Farmer Direct Marketing Newsletter - April/May 1999

line.gif (1082 bytes)

Please scroll down screen or click on topic of interest.

Contents:

USDA Activities:

The USDA sponsored Santa Fe Farmers Market Conference

Agricultural Marketing Outreach Workshop for Limited Resource Farmers - Information and Remarks by Under Secretary Michael V. Dunn

Update on the Burlington, VT, Public Market Feasibility Study

Report on USDA Farmer Direct Marketing Focus Groups Held in Memphis, TN

Features:

1997 Census of Agriculture and Direct Marketing

Announcements:

"Law and the New Agriculture:   Direct Marketing and Local Food Systems" - Neil Hamilton of Drake University's 4-day course to be offered this summer

Community Food Security Coalition Workshops

New in Print/Audio - Publications/Tapes about Direct Marketing:

Getting Food on the Table:  An Action Guide to Local Food Policy (Community Food Security Coalition)

From the Field to the Table: Suggested Food Handling Guidelines for Open-Air Farmers' Markets and Fairs (ECOnomics Institute)

Audio Tapes from "Cultivating the Harvest:  Inland Northwest Small Acreage Farming Conference

line.gif (1082 bytes)

Return to Farmer Direct Marketing Newsletter Index to view previous editions

line.gif (1082 bytes)

USDA Activities:

The USDA Sponsored Santa Fe Farmers Market Conference

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) joined the Friends of the Santa Fe Farmers Market in hosting a workshop Feb. 4-6 in Santa Fe, NM, to address the issue of attracting minority farmers and customers to farmers and public markets. 

The 3-day roundtable discussion brought together farmers market managers and others involved in direct marketing from the South and Southwest.  These regions have large Hispanic populations, which should be encouraged to participate more fully as consumers and vendors in farmers markets.  The panel discussed ways to maintain, enhance, and further develop satellite and permanent farmers markets and to strengthen and sustain small farm agriculture throughout these regions.  It also dealt with topics that contribute to greater participation by all minority farmers and consumers.

"The challenge is to continue to make farmers markets equally accessible to everyone," said Enrique E. Figueroa, Administrator of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).  "Access to healthful fresh fruit and vegetables for the underserved consumer is a critical objective of AMS' work in farmer direct marketing."

The proceedings of this roundtable will be made available on the web in the coming months.

Back to Contents

Agricultural Marketing Outreach Workshop for Limited Resource Farmers - Information and Remarks by Under Secretary Michael V. Dunn

The U.S. Department of Agriculture sponsored a marketing outreach workshop for limited resource farmers March 24-26 at the Agricenter International in Memphis, TN.  The workshop was a joint effort with Southern University and A&M College, Baton Rouge, LA.

"These are challenging times, particularly for small farmers," said Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman. "The goal of this event is to help limited resource farmers maximize their economic potential by helping them develop effective marketing plans."

One hundred fifty-four limited resource farmers from Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee attended the event.  About 500 additional participants attended the various workshops in which several USDA agencies participated.  Product quality demonstrations on beef cattle, fruits and vegetables, goats, hogs, and poultry were conducted.  Additionally, there were field tests for soil analysis, tillage, irrigation, and trees/agroforestry.

"AMS sees this workshop as a multifaceted outreach effort that will help small farmers learn how to improve the marketability of their products and enhance their knowledge of the techniques and resources available to them through State and USDA agencies," said AMS Administrator Enrique E. Figueroa.

Remarks by Under Secretary Michael V. Dunn (As prepared for delivery)
Marketing Outreach Workshop
Memphis, Tennessee
March 24, 1999

"Introduction

Dr. Figueroa spoke to you earlier about the Small Farms Commission, and I’d like to take a few minutes to talk about a few of the actions USDA has taken to carry out the recommendations made by the Commission.

The first speaker to address the Small Farms Commission, Dr. Rick Welsh, talked about the emergence of two "food streams" shaping the structure of today’s agriculture.

One of these streams is contract production, and the other is direct marketing.   Now USDA has always been interested in, and done work on, farmer direct marketing, but as a result of the Small Farms Commission Report, we have stepped up our efforts considerably.

The framework for these efforts is the USDA Farmer Direct Marketing Action Plan, and that’s one of the things I’m going to talk to you about this afternoon.   I’ll also tell you about some other USDA programs that focus on the small farmer and direct marketing.

USDA Farmer Direct Marketing Action Plan

The USDA Farmer Direct Marketing Action Plan was developed last July by the Agricultural Marketing Service.  The Plan is aimed at helping small farms, that is farms with less than $250,000 in annual gross receipts, or about 94 percent of all farmers in the United States.

The goal of this Plan is to identify and promote the development of marketing opportunities for small farmers by conducting and supporting research and providing information on farmer direct marketing activities in the public and private sectors.

In the next 2 and a half years, USDA will create new direct marketing networks and a one-stop information clearinghouse.  We will develop training and information programs for farmers market managers and small farmers.  And we will conduct feasibility studies to expand the development of farmers market facilities.   That’s what we will do.  Now let me tell you about some of the things we’ve already done.

What We’ve Already Accomplished

For those of you who have access to the Internet, AMS recently launched its Direct Marketing Web Page.  It’s aimed at small and medium-sized producers and others interested in learning more about farmer direct marketing.

The site features a monthly newsletter, publications, a direct marketing bibliography, and a schedule of national and regional conferences and workshops.  It covers a variety of topics and also links to Federal, State, university and other websites relating to direct marketing.

The updated National Directory of Farmers Markets was published in December 1998.  The Directory lists 2,746 farmers markets that operate throughout the United States, up from 2,410 in 1996.  It gives a comprehensive summary of market locations, contacts, telephone and fax numbers, and days and hours of operation.  It also makes note of which markets participate in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, and food gleaning or food recovery programs.

The Farmer Direct Marketing Bibliography was developed to facilitate access to resources by producers, vendors, market managers, consumers, and others interested in the farmer direct marketing of agricultural products.  It includes works from private industry, academia, and State and Federal Governments, dating back to 1980.  The Bibliography is divided into 24 functional categories and can also be accessed on the Internet.

We’ve also set up a Farmers Market Hotline, an 800 number that allows the caller to find out all about USDA-sponsored farmers markets.   Farmers, vendors, customers, and market cooperators can dial 1-800-384-8704 to get recorded information on dates, times, directions, and other information associated with participating in the USDA-sponsored markets on Federal property.

Last July, USDA held a Farmers Market Symposium in Washington to identify farmer direct marketing issues and opportunities for small farmers.   Operators of farmers and public markets, State officials, academics, and others came together to share their thoughts on the direction that USDA should take in supporting marketing facilities.

This symposium was part of a larger USDA initiative which includes five Farmer Direct Marketing Focus Group sessions.  The first session was held in Sturbridge, MA, in December and included direct marketing representatives from 10 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States.  The second and third sessions were conducted in conjunction with the annual convention of the North American Farmers Direct Marketing Association in January, in Grand Rapids, MI.  The last two focus groups are meeting here this week.

Pilot Project--Opportunities for Limited Resource Producers to Supply a School Lunch Program

USDA is also involved in a direct marketing project in Florida--and this one has a twist.  We were able to use our knowledge of commodity procurement and combine it with what we know about direct marketing.  It’s been so successful, that we hope it will serve as a model to help other small farmers.

AMS, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, Florida A&M University, and the West Florida Resource Conservation and Development Council joined forces to help limited resource produce growers in the Florida Panhandle directly supply a school lunch program. The pilot project is a little better than midway through its second year of operation.

The New North Florida Cooperative, a group of small farm operators, concentrated on the Gadsden and Jackson County school districts as their market.  Their goal was to provide leafy green vegetables on a schedule that would meet the menu plans of the school food-service directors. By the end of the last school year, the Coop produced, processed, packaged, and delivered an average of 1,500 pounds of turnip greens, collard greens, and kale every 2 weeks, and are keeping up that pace this year. They also produced strawberries and blackberries that were sold to the schools for desserts and as additions to the School Breakfast Program.

They are dependable, reliable, and they are building a solid reputation for quality.   This project is an exciting example of teamwork and commitment of which the New North Florida Cooperative and the Gadsden and Jackson County School Districts can be very proud, and USDA is very proud to have played a role in this project’s success.

Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program

Another USDA program that helps small farmers has been around for a long, long time.   Through the Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program (FSMIP), AMS provides matching funds to State departments of agriculture or other State agencies for a wide range of research and service projects aimed at improving the marketing and distribution of agricultural products.

Identifying new or higher valued market outlets for farm products, finding ways to get products to consumers more efficiently, and developing new or more effective marketing service programs at the State and local level are common themes among FSMIP projects.

With Federal funds of 1.2 million dollars available for allocation to the States for each of the past 4 years, FSMIP typically has provided support to 25-30 projects per year.

National Organic Program

And the last program I’m going to talk about this afternoon is our National Organic Program.  Organic farming has traditionally been the domain of the small farmer, with many organic farmers selling their products directly to the public.

In recent years, the organic industry has grown at a steady annual rate of between 22 and 25 percent.  A recent study shows growth in nearly every product category.   Although one of the major market barriers is limited supply, it is predicted that the market will reach 6.6 billion dollars by the year 2000.

We are working hard to make USDA’s National Organic Program a reality. When we published proposed organic standards in December 1997, we received more than 275,000 comments.  This is the largest public response USDA has ever received for a proposed rule.

When we issue the final rule, and the program is implemented, we anticipate that an even wider variety of organically produced products will be available for domestic and international consumption through a greater number of markets.

One of the 8 policy goals described in the Small Farms Commission Report says USDA will "Emphasize Sustainable Agriculture as a Profitable, Ecological, and Socially Sound Strategy for Small Farms."  To reach that goal, several USDA agencies will work together to target consumers to explain what organic food is and how it’s produced.   We will also target farmers--those who currently grow organic crops and those who are potentially interested.  In addition to explaining the new standards, we will give farmers access to information on how to make the transition to organic farming.

Conclusion

I hope I’ve made it clear today that USDA is committed to developing and implementing programs that recognize the importance of small farms, and that will help small farmers build on their strengths and equip them to compete successfully.

The projects and programs I’ve talked about today--the Farmer Direct Marketing Action Plan, the pilot project on partnering with local school districts, FSMIP, and the National Organic Program--are only the beginning.  USDA will continue to strive to help small farmers identify and take advantage of marketing opportunities and strategies that will ensure their survival and help them grow."

Back to Contents

Update on the Burlington, VT Public Market Feasibility Study

In the fall of 1996, a Public Market Steering Committee was formed by the Women’s Agricultural Network (University of Vermont), Vermont Department of Agriculture, the City of Burlington, and the Burlington Community Land Trust.  In August 1997, the committee contracted with the Project for Public Spaces (PPS) to collect data and perform some elements of a feasibility study. PPS developed a report which suggested a 20,000-square-foot facility could succeed in Burlington.  In the fall of 1998, a joint effort by Wholesale and Alternative Markets (W&AM) and the Public Market Steering Committee resulted in a cooperative agreement between AMS and the Burlington Community Land Trust. 

As part of an ongoing project, W&AM staff met with the Burlington Public Market Steering Committee on March 11 to review the progress made on the feasibility study concerning the construction of an indoor, year-round public market in Burlington.   A W&AM-sponsored survey of Vermont producers and a series of follow-up focus groups were completed last month.  The survey was designed to measure the willingness and ability of Vermont producers to participate in the market.  As a result of the producer survey and focus groups, the Steering Committee voted to go forward with the Public Market project and decided to seek capital funding during the current State legislative session.

The possibility of a Burlington Public Market, which is envisioned as an outlet for Vermont-produced food and craft items, has excited local farmers, State and local officials, and State legislators.  The downtown Burlington Area is relatively underserved by grocery and produce outlets, while having a relatively large number of affluent residents, workers, and visitors.

There are a number of unique and high-quality producers of farm and craft items in the Burlington area that could sell through a public market.  The survey showed that a significant number of them have expressed interest in being involved with the market, depending on its location and cost.  Site feasibility studies (Phase II) are needed in order to develop costs, location, and preliminary design drawings.  Prospective tenants in particular need this information before they can commit to the project.  Questions were received from producers about the size, location, and cost of the market that could not be answered with the present level of information.

After examining the survey results, W&AM is cautiously optimistic about the success of the market and agrees with the steering committee that the next logical step will be to examine the feasibility of all potential sites in the Burlington area.

For more information about the Burlington, VT, Public Market Feasibility Study, Contact Arthur Burns (USDA, Wholesale and Alternative Markets) at (202) 720-8317 or arthur.burns@usda.gov

Back to Contents

Report on USDA Farmer Direct Marketing Focus Groups Held in Memphis, TN

Two farmer direct marketing focus groups were held with producers and facilitators in Memphis, TN, on March 24-25.  These sessions were scheduled to coincide with the Agricultural Marketing Outreach Workshop, cosponsored by USDA and Southern University, which convened at the Memphis Agricenter International on March 24-26.  Working in conjunction with Cornell University, the focus groups were a continuation of the process of identifying direct marketing issues and opportunities for small farmers as outlined in AMS' Farmer Direct Marketing Action Plan.  Input from regional direct marketing facilitators, service providers, and growers is important in understanding relevant geographical concerns associated with direct marketing.  Their input will also assist AMS in framing a more comprehensive direct marketing program in USDA.

The March 24 session was composed of producers, many of whom were actively engaged in direct farm sales to customers.  Thirteen producer/marketers from six southeastern States participated in this initial session.  Facilitators, or service providers, for direct marketing programs were the principal participants in the second session on March 25.  Ten facilitators from regional community-based organizations, cooperative extension, and State Departments of Agriculture were represented at this session.

Soliciting public input through focus groups is one of several objectives in the Farmer Direct Marketing Action Plan, which outlines a comprehensive strategy for greater agency and mission area involvement in farmer direct marketing.  Conducting focus meetings with industry leaders and organizations dedicated to the support of small farmers will provide recommendations for future program activities and begin to build a network of support and resources that will promote a broader direct marketing program within USDA.  The focus groups include producers and representatives from organizations that facilitate State and regional direct marketing programs around the country.

The Memphis direct marketing focus groups complete the five sessions scheduled for this program initiative.  The initial session was held in Sturbridge, MA, and included direct marketing facilitators from State departments of agriculture, cooperative extension, farmers markets, and community-based nongovernmental organizations from the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions.  Two sessions were held in Grand Rapids, MI, to coincide with the North American Farmers Direct Marketing Association’s annual convention on January 20-23.  One session was held with Midwest growers; a second included facilitators of direct marketing organizations from throughout the U.S.  The Memphis sessions were designed to capture input from the Southeast region, an area where many small-scale producers are initiating new crops and alternative marketing practices to maintain farm profitability.

An important criterion for USDA in organizing these focus groups was strategically convening sessions at different locations around the country to gain maximum input from participants based on their regional problems and perceptions of farmer direct marketing.  Convening focus groups in the Southeast offered many opportunities, particularly within the producer/marketers group, since this would be the first time for the team to identify and invite a significant number of minority farmers to participate.  By scheduling a producer/marketer session to coincide with Agricultural Marketing Outreach Workshop, cosponsored by USDA and Southern University, the team was successful in attracting a diverse group of producers from six States in the southern region.  The marketing workshops targeted small and limited-resource producers who offered a variety of educational and technical information beneficial in sustaining small family farms.

A major problem expressed by the producers group was accessibility and availability of technical assistance and grants to support their farming operations.  They also expressed their need for additional support from cooperative extension, State Departments of Agriculture, and others in developing business plans and marketing strategies.  Vague and time-consuming regulations were also cited as problems for these producers; however their level of frustration with this issue was substantially less than expressed by a similar group in Grand Rapids, MI.   These differences may be explained based on their current levels of involvement in direct marketing enterprises (The Grand Rapids group generally operated larger direct marketing enterprises.) when compared to the marketers in Memphis.  When discussing solutions and areas for improvement, the prevailing response among producers in the region was that more marketing information and training, addressing topics such as value-added marketing, market identification, cooperative development, best practices, and locations of experienced personnel to assist with technical problems, are essential.

A major concern among direct marketing facilitators in their work with producers is the constant struggle to convince farmers to develop a comprehensive marketing strategy for the farm operation.  To effectively promote marketing to farmers, individuals who have responsibility for on-farm technical and educational programs will need additional training materials on how to market, merchandise, and promote fresh products, as well as data on facility requirements and specifications and opportunities for marketing niche products.  Limited resources and staffing were cited as obstacles keeping many in cooperative extension from aggressively promoting direct marketing initiatives with small producers.  As well, many of these professionals may benefit from retraining as they move beyond traditional production farming programs.  There is a critical need for direct marketing concepts to be incorporated in all aspects of agriculture--teaching, research, extension, and policy.   Such a strategy would require additional consumer education initiatives that emphasize the attributes of America’s small farmers and the quality of products they produce.

Each focus group session generated a substantial volume of data with many suggestions and innovative ideas for USDA to consider in expanding its direct marketing programs.  A final report is being drafted that will provide extensive background and details on this project and will suggest strategies USDA can pursue in promoting direct marketing for the small farmers.  When the final report is published, it will be made available on the Farmer Direct Marketing Website.

For more information, please contact:  Errol Bragg, Agricultural Marketing Specialist, Wholesale and Alternative Markets; phone: (202) 720-8317, fax: (202) 690-0031.

Participants:

Producer/Marketers:

Sarah Montgomery
Midway, AL 36053

Janice Smith
Ellijay, GA 30540

Jerry Pennick
East Point, GA 30303

Johnnie Clark
New Orleans, LA 70118

Antonio Harris
Washington, LA 70802

Gerd Oppenheim
Norwood, LA 70761

Ardean Shaw
Smithdale, MS 39664

Ben Burkett
Petal, MS 39465

Doug Wisner
Osceloa, MO 64776

Alan Fear
Hermitage, MO 65668

Ronnie Dains
Rockville, MO 64780

Alvin Harris
Millington, TN 38053

Marvin Sanderlin
Stanton, TN 38069

Willie Brown
Marbury, AL 36051

Bernard Forrest
Petal, MS 39465


Facilitators:

Gus Townes
Federation of Southern Cooperatives
Epes, AL 35460

Dr. Nii Tackie
Tuskegee University
Tuskegee, AL 36088

Holly Born
ATTRA
Fayetteville, AR 72702

Keith Richards
Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
Fayetteville, AR 72701

Sue Bertrand
Heifer Project International
Little Rock, AR 72202

Jeffrey Barron
ECOnomics Institute
New Orleans, LA 70118

William Patton
Alcorn State University
Alcorn, MS 39096

Donna Bryan
Seeds of Hope Farmers Market
Columbia, SC 29211

Jim Jones
Texas Department of Agriculture
Austin, TX 78711

Back to Contents

Features:

1997 Census of Agriculture and Direct Marketing

The 1997 USDA Agricultural Census included direct marketing for the second time.  Direct marketing in this case is defined as "Agricultural products sold directly to individuals for human consumption."  Using these data, it is possible to discuss changes in farmer direct marketing from 1992 to 1997.  The data collected track the number of farms involved in direct marketing, the value of  the products, and the average sold per farm.  The table below illustrates the data broken down by States.  Negative growth rates are highlighted in red.

Direct Sales

       Farms

$1,000

      Average per farm, dollars

1997

1992

      Change

1997

1992

       Change

1997

1992

     Change

United States

93140

86432

7.8%

550947

404056

36.4%

5915

4675

26.5%

Alabama

1373

1355

1.3%

5401

5227

3.3%

3934

3858

2.0%

Alaska

102

76

34.2%

500

216

131.5%

4900

2837

72.7%

Arizona

431

513

-16.0%

3288

2956

11.2%

7628

5762

32.4%

Arkansas

1084

1017

6.6%

5107

2794

82.8%

4711

2748

71.4%

California

5901

5229

12.9%

73179

35967

103.5%

12401

6878

80.3%

Colorado

1752

1523

15.0%

6611

7461

-11.4%

3773

4899

-23.0%

Connecticut

774

666

16.2%

10980

6348

73.0%

14186

9531

48.8%

Delaware

154

144

6.9%

1864

1906

-2.2%

12102

13237

-8.6%

Florida

1954

1863

4.9%

12547

20725

-39.5%

6421

11124

-42.3%

Georgia

1471

1516

-3.0%

7294

7274

0.3%

4959

4798

3.4%

Hawaii

525

435

20.7%

4586

2469

85.7%

8735

5675

53.9%

Idaho

1205

1120

7.6%

3047

2107

44.6%

2529

1881

34.4%

Illinois

2204

2338

-5.7%

12307

10586

16.3%

5584

4528

23.3%

Indiana

2767

2820

-1.9%

12953

10893

18.9%

4681

3863

21.2%

Iowa

2174

2235

-2.7%

7475

5382

38.9%

3438

2408

42.8%

Kansas

1492

1432

4.2%

3663

3324

10.2%

2455

2321

5.8%

Kentucky

1748

1785

-2.1%

4761

4176

14.0%

2723

2340

16.4%

Louisiana

888

903

-1.7%

3033

2392

26.8%

3415

2649

28.9%

Maine

1177

1006

17.0%

8314

5521

50.6%

7064

5488

28.7%

Maryland

1133

1268

-10.6%

8667

7424

16.7%

7650

5855

30.7%

Massachusetts

1226

1080

13.5%

19825

14982

32.3%

16170

13872

16.6%

Michigan

4339

4019

8.0%

28720

21093

36.2%

6619

5248

26.1%

Minnesota

3145

2771

13.5%

14198

9434

50.5%

4515

3404

32.6%

Mississippi

787

907

-13.2%

2441

2530

-3.5%

3101

2789

11.2%

Missouri

2943

2655

10.8%

8774

7346

19.4%

2981

2767

7.7%

Montana

910

774

17.6%

1942

2179

-10.9%

2134

2815

-24.2%

Nebraska

966

1000

-3.4%

2519

2169

16.1%

2607

2169

20.2%

Nevada

149

184

-19.0%

668

450

48.4%

4485

2445

83.4%

New Hampshire

690

511

35.0%

8653

4174

107.3%

12541

8169

53.5%

New Jersey

1636

1508

8.5%

17993

11159

61.2%

10998

7400

48.6%

New Mexico

873

919

-5.0%

3819

3963

-3.6%

4374

4312

1.4%

New York

4038

3453

16.9%

40088

32321

24.0%

9928

9360

6.1%

North Carolina

2176

2134

2.0%

11628

7113

63.5%

5344

3333

60.3%

North Dakota

470

500

-6.0%

1453

890

63.3%

3091

1780

73.7%

Ohio

4877

4698

3.8%

28221

21580

30.8%

5787

4593

26.0%

Oklahoma

1898

1504

26.2%

4009

3643

10.0%

2112

2422

-12.8%

Oregon

4594

4263

7.8%

14287

10323

38.4%

3110

2422

28.4%

Pennsylvania

5508

4862

13.3%

48745

35806

36.1%

8850

7364

20.2%

Rhode Island

135

127

6.3%

2323

1578

47.2%

17210

12426

38.5%

South Carolina

966

997

-3.1%

6080

4556

33.5%

6294

4570

37.7%

South Dakota

579

531

9.0%

1720

1092

57.5%

2971

2056

44.5%

Tennessee

2294

2035

12.7%

7643

6118

24.9%

3332

3007

10.8%

Texas

5526

4972

11.1%

17379

12188

42.6%

3145

2451

28.3%

Utah

1036

1010

2.6%

6269

3666

71.0%

6051

3629

66.7%

Vermont

983

673

46.1%

6302

3934

60.2%

6411

5845

9.7%

Virginia

1713

1789

-4.2%

10594

7036

50.6%

6184

3933

57.2%

Washington

3055

2933

4.2%

13700

10863

26.1%

4485

3704

21.1%

West Virginia

1100

869

26.6%

2663

2082

27.9%

2421

2396

1.0%

Wisconsin

3843

3159

21.7%

21866

13889

57.4%

5690

4397

29.4%

Wyoming

376

351

7.1%

849

750

13.2%

2257

2138

5.6%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

States with the greatest increases in the number of farms direct marketing products (percent increase from 1992-1997 in brackets):

1.  Vermont (46.1%)
2.  New Hampshire (35.0%)
3.  Alaska (34.2%)
4.  West Virginia (26.6%)
5.  Oklahoma (26.2%)
6.  Wisconsin (21.7%)
7.   Hawaii (20.7%)
8.   Montana (17.6%)
9.   Maine (17.0%)
10. New York (16.9%)

States with the greatest losses in the number of farms direct marketing products (percent decrease from 1992-1997 in brackets):

1.   Nevada (-19.0%)
2.   Arizona (-16.0%)
3.   Mississippi (-13.2%)
4.   Maryland (-10.6%)
5.   North Dakota (-6.0%)
6.   Illinois (-5.7%)
7.   New Mexico (-5.0%)
8.   Virginia (-4.2%)
9.   Nebraska (-3.4%)
10. South Carolina (-3.1%)

Other States with loses are: Georgia (-3.0%), Iowa (-2.7%), Kentucky (-2.1%), Indiana (-1.9%), and Louisiana (-1.7%).

States with the greatest increases in the value of direct marketing products (percent increase from 1992-1997 in brackets):

1.   Alaska (131.5%)
2.   New Hampshire (107.3%)
3.   California  (103.5%)
4.   Hawaii (85.7%)
5.   Arkansas (82.8%)
6.   Connecticut (73.0%)
7.   Utah (71.0%)
8.   North Carolina (63.5%)
9.   North Dakota (63.3%)
10. New Jersey (61.2%)

States with the greatest increases in the average value of direct marketing products per farm (percent increase from 1992-1997 in brackets):

1.   Nevada (83.4%)
2.   California (80.3%)
3.   North Dakota  (73.5%)
4.   Alaska (72.7%)
5.   Arkansas (71.4%)
6.   Utah (66.7%)
7.   North Carolina (60.3%)
8.   Virginia (57.2%)
9.   Hawaii (53.9%)
10. New Hampshire (53.5%)

States with the greatest number of farms engaged in direct marketing (number in brackets):

1.   California (5,901)
2.   Texas (5,526)
3.   Pennsylvania (5,508)
4.   Ohio (4,038)
5.   Oregon (4,594)
6.   Michigan (4,339)
7.   New York (4,038)
8.   Wisconsin (3,843)
9.   Minnesota (3,145)
10. Washington (3,055)

States with the greatest value of direct market sales (number in brackets - in $1,000s):

1.   California (73,179)
2.   Pennsylvania (48,745)
3.   New York (40,088)
4.   Michigan (28,720)
5.   Ohio (28,221)
6.   Wisconsin (21,866)
7.   Massachusetts (19,825)
8.   New Jersey (17,993)
9.   Texas (17,379)
10. Oregon (14,287)

States with the greatest value of average direct market sales per farm in dollars (number in brackets):

1.   Rhode Island (17,210)
2.   Massachusetts (16,170)
3.   Connecticut (14,186)
4.   New Hampshire (12,541)
5.   California (12,401)
6.   Delaware (12,102)
7.   New Jersey (10,998)
8.   New York (9,928)
9.   Pennsylvania (8,850)
10. Hawaii (8,735)

In coming months, more direct marketing data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service 1997 Census of Agriculture will be added to the Farmer Direct Marketing Website under "Direct Marketing Resources by State."

A recent  article published in "Rural Development Perspectives" analyzes data from the 1992 Census of Agriculture.  The article, "Direct Farm Marketing as a Rural Development Tool"  by Fred Gale of the Economic Research Service, addresses the impact of location on income earned from direct marketing.  (Abstract: "Many farmers, government officials, and rural advocates are enthusiastic about the prospects of direct farm marketing for bolstering farm income and promoting rural development.  Direct marketing plays a role in rural development by encouraging a climate of entrepreneurship and innovation, attracting agricultural tourists, and promoting alternative forms of agriculture.  However, an analysis of 1992 Census of Agriculture data indicates that the income from direct selling is relatively small and limited to communities near urban areas.  Communities in remote locations need to make a concerted effort to benefit from direct marketing.")

Analysis of the direct marketing data from the 1992 Census of Agriculture can be viewed at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rdp/rdp0297/rdp0297d.pdf      (In PDF format)

Back to Contents

Announcements:

"Law and the New Agriculture:  Direct Marketing and Local Food Systems"
Neil Hamilton's 4-day course to be offered this summer at Drake University

The course will consider legal issues associated with new developments in the U.S. food and agricultural system relating to local production and marketing of quality food.  It will focus on the legal dimensions of a variety of production, marketing, and processing developments including: a) organic food production, including the Federal law and new organic standards; b) the operation of community supported farms, including a discussion of forms of organization and financing; c) farmers markets, public market operations and roadside stands; d) local processing and marketing of fresh dairy, meat, and poultry, including State rules on meat processing and marketing; e) urban gardening programs, including topics such as land availability of Federal funding for food systems movement, including availability of Federal funding for food system projects, and g) programs to increase opportunities for new farm operations, including beginning farmer loans, land-link matching programs, and linked deposit loans to generate alternative funding.

Neil Hamilton is the director of the Agricultural Law Institute at Drake and an Ellis and Nelle Levitt Distinguished Professor of Law.  He is the author of numerous books and articles including A Farmer's Legal Guide to Production Contracts (Farm Journal 1995) and is currently working on books:  A Legal Guide for Direct Marketers and Feeding America's Future.  He is the past-president of the American Agricultural Law Association (AALA) and the author of nationally award winning book What Farmers Need to Know about Environmental Law (1990).  He is also the author of A Livestock Producer's Guide to Nuisance, Land Use Control and Environmental Law (1992) and the Iowa Crop Producers Environmental Law Guide (1992 and 1994).   He has a B.S. from Iowa State University, 1976 with honor and distinction, and a J.D. from the University of Iowa, 1979 Order of the Coif.  He has conducted seminars throughout the U.S. and in sixteen foreign countries and has chaired numerous agricultural law committees.  He presently serves on the board of directors and as a vice-president of the World Union of Agricultural Law Professors, on the Advisors Board of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture and on the boards of directors for the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, the National Gardening Association, the Seed Savers Exchange, the Food Bank of Iowa, and the Wallace House Foundation.

The course will be offered at the Agricultural Law Center, Drake University in Des Moines, IA.  Tuition for the course is $565.   The course is available for either 1 hour of academic credit or 13 hours of C.L.E. credit.  The course will be offered July 12-15.  For more information, write to the Summer Agricultural Law Institute, Drake University Law School, Des Moines, IA  50311 or call (515) 271-2947 or 271-2065.

Back to Contents

Community Food Security Coalition Workshops:

The Community Food Security Coalition will be holding 1 1/2-day advanced community food security workshops in four locations this year.

May 10-11 Oakland, CA
June 17-18 New Orleans, LA
June 24-25 Cincinnati, OH
September 13-14, Hartford, CT

Registration fees will be $65 for CFSC members and $90 for nonmembers(includes a 1-year membership).  Brochures with registration information will be mailed out in mid-April.

These workshops will utilize case studies from real community food projects to delve into in-depth discussions of key issues facing practitioners. The focus of the workshops will be on:

Community Economic Development: Building the Food System from the Ground Up.  It seems like everywhere you go community food projects want to grow, make, or sell food products to generate jobs or businesses or to project income.  But creating a successful business enterprise is a long row to hoe, with most attempts ending up in the compost heap.  This section will take a careful look at both the successes and failures of food-related community economic development and why you should do it or not do it.

Empowerment and Citizen Participation:  Where are the People?  Community food security is very much about developing the capacity of your community and its people to meet their own needs and improve their own lives. And food is certainly a very powerful tool for citizen empowerment.  This section will explore some of the strategies that food projects around the country have used to develop local self-reliance while building a competent and effective citizenry.

Community Food Planning:  From Assessment to Evaluation.  Knowing the problem you want to address, understanding what causes the problem, deciding on the best problem-solving strategy, and knowing how to evaluate your results are key elements to good community food work. This section will help you evaluate projects rationally with the hope that we will all be all little more effective.

For more information, please contact the Community Food Security Coalition office by email at asfisher@aol.com, or call Andy Fisher at (310) 822-5410.

Back to Contents

New in Print - Publications about Direct Marketing

Getting Food on the Table:  An Action Guide to Local Food Policy
(Community Food Security Coalition)

"Getting Food on the Table: An Action Guide to Local Food Policy" is a new publication that provides community organizations, food advocates, and government staff with tools for developing innovative policy solutions. The Guide is intended to support local efforts to promote community food security by helping readers to understand the breadth of policies affecting their local food system, evaluate policy barriers and opportunities, develop innovative policy solutions, and identify useful resources. The publication is a joint project of the California Sustainable Agriculture Working Group(SAWG) and the Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC).

While cities regulate many basic needs, such as water, transportation, and housing, there have been very few comprehensive food system planning efforts at the city or county level; no municipality has a department of food.   Nevertheless, all cities and counties have numerous policies and programs that affect food production, distribution, and consumption embedded in their various agencies. Examples include zoning restrictions that affect supermarket development,  food purchasing regulations for local schools and other government institutions, and use of city-owned lands for community gardening. Understanding this patchwork of local policies can help community food security advocates be more effective, regardless of whether they seek to directly influence local policy or work on projects affected by those policies.   "Getting Food on the Table" brings together a range of valuable information not available from any other single source:  an inventory of relevant local government programs, case studies of local food policy work, organizing tips, and an extensive resource guide.

Chapter 1 provides a department-by-department inventory of city and county programs, policies, and functions that affect community food security.  Each section includes specification suggestions, as well as examples of success stories.  The chapter also includes information on Federal funding sources.

Chapter 2 features case studies of established food policy councils and other organizations that have successfully influenced local food policy.  Each case study includes background information, accomplishments,  challenges, and good practices.

Chapter 3 provides advice on the basics of food policy organizing, evaluates the pros and cons of various types of organizational structures, and gives tips on starting and maintaining a food policy council.

Finally, an annotated resource guide directs readers to a wide range of information on food policy research, organizing techniques, and specific food system issues. Appendixes include sample ordinances and Federal funding leads. 

To order a copy of "Getting Food on the Table", send $12 to the Community Food Security Coalition at P.O. Box 209, Venice CA  90294.  For more information, call CFSC at (310) 822-5410 or SAWG at (831) 457-2815.

Back to Contents

From the Field to the Table:
Suggested Food Handling Guidelines for Open-Air Farmers' Markets and Fairs
(Catherine Drake and Beverly Swango, ECOnomics Institute)

The food handling practices in "From the Field to the Table" have been incorporated into the Crescent City Farmers Market in New Orleans, LA.   They "know that everyone (both vendors and customers) benefits from its clarity and thoroughness.  It is a practical response to a recognizable shift in consumer concern about food quality and safety.  In the past ten years, consumers have demonstrated an insatiable appetite for farmers' markets and the opportunity to reconnect to food sources - safe food sources.  In an article about food safety in the September 1, 1997 issue of Newsweek, author Adam Rogers reflects many people's feelings when he wrote, 'when farmers sell their own food, the product doesn't pass through numerous hands and giant distribution centers that increase the risk of picking up pathogens.'  Indeed, farmers' markets do generally provide fresher, superior produce.   This document provides markets with the means to demonstrate how."    

Sections in the document include "Product Categories and the Risk Assessment of Food-Borne Illness," "Minimum Production, Storage, and Transportation Standards by Product Category," "Crescent City Farmers Market On-Site Display and Facilities," "Minimum Facility Requirements for the Production of Baked, Pickled, or Canned Food To Be Sold Only at a Farmers' Market," and "Food Sanitation Guidelines." 

Copies are $20 plus $2 for shipping and handling.   To order copies or for more information contact the ECOnomics Institute, Loyola University New Orleans, 7214 St. Charles Ave., Campus Box 907, New Orleans, LA  70118-6195.   Phone: (504) 861-5898,  Fax: (504) 861-5833, E-mail: ecoinst@loyno.edu  or visit http://www.loyno.edu/economics.institute

Back to Contents

Audio Tapes from "Cultivating the Harvest:
Inland Northwest Small Acreage
Farming Conference"

Audio tapes from "Cultivating  the Harvest: Inland Northwest Small Acreage Farming Conference" are now available. 

Of  particular interest to direct marketers:

- Selling  to Restaurants (Diane Green, Gene Fritz)
- What to Produce: Land Assessment and Enterprise Selection (Ken Hart, Vickie Parker-Clark)
- Growing and Marketing Medicinal Herbs (Tim Blakley)
- Value Added Processing and Marketing (Kim Murphy, Shawn Ellison, Harry Menser)
- Fresh Market Vegetables (Ellen Scriven)
- Community Supported Agriculture (Janie Burns, Jim Bauermeister)
- Apple Growing for Local Markets (Brian Finnigan)
- Marketing on the Web (Karl Ottenstein, Kate Painter)
- Alternative Crops (Carol Miles)

Tapes are $7.00 each plus shipping and tax (if applicable). 

For a complete list of audio tapes from the conference or to place an order, contact: Audio Productions, Inc., 12127  7th Place SE, Lake Stevens, WA  98258,    phone: 1-800-356-2834 or (425) 335-5223, fax: (425) 334-7866.   This company also has audio tapes from the National Farmer Direct Marketing Association Conference in Grand Rapids, MI. 

Back to Contents

 

line.gif (1082 bytes)

Return to Farmer Direct Marketing Newsletter Index to view previous editions