Food and a g Final Report 2011

8/12/2019 Food and a g Final Report 2011

1/71

New River Valley Livability Initiative:

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

December 2011

Prepared by: Courtney Beale, Kinsey Cunningham, Amy Hubbard, Scott Kelley, Tiffany

Luu, Jeremy Mauck, Hali Plourde-Rogers, Klaudia Sandomierz, Porter Stevens, and Rial

Tombes

Photograph by Hali Plourde-Rogers


2/71

Table of Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................4I.Problem Statementa.

Scope of the Reportb.

Methodsc.

New River Valley Agricultural History....................................................5II.Introductiona.

Agriculture in the New River Valleyb.

1992 Census Datac.

1997 Census Datad.

2002 Census Datae.

2007 Census Dataf.

Census Data: Compiled 1992-2007g.

Marketing...................................................................................................27III.

Local Supply...............................................................................................28IV.Introductiona.

Findingsb.

Recommendations to NRVLI Working Groupc.

Aggregation Markets Case Study: Good Food Good People, Floyd, VAd.

Local Demand............................................................................................30V.Introductiona.

Higher Educationb.

Public Schoolsc.

Other Institutionsd.

Case Study: Virginia Teche.

Case Study: Ferrum Collegef.

Case Study: Washington and Leeg.

Case Study: Oklahoma Farm to Schoolh.

Policy...........................................................................................................36VI.Introductiona.

Federali.

Virginiaii.

Educating Young Farmersiii.

Food Hub...................................................................................................38VII.Denitiona.


3/71


Componentsb.

Beneftsc.

Challengesd.

Food Hub Developmente.Fundingf.

Recommendations to NRVLI Working Groupg.

Case Study: Local Food Hub, Charlottesville, VAh.

Case Study: Appalachian Sustainable Developmenti.

Next Steps: Conclusion.............................................................................42VIII.

Appendix....................................................................................................43IX.Surveys/Interview Questionsa.

Answers to Surveys/Interview Questionsb.Contact Informationc.

Food Hub Funding Sourcesd.

2007 Census of Agriculture by countye.

Agriculture Products Pricing Chartf.

Additional Resourcesg.

Bibliography................................................70X.

PhotographsbyHaliPlourde-Rogers


4/71

New River Valley Livability Initiative

4

Problem Statement

The local food systems equation consists of many variables, but

the two that are most important are supply and demand. Our taskwas to evaluate how both supply and demand inuence local

food and agricultural systems in the New River Valley (NRV);however, time and seasonal constraints led us to focus more on

the demand side of that evaluation. In order to understand thisdemand, we looked at several different questions as laid out by

both the New River Valley Livability Initiative (NRVLI):

What is the demand for local foods?1.

How can local food producers (dairy, meat, vegetables or2.

value-added products) enter into larger markets (Virginia

Tech, Carilion, and others)?

What are the barriers or constraints to entering larger mar-3.kets? (Requirements related to storage, delivery, standardiza-

tion, timing, safety, etc.)

Is there an interest from these large buyers to purchase local4.foods?

What are the quantities that are currently being purchased of5.things that could be supplied locally and at what price point?

Historical review of what was grown and could grow well in6.

the region to meet the demand.

Case study analysis of other large universities that have been7.

successful at increasing the purchase of local foods. What didit take?

These questions cover a diverse range of issues on the demand

side of the equation but lead us to focus on how we may measuredemand for local foods both quantitatively and qualitatively. Theevaluation of demand led us to several different areas that we had

not predicted from the outset. Those issues ranged from barriersand disconnects in the demand and supply equation to scalabil-

ity of food systems and how this demand manifests itself going

forward.

Scope of the Report

In this report, the Environmental Planning Studio Food and Ag-riculture Group aims to assist the NRVLI in their goal of increas-

ing agricultural sustainability and food systems in our area. Thisproject covers introductory data gathering and analysis on localfood issues that will hopefully be helpful to achieving greater sus-

tainability. The group was divided into two main sections: supplyand demand.

The supply section details what types of food crops are available

in the NRV. We researched what types of crops have been suc-

cessfully grown in this region. The supply section also discussesprice points and their trends throughout the years. Interviews

with farmers market managers and the farmers who frequentthe markets are included in this section to assess their interest in

contributing to local food programs and their desire and ability toexpand their current production levels.

The demand section includes interviews with possible local foodpurchasers. These interviews allowed the group to assess interest

in local food programs, explore possible barriers for using localfoods, and obtain a general idea of the types and amounts needed

This section then discusses possible ways of achieving greaterfood sustainability in this region, specically by way of a food

hub.

Although the scope of this project is far-reaching, we hope to have

covered the initial signicant points related to achieving greaterfood sustainability in the NRV.

Methods

The Environmental Planning Studio Food and Agriculture

Group had a meeting at the start of the Fall 2011 semester withKim Thurlow, project coordinator for the NRVLI. At this point,Thurlow and our group discussed the direction the NRVLI would

Introduction

Photograph by Hali Plourde-Roger


5/71


5

be interested in pursuing. At this meeting, we discussed the needto hear from community members involved in the supply and

demand of locally produced and sold food. The NRVLI leadersare most interested in assessing whether there is a demand forfarmers throughout the NRV to sell their food locally.

Therefore, the group split the work into two separate groups: sup-ply and demand.

The supply group focused on historical data of top ranked cropsin the region as well as pricing trends for these products. Thesupply section also focused on interviews with farmers, farmers

market managers, and aggregation markets.

The demand group focused on talking to public school districts,universities and colleges, and hospitals in the NRV. Due to the

large volume of food required for these venues, these marketswere thought to be appropriate starting points for increasing localfood procurement.

Throughout the semester, we researched and interviewed work-

ing models. A case study was created for each model. Our nalproject will share both qualitative and quantitative data thatfocuses on our assessment of local procurement potential in the

NRV.

NRV Agricultural History

Introduction

Before European colonists settled eastern Virginia, indigenousPowhatan tribes inhabited the area. These Native Americanscultivated distinct varieties of crops and developed specic farm-ing techniquesthey were the countrys rst agricultural experts

(DEQ, 2011). Once the European settlers arrived, they adoptedmany of the Powhatan farming techniques, such as planting crops

in rows (DEQ, 2011). The farming practices of the colonists, how-ever, differed from those of the Native Americans. While the Na-tive Americans were subsistence farmers, the colonists were more

market-oriented and grew cash crops for export (DEQ, 2011).Important cash crops included tobacco, rice, indigo, and cotton

(DEQ, 2011). By the time of the American Revolution, importantcrops grown in Virginia included corn, squash, beans, apples, cab-

bage, kale, mustard greens, lettuce, peas, and turnips (DEQ, 2011).In these times, the economy of Virginia was almost all agricultural(Lamie, 1997).

The invention of farm machines, such as tractors, revolutionized

farming (DEQ, 2011). These inventions allowed farmers to pro-duce more crops in less time, using fewer resources (DEQ, 2011).However, as farming technology has increased the productivity of

farm and non-farm labor, the labor force engaged in farming hasdeclined (Lamie, 1997).

Although agriculture is still changing today, it remains a signi-

cant industry in Virginia (Lamie, 1997). Farmers have become less

self-sufcient and have transferred many of the responsibilitiesfor producing agricultural inputs, processing its raw inputs, and

marketing to other sectors of the economy (Lamie, 1997). This hasled to job increases in non-farming components of the agriculturalsystem (Lamie, 1997). Today, close to 1 out of 5 jobs in Virginia

are related to agriculture in some way (DEQ, 2011). Agriculture-related activities are broad and range from the traditional raising

of eld crops, vegetables, livestock, and nursery products, to thebreeding of commercial horses, the bottling of premium wines,

and the growing of sh, or aquaculture (DEQ, 2011). However,for the purposes of this report, we will focus on the traditionalcrop and livestock components of agriculture.

Agriculture in the New River Valley

Agriculture is a major industry in the NRV. Traditionally success-ful crops in this region include: gourds, elephant garlic, soybeans,

tomatoes, pumpkins, corn (sweet), and corn (grain), to name a

few (DEQ, 2011). Major farm commodities that are produced insouthwestern Virginia are cattle and calves, dairy, and tobacco

(Lamie, 1997). In fact, the NRV is home to the seventh largest cat-tle population in Virginia (NRVPDC, 2010). In turn, meat process-

ing is a major agricultural manufacturing activity of southwest-ern Virginia (Lamie, 1997). Poultry production and processing,soybean production, and tobacco processing are not strongholds

in the southwestern and southern region of Virginia, though theyare large industries in other parts of the state (Lamie, 1997).

Although agriculture is still a signicant operation of the NRV,there are declining trends in farming. In the mid-1930s, nearly

7,500 farms covered more than 690,000 acres of Floyd, Montgom-ery, Giles and Pulaski counties (Dellinger, 2004). However, by the

late 1990s, only 1,959 farms remained, covering a little more than363,000 acres (Dellinger, 2004). The NRV counties, particularly

Montgomery and Floyd, have had large agricultural land lossesfrom 1987 to 1997 (Dellinger, 2004). This is due mainly to the con-version of agricultural land to infrastructure, such as commercial

development, housing, and roads (Dellinger, 2004).

United States Department of Agriculture CensusData: 1992, 1997, 2002, and 2007

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as well as

the National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) has provided adatabase of agricultural census data. We used four data sets from

the Agricultural Census: 2007, 2002, 1997, and 1992. Each yearhas data for the entire state of Virginia as well as each county. Weput together a section of compiled data including statistics for the

four counties that make up the NRV. See the Appendix for exactagricultural census data for the region.

New River Valley Overview

Floyd County


6/71


6

Floyd County is the southernmost county in the NRV. Floydspopulation is 15,279 with 380.42 square miles (Census, 2010).

Giles County

Giles County is the northernmost county in the NRV. Giles popu-

lation is 17,286 with 355.78 square miles (Census, 2010).

Montgomery County

Montgomery County makes up the eastern portion of the NRV.

Montgomerys population is 94,392 people with 387.01 squaremiles of land (Census, 2010). Montgomery County includes two ofthe main urban centers in the region, Blacksburg and Christians-

burg.

Pulaski County

Pulaski County makes up the western portion of the NRV.

Pulaskis population is 34,872 with 319.86 square miles of land(Census, 2010).

1992 USDA Census Data

Montgomery County

In 1992, Montgomery County, Virginia had 98,914 acres in farmswith 537 total farms. The average market value of products sold

for all farms was $1.5 million. The average sales per farm forproducts sold were $33,158. Montgomery County actually had the

highest average per farm in sales in comparison to Floyd, Pulaski,

and Giles. Crop sales for all farms in Montgomery in 1992 were$1.4 million, while livestock sales for all farms were $1.3 million.

Figure 1.1 indicates the wide disparity in sales with livestock mak-

ing up 90% of sales, while crops only made up 10%.

Figure 1.2 displays the number of farms by size in 1992. Therewere 238 farms in the mid range size of farms, 50-179 acres. Thelargest type of farm with over 1,000 acres contained the smallest

number of farms in comparison to the other size brackets.

Of the 46,786 acres of total cropland, Montgomery County used20,482 acres for harvested cropland in 1992. 133 acres of cropland

were allocated for irrigated land. On average, production expens-es for a farm were about $24,463.

As shown in Figure 1.3, there were 228 individuals who statedthat farming was their primary occupation, while 309 individu-

als stated that farming was not their primary occupation but hadspent at least 200 days in the eld.

Figure 1.4 showcases the wide range of the number of farmsby value of sales in 1992 for Montgomery County. There were

more farms that made less than $2,500 in sales than in any otherbracket. Ultimately, a majority of all farms made less than $25,000


7/71


7

in sales. Strikingly, there were 40 farms that made $100,000 ormore in sales.

As indicated by Figure 1.5, beef cow farms made up the largest

number of farms for livestock. There are 339 beef cow farms inMontgomery County, which dwarfs the other types of livestock

farms. There are only 17 farms for hogs and pigs.

Similar to livestock farms, hay dominates the countys harvestedcrops. There are 391 hay farms, while all other farms for harvested

crops are merely in the double digits.

Floyd County

In 1992, Floyd County had 761 farms with 116,509 acres in farm-land. The average market value of products sold for all farmswas $21.4 million. The average sales per farm for products sold

equaled $28,064. With $5 million, Floyd County had the highestvalue in crop sales for all farms in 1992 in comparison to the other

three counties. Livestock sales for all farms totaled $16 million.

Figure 2.1 indicates that crops in 1992 made up 24% of sales, whilelivestock sales were over 75%. Floyd County in 1992 actually had

the greatest percentage of crop sales in comparison to Montgom-ery, Pulaski, and Giles County.

In Floyd County in 1992, mid size farms between 50 to 179 acresmade up the largest number of farms, while farms with 1,000 or

more acres had the lowest number of farms (Figure 2.2).

In 1992, Floyd County had 339 individuals list farming as their

primary occupation, while 422 individuals listed farming as anoccupation where they spent at least 200 days in the eld (Figure

2.3).

Figure 2.4 indicates that the greatest number of farms by value of

sales have sales between $2,500 and $4,999. A majority of farms inFloyd County make less than $25,000. There were only 20 farms

that made between $50,000 and $99,999 and only 39 farms that


8/71


8

made $100,000 or more. On average, each farm in Floyd Countyhad $22,422 in total farm production expenses in 1992.

Similar to the other counties, beef cows in Floyd County in 1992

were the largest type of livestock farm. Hogs and pigs made upthe fewest number of farms in this category with only 13 farms.

See Figure 2.5.

Floyd County had the greatest number of farms for crops like hay,alfalfa, small grain, etc. On the other hand, there were zero farms

for soybeans. The second greatest number of farms for selectedcrops in 1992 came from corn for grain or seed. See Figure 2.6.

Pulaski County

In 1992, Pulaski County had 71,803 acres in farmland with 363 to-tal farms. The average market value of products sold for all farms

was $11.6 million. The average sales per farm for products soldtotaled $32,091. Crop sales for all farms in Pulaski in 1992 equaled$1 million, while livestock sales for all farms totaled $10.5 million.

Like Montgomery County and Floyd County mentioned above,

Pulaski County has a greater percentage of sales coming fromlivestock as opposed to crops. Livestock made up 91% of sales

while crops made up 9% according to Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.2 represents the number of farms by size in 1992. There

were 140 farms in the mid level range of 50 to 179 acres. Therewere only ten farms with over 1,000 acres. More than half of all

farms in Pulaski County had less than 180 acres.

In 1992, 149 individuals listed farming as a primary occupation,

which is fewer than the 215 individuals who worked less than 200days in the eld. See Figure 3.3.

In 1992, more farms made less than $2,500 in sales than any othersales bracket. More than 75% of all farms in Pulaski County made

less than $25,000 in sales. Only 24 farms in 1992 made more than$100,000. On average, each farm in Pulaski County had $22,422 intotal farm production expenses in 1992. See Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.5 indicates that Pulaski County had the greatest number

of livestock farms for beef cows. The second greatest number offarms for Pulaski County for livestock was milk cows, but with


9/71


9

only 22 farms.

According to Figure 3.6, there were 270 alfalfa, small grain, and

other types of hay farm in 1992 in Pulaski County, which far ex-ceeds all the other types of selected crop farms.

Giles County

In 1992, Giles County had the fewest number of farms in compari-

son to the other three counties. There were only 332 farms, butGiles had more acreage in farms than Pulaski. The average market

value of products sold for all farms in Giles County in 1992 was$4,053, which is the lowest in comparison to the other three coun-ties. There was only $485,000 in crop sales for all farms in 1992.

However, livestock made up $3,568 in sales for the county, againthis value is also far lower than the other counties.

Like the three other counties shown above, Giles County has asimilar ratio of livestock to crop sales. Crops made up 12% of all

sales, while livestock made up 88% of all sales. See Figure 4.1.

In 1992, Giles County had the same number of mid size farms inthe 50 to 179 acre range as Pulaski County. There were 140 farmsin this division. There were only 5 farms that had 1,000 acres or

more. See Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.3 indicates that 140 individuals in Giles County listed

farming as their primary occupation in 1992, while only 192individuals listed farming as an occupation for at least 200 days in

the eld. Giles County had the fewest number of individuals forfarming as not as a primary occupation in comparison to the otherthree counties in 1992.

Figure 4.4 shows that the greatest number of farms by value of

sales for Giles County in 1992 fell between $5,000 and $9,999 insales. There were only 11 farms in Giles County that made more

than $50,000 in sales in 1992.

Figure 4.5 indicates that beef cows made up the largest number

of livestock farms in Giles County in 1992. In sum, there were notmany farms for other livestock types besides beef cows for Giles

County.


10/71


10

Figure 4.6 indicates that hay farms, including alfalfa, other tame,

and small grains made up the largest number of harvested cropfarms for Giles County in 1992.

Compiled Trends for 1992

There were 360,323 acres in farmland with 1,993 farms in 1992 asan aggregate whole from Montgomery, Floyd, Pulaski, and GilesCounties. There were 879 mid size farms between 50 to 179 acres

in the region, the division with the most farms. There were only40 farms with more than 1,000 acres. Ultimately, Floyd County

had the greatest number of acres of farmland and the largestnumber of farms as depicted in Figure 5.1. Pulaski County hadthe least number of acres in farmland, while Giles County had the

least number of farms. Floyd County had the greatest number ofcrop sales and livestock sales. On the other hand, Giles County

had the lowest sales in the region for both crops and livestock.Montgomery County had the largest average of sales per farm($33,158), while Giles County had the lowest average sales per

farm ($12,207). All of the counties produced more livestock farmsfor beef cows than any other type of livestock. Hay farms were

also the most common type of farm for all of the counties as well.

More than 50% of all farms in the region made less than $24,000 insales.

As shown from Figure 5.1, Floyd County had the most farms in

the region, while Giles County had the fewest.

Figure 5.2 indicates that Floyd County had the most farmers who

listed farming as a primary occupation. However, Giles Countyhad the fewest number of individuals who listed farming as aprimary occupation.

In 1992, Pulaski County had the greatest average sales per farm incomparison to the other three counties. Montgomery followed ata close second with $31,158 for average annual sales per farm in

1992. Giles County had the lowest average sales per farm in 1992.See Figure 5.3.

In 1992, Floyd County had the highest market value of productssold for the entire county, while Giles County had the lowest

market value of products sold for the entire county in 1992. SeeFigure 5.4.


11/71


11

1997 Census Data

Montgomery County

In 1997, there were 517 farms with 93,074 acres in farmland. This

was a decrease in both farms and acres in farmland since 1992.However, crop and livestock sales both increased since 1992.Crops made up 14% of sales in 1997, while livestock sales madeup 86% as shown by Figure 1.1. The average market value of

products sold for all farms was $14.8 million. The average salesper farm for products sold totaled $28,610. This was also an in-

crease since 1992.

Figure 1.2 indicates that in 1997 mid size farms with 50 to 179

acres still had the greatest number of farms in comparison to otheracre divisions. There were 213 farms with 50 to 179 acres in 1997,

but there were only 12 farms with 1,000 acres or more. Like in

1992, Montgomery County had the fewest number of farms in thedivision of 1,000 acres or more.

Figure 1.3 for 1997 indicates that there were 195 individuals wholisted farming as a primary occupation, while 322 individualslisted farming as an occupation, but not primary occupation.

From 1992 to 1997, there was a decrease in farming as primary oc-cupation while there was an increase in farming as an occupation,

but not primary occupation.

Figure 1.4 shows that Montgomery County still had the greatest

number of farms making less than $2,500 in sales. In 1997, Mont-gomery County had an increase in the number of farms making

at least $10,000 and $25,000. Total farm production expenses spent


12/71


12

per farm in Montgomery County in 1997 equaled $19,949.

Although there was a decrease in the number of beef cow farmsin Montgomery County from 1997 to 1992, beef cow farms still

remain the dominant livestock farm. There was a decrease in milkcow farms, hog and pig farms, sheep and lamb farms, and chicken

farms as well. See Figure 1.5.

Figure 1.6 indicates that hay farms still dominated the Montgom-

ery region in terms of harvested crop farms. Hay farms, includingalfalfa, other tame, and small grain had farms in the triple digits,while all other types of harvested crop farms were in the single

or double digits. There was only a small drop in the number ofhay farms in Montgomery County since 1992. There were 391 hay

farms in 1992, but only 379 hay farms in 1997.

Floyd County

In 1997, Floyd County had 731 farms with 122,613 acres in

farmland. Floyd County experienced a decrease in the number offarms since 1992, but an increase in acres of farmland. As indicat-

ed by Figure 2.1, crops made up 39% of sales and livestock madeup 61% of sales in 1997. Compared to the other counties in 1997,this ratio of crops and livestock is far more dispersed. The market

value of all products sold in Floyd County was $21.4 million,which is greater than all of the other three counties. The average

sales per farm for products sold totaled $41,126. Like Montgom-ery County, Floyd County experienced an increase in average

sales per farm since 1992.

With crop sales totaling 39%, since 1992 crop sales have increasedby almost 50% (Figure 2.1). Floyd County had more crop salesthan any other county in the region.

Figure 2.2 displays the number of farms by size in 1997. With the

overall increase in the number of acres of farmland, Floyd Countyexperienced an increase in the number of farms with over 50 to

179 acres of land. There were 23 more farms with 50 to 179 acresin 1997 than in 1992.

As shown by Figure 2.3, 317 individuals listed farming as a prima

ry occupation, while 414 individuals listed farming as an occupa-tion, but not as a primary occupation. Floyd County experienceda decrease in both categories of farmers since 1992.

Figure 2.4 indicates that Floyd County had the greatest numberof farms making less than $2,500 in sales in 1997. More than half

of all farms in 1997 made less than $25,000 in sales. However,Floyd County had the most number of farms in the region making

more than $100,000 in sales. There were 73 farms making morethan $100,000 in sales in Floyd County in 1997, while Montgom-ery County had only 34, Pulaski County had only 26, and Giles

County had only 4. The average total farm production expenses


13/71


13

in 1997 for Floyd County totaled $30,839, which is an increase by

about $8,000 since 1992.

Similar to the other counties, beef cow farms made up the largestnumber of farms for livestock farms again in 1997. Floyd Countysaw a fairly large decrease in the number of beef cow farms and

milk cow farms in 1997 as compared to 1992. Beef cow farms wentfrom 508 farms in 1992 to 463 in 1997, and milk cow farms went

from 62 farms in 1992 to 21 farms in 1997. See Figure 2.5.

The dominant type of farm for selected harvested crops in 1997in Floyd County was hay, including alfalfa, other tame and smallgrain. However, like beef cow farms, hay farms also experienced

a decrease in the number of farms since 1992. There were 582 hayfarms in 1992, while only 540 in 1997. There was an increase in thenumber of wheat for grain and tobacco farms in 1997 for Floyd

County. See Figure 2.6.

Pulaski County

Pulaski County had 80,406 acres in farmland in 1997 with 370

farms. There were 7 more farms in 1997 than in 1992 with 8,603more acres. The market value of all products sold for the countyin 1997 was $12.9 million. The average sales per farm in 1997

equaled $35,062. As shown in Figure 3.1, a majority of sales camefrom livestock, with only 7% of coming from crops.

Figure 3.2 indicates that most farms in Pulaski County had 50

to 179 acres. The type of farm by size with the least number offarms comes from farms with 1,000 acres or more. In almost all

categories of farms by size except farms with 10 to 49 acres, farmswith 180 to 499 acres, and farms with 1,000 acres or more, PulaskiCounty has increased the number of farms.

Figure 3.3 displays the number of individuals who listed farmingas their primary occupation and the number of individuals who

listed farming as an occupation, but not their primary occupation.There were 142 individuals who listed farming as their primary

occupation. Like a majority of the other counties, Pulaski saw adecrease in the number of individuals who listed farming as a

primary occupation.


14/71


14

Figure 3.4 indicates that the greatest number of farms by valueof sales made between $5,000 and $9,999. The fewest number of

farms make between $50,000 and $99,999 in sales, but there were

more farms that made $100,000 or more in Pulaski County. Theaverage total farm production expenses per farm in 1997 for Pu-laski County equaled 29,471, which is an increase since 1992.

Figure 3.5 indicates that beef cow farms made up the largest por-

tion of livestock farms by type in 1997. Sheep and lamb farms andmilk cow farms made up the second and third largest portion of

livestock farms. There was a decrease of 2 farms from 1992 to 1997in the number of beef cow farms. There was also an increase of 6farms for hogs and pigs and milk cows since 1992.

Figure 3.6 indicates that hay farms, including alfalfa, other tame,and small grain made up the largest number of farms in Pulaski

County. There was only one farm for tobacco farms, soybeanfarms, and orchard farms. There was an increase of 7 farms forhay farms since 1992 and a decrease of 10 farms for corn grain or

seed since 1992.

Giles County

In 1997, Giles County had 67,245 acres in farmland with 341

farms. Giles County had the fewest number of farms and the few-est acres of farmland in the region. Similarly, the market value ofproducts sold for all of Giles County was only $4.1 million, which

was also the lowest market value of all the other counties. Cropsmade up 13% of sales and livestock made up 87% of sales in 1997

in Giles County (Figure 4.1). The average sales per farm in GilesCounty totaled $12,089 in 1997. Giles County had the lowest aver-


15/71


15

age sales per farm in the region. Since 1992, Giles County has lost9 farms and 5,852 acres in farmland.

Figure 4.2 displays the number of farms by size in 1997 for Giles

County. Giles County had 152 farms with 50 to 179 acres, which isthe most out of any other acreage division. Giles County actually

had an increase in farms with 50 to 179 acres since 1992.

In 1997, Giles County experienced an increase in individuals wholisted farming as a primary occupation and as a part time occupa-

tion since 1992. There were 142 individuals who listed farming asa primary occupation and 199 individuals who listed farming as apart-time occupation. See Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.4 demonstrates that 90 farms in 1997 made less than$2,500, while only 4 farms made $100,000 or more. There was a

growth in farms making less than $2,500 but a decrease in farmsmaking more than $100,000 since 1992. More than 75% of thefarms in Giles County in 1997 made less than $24,000. The total

farm production expenses on average for a farm in Giles Countyequaled $12,266.

Figure 4.5 delineates that beef cow farms remained the dominantlivestock farm in Giles County in 1997. However, they have de-creased by 22 farms since 1992.

Figure 4.6 indicates that hay farms, consisting of alfalfa, othertame, and small grain farms were the dominant type of farms

for harvested crops. With 260 hay farms in Giles County in 1997,other harvested crop farms dwarf in comparison. There were

only 10 corn for grain farms, 2 wheat for grain farms, 6 farms fororchards, and 1 farm for tobacco. The number of farms for hay hasincreased by 8 farms since 1992.

Compiled Trends for 1997

There were 363,338 acres in farmland with 1,959 farms in 1997 asan aggregate whole from Montgomery, Floyd, Pulaski, and Giles

Counties. There were 846 mid size farms between 50 to 179 acresin the region. There were only 41 farms with more than 1,000acres. Like the 1992 data, Floyd County had the greatest number

of acres of farmland and the most number of farms as depictedin Figure 5.1. Floyd County also had the greatest sales in crops in

comparison to the other three counties. Giles County had the low-est number of sales in the region.

As depicted in Figure 5.2, Floyd County had the greatest number


16/71


16

of farmers that listed farming as their primary occupation. GilesCounty had the fewest number of farmers who listed farming as

their primary occupation in 1997.

Figure 5.3 indicates that Montgomery County had the highestaverage sales per farm in 1997 with Pulaski County coming in at aclose second. Giles County had the lowest average sales per farm

in 1997.

Figure 5.4 evaluates the market value of products sold for the en-tire county in 1997 in millions. Floyd County had a market value

of $21 million in products sold for their entire county, while GilesCounty only had $4 million.

From this 1997 census data with relative comparison to the 1992

census data, the ultimate nding shows that Floyd County tendsto have greater agricultural prosperity than Giles County. GilesCounty tends to fall behind in the number of farms, acreage of

farms, number of farmers, and sales of products.

2002 Census Data

Floyd County

Figure 1.1 shows the percentage of crop sales versus livestock

sales. While Floyd County attributes a majority of its agriculturalsales to livestock operations, in 2002 32% was based in Crop Sales

In 2002, Floyd County had one of the highest percentages of cropsales in the NRV, along with Montgomery County.

Figure 1.2 shows the size prole of farms in Floyd County in 2002This chart shows that 50-179 acre farms were the most common

size category. Only 12 farms in the county are made up of morethan 1,000 acres. This could be based on geographical constraintsin Floyd County.

Figure 1.3 shows how many farmers in Floyd County were

primarily occupied by their farm in 2002. In Floyd County, morefarmers use farming as their primary occupation, although there


17/71


17

is still a large number (40%) that do not. In the state of Virginia,46% of farmers must rely on alternative means of income.

Figure 1.4 shows the value of sales earned by farms in Floyd

County. 180 farms sell less than $1,000 in a year. 166 farms sell

$5,000 to $9,999 in a year. Only 25% of farms in Floyd County sell$20,000 or more in a year.

Figure 1.5 shows the type of livestock produced in Floyd County.In Floyd, the majority of livestock production is geared toward

cattle and calf operations.

Figure 1.6 shows the acreage of crops in production by type. For-age occupies the most amount of acreage in Floyd County. Forageis usually set aside for livestock to graze. This directly correlates

to the majority of cattle and calf livestock operations in Floyd

County.

Giles County

Figure 2.1 shows the percentage of agricultural sales in Giles

County attributed to crops and livestock in 2002. Nearly 80% ofthe agricultural sales in Giles County came from Livestock.

Figure 2.2 shows the size prole of farms in Giles County in 2002.In Giles County, the most common farm size fell within the 0 -179acre range. 89.6% of the farms in Giles fall between 10 acres and

499 acres.

Figure 2.3 shows the number of farmers that farm as their primaryoccupation compared to those that do not consider farming theirprimary occupation. In Giles, it is split pretty evenly between

those that use farming as their primary occupation and those thatdo not.


18/71


18

Figure 2.4 depicts the value of sales by farms. In 2002, the mostcommon value of sales per year fell within the $5,000 and $9,999

range. 85% of the farms in Giles County sell between $0 and$20,000 in a year.

Figure 2.5 shows the top livestock production by type. In Giles,

cattle and calves were the most common livestock produced.Sheep and lambs are the second most common livestock operationin Giles County, but the amount of sheep and lambs produced

compared to cattle and calves is signicantly lower.

Figure 2.6 shows the top crops produced in Giles County. Foragecontributed to the highest amount of acreage in crop produc-tion. Other top crops that rank in the top acreage include corn for

silage, apples, corn for grain and cut Christmas trees.

Montgomery County

Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of agricultural sales based from

crop and livestock sales in Montgomery County in 2002. While

livestock contributes to a signicant percentage of agriculturalsales, Montgomery County has one of the highest percentages of

crop production in the NRV.

Figure 3.2 shows the size prole of farms in Montgomery County.The most common farm size was 50-179 acres. There were 10farms that operated with 1,000 acres or more.

Figure 3.3 shows how many farmers rely on farming as their

primary occupation and how many do not. There are slightlymore farmers that rely on their farm as their primary occupation


19/71


19

in Giles County.

Figure 3.4 depicts the value of sales by farm in MontgomeryCounty in 2002. The most common value of sales was less than$1,000 by year. 80% of farms in Montgomery County sold between$0 and $20,000 in one year.

Figure 3.5 shows the type of livestock production that occurredby farm. In Montgomery County, cattle and calf operations are the

most common. Sheep and lamb operations as well as layer henscontribute to Montgomery Countys top livestock sales.

Figure 3.6 shows the amount of acreage allotted to certain types of

crop production. In Montgomery County the highest acreage wasfor forage. Other top crops in Montgomery include grains, likecorn and wheat.

Pulaski County

Figure 4.1 shows the percentage of livestock and crops that wereproduced in Pulaski County in 2002. 94% of agricultural sales in

Pulaski County are derived from livestock. Pulaski County hasthe lowest percentage of agricultural sales from crops in the entireNRV for 2002.

Figure 4.2 shows the size distribution of farms in Pulaski County.The most common size range of farms was 50-179 acres, closely

followed by farms that are 10-49 acres. Pulaski has 10 farms thatoperate on 1,000 acres or more.


20/71


20

Figure 4.3 shows the number of farmers that used farming as theirprimary income as compared to farmers that rely on supplemen-

tary off farm income in 2002. In Pulaski, nearly 70% of farmers didnot consider farming their primary occupation. This percentage

is signicantly higher than the states average of 46% of farmersrelying on off farm income.

Figure 4.4 shows the value of sales for Pulaski County. Nearly

80% of farms in Pulaski operated with sales between $0 and$20,000 per year.

Figure 4.5 shows the type of livestock that were most producedin Pulaski County. Cattle and calves contributed to the majorityof livestock produced. Other top livestock produced in Pulaski

include sheep and lambs, horses and ponies, and goats.

Figure 4.6 shows the top types of crops produced in Pulaski

County. Forage contributed to the highest amount of acreage percrop. Other top crops include grains, like corn and wheat, and cutChristmas trees.

Compiled Counties 2002

Figure 5.1 shows the number of farms across each county in the

NRV. Floyd has the highest number of farms at 829, while Gileshas half as many farms as Floyd and the lowest number of farmsin the NRV.

Figure 5.2 shows the number of farmers that claimed farming wastheir primary occupation. Again Floyd had the highest number of


21/71


21

farmers who do not rely on off farm income and again Giles had

the lowest number of farmers that rely solely on their farm forincome.

Figure 5.3 shows the average sales per farm in 2002. Floyd County

and Pulaski County earned the highest sales per farm. Giles pro-

duced sales equal to 1/3 of Floyds and barely half of Montgom-erys, the county with the next lowest sales.

Figure 5.4 shows the value of agricultural products sold in each

county. Floyd, again, earned the highest value for their products.Giles earned one sixth of Floyds total product value and just alittle more than one third of Pulaskis product value.

In 2002, Floyd County had the most robust agricultural regime.Montgomery, in most cases followed closely behind, except for its

number of sales per farm. Pulaski had the 2nd highest amount ofsales per farm, but was third in total value of products for eachcounty. This is related to the demographics of each county. Giles

County has the most room for growth in a local food economy.Giles was the only county in the NRV where apples were consid-

ered a top crop. Further research could be put into supporting

apple growers in Giles. There is surely a market for them in theNRV.

2007 Census Data

Floyd County

Floyd devotes 57% of its land to livestock (Figure 1.1), which is

signicantly lower than the rest of the NRV, which averages at77%. Floyd has the most land in farms (128,872 acres). And at 864farms, Floyd has the most farms among the four counties.

Figure 1.2 shows the size prole of farms in Floyd County in 2007

95% of farms in Floyd County are 10-499 acres.

Figure 1.3 shows the number of farms that rely on their own farmfor their primary income. In Floyd County, there are more farmers

that rely on off farm income.

On average, farms in Floyd County sell $50,186 worth of producteach year. This average is the highest in the NRV, although it is


22/71


22

still lower than Virginias average ($61,000+). Figure 1.4 shows the

most common value of sales for farms in Floyd County is $0-1,000.76% of farms operate with sales less than $20,000 per year.

Figure 1.5 shows the top livestock produced in Floyd County. InFloyd, cattle and calve operations are the highest percentage of

livestock productions. Other types of livestock that are producedsignicantly in Floyd County include layer hens, horses and po-

nies, sheep and lambs, and goats.

Figure 1.6 shows the types of crops that are produced in top quan-tities in Floyd County. Forage crops claim the highest amount of

land used for one type of crop in Floyd. Nursery stock comes insecond by claiming almost 2,000 acres of land. Corn and rye alongwith cut Christmas trees use signicant amounts of acreage as

well.

Giles County

Giles devotes 84% of its farmland to livestock. Giles has the small-

est acreage of farmland as well as the fewest number of farms inthe region. The average sales per farm per year are also lowest inthe region.

Giles County has 65,487 acres of land in farming with 344 indi-

vidual farms. Figure 2.1 shows the majority of Giles Countysagricultural sales are gleaned from livestock production. Crops

only account for 16% of agricultural sales in Giles County.

Figure 2.2 shows the size prole of farms in Giles County. The

most common farm size falls in the 50-179 acre category. 90% ofGiles Countys farms fall between 10 acres and 499 acres.


23/71


23

Figure 2.3 shows the number of farmers that rely on their farm astheir primary occupation. In Giles, about 60% of farmers rely on

an off farm occupation.

Figure 2.4 shows on average, farms in Giles County sell $14,626worth of product a year. This is nearly 1/4 of the average sales

value for farms in Virginia and the lowest average in the entireNRV. 83% of farms in Giles produce sales between $0 and $20,000

per year.

Figure 2.5 shows that livestock production in Giles County fo-cuses mostly on cattle and calf operations. Cattle and calf opera-

tions signicantly outweigh the amount of land used for other toplivestock products. Other top livestock operations in Giles County

include sheep and lambs, goats, horse and ponies, and layer hens.

Figure 2.6 shows the top crops produced in Giles County. Foragecrops represent the highest amount of acreage used for a singlecrop in Giles County. Christmas trees are second to forage crops.

Montgomery County

Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of crop and livestock sales inMontgomery County in 2007. In 2007, 28% of agricultural sales in

Montgomery County are crops.

Figure 3.2 shows the size prole of farms in Montgomery County.77% of farms are between 10 acres and 179 acres. Only 10 farmsare more 1,000 acres.

Figure 3.3 shows the number of farmers that claim farming tobe their primary source of income. There are a higher number of


24/71


24

farmers that rely on an alternative occupation as their primaryincome. The number of farmers that do not consider faming to be

their primary occupation has increased by about 10% since 2002.

Figure 3.4 shows the number of farms and their correspondingvalue of sales. In Montgomery, 77% of farms operate with yearly

sales between $0 and $20,000. Less than 5% operate with salesabove $249,999.

Figure 3.5 shows the most common types of livestock productionin Montgomery County. Cattle and calf operations are the mostcommon type of livestock produced. Other common livestock

produced include horses and ponies, sheep and lambs, layer hens,and goats.

Figure 3.6 shows the top crops by type in Montgomery County.Forage takes up the most acreage throughout the county. Corn forsilage and for grain is second to forage.

Pulaski County

Pulaski County has 75,457 acres in farmland and 415 farms. While

Pulaski is the smallest county (by square miles) in the NRV, it av-erages higher gures than Giles County. Pulaski County devotes

95% of its farmland to livestock production (Figure 4.1). This isthe highest percentage of land devoted to livestock production inthe entire NRV.

Figure 4.2 shows the size prole of farms in Pulaski County.Nearly 75% of the farms in Pulaski County are less than 179 acres.

Figure 4.3 shows the numbers of farmers that rely on farming astheir primary occupation. In Pulaski there are more farmers that

do not rely on farming as their primary occupation. Since 2002,the number of farmers relying on an off farm occupation hasrisen.

Figure 4.4 shows the value of sales by each farm. 78% of the farms

in Pulaski County operate with sales below $20,000 per year.


25/71


25

Figure 4.5 shows the top four livestock categories produced in

Pulaski County. Cattle and calves are the most common type of

livestock. The other most common livestock grown in Pulaskiproduce at about the same scale and include horses and ponies,

sheep and lambs and goats.

Figure 4.6 shows the two most common crops grown in Pulaski

County. Forage is the most common and corn for silage is second.

Considering so much of Pulaskis agricultural sales are attributedto livestock, these crops make sense. Both of these crops are pro-duced for livestock to eat.

Compiled Counties 2007

Overall, the NRV allots a higher percentage of its land to livestock

production than it does for crop production. The terrain of theNRV could have a signicant impact on farmers decisions to raiselivestock instead of crops. In many cases, it is easier to produce

livestock on hills than it is to grow vegetables. Between 2002 and2007, there has been both a decrease in acreage of farmland as

well as a decrease in number of farms in the NRV.

Altogether, the NRV had 359,227 acres in farmland and 2,251

farms. In 2002, more than $80 million worth of agriculturalproduct was sold. Each farm earned about $32,000. The state of

Virginia averages about 70% of its agricultural sales based inlivestock and 30% based in crops. The NRV corresponds with

Virginias statewide average with 77% of the NRVs agriculturalsales based in livestock and 23% based in crops.

Figure 5.1 shows the number of farms found in each county. FloydCounty has the highest number of farms at 864, and Giles County

has the lowest at 344 farms.


26/71


26

Figure 5.2 shows Floyd County has the highest number of farmersthat rely on farming as their primary occupation. Pulaski has the

lowest number of farmers that claim farming as their primaryoccupation.

Both Pulaski County and Floyd County operated with higheraverage sales than the compiled NRV. While Floyd County has a

signicantly higher level of average sales, Floyd County is belowVirginias average. Virginias average sales per farm for 2007 were

more than $61 million. See Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.4 shows the market value of products sold for the entire

county in millions. Altogether $80 million dollars are based fromagricultural sales in the NRV.

In 2002, Montgomery County and Floyd County devoted thesame percentage of land to crop sales. Since, Montgomery County

has decreased its percentage of sales in crop production whileFloyd County has increased their percentage.

Census Data: Compiled 1992-2007

Across the fteen-year time span, there are certain agricultural

trends that should be noted. By 2007, Floyd County stood out asa model for a successful agricultural system. Floyds agricultural

success did not become so distinct until the past decade. In 2002,

Montgomery led the way in highest sales, market value andother categories. Since, Floyd County has bypassed Montgomery

County and assumed a leading role in agriculture in the NRV.

Figure 6.1 depicts the trend of acreage set aside for agriculturalpurposes. Between 1992 and 2002, there was a signicant jump

in acreage set aside for agricultural use. By 2007, there is a quickdrop in acreage for agricultural use. The reason behind this drasticdrop is unclear, but it is possible that economic realities surround-

ing the housing crisis of 2008 may have played a key role. In theend, there was an overall decrease in acreage allotted to agricul-

tural land use of roughly one thousand acres.

Figure 6.2 shows the trend in number of farms in the NRV. Thistrend shows the number of farms is increasing. While the amount

of acreage in agricultural production has remained fairly stagnantaccording to Figure 6.2, the increase in number of farms indicatesthat in 2007 there were a higher number of smaller farms than in

2002.

Figure 6.3 shows a trend of increasing value of agricultural prod-

ucts sold for the NRV. This trend may indicate increased strengthand stability in the agricultural economy in the within the region.

An increased market value of agricultural products sold in theNRV may lead to more capacity for local agricultural infrastruc-ture.


27/71


27

Marketing

Introduction

Interest in local foods is growing in our region, expanding into

private and institutional markets, thus creating many opportu-

nities for economic growth. Some of the resulting benets mayinclude an increased net income for local farms and food estab-

lishments, an increased number of locally owned businesses, andmore choices for farmers and consumers because of a robust, di-

verse agricultural economy. Other benets may include increasedemployment in production, processing, distribution, and retailsectors of the local economy (Bendfeldt et. al, 2011).

There may be opportunities for increased marketing for direct-

to-consumer sales of local foods through venues such as farmersmarkets, roadside stands, on-farm stores, and community sup-

ported agriculture (CSA) systems. According to information pro-

vided by the US Census Bureau, if every household in the NRVplanning district were to spend $10 per week on locally produced

food, it would generate more than $34 million in revenue for theregion. A report created by the University of Kentucky Agricul-

tural Extension states that consumers come to small-scale venuesprimarily because of the quality of the produce there. Theyrelooking for tastes that can only be grown locally- produce that

is picked at its peak and sold at its most desirable stage (Ernst& Woods, 2002) During our interview with Frank Holland at

U.S. Foods, he mentioned this advantage in quality and diver-sity means that people might be willing to pay more for locallysourced foods; they are getting more by paying more. This also

explains why there has been 111% increase in the number of farm-

ers markets in the United States from 1994 to 2004 alone (Ernst& Woods, 2002). Opportunities also exist for increased marketingthrough intermediated sales of local foods to regional distribu-tors, grocery stores, restaurants, and other retailers (Low & Vogel,

2011). An Agricultural Resource Management Survey, conductedby the USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service and Eco-

nomic Research Service shows that a majority of local food salesoccur through the intermediated marketing channels, which

include but are not limited to national distributors like Cisco orU.S. Foods (Low & Vogel, 2011). This is where the biggest oppor-tunity for economic growth related to local food sales exists for

the NRV. The demand section of this report shows the increasing

level of interest by institutional entities for local foods purchas-ing through an intermediated marketing channel. National farm

sales of food items through intermediated marketing channels areover three times higher than direct-to-consumer farm sales (Low

& Vogel, 2011). These results can be broken down by farm sizessmall, medium, and large.

Small Farms, those with gross annual sales less than $50,000, ac-counted for 81% of all farms reporting sales of local food in 2008

(Low & Vogel, 2011). They averaged $7,800 in local food sales perfarm and relied mostly on direct-to-consumer venues (Low &

Vogel, 2011). Medium size farms, with gross annual sales between$50,000 and $250,000, accounted for 17 % of farms reporting localfood sales in 2008 (Low & Vogel, 2011). They averaged $70,000 in

local food sales per farm and used a mix of direct-to-consumerand intermediated channels (Low & Vogel, 2011). Large farms,

with gross annual sales greater than $250,000, accounted for 5%of farms with sales of local foods reported in 2008(Low & Vogel,2011). The average local food sales per farm equaled $770,000

(Low & Vogel, 2011). These farms were equally likely to use eitherof the marketing channels exclusively, or a mix of both (Low &

Vogel, 2011).

As mentioned earlier, there is increasing interest on the demandside for more locally grown foods. However, as we will discusslater in the report, there is currently an inadequate supply to ful-

ll that demand. The USDA Census data reported earlier revealsthat many NRV farms, not accounting for livestock, are small to

medium sized. Comparing this to the national averages analyzedin 2008 by the USDA, we see an opportunity for more intermedi-ated channels of marketing in the NRV. Combining the increasing

institutional demand with additional infrastructure, such as a lo-cally placed Food Hub, will allow regional food distributors to ac-

cess the potential new supply from local farmers. These distribu-tors already have a majority of the institutional market. This will

also provide local farmers an alternative to direct-to-consumermarkets for sales of their food items.

U.S. Food Market Estimator

One tool designed to help estimate potential markets for specicfood items is the U.S. Food Market Estimator, developed at the

Leopold Center For Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State Univer-sity. The U.S. Food Market Estimator is an expansive tool that

uses data collected annually by the Economic Research Service(ERS) under the USDA to help users determine potential demandfor specic food items. This tool can be used down to the county

level for all counties in the United States (Leopold Center, ISU).The Estimator provides information for 204 food items, includingsome dairy products, meat products, fruits, vegetables and grain.

Users choose how they want their results shown. This can be bypounds produced or consumed, number of servings, truckloads

transported, or even cubic feet of warehouse space needed to storeparticular products (Leopold Center, ISU). The U.S. Food MarketEstimator works by estimating the amounts of the 204 food items

available for human consumption at a national per capita rate. It


28/71


28

then multiplies the national per capita rate by population esti-mates from the U.S. Census for individual counties to determine

the potential market for any of the food items at the county level(Leopold Center, ISU). Since this tool uses the per capita nationalaverage of consumption and food availability, it is only intended

to provide estimates for potential market demand. It can be used

to assist in economic analysis and for trending food use. This toolis intended for comparative and strategic uses, not to provideactual specic data. Understanding the limitations of the tool, we

believe it can be used to estimate potential demand, and therefore

potential generated revenue, for specic products grown andsold locally within the NRV. The Market Estimator is designed so

that current market prices may be used. However, price pointsfor agricultural commodities vary greatly and are updated by the

Virginia Department of Agriculture on a monthly, weekly, andeven daily basis. See the appendix for a sample table of prices forcommon Virginia agricultural products (with sources included)

and additional online information about the U.S. Food MarketEstimator.

The following is an example of how this tool can work for coun-ties in the NRV. Knowing that apples are potentially a major com-

modity in the NRV, we wanted to nd out how many pounds ofapples could be consumed annually in Montgomery County.

We assume 100% of the population consumes the per capita1.

national average. This serves as a starting point for analysisthat can be easily adjusted for more accurate population con-sumption averages based on more up-to-date census gures.

The tool calculates an estimated potential consumption rate2.

based on national per capita averages multiplied by 2007 U.S.Census population estimates for the state of Virginia. These

results are broken down by county.

Montgomery County potentially could consume 1.3 million3.

pounds of apples.

If we take this information and multiply it by the current4.price of fresh apples, for example $1.00/lb., we can conclude

there is a potential $1.3 million market for fresh apples inMontgomery County.

This tool can be used in a similar manner to project potential5.

markets for various other products grown and purchased inthe NRV.

Local Supply

Introduction

Our objective was to speak with local food producers to better un-

derstand if there was interest and the capacity to start supplyinglarger institutions with their products both locally and through-out Virginia. To determine potential local supply, we developed

a survey for NRV farmers. These interview questions coveredsupply, demand, prot, and interest in additional infrastructure

and community support. Once Professor John Randolph and KimThurlow accepted our questions, they were then submitted toand approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). However,

due to the harvest season corresponding with our research we

were unable to contact many farmers (see the appendix for surveyquestions). Instead contacted Ellen Stewart, Market Manager forthe Blacksburg Farmers Market. While waiting to speak directlywith Stewart, we went out to the Farmers Market and spoke with

four vendors.

Findings

Our responses came from the Blacksburg Farmers MarketManager and four local producers. Our overall ndings from the

farmers market vendors were that there is not a strong desire orinterest in expanding their markets. The farmers who sold pro-duce at the farmers market tend to cater their production to the

needs and constraints of the farmers market. The farmers seemto like the smaller, local appeal of the Blacksburg Farmers Market

and are perfectly content with producing on a smaller scale. Whenthey were asked about the concept of expansion, a major concern

among the group was the pressure to increase supply to meet agreater demand. The farmers ability to produce more is limited

by the lack of land acreage, available manpower, and nances

to support a larger operation. When asked about infrastructure,three out of the four farmers surveyed did not express any needs

of additional infrastructure support. The other farmer did expressan interest in water infrastructure support. (See the appendix forcomplete breakdown of farmer responses to survey questions.)

We later spoke with the Farmers Market Manager, Ellen Stewart.

Stewart was able to provide us with good background informa-tion of the farmers market and its history. She did suggest specic

infrastructure needs: fencing and cold frames.

Recommendations to NRVLI Working Group

We have two recommendations for those who continue to workwith the agriculture and food section of the NRVLI:

Speak with other farmers outside of the farmers market,1.especially to meat and dairy producers. These farmers might

have larger capacity to support an increase in supply withlittle additional infrastructure inputs.

Track the number of people who visit during the farmers2.market hours of operation on Wednesdays and Saturdays.

Stewart suggested it would be benecial to the BlacksburgFarmers Market if they were able to keep track of this trafc.

Collecting this data in the future would be a simple processand help support the market as well as supply valuable information about demand for local goods within Blacksburg.


29/71

Case Study

29

Case Study

Problem Statement

What is Good Food Good Peoples (GFGP) role as a Food Hub inFloyd County? How could GFGP or other local food hubs supplyVirginia Tech with local food?

Background

Good Food Good People is a farmers cooperative located inFloyd County, Virginia. Over 50 producers contribute their fruits,

vegetables, herbs, meats, egg, cheeses, value-added items, andmore, all sourced from within a 100-mile radius.

Tenley Weaver and Dennis Dove started GFGP in 1996. Accord-ing to Weaver (personal communication, Nov. 11, 2011), each year

GFGP is a different company. Based on the number of producersinvolved as well as the variation of customers from year to year

the types of markets that GFGP serves varies.

Good Food Good People has four main markets that they use tosell their products. These include farmers markets, communitysupported agriculture (CSA) programs, restaurants, and institu-

tions. Good Food Good People sells their produce at farmersmarkets in Floyd, Blacksburg, and Roanoke. CSA Programs offer

customers a chance to share the risk of a growing season by pay-ing up front for a seasons worth of produce to be distributed ona weekly basis. GFGPs CSAs are distributed throughout Floyd,

Blacksburg, and Roanoke. Several Roanoke restaurants haveworked with GFGP for years and understand the quality of prod-

uct that GFGP delivers but also understand the need for a back upin case of shortages on certain products. Lastly, GFGP has recently

started selling to Roanoke College. Roanoke College is a privateschool with about 2,000 undergraduate students. The volumeof produce needed to feed Roanoke Colleges entire campus is

feasible for GFGP.

Good Food Good People has not actively pursued selling to uni-versities. There are several factors that inuence GFGPs decisionto maintain the current markets theyre working with. Institutions

like Virginia Tech or Carillion Hospitals require a large volume of

consistent produce, with quick turn around and cheap prices. InSouthwestern Virginia, seasonality will always be a limiting factorfor farmers. While GFGP acts as an aggregation facility and in-

deed sells a large volume of products throughout the year, GFGPproducers are typically growing produce that is diverse in speciesand harvest time.

Many institutions require their producers and suppliers to obtain

certain certications. Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) certica-tion provides a difcult challenge to the small farming operationsthat make up GFGP. GAP regulations require certain types of in-

frastructure that are not monetarily feasible for small farmers like

those that work with GFGP. Currently only two GFGP producershave GAP certication.

Solution

Weaver (personal communication, Nov. 11, 2011) acknowledgesthat GFGP is an ever-changing company. In the future, GFGP may

be ready to look into selling to larger institutions in the NRV. Butbefore that can happen, GFGP needs to build their own processingfacility and GFGP producers need to achieve their GAP certica-

tion. As Weaver (personal communication, Nov. 11, 2011) says,Good Food Good People is not grant funded, its farmer funded.

This means that funds for a processing facility and infrastructurerequired to earn GAP certication are not necessarily on the nearhorizon for this company.

Aggregation Markets: Good Food Good PeopleGFGP was established to promote the integral connection between farmers and food connoisseurs in our bioregion, highlighting the variety,

taste, and freshness of locally-grown foods


30/71


30

Local Demand

Introduction

When looking at agricultural sustainability and food systems wedecided it is important for entities within the NRV to purchase

and consume food items grown or produced within the NRV. Asmarkets exist outside of the region for NRV food products, welooked to nd new, alternative markets within or near the region.

We surveyed various private and public institutions includinguniversities, large medical facilities, county school systems, anddistributors to determine the level of interest in purchasing a

higher percentage of locally grown food items. This section pro-vides case studies, interviews, and survey results of these various

institutions that show there is an overall interest, thus an alterna-tive market, for purchasing more locally grown food items.

Higher Education

The following section includes case studies from three universi-ties in southwestern Virginia: Virginia Tech, Ferrum College, and

Washington and Lee University. We spoke directly with coordina-tors from Virginia Tech and Ferrum College about the current use

of local food in their institutions and their goals for expansion.Complete notes from these interviews can be found in the appen-dix. Case studies follow on pages 32-34.

Public Schools

Another potential market for NRV local foods are the county

school systems. There has been an increasing push from the

federal and state levels for more activity in local farm-to-schoolprograms. Over 2,000 of these programs are already in place in44 states (Ashbury, 2010). These programs vary in scope and mayinclude incorporating local foods into school lunches, educational

programs about composting and gardening, and educationalprograms about recipe preparation and nutritional meal ideas

(Ashbury, 2010).

Efforts are underway to increase the role of farm-to-school pro-

grams in Virginia school systems. In 2007, the Virginia GeneralAssembly established the Virginia Farm-to-School Task Force. The

mission of this task force was to develop an implementation planfor farm-to-school programs in Virginia (Ashbury, 2010). Some

challenges the task force identied include: product availability,distribution, product costs, food safety, labor, and education (Ash-

bury, 2010).

Since the farm-to-school movement in Virginia is fairly new, there

is not an overarching structure or model to develop farm-to-school programs (Ashbury, 2010). According to a study done byKatherine Ashbury (2010), the most feasible model for Virginia to

follow is a community-run approach through regional organiza-tions. Infrastructure, such as a food hub, would allow schools to

build their farm-to-school programs outside of Farm-to-Schoolweek (Ashbury, 2010). LeAnn DuBois, the Virginia Farm-to-School

Coordinator of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Con-

sumer Services, stated that she would be willing to help the NRVregion build a farm-to-school team to coordinate the development

of the program in public schools within the NRV (L. DuBois,personal communication, November 28, 2011). She also noted thatthis movement has received wide support from many audiences,

including legislatures and parents (L. DuBois, personal com-munication, November 28, 2011). DuBois notes that the program

will receive heightened attention in up-coming years (L. DuBois,personal communication, November 28, 2011). She comments thatissues such as procurement and funding are still challenges to the

program; however, she hopes that recent bills introduced duringthe Virginia General Assembly will address these program chal-

lenges (L. DuBois, personal communication, November 28, 2011).

Like DuBois noted, the farm-to-school program is getting at-tention from many audiences. In fact, Matthew Benson, Ph.D.student and graduate research assistant in the Department of

Agriculture and Extension Education, is participating in conduct-

ing a statewide survey called the Virginia Farm-to-school Surveyof Virginia School Nutrition Directors. According to MatthewBenson (personal communication, Sept. 30, 2011), The overallpurpose of the survey is to identify the attitudes, knowledge,

and behaviors of Virginia School Nutrition Directors towardsthe Virginia Farm-to-School Program. This survey will not be

completed, analyzed, and released before this report is completedhowever, it will be available for future working groups to use. Inlieu of not having the results of this comprehensive survey, we

completed our own survey of local school Nutrition Directors togauge interest in expanding their Farm-to-School programs. We

contacted Floyd County, Montgomery County, and the OklahomaFarm-to-school Program. We received a response from Floyd

County Public Schools.

Floyd County Public Schools

Floyd Countys School Nutrition Programs Director, Pamela H.

Harris, was excited to talk about the Farm-to-School program inthe county. In addition to participating in the annual Farm-to-

School week required by the state (Commonwealth of Virginia,2010), Floyd County provides up to 10% of its food from localvendors (P. Harris, personal communication, Nov. 8, 2011). Har-

ris (personal communication, Nov. 8, 2011) reported that theypurchase approximately 75% of their produce from local vendors

Puckett Produce and Roanoke Produce. She also stated interest inexpanding the entire program and providing more locally grownfoods for school meals within the county (P. Harris, personal com-

munication, Nov. 8, 2011). Floyd County Schools serve close to1,500 meals per day, so an increase in the Farm-to-School program

would expand the market for locally grown foods. We askedabout potential future programs Floyd County might be inter-ested in to make better use of local agriculture resources. Harris

(personal communication, Nov. 8, 2011) indicated that she hasbeen working with a group of local farmers for Farm-to-School

items and is thinking about involving local Future Farmers ofAmerica (FFA) in producing items for the school system.


31/71


32/7132

Case Study

Problem Statement

What is Virginia Tech doing to incorporate local food purchasesinto their dining halls and how can we increase their local foodpurchases?

Background

Virginia Tech operates a nationally ranked dining services opera-tion with 11 separate dining centers, 18,500 dining plan holders,

and 6.2 million meals per year (Dining Services, 2011). CurrentlyVirginia Techs Dining Services procures about 1.5% of their food

from local sources. Dining Services qualies local food as foodcoming from within a 250-mile radius of Virginia Tech.

Dining Services has established a station in Owens Dining Hall oncampus that serves exclusively local, sustainable, or organic op-

tions. The Farms and Fields Project in Owens was started in 2008and has since grown. In 2009, Dining Services acquired a 3-acre

plot of land located at Virginia Techs research farm, KentlandFarm. The Dining Services Garden at Kentland Farm started as asmall herb garden but has grown into a fully functional organic

vegetable farm. Located fewer than 10 miles from campus, theproduce from Dining Services plots at Kentland Farm makes up a

signicant percentage of local food procured for meals at VirginiaTech. In its 2011 growing season, Dining Services is expected toproduce nearly 40,000 pounds of produce (Gibson, 2011).

Dining Services Awards and Honors

Green Report Card:

In 2011, Virginia Tech received an overall B+ rating and a B ratingspecically for their food and recycling programs. The type of

food purchasing as well as various initiatives that have started oncampus helped Virginia Tech earn this score. The Dining Services

Garden at Kentland Farm as well as reusable water bottles, com-posting, and tray-less dining are all taken into account.

Princeton Reviews Green Honor Roll:

In the Princeton Reviews guide to Green Colleges for 2012,Virginia Tech received a score in the 99th percentile. Because of

this grade, Virginia Tech is on the Princeton Reviews GreenHonor Roll, which includes the 16 most sustainable universities

throughout the country. The Princeton Review noted VirginiaTechs composting rates and its Dining Services Garden at Kent-land Farm.

AASHE Stars:

The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher

Education and Sustainability Tracking Assessment & Rating

System (AASHE- STARS) granted Virginia Tech a Silver Rating in

Sustainability. In their Dining Services section alone, VT receiveda 28.7%. The area that Virginia Tech can improve in most of all is

their food and beverage purchasing.

Future Possibilities

Dining Services at Virginia Tech serves about 6.2 million mealsper year. Virginia Tech has huge potential to increase their amoun

of local purchasing through nearby farmers although there aresignicant barriers for farmers and Virginia Tech to overcome.

Virginia Tech Dining Services is not limited by contract to certainvendors, but most of their food does come from larger distributorslike U.S. Foods and Sodexo. Large-scale farms that can provide

quality and quantity would be able to t into Dining Servicesprogram.

At this point, Dulys-Nusbaum (personal communication, Sept.

5, 2011), Dining Services Sustainability Coordinator, feels thatVirginia Tech Dining cannot increase their local food procure-ment percentage without signicant policy change or a change in

marketing and distribution methods on the farmers end. Dulys-Nusbaum (personal communication, Sept. 5, 2011) mentioned

that she has heard positive feedback about aggregation facilitieslike the Local Food Hub in Ivy, VA or Appalachian SustainableDevelopment, located just outside of Abingdon, Virginia (see case

studies included in this report).

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Dining ServicesPromote a sustainable dining and food system at Virginia Tech and therefore the greater community


33/71

Case Study

33

Case Study

Problem Statement

Maintaining and expanding local food acquisition for diningservices.

Background

Ferrum College is a 4 year, private, liberal arts college located inrural Franklin County, VA with a total undergraduate enrollmentof 1,484. Michael Martin, Dining Services Operations Manager,

reported that depending on the season, Ferrums dining servicessource up to 30% of its food from local sources (within 200 miles

of the campus) (M. Martin, personal communication, November11, 2011). Martin stated that the college has a goal of using 50%local food in the near future. According to Martin (personal com-

munication, Nov. 11, 2011), approximately 2% of their food comesfrom their own one-acre garden. The college has two sustainabil-

ity coordinators who are employed through the natural scienceand math department (M. Martin, personal communication,November 11, 2011). Martin (personal communication, Nov. 11,

2011) also stated that Ferrum College has few funding restrictionsbecause of its status as a private school. The funding for their local

food comes directly from the funds created by student enrollment.

In July 2010 a $2.1 million project, mostly funded by the Depart-ment of Agriculture, was proposed to provide easier access tolocal foods for Franklin County. This also extends to the sur-

rounding regions, Franklin County Public Schools, and FerrumCollege. A grant was requested and submitted by a joint partner-

ship between Franklin County and Ferrum College. This grantseeks to establish a food warehouse in Rocky Mount and purchasevehicles for local food transportation.

Benefts

Improves the local economy by increasing employmentand productionOpportunity for student research and involvement

Our farmers need to know they have a ready market. Lo-cal citizens need access to quality food, and research shows

that locally grown food is fresher and healthier (Perriello,T., U.S. Representative).

Ferrum College: Farm-to-Table Initiative


34/7134

Case Study

Problem Statement

How does Washington and Lee incorporate local food into its din-ing services? What are the methods of its farm to college frame-work and how might it be applied to the public universities in the

New River Valley?

Background

Washington and Lee University is a small public university of

1,777 undergraduate students located in Lexington, VA. It pridesitself on its nationally recognized Law School and its incorpora-

tion of local foods into campus dining. In fall 2007, the Universitysponsored a Fall Harvest Meal and it has been an annual traditionever since. This meal is 90% locally sourced and gives students

and others who attend the opportunity to talk to the producersand gain an understanding about the importance of supporting

local producers. According to the Universitys website, Initia-tives begun during the 2008-2009 academic year should raise the

percentage of local food purchased to 25 -35%.

Solution

According to Chris Carpenter, Special Projects Manager for

Washington and Lee Dining Services, the Cost-Transfer Econom-ics Program is essential to the Universitys success. This program

uses the savings from one local vendor and applies it to a more

expensive local vendor to even out costs. For example, apples aremuch cheaper bought local than from Washington State (as previ-

ously purchased); however, traditionally bought chicken is lessexpensive than the locally grown chicken. Therefore, the savings

from purchasing local apples make it possible to purchase localchicken as well.

Benefts

Smaller carbon footprint while transporting locallyHormone-free fresh meat and produce.

Every $1 spent on local foods yields $1.80 in benets forthe local community (Washington and Lee University, Jan.

2010)Fosters a relationship between the university and the com-

munity

Washington and Lee University


35/71

Case Study

35

Case Study

Problem Statement

How can public schools in the New River Valley benet from localfood being served in cafeterias?

Background

The Oklahoma Farm-to-school Program is a state-sanctioned pro-gram that encourages the use of local foods in schools through-out Oklahoma. It was created in a piece of state legislation titled

The Oklahoma Farm to School Act in 2006 (Oklahoma Farm toSchool, 2011). The program began in just four school districts and

has since expanded to over 60 districts (Oklahoma Farm to School,2011). The main goal of this program is to increase the overallnutrition in students diets while encouraging and supporting

local farmers (Oklahoma Farm to School, 2011). It seems that otherpositive impacts, such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions and

more sustainable agriculture, are secondary.

Solution

This program created a department or central ofce that aimsto increase and encourage local food use in schools (OklahomaFarm to School, 2011). Despite the absence of an actual facility to

compile local food, this program has increased local food use byorganizing communication between farmers and schools as well

as distribution of food between them.

The activities sponsored by the Act are:

Locally grown produce served in school cafeterias

School gardens & eventsFarm & farmers market visits

Nutritional & educational curriculumCooking & tasting demonstrationsWorkshops for growers, food service personnel and teach-

ers

Issues and discoveries that apply to the NRV:

Healthier meals means higher labor costs to the schools butthis is often offset by the low cost of the food (University ofMinnesota)

In Oklahoma, fresh produce does not need to be inspected,allowing for faster transfer from the farms to the schools

which reduces spoiling of the foodA coordinator was assigned to this project to inform farm-ers of what the schools need and to inform the school of the

best ways to prepare and store the fresh produceFunds are allocated from the USDA and the Department of

DefenseFood orders are given to the Department of Defense

(Department of Human Service Commodity Division) and

distributed by an existing private provider

Oklahoma Farm-to-School Program


36/71


36

Policy

Introduction

With increased awareness that local food systems provide betterhealth options, positive economic impacts, and increased envi-

ronmental sustainability, more attention is being given to localfood legislation. At a speech given in Ankeny, Iowa on October 24,2011, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack spoke about the priorities

for the upcoming 2012 Farm Bill. He stated, Local food is one ofthe fastest growing segments of agriculture. In the past decadedirect consumer sales have doubled. Making connections so that

a farmer can sell at a local school or hospital, or even a neighbordown the road, creates good-paying jobs in our rural communi-

ties and keeps the wealth created from the ground close to home(Vilsack, 2011). Understanding that federal, state, and local policycan have positive or negative impacts on the agriculture sector, we

encourage all stakeholders and future working groups to reviewthese policies ensuring the most effective legislation is in place to

support sustainable agriculture and food systems in the NRV. Wehave included a few examples of federal and state legislation thatimpact local food systems.

Federal

The Food, Conservation And Energy Act of 2008

This expansive regulation affects many aspects of agriculture in

the United States to include local foods, farmers markets andhealthy diets. Also called The 2008 Farm Bill, it increased efcien-cies and effectiveness of existing programs and provided funding

for several new programs (American Farmland Trust, 2011). Someof the new policies and programs supported by the 2008 Farm Bill

reect the publics increasing demand for provisions that supportlocal food. A list of some of these new programs that gained fund-ing are as follows:

Farmers Market Promotion Program: to help establish and1.

promote farmers marketsCommunity Food Projects Program: to help connect low-2.

income people with fresh foods from local communityFresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program: al

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tiffanycpap-luu
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Food and a g Final Report 2011

Documents