, p31). It has been suggested that, in recent history, policy in the USA has been biased towards enabling large farms to supply high volumes of traditional agricultural commodities. Some examples are provided over the next few pages. If Australian institutions intend to support the continued existence of small farms they can learn from the USA experiences to minimise unintended bias occurring here. 5 .2 .1 Agr ic u l t u r al po l ic ies - s u bs idies In the USA, government subsidies based on volume of output have been more important to large, specialised farms than to small and diversified farms (HAWCAE P, 2001). Larger farms receive larger subsidies from government; therefore some USDA programs disproportionately benefit those farms that are least in need of government assistance (NCSF, 1998). The Economic Research Service (E RS) found that, in 1998, large and very large family farms received a disproportionate share of government payments relative to their share of farms (Hoppe, 2001). This tends to occur because the larger farms are involved in traditional commodities that are eligible for subsidies. The E RS concluded that direct payments from commodity programs have limited relevance to most small farms, with the exception of one category, high sales small farms (sales between $US100,000 and $US249,999), as 43 percent of those specialise in cash grain production (such as soybeans and corn). The study showed that not all farms in the USA are eligible for program payments, in 1998 only 36 percent of all farms received any government payments (Hoppe, 2001). However, Conservation Reserve Program payments (stewardship payments for retiring farm land for conservation purposes) are important to some small farms. About 13 percent of the gross cash income for small farms operated by retired people came from government payments, compared with only an average of 5 percent for all USA farms (Hoppe, 2001). 66 R es ear ch an d P ol icy P ol icy B ias Many people in the USA recognise the growing dependence upon direct government payments as a serious problem. The payments can comprise a significant portion of net farm income; 55 percent in Iowa during the 1990s.21 Fred Kirschenmann, Director of the Leopold Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, acknowledges that farmers today have come to rely heavily upon government payments and feel that they could not farm without them. He suggests that in effect, subsidies are propping up large farms that are commercially unviable. 5 .2 .2 R egu l at io n an d pr o gr am bias All levels of government can affect the viability of small farms through policies, programs and regulations. Regulatory standards typically impose significant fixed costs per farm that can be more easily absorbed when they are spread over a larger volume of production (HAWCAE P, 2001). Conflicting regulations can present barriers to small farmers in gaining access to direct markets. One particular example in the USA is meat inspection. State inspected plants are generally smaller and locally available, so are a good option for farmers selling locally, particularly those involved in direct marketing. However at state inspected plants the farmer must sell by quarters or halves of a carcass. In order to sell meat by the cut, for direct sales to restaurants, the meat must be inspected at a federal plant, which can be a much further distance away (NCSF, 1998). The NCSF has recommended that federal agencies should evaluate the impact of food safety, labour, and environmental regulations on small-scale producers, processors, and direct marketers, prior to adoption of new regulations. Meat inspection regulations can restrict access to the markets small farmers use. The NCSF also recommended that USDA policies, programs and regulations should be reviewed to identify either intentional or unintentional biases against small farms. For example, the Natural Resources Conservation Service has a program bias where progress indicators for staff are based on acres of land treated and acres brought under conservation plans. Some conservationists therefore prefer not to work with small farms because the workload involved in writing a conservation plan on a small farm is just as big as writing a plan for a large farm, but the effort is not recognised. 21 Testimony presented March 24, 2001 to U.S. Senate Field Hearings, Lewis, Iowa. 67 R es ear ch an d P ol icy P ol icy B ias Another example can be found in the E nvironmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which tends to exclude tenant farmers. E QIP funding requires a minimum fiveyear lease and therefore excludes two thirds of Californian farmers who are tenants with leases that last two to three years (NCSF, 1998). Programs can also be biased when stakeholder constituencies are narrowly defined as traditional commodity and agribusiness interests (HAWCAE P, 2001). E ven within the farming community, minority farmers are often unintentionally excluded, as are alternative agriculture practitioners and organisations, farm-workers and representatives of the interests of small farm operators (HAWCAE P, 2001). 5 .2 .3 T axat io n po l ic ies There are several provisions in the USA federal tax codes that are specifically designed to lower the income taxes that farm operators pay (Hoppe, 2001). Recent changes to federal estate tax provisions also make it easier to pass farms on to the next generation by exempting most small family farms from payment of the tax. However, the Economic Research Service reports that much of the benefit from the estate tax changes will be captured by the largest farm estates. These changes will allow substantially larger farm estates to be transferred to the next generation with little or no federal estate tax. The ability to transfer larger farms, combined with the preferential treatment for farmland and other business assets and the associated pre- and post-death holding requirements, could increase competition for farmland and help to accelerate the trend toward fewer and larger farms (Hoppe, 2001). 5 .2 .4 In s u r an c e po l ic ies Crop insurance is not available for non-traditional crops in Iowa (IFPC, 2001). Even if crops of corn and soybeans are damaged or destroyed, neighbouring horticultural crops, which have also been damaged would probably not be covered. Federal rules are often written to exclude small acreage crops. E ven though less is lost on a small acreage farm, the value is often high, and it can be catastrophic to a small farmer (IFPC, 2001). Tree crops or grapevines damaged by hail may have to be replaced at a high cost and require many years to return to full production. The farmer may never recoup his/her loss from that particular investment and may eventually be forced to leave farming. The Food Policy Council has recommended that Iowa state government work with the USDA Risk Management Agency to USA insurance policies often exclude small acreage crops. 68 R es ear ch an d P ol icy P ol icy B ias provide small producers with disaster protection information and coverage, including protection for perennial crops not presently covered by the federal disaster programs or crop insurance. The NCSF (1998) also noted a need for insurance policies for emerging products such as containerised nursery plants and Christmas trees. 5 .2 .5 Ar e t h e s mal l f ar m s t at is t ic s pr o vidin g t h e t r u e pic t u r e f o r po l ic y maker s ? According to the NCSF, there is a need for statistical data, which isolates the primary level of production from other levels, to better expose the status of the essential production system. The Commission warns that reliance on statistics with limited descriptive quality can lead to improper or ineffective policy decisions. When a gross sales statistic is used combining all agricultural sectors it can generate the conclusion that large and super-large farms produce most of the food and fibre in the USA, when in fact the most critical production occurs at the primary level. That is, gross sales as a measure of contribution to farm production value will be biased towards the value-added segments of production, such as the cattle feedlot (large farm, if gross sales are over US$250,00) rather than the small farm where the calf was born (most cattle are bred on small farms; the average herd size in the USA is 37 head). Without more precise indicators to measure the contribution of the primary level of production, the value of small farms will be misrepresented. Conclusions and policies which focus on the large and super-large farms as an inevitable result of economic progress may be ignoring the small farm as one of the most vital components of all food production (NCSF, 1998). 5 .2 .6 In n o vat ive P o l ic ies - U S D A S mal l F ar ms P r o gr am The USDA has demonstrated its commitment to small farms through the development of a department-wide small farm policy (Appendix A) and inclusion of small farms in agency strategic plans. In addition, a Small Farms Coordinator has been named for each USDA Mission Area and Agency (http://www.usda.gov/oce/smallfarm/coordlist.htm). A key function of the Small Farm Coordinators is to coordinate the USDA's response to the eight policy goals and 146 recommendations submitted by the NCSF in its report, A T ime T o Act (see Box next page). To ensure the USDA has a formal mechanism in place to focus on developing small farms programs and policies, a USDA Council on Small Farms was established in October 1998. This Council is chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture and comprises other officials from each sub-cabinet mission area of the USDA (http://www.usda.gov/oce/smallfarm/council.htm). 69 R es ear ch an d P ol icy In n ovat ive P ol icy National Commission on Small Farms outlined eight policy goals for a national strategy for small farms, in its 1998 report, A T ime T o Act: 1. Recognise the importance and cultivate the strengths of small farms 2. Create a framework of support and responsibility for small farms 3. Promote, develop and enforce fair, competitive and open markets for small farms 4. Conduct appropriate outreach [communication/extension] through partnerships to serve small farm and ranch operators 5. E stablish future generations of farmers 6. E mphasise sustainable agriculture as a profitable, ecological and socially sound strategy for small farms 7. Dedicate budget resources to strengthen the competitive position of small farms in American agriculture 8. Provide just and humane working conditions for all people in production agriculture. Neil Hamilton, USDA Small Farms Advisory Committee, says that “By creating coordinators like Denis Ebodaghe [Small Farms National Program Leader, CSRE E S] there has been a change in the culture of USDA, they now think about small farms - at least a little.” This change in USDA culture has a positive flow on effect for small farmers. The NCSF (1998) suggested that the USDA should represent the interests of small farmers before other federal agencies and Congress, to ensure the needs of small farms are understood. This recommendation came about because the Commission drew attention to the fact that some laws (particularly natural resource laws) not administered by USDA can have direct influence on viability of small farmers. With a number of small farm coordinators throughout the agency this advocacy role is possible. 70 R es ear ch an d P ol icy 5 .3 Mes s ages f or Vict or ia W h at migh t Vic t o r ia l ear n ? Research conducted and policy established by institutions can have a significant impact on farmers across the state. Small farmers can be affected differently to large farmers by certain policies, and research will have different relevance to each sector. There are many concepts, either under consideration or in practice, in the USA that may be worth investigating to target small farm concerns in Victoria, including: • A research (and extension) initiative focussing on low up-front cost (often therefore also low technology) farm management strategies. This could have applications for farms of any size. Rotational grazing and pruning of farm forestry trees are examples of low-cost strategies, which can improve sustainability in terms of profit and environment. • A research (and extension) initiative focussing on strategies to improve farm income for small farmers. Current work by many institutions on increasing productivity and diversification opportunities already contribute to this area. However research into other methods such as direct marketing and opportunities for groups of small farmers to work together, could be investigated. • The increased presence of small farmers as stakeholders and on committees to help guide institution program directions and perhaps to determine priorities for research funding relevant to this sector. • An investigation to assess the impact of current institutional research, policies (including tax policy) and regulations on small scale agriculture, to determine their potential for inadvertently hindering small farmers. • Awareness raising within institutions (and the community) to help ensure that future policy and research directions recognise the full value of small farms. • Improved information about small farms. This could include an investigation into statistical data collection to determine if similar problems to those identified in the USA exist here. Also Tonts and Black (2002) suggest that although we know Australian small farms are often highly innovative and productive, relatively little is known about their financial and management structures or, indeed, their relative contribution to local and regional economies. • An investigation into the feasibility and application of establishing a program similar to SARE for working with small farmers. Key points of SARE are that it was designed by farmers, encourages collaboration between farmers and agencies, and farmers have input into decisions on which projects receive funding. It will also benefit Victorian institutions to establish partnerships and networks with staff involved with small farms in the USA. This has already been facilitated by the Science Quality Unit’s grant for the author to visit the USA, and many contacts have already been shared. An interest in Australian research was clearly evident throughout the USA trip, for instance, Richard Molinar, small farms extension officer, California, was very impres- 71 R es ear ch an d P ol icy Cas e S t udies sed with Australia’s Supermarket to Asia program. He receives newsletters from the Institute for Horticultural Development (DPI) and hopes to visit in future. Denis E bodaghe, Small Farms National Program Leader, Cooperative State Research E ducation and E xtension Service (CSRE E S), is interested in the development of the Future Family Farms initiative and future involvement of DPI in the USA Small Farms Conference. If Victorian institutions intend to focus some research and policy development on small farms it would be beneficial to maintain and enhance these current networks. 5 .4 C as e S t u dies 5 .4 .1 T h e Appal ac h ian F ar min g S ys t ems R es ear c h C en t r e (AF S R C ) http://www.arserrc.gov/beckley/ Research programs at AFSRC address issues in soil quality, forage and grazing management, water quality, nutrient management, the ecology of under-utilised land, and silvo-pastoral and understorey crop production systems. The Centre is part of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service. One project the Centre is involved in, is investigating production systems for Appalachian small farms. This project involves developing management strategies to increase productivity, profits and resource-use efficiency for Appalachian small farmers. Grass-fed beef, goat and sheep grazing/browsing management options for hill-land pastures are being developed to optimise nutrient use and utilise naturalised weedy or woody plants as well as improved forages. Specialty crop production is focused on adding value to existing woodlots. Survival, growth, quality and productivity of small fruits, medicinal herbs and other horticultural crops are being analysed. It is suggested the leaner meat produced from grass-fed beef may be able to command a premium price on the east coast, saving transport costs to mid-western feedlots. AFSRC is organising "market niche" research partnerships with farmers, experiment stations and agencies in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. 5 .4 .2 L eo po l d C en t r e f o r S u s t ain abl e Agr ic u l t u r e http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/ The Leopold Centre was established in 1987 to conduct research on the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of farming practices and to help develop profitable farming systems that preserve the productivity and quality of natural resources and the environment. It is based at Iowa State University, Ames. One source of Leopold Centre funds is a direct appropriation from the state government of US$560,000 per year. The Centre also receives about US$1 million per year generated from fees charged on sales of nitrogen fertilizer and on registration and use of pesticides. The Leopold Centre is also eligible to receive grants from other state and federal sources and from foundations, but not from agricultural industries. 72 R es ear ch an d P ol icy Cas e S t udies The Centre manages a competitive grants system for non-profit organisations such as universities, civic organisations, community colleges (TAFE s) or farmers who have formed a non-profit co-operative. The Practical Farmers of Iowa (Appendix E ) is a nonprofit group whose research is funded through grants from the Leopold Centre. Mike Duffy (Associate Director) carries out some research for the Centre, on topics such as pesticide use, perceptions of sustainable agriculture and food systems. There are also people, employed as one quarter of full time equivalent, on “issue teams” to investigate a specific project for three years. Issues have included organic production, hoop houses for raising pigs outdoors, rotational grazing systems and bufferstrips. Often the issues team will attract outside funding for the research. 5 .4 .3 C en t r e f o r S ys t ems Agr o ec o l o gy an d S u s t ain abl e F o o d http://zzyx.ucsc.edu/casfs/index.html The Centre for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems is based at the University of California, Santa Cruz campus. The Centre is dedicated to increasing ecological sustainability and social justice in the food and agriculture system. It consists of a 5.5ha organic farm and a half hectare biodynamic garden. Although considered a fringe interest for many years, the organic farm is now an important source of information for many university staff and farmers in the state. Carol Shennan, Director, says that the Centre is unique because of its long history of investigating social and ecological aspects of agriculture as well as production. The Centre conducts research into many issues affecting agriculture in the region including urbanisation, environmental impacts on the nearby marine park, limited labour availability for horticulturalists, low standards of living, racial tensions, impacts of free trade, eco-labels, biocontrol of pests, compost and both organic and conventional farming practices. Carol says the Centre “considers who is being affected, in what way, and how does sustainable agriculture fit into it all?” Biodynamic garden at the Centre of Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 73 R es ear ch an d P ol icy Cas e S t udies Research conducted on organic farming involves not only production aspects, but also determining whether organic farming can be sustainable, and considering fair access for all people to organic food. Direct marketing is one answer to the latter issue, and this can also improve returns to farmers, thereby paying off the extra expense of shifting to sustainable agricultural practices, Carol believes. The Centre offers a six-month apprenticeship on ecological farming and gardening to help generate new organic farmers. Students spend most of their time on the Centre’s farm and garden rather than in lecture halls. Carol believes this style of learning is important because organic farming has a different pattern of knowledge transfer to conventional farming. 74 N ew S mal l F ar mer s Ch an gin g F ar m P opul at ion 6 . N ew S mal l F ar mer s 6 .1 C h an gin g f ar m po pul at io n By 2021 it is likely that Australian farm numbers will have declined by half and the average age of farmers will have risen (Barr, 2002a). Barr reports that we can expect the future farm population to be considerably different from today’s, and that “It cannot be assumed that these new ‘farmers’ will hold the same strong production values as many of today’s farming generation.” Reeve (2001) expects a period of rapid structural change in agriculture in the coming decade or so. He believes “the challenge for land resource management policy is to have the institutions in place to reduce the social costs of this period of change” (Reeve, 2001). In recent decades USA farm entry rates have declined and the National Commission on Small Farms (NCSF) (1998) report that at no other point in the history of USA agriculture has there been such a wide generation gap in farm participants. However, the future of a widely dispersed, individually owned and operated family farm system of agriculture depends on the ability of new farmers to enter agriculture (HAWCAE P, 2001). The NCSF (1998, p89) believes that it will be critical to regenerate a trained, skilled base of prosperous stable, community-involved independent farm business families: “T hese families will provide an element of economic stability for rural America, protect its prime farmland and steward the land into the next century.” 6 .2 Farm succession rates are decreasing in the USA and Australia. S mal l f ar m en t r y in Au s t r al ia The migration of young people from the land is leading to new forms of later age agricultural entry and inter-generational transfer (Barr 2002a). Reeve (2001) has shown that inter-generational continuity of ownership is declining in Australia. Barr (2002b) has found high rates of entry into farming in higher amenity regions of Australia, where there is an abundance of small farm establishments (in proximity to major regional centres). He reports that new entrants have lower equity and are less buffered against fluctuating prices and climate but despite these risks, there is a continuing interest in entering farming. Barr (2002a) notes that there are major questions over inter-generational transfer and land ownership in regions of high amenity and high land value. A better understanding of small farm entry will be necessary for Victorian institutions to effectively target small farmers through extension programs. 75 N ew S mal l F ar mer s 6 .3 Ch al l en ges an d Oppor t un it ies C h al l en ges t o f ar m en t r y in t h e U S A Challenges to farm entry identified in the USA include: • Inadequate access to appropriate financial, managerial, production and marketing assistance for entering and exiting farmers; • Insufficient farm exit and farm entry strategies; • Inability to acquire initial capital investment and credit; • Policy biases favouring current over future landowners; • High rental rates and land prices due to heightened competition from established farmers or developers; • Difficulty in identifying viable farm entry opportunities; and • Lack of community support (HAWCAE P, 2001). 6 .3 .1 F in din g l an d Karen Armstrong-Cummings, a member of the USDA Small Farms Advisory Committee, believes that the people most interested in developing niche products are not traditional farmers; rather they have come from business, marketing and accounting backgrounds. These people are trying to find land. Neil Hamilton suggests that state and non-government organisations involved with farmland preservation programs and trusts should consider how they can combine with a program for new small farmers. He asks if farmland under trust should be first offered to young farmers, or incentives be provided for landowners wanting to sell into farmland preservation programs, who demonstrate a commitment with beginning farmers (Hamilton, 1999)? 6 .3 .2 F u n din g The Iowa Food Policy Council (2001) recognises that beginning a new farming operation requires funds and that new farmers will have different funding needs to existing farm operations. Many of the existing funding sources will not be familiar with new crops or different operations. The Council recommends that the state should establish a small producer assistance system, including a listing of funding sources available to Iowa farmers for establishing farming operations. The E conomic Research Service has completed research investigating how young and beginning farmers in the USA obtain capital. This research, combined with other studies, will be the basis for an agency report on alternative legal methods for inter-generational transfer of farm assets. 76 N ew S mal l F ar mer s 6 .4 Ch al l en ges an d Oppor t un it ies S u ppo r t f o r n ew s mal l f ar mer s The HAWCAE P (2001) study suggests that USDA research, training and education efforts have little to offer new farmers. The lack of training and extension is a particularly pressing problem for the increasing percentage of new farmers who were not raised on farms. Historically, the high rate of occupational succession in agriculture gave both research and Cooperative E xtension a predictable client base. However, there is a growing incidence of mid-career transitions into agriculture by individuals who purchase a small farm, but have little or no prior farm experience. These people require a different level of assistance, and the system must increase extension and communication with these groups. Although people who enter agriculture through occupational succession may need to learn how to operate new enterprises, a different approach will be required for addressing their needs (HAWCAE P, 2001). Practical demonstration about cattle health. The NCSF (1998) identified that there are some small efforts to design, test and demonstrate farming methods that require low capital investment, mostly among nonprofit organisations and farmers themselves. However they suggested a need for intentional public support to further research and develop these techniques and strategies. The NCSF has made numerous recommendations relating to new small farmers in the report A T ime T o Act. These recommendations can be further investigated in the publication; they relate to: • Improving the ease of the farm transfer process; • Increasing the first time farmer bonds programs; • Developing a Beginning Farmer Development Program, providing training and technical assistance; • E stablishing a Beginning Farmer Grant program; • Launching a Beginning Farmer Initiative dedicated to researching, developing, disseminating and supporting farm management models that emphasise low capital investment, optimal use of skilled labour and management potential of new farmers and high value crop and livestock production and marketing methods; • Investigating how membership to co-operatives could be made easier for new farmers; and • Investigating the potential of transferring farms to new farmers for the purpose of preserving farmland. 77 N ew S mal l F ar mer s 6 .5 In n ovat ive P r ogr ams In n o vat ive n ew f ar mer pr o gr ams in t h e U S A http://www.extension.iastate.edu/bfc One example of a successful program for new farmers in the USA is Iowa’s Beginning Farmer Centre (BFC). John Baker, a lawyer who is Administrator of the BFC, contends that putting a new person on a farm is economic development because it stimulates economic activity. This line of thinking convinced state legislators to develop the Centre along with the Cooperative Extension Service in 1994. John says the BFC focus is on the business aspects of agriculture, not technical information. In particular, the Centre is concerned with the processes needed to get young farmers on farms with equity and control. John believes that loan programs are not a solution to the problem, evidenced by the fact that such programs have been around for years with little change. The BFC has produced a “Farm Savvy” manual, which outlines a process for the transition of a farm business to the succeeding generation. The Centre runs Ag Link Seminars for Iowa State University students planning to join their family farm operations after they graduate. Topics include conflict resolution, goal setting, business analysis, farm planning, management, communication and decision making skills. The classes involve two 2-day workshops one month apart. There are also adult education classes, ranging from half to one and a half days. This training costs US$50-$100, including a manual. The Centre can also organise individual farm financial analyses and consultations. The Centre’s “Farm On” program matches new farmers with existing farmers who want to transition their farm business to the next generation. This program receives most of the Centre’s funding. Videos have been produced to introduce the program to potentially interested parties. The Farm On project is supported by the National Farm Transition Network, which coordinates similar programs around the United States (http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/Pages/bfc/national/homepage.html). Through the Farm On program the BFC has joined about 90 pairs of farmers, although John suggests that many more pairs would have been established informally, after people heard about the program. Agreements are made between the two parties, and these vary considerably. Some agreements stipulate the new farmer (successor) needs to be involved in church/community organisations, or that the new farmer has to take at least one family vacation per year. Agreements that involve partnership and communication tend to work best. John says one agreement was set out in strict legal terms with the retiring farmer detailing the aims and methods that the new farmer should follow. That agreement was terminated in less than three months. 78 N ew S mal l F ar mer s Mes s ages f or Vict or ia The Beginning Farmer Centre has been involved in a survey22 of Iowa farmers, which found that 65 percent of farmers say they will never retire, or they will only semi-retire. This indicates that older people expect to retain control of management decisions and therefore the young person gets little management experience and little confidence in his or her ability in this area. An additional problem is that many of the older generation farmers do not communicate well and do not have conflict resolution skills. John says that most young people probably have never been given any indication of whether they will inherit all/any/some of the farm. 6 .6 W h at migh t Vic t o r ia l ear n ? Victoria is similar to the USA in terms of having an increasing number of new, small farmers who have little or no agricultural background. Some of these new, small farmers are highly educated, motivated and entrepreneurial and can have a significant effect of increasing money brought into local communities, encouraging other farmers into marketing/production groups, and in pursuing environmental outcomes. As such, it may benefit the state for institutions to work in partnership with such farmers, to assist them to overcome barriers to the success of their farm businesses. Victorian institutions should investigate the potential benefits of establishing a new farmer program, to help form networks of support for new farmers, to provide relevant information to new farmers, to research and demonstrate low-capital farming methods and to investigate other challenges facing new farmers which could be addressed. Such a program could also include new or existing related projects such as rural adjustment and farm transfer. Neil Barr (2002b), DPI, has suggested “it would be advisable to more fully inform ourselves of the nature of adjustment in our agricultural industries and potential transformations of rural areas.” Partnerships with university researchers would also be beneficial, such as Geoffrey Tually, whose research (1999) has suggested the need for broadly trained information providers to assist Australian farm families with issues of farm transfer and other topics not addressed by specialist providers such as agronomists. This farm succession questionnaire has been carried out in the UK, USA, France and soon will be administered in Japan. Roslyn Foskey, University of New E ngland, NSW, is interested in conducting the survey in Australia. If Victoria develops a new farmer program, cooperation with Roslyn would probably be advantageous. 22 79 Appen dix A U S D A S mal l F ar ms P ol icy AP P E N D IX A - U S D A S mal l F ar ms P o l ic y U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250 NUMBER: 9700-1 DEPARTMENTAL REGULATION DATE: September 8, 1999 SUBJECT: Small Farms Policy OPI: Office of the Chief Economist 1 PURPOSE This regulation sets forth the policy of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) with regard to the importance and role of small farms, ranches, and woodlots (hereafter referred to as small farms) to U.S. agriculture and the establishment of strategies, systems, and a Departmental framework for achieving and maintaining the viability of these small farms. 2 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS This regulation grows out of the recommendations made by the National Commission on Small Farms in its January 1998 report, "A Time to Act." 3 BACKGROUND Small farms have been critical to the fabric of American society throughout the Nation's history. Today, as historically, the vast majority of all farms in the United States are small. The viability and sustainability of these farms is important to our Nation's economy, to the wise stewardship of our biological and natural resources, and to the leadership and social fabric of rural communities. Their economic contribution is important to the Nation and is especially critical to the thousands of rural communities where they pay taxes and to the thousands of businesses they support. Small farms play an important role in the United States agricultural sector. In 1994, farms with gross sales of $250,000 or less accounted for 94 percent of all farms and ranches, owned 75 percent of the total productive assets in agriculture and 72 percent of all land in agricultural production, and accounted for 41 percent of all agricultural receipts. For example, small farms took leadership in the development of organic production systems in the United States. In the late 1990's, the organic and natural foods market became the fastest growing sector of the U.S. food market. Owning and operating a small farm represents an avenue to economic independence and entrepreneurial achievement for many Americans from all walks of life. Small farms owners and operators are a diverse group of Americans, including Hispanics, Native Americans, ethnic Europeans, African-Americans, Asians, women, persons with disabilities, and other minorities. Small farms are operated by resourceful agriculturalists who combine entrepreneurship, business skills, family labor, and knowledge to produce food and fiber products consumed by millions of Americans and people around the world. However, not all small family farms are alike. In 1995 the Economic Research Service (ERS) identified four primary groups of small family farms, each with different resources, goals, and contributions to the Nation's agricultural production. These groups are: 1) Primary occupation farms which accounted for 34 percent of all U.S. farms; 2) Limited resource farms made up12 percent and had a total household income of less than $20,000, total farm assets under $150,000, and gross sales of less than $100,000; 3) Retirement farms, operated by individuals who are retired, accounted for 13 percent; and 4) Residential or lifestyle farms, operated by people for whom farming is 80 Appen dix A U S D A S mal l F ar ms P ol icy not the primary occupation, constituted 35 percent of all farms. Limited resource, retirement, and residential or lifestyle farms accounted for about 9 percent of the value of U.S. agricultural production. Small farms where farming is the primary occupation accounted for almost one-third of the U.S. agricultural production by value. 4 POLICY USDA’s policy for small farms is based on the eight guiding principles for Federal farm policy stated by the National Commission on Small Farms. This policy will: (1) encourage farming systems that produce safe, healthy, and diverse food, fiber and wood products; (2) create greater opportunities to connect farmers with consumers; (3) encourage and support an agricultural system that sustains and strengthens rural communities, cultural diversity, and a traditional way of life; (4) encourage and reward responsible stewardship of natural resources; (5) enable farmers and farm workers to live and work in safe and responsible environments; (6) result in vigorous competition in open, diverse markets; (7) enable Americans to own and operate farms as a livelihood; and (8) enhance opportunities for people to generate farm incomes comparable to other economic sectors. It is the policy of USDA to: (1) Develop and support research, development, regulatory, and outreach programs and initiatives that focus on the special needs of small farms, especially those programs that help small farms develop alternative enterprises, value added products, and collaborative marketing efforts including cooperatives that enhance stewardship of biological, natural, human, and community resources. (2) Make special efforts to meet the credit needs of small, under served, minority, women, and beginning farmers. (3) Consider the special needs of and specific effects on small farms when developing and implementing marketing, incentive, and regulatory programs and processes. (4) Develop and foster marketing, development, credit, and outreach programs that improve the competitiveness of small farms and give priority to farmer-owned and farm-based businesses, especially those that foster local and regional competition in production, processing, and distribution of food, fiber, and wood products that connect small farms and consumers at the local and regional levels. (5) Foster collaboration among public and private sector agencies, programs, and institutions, including farm and community-based organizations, to meet the financial, educational, and technological needs of small farms, including developing small farms networks, joint enterprises, and mentoring systems. (6) Encourage and emphasize educational, outreach, marketing, regulatory, credit, and other programs that will help ensure new generations of small farmers can gain access to the resources they need. (7) Encourage all USDA agencies, the land grant institutions, and collaborating public and private sector institutions to emphasize sustainable agriculture, sustainable forestry, and agroforestry as profitable, environmentally sound, and socially desirable strategies for small farms. 81 Appen dix A U S D A S mal l F ar ms P ol icy 5 ACTION ORDERED This regulation establishes a Small Farms Council, chaired by the Deputy Secretary. Membership will be comprised of the Under Secretary, Marketing & Regulatory Programs; Under Secretary, Farm & Foreign Agricultural Services; Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition & Consumer Services; Under Secretary, Food Safety; Under Secretary, Natural Resources & Environment; Under Secretary, Research, Education & Economics; Under Secretary, Rural Development; Assistant Secretary, Administration; Office of Outreach Director and the Office of Civil Rights Director. The Director of Sustainable Development and Small Farms, Office of the Chief Economist, will serve as the Executive Director of the Small Farms Council and is responsible for coordinating, advocating, and facilitating implementation of small farms policies and programs. The Executive Director will chair a Department-wide group of coordinators for each mission area; individual agencies; the Office of Outreach, and the Office of Civil Rights for the purpose of planning, coordinating, and collaborating the implementation of small farms policies and programs. Equal opportunity practices, in line with USDA policies, wi ll be followed in all membership apportments to committees. To ensure that the recommendations of the committees have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals who are minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. This policy is to be reflected in all mission area and agency mission statements, strategic plans, performance plans, and performance goals. This policy is to be incorporated into all technical guides, handbooks, and materials used to provide service to small farm operators, (including extension publications). These documents must reflect circumstances faced on small farms, ranches, and woodlots. —END— /S/ DAN GLICKMAN 82 Appen dix B Mail Or der t h e Moder n W ay AP P E N D IX B - Mail O r der t he Mo der n W ay Source: SMALL FARM DIGEST Volume 2, No. 2 - Winter 1999 http://www.reeusda.gov/smallfarm/sfd/index.htm This is the first in a series of articles on marketing topics by CSREES’ Small Farm Program staff. Marketing is critical to the success of any small farm. Often, small farmers do better when they market directly to the consumer, rather than through middlemen. Direct marketing through roadside stands, farmers markets, and “u-pick” operations work, but these traditional approaches all depend heavily on a good location for success. Mail order marketing does not share this limitation. If you advertise your products in a magazine or newspaper and mail the products to the buyer, your farm’s location does not matter. One modern version of mail order marketing that uses computers is Internet marketing. A web page or website where you offer your products for sale on the Internet is like an ad in a newspaper or magazine. However, your ad can run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and there is no word limit. Further, your ad potentially reaches people all over the world. “But wait,” you say, “I know nothing about making web pages or running websites. I don’t even own a computer. I don’t even know how to use a computer!” It doesn’t matter. Being a whiz with computers is no more important to marketing on the Internet than knowing how to set print is to putting an ad in the paper. There are companies that will create and manage your website. Your customers do not need to reach you via a computer. They can call, fax, or mail their orders to you. Is Internet Marketing for You? You need to look at several factors to decide if Internet marketing could work for you. Number of Potential Customers. The most important advantage of Internet marketing for most farmers is that you can reach a very large number of potential buyers--in fact, millions. Forrester Research estimates that U.S. online retail sales will generate $52.2 billion in revenues by 2001. If you are looking for more customers and for sales growth in the future, Internet marketing may be a good alternative for you. Flexible Hours. Another advantage, especially if you are a part-time farmer, is that you do not need to be physically present during established hours. Although Internet marketing can be more flexible in terms of when you have to be present, you do need to respond to your customers promptly — by telephone, fax, or electronic mail, for example. Responding will take just as much time as it would with any traditional marketing approach. Competition. A potential disadvantage is that you are competing with many other people for the customer’s attention. In a farmer’s market or roadside stand, only a few people sell the same product. On the Internet, you may be competing with dozens or even hundreds of people selling the same product. Figuring out how to get the buyer’s attention therefore becomes critical. Transportation. You need to have a fast, reliable, cost-effective way of getting the product to the customer. Many people do not want to wait long for a product, and lost orders will ruin repeat sales. Cost becomes an issue because the buyer “sees” the transportation cost included in the bill. There are many good options, but you need to decide how you will get your product to the consumer before you commit to any kind of mail order marketing by Internet or otherwise. Customer Loyalty. One potential disadvantage of any kind of mail order direct marketing is that you do not get a very good chance to develop a personal relationship with your customers. Customer loyalty-and repeat sales--often grow out of your personal touch. Think about ways to make your interactions with your customers more personal and long- lasting. Things like a recipe page or a “virtual tour” of your farm linked to your product sales page are examples. Interacting with customers will take time, too. 83 Appen dix B Mail Or der t h e Moder n W ay Product Availability. Getting the right product mix and maintaining availability are important. Internet clients have many, many choices. If they find your web page “closed” (gone), or find that you cannot supply products advertised on the page (because the page is not current), they may never come back. If there are considerable periods of time when you have no products available for sale, the Internet may not be a good alternative for you. Alternatively, you might want to think about sharing a site with others so that it can run all year, even when you personally do not have a product for sale. Basic Decisions You do not have to jump into Internet marketing “full steam ahead.” You can start small and build an Internet website as you gather more information (see box) to find out if this direct marketing approach works for you. There are three basic areas in which you need to decide just how much time and money you want to invest. Should I have a complex or simple site? Your site can be anything ranging from one simple page to several pages linked through a home page. One page is like a flyer that lists your products. Several page are like a catalog where the home page is the cover and table of contents. Anything between is possible. The pages themselves may be simple or complex, ranging from a page with mostly text and few graphics to pages with animation, sound, and even farm tours. The more complex your site is , the more it will cost to establish and maintain it. More complexity also means more of your time and effort. Do I change my site often or rarely? You can keep your site the same for long periods, change it often, or anything between. For example, you could keep your basic site the same, but add seasonal specials two or there times a year through temporary pages linked to your home page. The more often you change your site, the greater your expenses and the more time you have to spend deciding what you want to show. Should I interact with my customers through the Internet or not? There is a range of options. At one end of the spectrum, your site is really just an ad. Customers order by phone or fax. At the other end, customers place the order, give you shipping information, and pay--all without ever talking to you in person. Again, the more functions you add to your site, the more it will cost you in time and money. The costs of creating and maintaining a website vary around the country. Before you begin to design your own site, contact local firms that develop and maintain web pages so that you can match your site to your budget. Simple, inexpensive sites can be just as effective as elaborate sites if they are done well. Websites Offer Direct Marketing Information A number of organizations have websites with information about direct marketing, including: Farmer’s Market Online (http://www.farmersmarketonline.com/). Operated by Outrider New Service, this online marketplace provides a space where shoppers from around the world can meet, correspond, and purchase products directly from farmers, ranchers, and artists. Internet Marketing Center (http://www.marketingtips.com/index.html). The Center offers online marketing tips and strategies, success stories, a free monthly newsletter, and research resources. Sustainable Farming Connection (http://www.sunsite.unc.edu/farming/connection/growmark/netmark/netmark.htm). This site brings information about how to cut costs, grow healthful food, build strong rural communities, and improve the environment. The site also features “Net Marketing: How Farmers Are Using the Internet to Reach and Satisfy Customers.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture does not warrant the usefulness or value of information provided on non-USDA websites. How Do I Start? Start with a draft design. You will need a draft version of your site to take to the person who actually creates the electronic page or pages of your site. If you are good at drawing and writing, you could probably develop a paper version of the web page yourself. Most people will need help. Again, there are some things you need to think about as you draw up your design. 84 Appen dix B Mail Or der t h e Moder n W ay First, your “tag,” the first few words on the page, is critical. When people talk about “searching” or “surfing” the net, the tag is what they find. If you are selling organic honey, you want to make sure organic honey appears in the tag. Otherwise, your customers will never find you. Second, Internet users are often impatient. If your page takes a long time--more than about 15 seconds-to appear on the customer’s computer screen, many people are apt to go to the next site. Complicated or long pages usually take longer to appear. This is one reason why a simple home page with links to other pages showing specific products can be a good idea. The home page will appear rapidly and get the customers’ attention, and they can browse the other pages if they cannot find what they want. Third, remember that the Internet is visual. You could have a website with no graphics at all. It would appear quickly and would be inexpensive to develop and maintain. However, most Internet users want to see things of visual interest. So, balance issues such as cost of development and how rapidly the page appears with the need for visual interest. Once you have a draft design, find someone to develop and manage your site. You will want to work closely with a web page developer to create the electronic version of your design. Your original ideas may go through many changes as they turn into an electronic website. A “webmaster” will put your site on the Internet and manage it. Often, this can be the same person or firm who develops your web page. Make sure you hire a competent firm with a good track record. To find a web page developer and webmaster, look under “web page developer” in the yellow pages or contact any Internet service provider. Security will probably be a big concern for many of your customers if you offer direct Internet purchasing. They will be putting their credit card information into the Internet. Make sure you use a well-tested, reliable system--designed for Internet financial transactions--that prevents fraud, and make sure your website shows that financial information is secure and encrypted. Also make sure that you learn about and meet any State regulations or requirements that apply to your business. Most states have regulations about how cooked products are processed, for example. Internet marketing is another way for you to get your product directly to the consumer. Like all marketing approaches, it will work for some people and not for others. Read “Your Small Farm Neighbors” in this issue of Small Farm Digest to see what some farmers have to say about Internet marketing. You also may wish to examine others’ websites (see below) for ideas on effective website design. Try These On For Sites You may wish to visit a few of the websites advertising farm products listed below. Consider which designs and product advertisements you respond to and why. Angelic Organics - http://www.angelic-organics.com/ Bowdish Market Garden - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4227 Cascadian Farm - http://www.cfarm.com/welcome.htm Egg Farm Dairy - http://www.creamery.com/ The Indian River Gift Fruit Co. - http://www.giftfruit.com/ The Red Apple Farm - http://www.redapplefarm.com/ Tjarks Herb Farm - http://www.tjarksfarm.com/ This representative listing of farm-related websites does not constitute an endorsement by USDA. For additional ideas on website design, readers are encouraged to search for other sites on their own. Internet searches can be performed using the names of small farm operations or products as keywords. 85 Appen dix C F ood S af et y F act S h eet AP P E N D IX C Donald Schlimme Professor Department of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Maryland Cleaning of produce should precede sanitizing treatments. Cleaning and rinsing or washing in water removes dirt, soil and plant juices (sap) and reduces the size (number) of the microbial population. However, washing alone does not eliminate microbes. Produce items that contain adhering soil can be washed in cool water containing a USDA-approved mild alkali cleaning agent such as sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium sesquicarbonate, sodium metasilicate or trisodium phosphate. After cleaning, the produce is ready to be sanitized. Sanitizing agents destroy the vegetative cells of micro-organisms but sanitizing agents do not sterilize the produce because some microbial spores, and even a few vegetative cells, generally survive treatment with sanitizing agents. Chlorine is the most widely used sanitizer in food processing operations in the United States. It has a number of advantages including: • it kills micro-organisms rather rapidly; • it is safe for consumers and is acceptable to the FDA; • it has no adverse effects on the food; • it is economical; • it is readily soluble in water; and • it is easily tested for solution concentration. Chlorine sanitizers have several major disadvantages, however. They cause corrosion of iron, steel, stainless steel, copper, brass, aluminum and tin; they also do not have much residual kill power and are inactivated by organic matter. The important factors affecting the germicidal properties of chlorine include the acidity (pH) of the solution, the concentration of the chlorine in the solution and the temperature of the solution. The most economical and readily available form of chlorine is bleach. Bleach is a solution of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) in water. Most common laundry bleach is 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite in water. Sodium hypochlorite solutions are very alkaline with a pH in excess of 9 or 10. At this high pH, bleach is not a very effective germicide. The pH of the bleach solution must be reduced to between 6 and 7 in o rder to form hypochlorous acid (HOCl). Hypochlorous acid is the most germicidal form of chlorine in aqueous media. Thus, when bleach is added to water to form a germicidal sanitizing solution it is necessary to adjust its pH to between 6 and 7. The easiest and most economical way to do this is to add distilled vinegar to the bleach-water mixture. When enough vinegar is added to adjust the pH of the solution to between 4 and 5, the solution is mostly hypochlorous acid (HOCl), and its germicidal power is greatest. However, when the solution pH is between 4 and 5 it is very corrosive to metals. Thus, using the bleach solution at a pH between 6 and 7 gives satisfactory germicidal power and the solution is not excessively corrosive. When the pH of a bleach solution is decreased to below 4.0, deadly chlorine gas is formed. 86 Appen dix C Thus, it is important to only reduce the pH of the bleach solution to not less than about 6. The FDA allows the use of sodium hypochlorite as a sanitizing agent for the food contact surfaces of food processing equipment in concentrations up to 0.02 percent or 200 parts per million (ppm). Chapter 21 Part 178.1010 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the regulation that is valid for this use. At sodium hypochlorite concentrations of 200 ppm or less there is no requirement to rinse the treated surface with water prior to use. The U.S. FDA regulation 21 CFR 173.315 allows for fruits and vegetables to be washed in water containing up to 0.2 percent sodium hypochlorite. Vegetative cells of microbes are easily killed by chlorine, but bacterial and mold spores are not. Thus, surfaces treated with chlorinated water may contain high numbers of surviving spores. The resistance of spores to the killing power of chlorine is due to their relatively impervious and dense outer coating or wall. The chlorine must first penetrate the wall of the spore to reach and oxidize the internal protoplasm. Not only must the chlorine penetrate the spore wall to attack and kill the spore; microbes exude a complex polysaccharide-based material when they are present on a surface—this sticky, protective coating forms a complex film around the cells and spores which is called a “biofilm.” Thus, the chlorine in a sanitizing solution must get past the protective biofilm coating in order to attack the cells and spores embedded in it. In order to assist the chlorine to penetrate the spore wall and to gain access to microscopic “nooks and crannies” on treated surfaces a surfactant—a “wetting agent”—can be added to the bleach-vinegar-water sanitizing solution. Sodium lauryl sulfate is a good FDA-approved surfactant for this purpose as is a material referred to as Polysorbate 60 or TWEEN 60. This is a wetting agent that has the chemical name polyoxyethylene sorbitan monostearate and it is also FDA-approved for food use. Proper cleaning and sanitation acts to prevent or retard the formation of biofilms. In order to make an effective chlorine-based sanitizing agent for use on fresh produce, food handling equipment, utensils, machinery, preparation and display room walls, ceilings and floors, the following formulation can be used when added to 1 gallon of water: F ood S af et y F act S h eet 1 teaspoon of common household bleach 2 teaspoons of 40 grain white (distilled) vinegar 1/ 2 to 1 teaspoon of an approved wetting agent This mixture contains 50 ppm of hypochlorous acid at a pH between 6 and 7. In order to make a 50 gallon solution multiply the amount of each ingredient by 50. In order to make a 50 gallon solution of 100 ppm of hypochlorous acid use23 : (50) (2) (1 teaspoon of bleach) = 100 teaspoons of bleach = 1 pint of bleach (50) (2) (2 teaspoons of vinegar) = 200 teaspoons of vinegar = 2.1 pints of vinegar (50) ( 1/2 teaspoon of wetting agent) = 25 teaspoons of wetting agent = 1/ 4 pint of wetting agent Effective destruction of microbes on produce can be achieved by placing the produce in a “pool” of the above sanitizing agent. The longer the produce remains in the sanitizing solution the greater will be the total number of microbes destroyed. It is important to remember that produce should be chilled after harvest and should be kept cool or cold until prepared for consumption. Therefore, the sanitizing bleach treatment should be done using cool water that is about 20°F warmer than the produce temperature. Dwell time of the produce in the sanitizing solution can range from between 1 to 5 minutes or 10 minutes. After the produce is removed from the sanitizing solution it can be allowed to drain for several minutes prior to packaging it or placing it on display. The residual chlorine on the produce does not impart a “bad” flavor and is dissipated in a few hours. The vinegar (acetic acid) concentration in the sanitizing solution is so weak that no “acid” or vinegar taste is apparent on the produce. One word of caution is necessary. Some produce items should never be wetted after harvest because exposure to moisture accelerates mold growth. In particular, berry fruit such as raspberries, blackberries and even strawberries should not be sanitized using an aqueous medium. Cleaning of equipment, utensils, walls, ceilings and floors should precede any attempt to sanitize them. It is far easier to sanitize clean 23 1A teaspoon contains 4.9 milliliters of fluid. 87 Appen dix C surfaces than surfaces that are soiled. Cleaning of surfaces in fruit and vegetable processing marketing areas should be carried out using mild USDA-approved alkali cleaning compounds such as sodium carbonate, trisodium phosphate (TSP), tetra sodium pyrophosphate (TSPP) and others. Use only cleaning agents that are acceptable and approved for use on food contact surfaces even when cleaning walls, ceilings and floors. The use of cleaning agents and scrubbing with brushes is helpful in removing microbial biofilms. Frequent cleaning is a good way to prevent the buildup of microbial biofilms. The following procedures should be followed to clean and sanitize equipment, utensils, room walls, ceilings and floors. 1. Rinse the area to be cleaned with low pressure lukewarm or cold water to remove gross soil. 2. Add a mild alkaline cleaning compound to hot water (130°F-160°F) or at a temperature recommended by the cleaning agent manufacturer. 3. Scrub away soil that the alkaline cleaning compound has loosened using a brush. 4. Rinse with cool or lukewarm water. 5. Apply the chlorine sanitizer solution at a temperature of 100°F and let stand for 20-30 minutes. 6. If the sanitizer concentration is greater than 200 ppm rinse it off with potable water. 7. If the sanitizer concentration is less than 200 ppm it is not required that it be rinsed off; rather allow the item to drain and then air dry. There is no regulatory requirement to rinse the sanitizer off, however concerns about corrosion may make it advisable to do so. ˜ After walls, ceilings and floors have been cleaned, sanitized and allowed to drain and air dry an application of quaternary ammonium compounds (QUATS) will act to retard further microbial growth for 1 to 2 months. The QUATS can be applied at a concentration of up to 200 ppm in water by wiping, brushing or spraying. QUATS are effective sanitizers and are FDA-approved for use in sanitizing solutions for food processing equipment and utensils and other food-contact articles by 21 CRF 178.1010. The chemical category of QUATS is n-alkyl benzyldimethyl (or dimethyl ethyl) ammonium chloride. QUATS have attributes that chlorine-based sanitizing agents do not. They provide a relatively long lasting residue that inhibits the growth of molds and some other microbes and they are heat stable, F ood S af et y F act S h eet effective over a wide pH range, are noncorrosive and are less affected by organic matter than chlorine. Like chlorine, the maximum level of QUATS permitted for use on food contact items without a preuse rinse is 200 ppm. Compared to chlorine, QUATS are slower acting germicides and are less effective against gramnegative bacteria. The procedure used to clean and sanitize small equipment items is similar to the procedure used for large equipment and machinery. Because the hands of workers will contact the cleaning/sanitizing solutions for small equipment they must be less irritating. A mild alkaline cleaner with 0.03 percent (300 ppm) of active alkalinity is advised. The small equipment should be placed into a “bath” of the cleaning solution at a temperature of about 125°F for 15 to 30 minutes. This enables the loose soil and dirt to be brush scrubbed off. Rinse the equipment in hot water and then spray or dip treat it with a sanitizer solution (the 100 ppm chlorine sanitizer solution previously described or a 200 ppm QUAT solution). Finally, allow the equipment to drain dry. The alkaline cleaning materials, QUATS and wetting agents can be obtained from cleaning compound supply firms such as: Anderson Chemical Company DuBois Hydrite Chemical Company Oakite Products, Inc. Rochester Midland Corporation Food Industry Division The preceding does not constitute an endorsement of any company, manufacturer, or product. References Principles of Food Processing Sanitation, 2nd Edition, A.M. Katsuyama, ed. (The Food Processors Institute, Washington, D.C., 1993). 88 Appen dix D Cen t r e f or R ur al E n t r epr en eur s h ip AP P E N D IX D 89 Appen dix D Cen t r e f or R ur al E n t r epr en eur s h ip 90 Appen dix D Cen t r e f or R ur al E n t r epr en eur s h ip 91 Appen dix D Cen t r e f or R ur al E n t r epr en eur s h ip 92 Appen dix D Cen t r e f or R ur al E n t r epr en eur s h ip 93 Appen dix E N on -pr of it F ar min g Or gan is at ion s AP P E N D IX E - N o n -pr o f it O r gan is at io n s F ar min g The prevalence of well-funded, highly organised non-profit groups of farmers in the USA is significantly different from in Australia. These groups are often involved in production, marketing and environmental management research and extension and sometimes work in partnership with the USDA or Cooperative E xtension Service. They differ from many Australian groups because of their emphasis on community, not just member, education. This Appendix provides information on a number of non-profit groups in the USA and the programs they run. This is preceded by comments from farmers who find the extension system is not meeting their needs; generally these farmers are more positive about the support they receive from community groups. D is s at is f ac t io n w it h t r adit io n al ext en s io n A number of farmers in the USA, particularly those involved in non-traditional enterprises, believe that agency extension staff are not meeting their needs. On the other hand, many non-profit groups are assisting them. This is partly attributed to the perception that community groups are more flexible, holistic and have small farmers’ needs as a priority, as opposed to the extension system, which can be too rigid and specialised. Comments demonstrating this included: “Extension lacks vision. It is never on the cutting edge, always well behind. It’s not their fault, they are good people but it’s just a big bureaucracy.” This farmer also said “Farmers want to hear from other farmers, not scientists or extension staff.” “T he grass roots organisations such as INCA [Iowa Network for Community Agriculture] and CSA [Community Supported Agriculture] movement have to teach or update the extension officers in terms of alternative agriculture.” “N o one in the university [E xtension Service] or other agricultural leaders knows about these things [new and emerging industries], it wasn't until five years ago that they got an organics person… they need to be trained in new and emerging industries, they’re not up to date.” This farmer went on to say “It's not a problem with individual extension officers, it’s just the system. T hey're not brought up with organics in the curriculum. T hey need a big picture view of sustainable agriculture.” “T he land grant universities [which the E xtension Services are based in] have not previously been interested in organics. Farmers would go to them for information and the universities didn't know and didn't want to help. So these people worked it out themselves. And now that organics are more 94 Appen dix E N on -pr of it F ar min g Or gan is at ion s popular the land grant university people are coming to those farmers and asking ‘what are you doing here?’ So they can write it up and tell everyone else.” P r ac t ic al F ar mer s o f Io w a http://www.pfi.iastate.edu Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI) is a seventeen-year-old, grassroots, non-profit sustainable agriculture organisation with over 600 members across Iowa and the Midwest. The mission of the organisation is to research, develop and promote profitable, ecologically sound and community enhancing approaches to agriculture. PFI has gained national recognition for its pioneering work in on-farm research, farmer to farmer networking and local food system development. Below are some descriptions of PFI programs. Mul t i-dis cipl inar y wor k s hops of f er ed in l ocal f ood s ys t ems and dir ect mar k et ing In 2001 PFI obtained a SARE Professional Development Program grant (Section 4.3.8) in conjunction with Iowa State University Cooperative E xtension Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS – an agency of the USDA) and the Leopold Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (Section 5.4.2), also involving the Iowa Network for Community Agriculture (another non-profit organisation). Five 1-day workshops on local food systems and direct marketing were held in May and June 2001, across the state of Iowa. The primary aim was to educate and update agency staff (Cooperative E xtension Service and NRCS) but the workshops were also open to other community members and agricultural stakeholders. An in-depth training manual was developed and provided to all participants. Some farmers were paid to attend to provide a balance to discussions, and one farmer would always make a formal presentation over lunch. The meal consisted entirely of Iowa grown products (an All Iowa Meal). Topics for the workshop included: farmers’ markets; community supported agriculture; sales to hotels, restaurants, nursing homes, hospitals, grocery stores and schools; pickyour-own operations; value-added processing and product development; innovative meat marketing; agritourism; community and urban gardening; food policy councils; educational opportunities and youth; farm planning; conservation and local food systems; food system mapping; and organising and developing strategies and action plans for local food system projects. Al l Iowa Meal s This project is essentially a local food brokering service, whereby PFI organises farmers to provide ingredients to restaurants, so that entire meals can be made from Iowa grown products. Institutions (such as the Scheman Conference Centre, Iowa State University) pay an annual fee of US$100 to be in the program. Farmers pay a US$10 annual fee and contribute five percent of total sales back to PFI. The Institutions provide All Iowa 95 Appen dix E N on -pr of it F ar min g Or gan is at ion s Meals for their customers on an irregular basis, usually only for special occassions. The price of the meal includes a 20 percent premium which goes directly to local farmers, and there is a 60cents per meal extra charge for PFI's role as a broker. PFI found that they received the best response from institutions when recipe suggestions were provided as well, for example, what meal can be made using goat’s cheese. Institutions email a contact at (PFI) details of the order – which items, quantity and delivery details. PFI then emails the grower's network (everyone has email access) to supply the products. If PFI cannot fill the order from the members they will look for supplies outside the network, but still within Iowa. There have been occasions when PFI cannot supply everything, but they have not had many complaints from the institutions. The farmers are price setters not price takers and PFI tells the institutions how much their order will cost, so the institutions can set the menu prices accordingly. Menu for All Iowa Meals at the Scheman Conference Centre. The All Iowa Meals program was established not just as a new business for producers, but to provide consumer education about what can be produced in Iowa. The name of the farm and producer is listed on the back of the menu and this has generated new customers for some of the producers. The program does not intend to reach a point of supplying one restaurant regularly. Although PFI may be able to separately help farmers who want to do this. The institutions currently serving All Iowa Meals do so on an ad hoc basis. PFI is not looking to involve more institutions but if an organisation approaches them, they will involve them in the program. One reason that the program is not expanding is the limited vegetable produce available. Although the meat producers have a lot of product to offer 96 Appen dix E N on -pr of it F ar min g Or gan is at ion s and want to generate more sales, the vegetable producers cannot provide enough volume to expand yet. The program is not be the major source of income for producers, for a number of reasons. Meat producers usually end up with excess meat on the carcass because the restaurants buy meat by the cut, other markets need to be found for the excess meat. However meat is often bought frozen, which allows some flexibility. Also, peak vegetable production season does not match peak meals season. However this is useful for people with Community Supported Agriculture and farmers’ markets commitments, who are busy with harvest at that time. The program has identified a need for more horticultural products in winter, in order to extend the proportion of the year that meals can be provided. Frozen raspberries, carrots, parsnips all can be provided through winter. However there is some debate amongst members over freezing and canning, with the question being raised: is it adding value or taking away from the local fresh concept? There is a recognised need amongst program participants to continually differentiate their product so that it is unique. High quality produce is one important factor. Originally the fact that much produce was organic was another selling point, however the producers are now concentrating on the 'local' emphasis as large organic production companies become more common in the USA. Currently PFI does not require farmers to subscribe to certain management practices, such as organic production, or environmental management systems. They only remind members that they need to be providing a differentiated product, either the type of product, the quality or the management system. There are some policies and expectations regarding the grower network, which members have to acknowledge. For example: • There is no guarantee of sales if a farmer is part of the network; • Clean and properly boxed product is expected; • Legible, complete invoices are required; • Growers have to provide products as requested, for example, washed potatoes; and • Growers have to deliver the produce themselves, as such the program is suited more towards farmers located near the institutions. However there is a support network and sometimes another member or PFI staff will assist with delivery. 97 Appen dix E N on -pr of it F ar min g Or gan is at ion s Statistics on the program are shown in the table below. PFI determined with some of the institutions that there was expected to be a 10% increase in sales of most products in 2001. All Iowa Meals 1999 2000 Number of meals served (as in breakfast or lunch or dinner) Number of events Locations of institutions Number of people served Number of farmers involved Payment to farmers/processors Percent meat (of whole meal) 37 54 29 8 6960* 43 US$13655 55% 47 17 5638 46 US$14829 48% * A special, one-off event held in Ames, Iowa in 1999 attracted 2000 people into the town for a week, and an All Iowa Meal was held at that time; as such the figures are higher in 1999 because of that. C o mmo dit y Gr o w er ’s C o -o per at ive http://www.commoditygrowers.org The Commodity Growers Co-operative (CGC) is dedicated helping Kentucky’s tobacco farm families achieve profitable diversification. The vision of CGC is to build prosperous family farms and strong local communities in the burley tobacco states through market development, networking, leadership and innovation. CGC focuses its efforts in three program areas; agricultural policy development, access to capital, and education and training for farmers. CGC managed a program: Community Food Security and Market Capacity Development in Kentucky, in 2000. Further information is available in the final report on the website; Building Bridges - Growing Community. The project objectives were: 1/ To build community capacity for managing and expanding local farmers’ markets and public markets; 2/ To organise community food councils and conduct community food access assessments; 3/ To train community organisations to expand on the replicate the highly successful Harvest Festivals; and 4/ To ensure access to marketing and organisational assistance for farmers, by providing training to extension agents, farmers, small business assistance programs and others who can assist farmer associations in community food issues, market development planning, building access to capital, and organisational management for farmer associations. The project established the Friends of Lexington Farmers’ Market group to organise one special event per month at the weekly farmers’ market. For example, chef days, which 98 Appen dix E N on -pr of it F ar min g Or gan is at ion s were designed to put local chefs in touch with local food producers. This has created new markets for some farmers with chefs starting to buy produce directly from them. On days of special events farmers report their sales have doubled. A partnership of CGC, University of Louisville and Cooperative E xtension organised a council to educate farmers, extension agents, farm market managers, civic leaders and urban leaders about the importance of urban gardening, farmers’ market needs and accessing locally produced food. Harvest Festivals have been established to create new markets for farmers by directly connecting them with consumers. Harvest festivals are much bigger than farmers’ markets and bring together tourism interests, farmers and chefs as well as local musicians and entertainers, this is sometimes called entertainment farming. It was reported that a lesson learned through the project was that some extension agents were not open to new training or very receptive to working with outside agencies. For some agents, this was due to a lack of time and resources; for others it seemed more a lack of interest. A recommendation at the end of the project was that existing agricultural institutions must continue (and expand) the involvement in community food security and local marketing initiatives. For example, the University of Kentucky Cooperative E xtension Service and the Kentucky Department of Agriculture could assign lead staff to organise the 2001 Direct Marketing Conference for Kentucky. In the past this event has been organised by CGC. A result of the conference was the formation of a Kentucky Direct Marketing Network. C o mmu n it y Al l ian c e w it h F amil y F ar mer s (C AF F ) http://www.caff.org CAFF is a non-profit organisation based in California. Its political and educational campaigns are designed to build a movement of rural and urban people who foster family-scale agriculture which cares for the land, sustains local economies and promotes social justice. Programs the organisation runs include a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) directory and an integrated pest management project. Information from the CAFF website on each of these programs is provided below. CAFF also coordinates the Lighthouse Farm Network, detailed in Section 2.5. ‘California CSA’ offers regional information to farmers, prospective and current CSA members, the media, students, and related non-profit organisations. The project was developed to help farmers and other CSA organisers swap information - new ideas, triedand-true practices, and helpful tips on running CSAs - among new, old, and potential participants in California. ‘Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems’, or BIOS, is a technical assistance program that demonstrates: 1) the viability of farming systems which rely on sharply reduced chemical inputs and 2) the innovative power of cooperatively linked agricultural institutions. BIOS projects for almonds and walnuts have been established in seven local government areas. With some chemicals being taken off the market, and costs increasing on those that 99 Appen dix E N on -pr of it F ar min g Or gan is at ion s remain, many almond and walnut growers are concerned about relying on synthetic pesticides. To keep their farms not just surviving, but thriving, they are looking for costcutting innovations that will improve the productivity of their orchards. For the past seven years, a small but growing number of farmers in California's Central Valley have been successfully reducing their insecticide, herbicide and fertiliser inputs without affecting yield or quality. Based on the experiences of these growers, their independent pest control advisors, and University of California researchers, CAFF formed the BIOS program to refine these techniques and extend them to other nut growers. Since the founding of BIOS in 1993, similar initiatives have begun in grapes, cotton, row crops, prunes and citrus. C h r is t ian F ar mer s F eder at io n o f O n t ar io (C F F ) http://www.christianfarmers.org CFF is a professional organisation of Christian family farm entrepreneurs. The website provides links to their workshops and a weekly commentary spoken on radio by the group’s Strategic Policy Advisor. The Federation also publishes a quarterly magazine for members and friends. 100 Appen dix F Al t er n at ive E n t er pr is es F act S h eet AP P E N D IX F – Al t er n at ive E n t er pr is es F act S h eet Alternative Enterprises F o r H igh er P r o f it s , H eal t h ier l an d What Are Alternative Enterprises and Agritourism? Alternative enterprises and agritourism allow farmers and ranchers to earn higher profits by replacing or supplementing traditional farm operations with innovative, sustainable on-farm or on-ranch ventures. Alternative enterprises and agritourism can take many forms. They can: • produce food and fiber or have little to do with agriculture, • produce new or unique crops or livestock or add value to traditional agricultural products, • rely on traditional farm practices or use alternative methods, such as organic systems, • be labor- and resource- intensive or require few inputs, • Operate either seasonally or year-round, • produce fun, recreation, and education- or naturebased agritourism. But they all have a common theme: farmers and ranchers rely on the natural resources on their land - the soil, water, air, plants, wildlife, and scenery - to keep their family on the farm and the farm in their family. They also require sound land care. Since the land's resources generate income, conserving those resources makes good business sense. Which Alternative Enterprise Might Be Right for Me? A lot goes into determining what type of enterprise is most appropriate for you. But first you must assess the natural resources on your farm or ranch, as well as your personal and financial resources. Here are a few questions you should consider: Land Use: How much land do you own or have access to and how is it being used? Farms with wooded areas may be well suited for mushroom production or hunting. Operations with open areas may make good sites for public events. Fallow cornfields may be rented out for goose hunting. Pasturelands could be used to graze alternative livestock, such as goats, poultry, or bison. Land Features: What does your land look like? Does it have scenic views? Rolling hills? Interesting geologic features, like caves or glacial features? Land that is unique or visually appealing may provide income opportunities from activities like hiking, horseback riding, nature tours, or hayrides. Land with water features could be used for fishing, duck hunting, canoeing, and other water sports. Land Location: How close are your neighbors? How close is your marketplace? Being located too close to people may limit some enterprises, like hunting. But access to nearby markets may be required for other ventures, like pick-your-own enterprises. Soil Type: What are the characteristics of your soil, and what is it best suited for? Soil capability should factor into your decision. Farmstead Features: Are there historic buildings or other historic features on your property that might serve as tourist attractions? Is 101 Appen dix F Al t er n at ive E n t er pr is es F act S h eet your farmhouse well suited for a bed and breakfast? Are there buildings that could be modified for use as conference or banquet facilities? Climate: What is the average temperature, rainfall, or snowfall in your area? Will you need to irrigate? Wildlife: Is there abundant wildlife on your property that could support recreation like hunting, fishing, and bird watching? Financial Resources: Do you have access to loans or other sources of capital? Some alternative enterprises have high start-up costs, while others require little upfront investment. Other Resources: What are your talents, skills, and interests? Are you, or are others in your family, good at particular crafts such as woodworking, quilting, or knitting that you could teach or demonstrate? Do you enjoy working and talking with people? Are there others - family members, neighbors, community groups you can team up with on an alternative enterprise? How much labor can you provide or do you have access to? What Else Do 1 Need To Know? Business Planning Any new venture requires a well-developed business plan. You'll need to do the following: assess your resources, research market and business conditions, identify your customers and competitors, set your business development and financial goals, research and comply with any rules and regulations (discussed below), arrange financing, develop a marketing plan, and implement your business plan. Rules and Regulations Alternative enterprises often pose new legal challenges that traditional farming operations don't face. You'll need to research whether your potential enterprise will require any of the following: 0 Special permits, including zoning, building, vendor, environmental, and other permits; compliance with health and environmental regulations, fish and game rules, building codes, tax remittance on sales, and other local, state, and Federal regulations; legal agreements to use other private or public property; liability or other insurance. Where To Get Help U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) USDAs Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program and its Sustainable Agriculture Network have developed and compiled information on planning, developing, and marketing different types of alternative enterprises. SARE also offers grants for research and education on alternative production and marketing systems. See http:// ~.sare.org on the web or call the SARE program at (202) 720-5203. USDAs Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) can help you conduct a natural resources assessment. To locate the NRCS office nearest you, look in your phone book under "U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service." For a national listing of alternative enterprises and agritourism liaisons, see http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.goy/RESS/econ/ressd.htm. Resource Conservation and Development Councils, coordinated by NRCS, can also help you get started on alternative enterprises. To locate the RC&D Council that serves your area, contact your nearest NRCS office or see http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/ RCM/rc&dstate.htmI on the web. Cooperative Extension Your local Cooperative Extension Service can help you locate resources and expertise on alternative enterprises and business development. To find the Cooperative Extension office nearest you, look in your phone book under "County Government, Cooperative Extension." 102 Appen dix F Al t er n at ive E n t er pr is es F act S h eet Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) ATTRA offers extensive information on initiating and maintaining successful alternative enterprises and provides links to other organizations that can help you. See http://www.attra.org on the web, or call (800) 346-9140. ATTRA also provides useful information on marketing and evaluating alternative agricultural enterprises. ATTRA is sponsored by USDA's Rural Business-Cooperative Service. Small Business Administration (SBA) The SBA provides information on planning, financing, and marketing your new business, including a small business "start up kit." SBA may also be able to help you develop a business plan and with other aspects of launching an alternative business. To locate the SBA office nearest you, look in your phone book, under "U.S. Government, Small Business Administration," see http://www.sba.gov on the web, or call I800-UASKSBA. Other Resources For information on the local and state business climate, contact your local Chamber of Commerce. For information on starting and marketing your own tourist or recreation enterprise, contact your state department of tourism or your county or city convention and visitors bureau. Trade associations for specific businesses, such as the National Aquaculture Association, North American Farmers Direct Marketing Association, the American Pastured Poultry Producers Association, the American Bed and Breakfast Association, and many others, may be able to give you additional guidance. Farming Alternatives Program (FAP), Cornell University FAP has produced a step-by-step workbook, Farming Alternatives: A Guide to Evaluating the Feasibility of New Farm-Based Enterprises, to help you plan and evaluate a new enterprise. It can be ordered by calling FAP at (607) 255-9832. Also see http:l/ www.cals.cornell.edu/dept/ruralsoc/fap/fap.html on the web. 103 Appen dix F Examples of Alternative Enterprises FEE-BASED OUTDOOR RECREATION Recreation derived from the natural resources on farms and ranches can provide new income opportunities for landowners. However, these types of enterprises require careful resources management to stay viable. The following are some of the activities that can be offered to the public for a fee. Access to water bodies, natural areas, scenic sites, etc. Archery Bird watching or nature photography Fishing or hunting Ice-skating and sledding Outdoor games (laser tag, paint ball, golf) Swimming, inner tubing, canoeing Rock climbing/rappelling Scenic trails (for horseback riding, cross country skiing, hiking, or snowshoeing) Picnicking and camping EQUIPMENT RENTAL If you are offering for-fee recreational services or are located in areas where outdoor recreation is popular - near trout streams, hiking trails, state and national parks, etc. -you may wish to consider offering rental of the following types of equipment.. Binoculars, sighting scopes, tripods Boats, canoes, kayaks, inner tubes Camping, fishing, or hunting equipment Snowshoes, toboggans, cross country skis ALTERNATIVE CROPS and VALUE-ADDED PRODUCTS Growing high~value, non~traditional crops, raising specialty livestock, or providing gfa rm -related services can provide farmers and ranchers with supplemental income. The following list includes just a few of the items or services farmers and ranchers can grow or develop on their land to generate income: Alternative livestock products Goats (meat, milk, cheese, soap) Llamas and alpacas (wool or breeding stock) Free-range livestock Pastured poultry and livestock Rabbit Bison, elk, and deer Aquaculture (fish. clams, shrimp) Bait (minnows, worm farming) Canned, dried, smoked, or other preserved goods Craft sales (dried flowers, wreaths, furniture) Firewood Al t er n at ive E n t er pr is es F act S h eet Flowers or herbs Fruit or nut orchards Christmas trees Guide service for hunting, fishing, or pack trips Horse boarding Mushrooms (shiltake and others) Nursery products (shrubs, annuals, nursery stock, etc.) Organic produce Straw (pine straw and others) ALTERNATIVE MARKETING There are a number of innovative ways to market crops that you already grow or those that you wish to grow. These marketing techniques can increase your share off farm and ranch sales. Pick/cut-your-own (fruits, vegetables, flowers, Christmas trees) Rent-a-tree, berry bush, garden, or flowerbed Community-supported agriculture Direct marketing Internet sales to distant buyers Farmers' markets Roadside sales Direct selling to schools and restaurants PUBLIC EVENTS and PARTICIPANT EXPERIENCES Farms and ranches can make ideal settings for local fairs and festivals and other community events. You can offer your farm or ranch as the even t site for a fee and offer goods for sale during the event for extra profit. You can also offer programs that help people reconnect with the land. The following are types of events or participant experiences that urban dwellers and others may wish to participate in: Bonfires Clam bakes Corn or tall grass maze Dances Farm school for children and adults Festivals and fairs Anniversary festivals Blossom or harvest festivals Cultural or ethnic festivals Music festivals Heritage festivals Food gathering (fruit, nut, mushroom, flower picking) Rock or gem gathering Garden plot rentals Guided nature walks Haying or other harvest experiences Hay/sleigh/tractor rides Historic interpretation or re - enactments Outdoor plays and concerts Pumpkin carving Petting zoo 104 Appen dix F Rodeos, roundups, horse shows Syrup making Tours of wildlife and fish habitat conservation projects HOSPITALITY SERVICES Because of the serenity they can provide, farms and ranches are increasingly being sought out for lodging and other hospitality services. Here are a few of the services that some farms and ranches are providing:.. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES The farmstead is increasingly becoming a desirable location for demonstration or instruction of crafts and traditional rural activities. The following are some of the skills that imaginative farmers are sharing with the public.. Cattle roping, branding Cooking, canning, wine making, syrup making, smoking fish and meats Cow/goat milking Crafts (woodworking, rug hooking, quilting, knitting, wool spinning, weaving, soap making, flower arranging) Flour milling Gardening Grain threshing Lumberjack skills Organic food production Plant identification Sheep herding (sheep dog demos) TOURISM Al t er n at ive E n t er pr is es F act S h eet Child care Catering for events held on your farm or ranch Meeting and conference facilities for business and pleasure Country weddings Company retreats Family reunions Church picnics Farm / ranch vacations (cattle roundups, chuck wagon meals, cattle drives) Pet boarding/training Youth camps For additional copies of this information sheet, AE-1, call 1-888-LANDCARE or see the website at http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda/RESS/econ/ress d.htm. Tourism generates income not just from entrance fees but also from food, crafts, and other souvenirs offered for sale. The following list includes different farming and ranching operations the public may wish to tour. To attract more tourists, farmers and ranchers may want to join with other producers and innkeepers in their communities to offer tours of multiple operations (a fish farm, a flower farm, a llama operation, a ranch, etc.) and other rural attractions for a package price. Bird/wildlife preserves Cider mills Farm / ranch buildings Fish farms Flower and herb farms Specialty livestock operations (angora goats, llamas, dairy) Food processing facilities Historic sites or buildings Hydroponics operations Maple syrup production facilities Orchards Saw mills Traditional farms and ranches Wineries Bed and breakfast Cabin rentals 105 Appen dix G R ef er en ces AP P E N D IX G - R ef er en c es Alston, M. 2002. Inland Rural Towns: Are they sustainable? Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Outlook Conference 2002. Barr, N. 2002a. Social Trajectories for Rural Landscaping. Connections - Farm, Food and Resource Issues Autumn (May) 2002. http://www.agrifood.info/Connections/Autumn2002/index.htm Barr, N. 2002b. Going on the land and getting off it. Connections - Farm, Food and Resource Issues Winter (August) 2002. http://www.agrifood.info/Connections/Winter2002/index.htm Byron, N., Dwyer, G. and Peterson, D. 2002. Environmental Problems for Sale – Who Bids? Connections - Farm, Food and Resource Issues Autumn (May) 2002. http://www.agrifood.info/Connections/Autumn2002/index.htm Cahill, G. 2001. Forming Your Own Farmer / Producer Marketing Group. Department of Natural Resources and Environment. CES, 1994. Vision for the Future, A Strategic Plan for Agriculture. USDA, Cooperative Extension System, October 1994. CFV, 2001. The Co-operative Start Up Manual. Co-operative Federation of Victoria Ltd and Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Gleeson, A. R. and Piper, K. P. 2002. Institutional Reform in Rural Australia: Defining and Allocating Property Rights, in Property: Rights and Responsibilities Current Australian Thinking, Land and Water Australia, Canberra. Gradwell, S., Huber, G., Karp, R., Libbey, J., Meyer, T., Priog, R. and Swalla Holmes, M. 2001. Iowa CAFE - Building a Better Future for Rural Iowa. Resource and workshop manual on Community Agriculture and Food Enterprises. USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Hamilton, N. 1994. Why own the farm if you can own the farmer (and the crop)?: Contract production and intellectual property protection of grain crops. Nebraska Law Review. Vol 73, Number 1. University of Nebraska. Hamilton, N. 1999. Preserving farmland, creating farms, and feeding communities: Opportunities to link farmland protection and community food security. Northern Illinois University Law Review. Vol 19, Number 3. Northern Illinois University. Henry A. Wallace Centre for Agricultural and Environmental Policy (HAWCAEP). 2001. Making Changes: Turning Local Visions into National Solutions. Agriculture and Rural Development Policy Recommendations from the Agriculture Policy Project. http://www.winrock.org/wallace Hooper, S., Martin, P., Love, G. and Fisher, B. 2002. ‘Get big or get out’ Is this mantra still appropriate for the new century? Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 24th Biennial Conference of the Australian Society of Animal Production, Adelaide, 11 July 2002. Hoppe, R. (ed). 2001. Structural and Financial Characteristics of US Farms: 2001 Family Farm Report. Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington DC. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 768 Humphrey, S. and Mussen, E. 1995. Small Farm Handbook. Small Farm Program. Regents of the University of California USA. 106 Appen dix G R ef er en ces Iowa Food Policy Council (IFPC). 2001. Recommendations of the Iowa Food Policy Council to Governor Thomas J. Vilsack and Lt. Governor Sally Pederson, April 30, 2001. http://www.iowafoodpolicy.org/finalrecs/finalrecs.htm Kirschenmann, F. and Duffy, M. 2002. Iowa Agriculture - Beyond 2002. http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubinfo/papersspeeches/iowaag.html National Commission on Small Farms (NCSF). 1998. A Time To Act. A Report of the USDA National Commission on Small Farms. USDA, Washington DC. Miscellaneous Publication 1545. Reeve, I. 2001. Australian Farmers' Attitudes to Rural Environmental Issues. 1991-2001. Final Report to Land and Water Australia. http://www.ruralfutures.une.edu.au/publications/irfrep/farmatts/lwafarmattabs.html Sharp, J., Imerman, E. and Peters, G. 2002. Community Supported Agriculture (CSA): Building Community Among Farmers and Non-Farmers. Journal of Extension, Volume 40 Number 3, June 2002. http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/a3.html. Tonts, M. and Black, A. 2002. The Impacts of Changing Farm Business Structures on Rural Communities. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Publication No. 02/027 Project No. ECU-10A Tually, G. 1999. Putting the Family Back into Family Farm. http://www.affa.gov.au/corporate_docs/publications/rtf/social_science/countrymatters/tually.rtf 107 Appen dix H Con t act s AP P E N D IX H - C o n t ac t s IN F O R MAT IO N C E N T R E S John Baker, Attorney at Law, Beginning Farmer Centre, Iowa State University, Urbandale, Iowa. Ph: (515) 331-8900. E-mail: jrbaker@iastate.edu Mary Gold, Assistant Coordinator, Alternative Farming Systems Information Centre, National Agricultural Library, US Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland. Ph: (301) 504-6559. E-mail: mgold@nal.usda.gov Desmond Jolly, Director, Small Farm Centre, University of California, Davis, California. Ph: (530) 752-7774. E-mail: dajolly@ucdavis.edu Debi Kelly, Project Manager, Missouri Alternatives Centre, Columbia, Missouri. Ph: (800) 423-3704. E-mail: kellyd@umsystem.edu Susan McCue, Senior Publications Coordinator, Small Farm Centre, University of California, Davis, California. Ph: (530) 752-7716. E-mail: semccue@ucdavis.edu S T AT E GO VE R N ME N T D E P AR T ME N T S Gwen Garvey, Farm Link Coordinator, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Madison, Wisconsin. Ph: (800) 942-2474. E-mail: gwen.garvey@datcp.state.wi.us Barbara Lovitt, Marketing Specialist, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewarship, Des Moines, Iowa. Ph: (515) 281-8232. E-mail: barb.lovitt@idals.state.ia.us Maury Wills, Bureau Chief, Agricultural Diversification and Market Development Bureau, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Des Moines, Iowa. Ph: (515) 281-5783. E-mail: maury.wills@idals.state.ia.us U N IVE R S IT Y O F C AL IF O R N IA Mary Bianchi, Horticulture Farm Advisor, University of California, Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo, California. Ph: (805) 781-5949. E-mail: mlbianchi@ucdavis.edu Kent Brittan, Field and Vegetable Crops Advisor, University of California, Cooperative Extension, Sacramento, California. Ph: (916) 875-6913. E-mail: klbrittan@ucdavis.edu Mike Cahn, Farm Advisor – Vegetable, Row Crops and Irrigation, University of California, Cooperative Extension, Yuba City, California. Ph: (530) 822-7515. E-mail: mdcahn@ucdavis.edu 108 Appen dix H Con t act s Julie Fallon, Program Representative, Farm Water Quality Planning, University of California, Cooperative Extension, San Luis Obispo, California. Ph: (805) 788-2321. E-mail: jfallon@ucdavis.edu William Frost, Natural Resources Program Leader, University of California, Placerville, California. Ph: (530) 621-5509. E-mail: wefrost@ucdavis.edu Mark Gaskell, Farm Advisor – Small Farms, University of California, Cooperative Extension, Santa Marcia, California. Ph: (805) 934-6240. E-mail: mlgaskell@ucdavis.edu Thomas Lanini, Extension Weed Ecologist, University of California, Cooperative Extension, Davis, California. Ph: (530) 752-4604. E-mail: wtlanini@usdavis.edu Chris Lewis, Postgraduate Researcher, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program, University of California, Davis, California. Ph: (530) 752 7541. E-mail: cjlewis@ucdavis.edu Gene Miyao, Farm Advisor - Vegetable Crops, University of California, Cooperative Extension, Woodland, California. Ph: (530) 666-8143. E-mail: emmiyao@ucdavis.edu Richard Molinar, Farm Advisor – Small Farm/Specialty Crops, University of California, Cooperative Extension, Fresno, California. Ph: (559) 456-7555. E-mail: rhmolinar@ucdavis.edu Mike Murray, Vegetable Farm Advisor and County Director, University of California, Cooperative Extension, Colusa, California. Ph: (530) 458-0577. E-mail: mmurray@ucdavis.edu Martina Newell-McGloughlin, Director, Biotechnology Program, Life Sciences Informatics Program, University of California, Davis, California. Ph: (530) 752-3260. E-mail: mmcgloughlin@ucdavis.edu Kimberley Rodrigues, Director, North Coast & Mountain Region Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Cooperative Extension, Davis, California. Ph: (530) 754-8509. E-mail: karodrigues@ucdavis.edu Carol Shennan, Director, Centre for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, Santa Cruz, California. Ph: (831) 459-4181. E-mail: cshennan@cats.ucsc.edu Trevor Suslow, Post Harvest Extension Specialist, University of California, Department of Vegetable Crops, Davis, California. Ph: (530) 754-8313. E-mail: tvsuslow@ucdavis.edu Steven Temple, Extension Agronomist, Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis, California. Ph: (530) 752-8216. E-mail: stemple@ucdavis.edu IO W A S T AT E U N IVE R S IT Y Loren Book, Farm On Coordinator, Beginning Farmer Centre, Iowa State University, University Extension, Urbandale, Iowa. Ph: (515) 331-8908. E-mail: lgbook@iastate.edu 109 Appen dix H Con t act s Kim Brantner, County Extension Education Director, Iowa State University, University Extension, Bedford, Iowa. Ph: (712) 523-2137. E-mail: brantner@iastate.edu Mike Duffy, Associate Director, Leopold Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. E-mail: leopold@exnet.iastate.edu William Edwards, Agricultural Economist, Department of Economics, Iowa State University, University Extension, Ames, Iowa. Ph: (515) 294-6161. E-mail: wedwards@iastate.edu Dan Morrical, Sheep and Forage Specialist, Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, University Extension, Ames Iowa. Ph: (515) 294-0847. E-mail: morrical@iastate.edu James Russell, Professor, Ruminant Nutrition, Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Ph: (515) 294-4631. E-mail: jrussell@iastate.edu Daryl Strohbehn, Beef Specialist, Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, University Extension, Ames, Iowa. Ph: (515) 294-0847. E-mail: stroh@iastate.edu Mary Swalla Holmes, Project Coordinator, Local Food Systems, Iowa State University, University Extension, Ames, Iowa. Ph: (515) 294-6946. E-mail: mholmes@iastate.edu U N IVE R S IT Y O F K E N T U C K Y Curtis Absher, Assistant Director for Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. Ph: (859) 257-1846. E-mail: cabsher@ca.uky.edu Gwenda Adkins, Extension Agent for Family and Consumer Science, 4-H, Community Development, University of Kentucky, Cooperative Extension Service, Sandy Hook, Kentucky. Ph: 738-6400. E-mail: gadkins@ca.uky.edu Chris Clark, County Extension Agent for Agriculture, University of Kentucky, Cooperative Extension Service, Munfordville, Kentucky. Ph: (502) 524-2451. Jennifer Cocanougher, Extension Agent for 4-H Youth Development, University of Kentucky, Cooperative Extension Service, Versailles, Kentucky. Ph: (859) 873-8936. E-mail: jcocanou@ca.uky.edu Michelle Johnson, Extension Agent for Horticulture, University of Kentucky, Cooperative Extension Service, Bowling Green, Kentucky. Ph: (270) 842-1681. E-mail: mtjohnso@ca.uky.edu Betty King, Community and Economic Development Programs, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. Ph: (859) 257-3404. E-mail: bking@uky.edu 110 Appen dix H Con t act s Annette Meyer, Extension Agent for Horticulture, University of Kentucky, Cooperative Extension Service, Owensboro, Kentucky. Ph: (270) 685-3276. E-mail: ameyer@ca.uky.edu Ray Tackett, Extension Agent for Agriculture and Natural Resoures, University of Kentucky, Cooperative Extension Service, Prestonburg, Kentucky. Ph: (606) 886-2668. E-mail: atackett@ca.uky.edu William Thomas, Extension Agent for Agriculture and Natural Resources, 4-H, Community Development, University of Kentucky, Cooperative Extension Service, Sandy Hook, Kentucky. Ph: 738-9700. E-mail: wthomas@ca.uky.edu Jennifer Thompson, Program Manager, University of Kentucky Natural Resources Leadership Institute, Lexington, Kentucky. Ph: (859) 257-2943, E-mail: jthompso@ca.uky.edu O T H E R U N IVE R S IT Y R E S E AR C H AN D E XT E N S IO N C O N T AC T S Gregory Bishop-Hurley, Post Doctoral Research Associate, Agronomy Extension, University of Missouri, Outreach and Extension, Columbia, Missouri. Ph: (573) 884-4640. E-mail: bishophurleyg@missouri.edu Marci Carter, Waste Reduction Specialist, Iowa Waste Reduction Centre, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa. Ph: (319) 273-8905. E-mail: carterm@uni.edu Kerry Cornelius, Assistant Director, Ranch Management Program, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas. Ph: (817) 257-7145. E-mail: k.cornelius@tcu.edu Thomas Fretz, Dean & Director, Agricultural Experiment Station, Maryland Cooperative Extension, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. Ph: (301) 405-2072. E-mail: TF43@umail.umd.edu Jeffrey Geider, Assistant Director, Ranch Management Program, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas. Ph: (817) 257-7145. E-mail: j.geider@tcu.edu Neil Hamilton, Director, Agricultural Law Centre, The Law School, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. And member of USDA Small Farms Advisory Committee. Ph: (515) 271 2065. E-mail: neil.hamilton@drake.edu Jacqueline Hill, Regional Extension Director, Region II, University of Maryland, Maryland Cooperative Extension. College Park, Maryland. Ph: (301) 403-4152. E-mail: jh63@umail.umd.edu John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. Ph: (573) 874 0408. E-mail: JEIkerd@aol.com James Link, Director, Ranch Management Program, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas. Ph: (817) 257-7145. E-mail: j.link@tcu.edu Bob Meyer, Senior Outreach Specialist, University of Wisconsin, Biological Systems Engineering: Healthy Farmers, Healthy Profits Project. Madison, Wisconsin. Ph: (608) 265-9451. E-mail: rhmeyer@facstaff.wisc.edu 111 Appen dix H Con t act s Sherry Shafer, Director, Iowa Small Farm Business Development Centres. Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. Ph: (515) 271-2655. E-mail: sharon.shafer@drake.edu Stephan Tubene, Agricultural Economist & Farm Institue Coordinator, University of Maryland, Maryland Cooperative Extension, Glen Burne, Maryland. Ph: (410) 222-6759. E-mail: stubene@umail.umd.edu Gary Lee Wilson, Assistant Director, Ranch Management Program, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas. Ph: (817) 257-7145. E-mail: g.wilson@tcu.edu U N IT E D S T AT E S D E P AR T ME N T O F AGR IC U L T U R E (U S D A) Denis Ebodaghe, National Program Leader, Small Farms, Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Serivce, Washington, D.C. Ph: (202) 401-4385. E-mail: debodaghe@intranet.reeusda.gov Stephanie Olson, Editor Small Farm Digest. Cooperative State, Research, Education and Extension Service, Washington, DC. Ph: (202) 401-6544. E-mail: solson@reeusda.gov Barbara Wallace, Community Planner, Social Sciences Institute, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Ph: (616) 942-1503. E-mail: barbara.wallace@usda.gov U S D A - N AT U R AL R E S O U R C E S C O N S E R VAT IO N S E R VIC E - H E AD O F F IC E AN D N AT IO N AL IN S T IT U T E S T AF F Sue Brooks, Employee Development Specialist, National Employee Development Centre, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fort Worth, Texas. Ph: (817) 509-3245. E-mail: sbrooks@ftw.nrcs.usda.gov Lawrence Clark, Deputy Chief for Science and Technology, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington D.C. Ph: (202) 720-4630. E-mail: lawrence.clark@usda.gov Gail Roane, International Training Specialist, International Programs Division, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington DC. Ph: (202) 720-9161. E-mail: gail.roane@usda.gov Marc Safley, Senior Ecologist, Ecological Sciences Division, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington DC. Ph: (202) 720-2587. E-mail: marc.safley@usda.gov David Schertz, National Agronomist, Ecological Sciences Division, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington DC. Ph: (202) 720-3783. E-mail: dave.schertz@usda.gov John Stierna, Senior Economist, Resource Economics and Social Sciences Division Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington DC. Ph: (202) 720 6924. E-mail: john.stierna@usda.gov 112 Appen dix H Con t act s Jerry Williamson, Director, National Employmee Development Centre, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fort Worth, Texas. Ph: (817) 509-3241. E-mail: jerrywilliamson@ftw.nrcs.usda.gov U S D A - N AT U R AL R E S O U R C E S C O N S E R VAT IO N S E R VIC E - S T AT E B AS E D S T AF F Douglas Bahl, District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Corydon, Iowa. Ph: (641) 872-1350. E-mail: bahlfarm@grm.net Tracy Benson, Soil Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Reno, Nevada. Ph: (775) 784-5408. E-mail: tracy.benson@nv.usda.gov Kevin Blomquist, Rangeland Management Specialist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Alexandria, Louisiana. Ph: (318) 473-7808. E-mail: kevin.blomquist@la.usda.gov Angela Carito, Rangeland Management Specialist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Minden, Nevada. Ph: (775) 782-3661. E-mail: angela.carito@nv.usda.gov Delmas Carr, District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia. Ph: (304) 422-9072. Albert Cerna, District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salinas, California. Ph: (831) 424-1036 E-mail: albert.cerna@ca.usda.gov Paul Clark, Soil Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Enid, Oklahoma. Ph: (580) 237-4321. E-mail: paul.clark@ok.usda.gov Darrel DuVall, Rangeland Management Specialist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Hot Springs, South Dakota. Ph: (605) 745-5716. E-mail: darrel.duvall@sd.usda.gov Corey Farmer, District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bentonville, Arkansas. Ph: (501) 273-2622. E-mail: corey.farmer@ar.usda.gov David Findley, District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Chester, South Carolina. Ph: (803) 581-1908. E-mail: david.findley@sc.usda.gov Russel Fleharty, District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Ashdown, Arkansas. Ph: (870) 898-3611. Kenneth Grimes, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fresno, California. Ph: (559) 276-7494. E-mail: ken.grimes@ca.usda.gov Blake Hendon, Rangeland Management Specialist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Arkon, Colorado. E-mail: blake.hendon@co.usda.gov Walter Jackson, Grassland Specialist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Jackson, Mississippi. Ph: (601) 965-4139. 113 Appen dix H Con t act s Kevin Kennedy, District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Charleston, Mississippi. Ph: (662) 647-8857. Jolene Lau, Area Public Affairs Specialist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salinas, California. Ph: (831) 754-1595. E-mail: jolene.lau@ca.usda.gov John Lentz, District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Hayti, South Dakota. Ph: (605) 783-3611. E-mail: john.lentz@sd.usda.gov Frank Love, District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Abbeville, South Carolina. Ph: (864) 459-5419. E-mail: frank.love@us.usda.gov Joseph May, State Range Management Specialist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Kamuela, Hawaii. Ph: (808) 885-6602. E-mail: joe.may@hi.usda.gov Kevin McCall, District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Clarinda, Iowa. Ph: (712) 542-5484. E-mail: kevin.mccall@ia.usda.gov Tanya Meyer, State Outreach Coordinator, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Williamsburg, Iowa. Ph: (319) 668-8110. E-mail: tanya.meyer@ia.nrcs.usda.gov Daniel Mountjoy, Cultural Ecologist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Area Resource Conservationist, Salinas, California. Ph: (831) 754-1595. E-mail: daniel.mountjoy@ca.usda.gov James Norris, Soil Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Tucumcari, New Mexico. Ph: (505) 461-3612. E-mail: james.norris@nm.usda.gov Charles Parris, District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Sparta, Tennessee. Ph: (931) 738-7822. E-mail: charles.parris@tnsparta.fsc.usda.gov Richard Sprague, District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Corning, Iowa. Ph: (641) 322-3116. E-mail: rick.sprague@ia.usda.gov Charles Stanley, Rangeland Management Specialist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lawton, Oklahoma. E-mail: charles.stanley@ok.usda.gov Larry Stark, Rangeland Management Specialist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Cuba, New Mexico. E-mail: larry.stark@nm.usda.gov Myron Taylor, Soil Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Servi ce, Maryville, Tennessee. Ph: (865) 983-2119. E-mail: mtaylor@tn.nrcs.usda.gov F AR ME R O R GAN IS AT IO N S Karen Armstrong-Cummings, Executive Director, Commodity Growers Co-operative, Lexington, Kentucky. And member of USDA Small Farms Advisory Committee. Ph: (606) 233-7845 E-mail: cgrowers@mis.net 114 Appen dix H Con t act s Tracy Blackmer, Director of Production Technology, Iowa Soybean Association. Urbandale, Iowa. Ph: (515) 251-8640. E-mail: tblackmer@iasoybeans.com Sam Earnshaw, Central Coast Regional Coordinator, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Santa Cruz, California. E-mail: sambo@cruzio.com Dana Helfer, Program Director, California Coordinated Resource Management and Planning, Sacramento, California. Ph: (916) 447 7237. E-mail: cacrmp@ca.nacdnet.org Robert Karp, Executive Director, Practical Farmers of Iowa, Ames, Iowa. Ph: (515) 233-3622. E-mail: robert@practicalfarmers.org Jan Libbey, Information Coordinator, Iowa Network for Community Agriculture, Kanawha, Iowa. E-mail: libland@frontiernet.net Joanne Powell, Secretary, African American Farmers of California, Fresno, California. Ph: (559) 442 0276. Kelly Tobin, Regional Director of Conservation Districts of Iowa, New Market, Iowa. Ph: (712) 585-3369. Elbert van Donkersgoed, Strategic Policy Adviser, Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, Canada. E-mail: evd@christianfarmers.org Thomas Wehri, Executive Director, California Association of Resource Conservation Districts, Sacramento, California. Ph: (916) 447-7237. Roger Wolf, Director of Environmental Programs, Iowa Soybean Association, Urbandale, Iowa. Ph: (515) 251-8640. E-mail: rwolf@iasoybeans.com P R OD U CE R S Dennis & Joann Dickman, Farm Fresh Poultry & Super Sweet Multi-coloured Sweet Corn, Herscher, Illinois. Ph: (815) 426 2154. E-mail: djdickman@netzero.net Susan G. Harkins, Land Use Consultant, Duntreath Farm, Lexington, Kentucky. Ph: (859 299 2254. Jay Ruskey, Agricultural Consultant & Fruit Sales – Calimoya (Californian Cherimoyas), Goleta, California. Ph: (805) 685 4189. E-mail: calimoya@hotmail.com Desmond Reid, IRIE Goat Farm, Brandywine, Maryland. Ph: (301) 888 1447. E-mail: Desrei@Att.Net Larry Swartz & Genia Mc Kee, Windhover Farm, Lancaster, Kentucky. Ph: (859) 792 9660. 115 Appen dix H Con t act s OT H E R Elizabeth Bird, Government Relations Coordinator, Farm-A-Syst, Home-A-Syst. Member of Consortium for Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education, Madison, Wisconsin. Ph: (608) 265-3727. E-mail: eabird@facstaff.wisc.edu Penny Brown, Specialist in Agriculture & Environmental Projects, Clive, Iowa. Ph: (515) 278-2934. E-mail: BrownPennyL@cs.com Joel Dufour, Earth Tools, Frankfort, Kentucky. Ph: (502) 226 5751. Patrick Field, Vice President, The Consensus Building Institute Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts. Ph: (617) 492-1919. E-mail: pfield@igc.org Daryl Fryman, General Manager, West Kentucky Grower Co-Op, Owensboro, Kentucky. Ph: (270) 764 2667. E-mail: daryl@westkentuckygrowers.com John Gong, Meat Department Team Leader, Wholefoods Market, Fresno, California. Ph: (559) 241 0300. E-mail: john.gong@wholefoods.com Gary Jackson, Director Farm-A-Syst, Madison, Wisconsin. Ph: (608) 265-2773. E-mail: gwjackso@facstaff.wisc.edu Armando Lozano, Marketing / Community Relations, Wholefoods Market, Fresno, California. Ph: (559) 241 0300. E-mail: armando.lozano@wholefoods.com Charlie Nunez, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner, County of Monterey, Royal Oaks, California. Ph: (831) 724-5025 E-mail: nunezc@co.monterey.ca.us Larry K. Snell, General Manager, Cumberland Farm Products Association Inc., Monticello, Kentucky. Ph: (606) 348 8112. 116 Appen dix I Abbr eviat ion s AP P E N D IX I - Abbr eviat io n s CSRE E S - Cooperative State Research E ducation and E xtension Service DPI - Department of Primary Industries HAWCAE P - Henry A. Wallace Centre for Agricultural and E nvironmental Policy NCSF - National Commission on Small Farms SARE - Sustainable Agriculture Research and E ducation program USDA - United States Department of Agriculture 117