The University of Georgia
Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development
College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
Farm to School Survey Findings
Prepared by:
Kent L. Wolfe, Sharon P. Kane, and Marissa Watson
Center Report: CR-12-02
January 2012
Farm to School Survey Findings
Prepared for:
Georgia Farm to School Alliance*
January 2012
Summary Prepared by:
The University of Georgia
Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development
Dr. Kent Wolfe, Director
Sharon P. Kane, Public Service Associate
Marissa Watson
*The Georgia Farm to School Alliance is a network that joins statewide agencies working in food, farming and
nutrition to coalesce resources and support for Farm to School, and to create a dialogue for building statewide
programming. Members include: Georgia Department of Agriculture; Georgia Department of Public Health;
Georgia Cooperative Extension Service; the Georgia Department of Education, School Nutrition Program and
the Agriculture Education Program; Georgia Organics; Georgia Farm Bureau; Georgia Fruit and Vegetable
Growers Association, and the United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Our thanks
to the members for their support and contributions to this research effort.
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. iii Overview................................................................................................................................................... 1 Survey Highlights ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Appendix................................................................................................................................................... 9 Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................. 11 Table and Figures
Table 1. Respondent Listing of Food Distributors .................................................................................................. 2 Table 2. Percent Purchased from Local Producers.................................................................................................. 4 Table 3. Self Serve Salad Bar Usage in Schools ..................................................................................................... 5 Table 4. Local Purchase Efforts .............................................................................................................................. 5 Table 5. Current Farm to School Program .............................................................................................................. 6 Table 6. Interest in Farm to School ......................................................................................................................... 6 Table 7. Interest in Local Growers for Produce Purchases ..................................................................................... 6 Table 8. Helpful Resources for Increasing Local Food Use ................................................................................... 7 Table 9. Potential Benefits of Serving Local Food ................................................................................................. 8
Figure 1. Map of Responses by County .................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 2. Produce Purchases - Fresh, Canned, Frozen ............................................................................................ 5 Figure 3. Present and Future Challenges ................................................................................................................. 8 ii
Executive Summary
In the spring of 2011, the UGA Center for Agribusiness & Economic Development collaborated with
partners in the Georgia Farm to School Alliance to develop and conduct a survey of School Nutrition
Directors and managers in districts throughout Georgia to obtain more information about their
characteristics, preferences, and challenges.
Some highlights of the survey include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Most of the respondents – 98% – have full-service kitchens at the schools in which they serve.
The top five most often mentioned food distributors that they currently use include U.S.
Foodservice, Williams Institutional Foods, Glover, Sysco, and ACC Distributors.
More than 50% of the responding schools indicated that they purchase less than 10% of their
meat, produce, and dairy products from local sources.
On average, the school districts purchase their produce primarily in the forms of fresh (41%),
then canned (36%), followed by frozen (23%).
78% indicated that the students at their school do not use self-serve salad bars.
Nearly three-quarters (72.4%) indicated that they had made efforts to purchase local, including
the specific mention of certain products such as strawberries, the use of vendors or distributors
that provide the local items they request, or sometimes purchases directly from local farmers ,
or the use of directories or cooperative. . Further, respondents indicated no preference between
working with the various sources – including individuals, groups, cooperatives or distributors.
Only 24% of the respondents said that their institution is currently engaged in a farm to school
program. When asked whether their institution would be interested in a farm to school program
as described in the survey, 56.6% (43) indicated that they would be interested or would at least
like to have more information (36.8%)
The most popular form of local produce that the institutions were interested in was the fresh-cut
(75%), followed by frozen (67%) and fresh-raw (60%). A smaller number were interested in
canned and other forms of produce to be purchased locally. Approximately two-thirds of
respondents indicated that they would be interested in identifying, communicating, and
ordering local products through an Internet-based platform.
In considering the resources that they might consider helpful in increasing their use of local
food, the highest response was for a directory (92.3%), while the next highest included a
clarification of procuring local food using simply terms (89.6%) and of federal, state, and local
regulations (89.3%). All of the resources received a “most important” or “important” ranking
from more than 65% of those that responded.
Potential benefits of serving local food from the perspective of the responding schools included
the highest response of better flavor (97.5%), with the next closest being to help Georgia
farmers and/or businesses (95.7%) and the local educational agencies supporting the local
economy (89.6%). Very close behind is the benefit of being able to have just in time produce
(89.5%) and for children and adults to have healthier diets (89.1%). The lowest three benefits
included food safety, increased participation rates/revenue, and increased shelf life.
Perceived present challenges or obstacles in purchasing local foods include the top two
concerns such as the lack of products available during certain times of the year and deficiency
of producers from which to purchase. For the future, the top two were the time required to
prepare and handle fresh produce and fitting it into the institutional budget.
iii
Overview
In the spring of 2011, the UGA Center for Agribusiness & Economic Development collaborated with
partners in the Georgia Farm to School Alliance to develop and conduct a survey of School Nutrition
Directors in districts throughout Georgiai. The purpose of the survey was to collect information about
each school, with the following assessment goalsii:
•
•
•
•
•
Current and potential economic impact
Exploration of the market for farmers
Willingness of schools to buy local foods
Available infrastructure within the schools to prepare fresh, whole foods
Perceived opportunities and challenges
An online survey was conducted, collecting detailed information pertaining to these institutional
characteristics and activities. It is important to note that the online sample was a self-selecting sample,
meaning that respondents chose to visit and complete the online survey website. The respondents were
not selected randomly and thus the results represent the responses of those that choose to complete the
survey.
Survey Highlights
The initial sections of the survey requested simple identification information from each respondent, such
as their name and title, and school system information. See Figure 1 highlighting the areas of the state
from which the responses came.
Figure 1. Map of Responses by County
1
Further, they were asked to identify the best description of where most of the meals are prepared and most
indicated that preparation occurs at each individual school. The next question asked about the preparation
facilities,
Q.Which of the following typifies the kitchens in the district or at the school you represent?
- Cold kitchen (no ability to cook or warm, but can prepare produce)
- Warming kitchen (with microwave or oven, but meals are mostly pre-prepared)
- Full-service kitchen (where meals can be prepared from scratch)
- Other
Most of the respondents – 98% – have full-service kitchens at the schools in which they serve, which
indicates the ability to prepare meals from scratch. Further, all but one indicated that their school or
district determines food providers by a bidding process. The remaining school indicated that they
purchase by Request for Tender (RTF).
Participants were also asked from which food distributors their school or district purchases food, and the
option of listing five different distributors. See the table below for the full listing of distributors as
answered in survey, noting that each row across indicates that the same respondent listed those
businesses.
Table 1. Respondent Listing of Food Distributors
Respondent Listing of Food Distributors
US Foodservice
Williams Institutional Foods
Williams Institutional
Mayfield Dairy Farms
Foods
Sysco Atlanta
US Foodservice - Atlanta
Glover Foods, Americus, Williams Institutional Foods,
GA
Douglas, GA
Williams Institutional
Pet Dairy
Foods
Sysco
US Foodservice
Williams Institutional
US Foods
Mayfield
Williams Foods
ACC Distributors
Williams Institutional
Farmer Brown Produce
Foods
Glover
U S Foodservice
Williams Institutional
ACC
US Foodservice
Dexter Farms
GEC Co-op
ACC
Williams
US Foods
Williams
Glover Foods (Americas
ACC Distibutors (Leesburg
Ga)
Ga)
US Foods Lexington
Williams
US Foodservice Atlanta
Williams Institutional Foods
U. S. Foodservice Atlanta
IBC Sales
ACC - Leesburg
US Food Service,
Lexington, SC
Glover - Americus
Hostess Brands
Steedley Produce
Glover Auten
Walker Meats
State Wholesale - Macon
Tanner Grocery
Royal
Glover Foods
Williams
SYSCO
Williams Institutional
Foods (Douglas Ga)
Prince Wholesale
Holland Produce
Dexter Farms
Sysco
US Food service
Samples Food
service
U S foodservice
Milton's
Williams Foods
Beam Produce
Sysco
Sara Lee
Mayfield
CArolina Produce
2
Respondent Listing of Food Distributors
Sysco
Glove
Sysco
Meat Corral
US Foods
US Foodservice
ACC
Sysco
US Foods
Sysco, Atlanta
SYSCO Atlanta
Williams Institutional
Foods
Williams Institutional
Foods
US Foods
Glover Foods
Williams Institutional
Foods
Williams Institutional
Foods
Reinhart Food Service,
Valdosta, GA
Miltons
Royal Foods
Glover
US Foods
Sysco
Glover Foods
US Foodservice
Glover Foods
US Foods
Samples Institutional
Foods
Royal Foods
Mayfield
US Foodservice
Walker Meats
U.S. Foods
Royal Produce
Samples Institutional
Foods
Holland's Produce
Mayfield Milk
Sara Lee
Earth Grains
Mayfield
Tanner
Dexter's Produce
Steedley Produce
Derst Baking
Company
US Foodservice, Lexington SC
ACC Distributors
Royal Produce
Williams Institutional Foods,
Douglas, GA
Farmer Brown Produce,
Valdosta, GA
Dairy Fresh Milk
Co.
U S Foodservice
PFG Miltons
Samples
Sara Lee Bakery
Pridgen Brothers
Sysco of Atlanta
Glover Auten Foods
Williams Inst. Foods
U. S. Foodservice,
Fairburn
ACC Distributors
US Foodservice
ACC Distributors
US Foodservice
US Foodservice
U.S. Foodservice
Glover Foods
Samples Foodservice
Williams Foods
Carolina Produce
Glover-Auten
Sysco
Bi-City Produce
Glover Foods
Renfroe
Bi City Produce
Glover Foods
Sysco Atlanta 2011-2012
U. S. Foodservice
Earthgrains/SaraLee
Royal Produce
ACC
ACC
Williams Institutional
Foods
GLOVER
Williams Institutional Foods
WILLIAMS
Glover Foods, Inc.
ACC Distributors
Williams Inst.
US Foods
ACC Distributors
Flowers Bakery,
Thomasville, GA
Leondard's Farmers
Market
U.S. Foods 20102011
Mayfield Dairy
Farms
Pridgen Brothers
US Foods
Performance Food
Service
Sysco Food Service
Samples Institutional
foods
US Foodservice
Mayfield Dairies
Royal Produce
Glover Institutional
Foods
Samples Institutional Foods
U.S. Foodservice
Williams Institutional
Foods
Sysco-Atlanta
Sutherland's Food
Service
U.S. Foodservice
Glover Foods
Flavorich Milk
August Produce
US Foods
Dean Foods (Milk)
Flowers (Bread)
Glover Foods
Aikens Produce
Glover Foods
US Foods
U. S. Foods
Sysco
ACC Distributors
US Foodservice
ACC Distributors
Sysco
Williams Institutional Foods
ACC
Kelley Foods
Sra Lee Bakery
Sysco of Atlanta
Glover-Auten
Carden Foods
Glover Foodservice
Flav-O-Rich Dairy
Earthgrains
Williams
Institutional Foods,
Inc
Samples
Institutional Foods
Flowers baking
Company and Holland
Produce
Royal Foods
Samples Foods
Resh Point
(Produce)
Mayfield Dairies
Pridgen Brothers
3
Respondent Listing of Food Distributors
U S Foods
ACC Distributors
AcC
Williams
Williams Institutional
Glover Foods
Foods
williams
glover
U. S. Foodservice
Williams
ACC Dist
Glover
Williams
ACC
Williams Inst.
US Foodservice
U.S. Foods
Miltons
U.S. Foodservice
Williams Institutional Foods
US FoodserviceWilliams Inst. Foods
Columbia
Williams
US Foods
U.S. Foods
Williams Foods
acc
pfg
ACC
Glover
Williams Inst. Foods
Glover
Glover
ACC Distributors
acc
Carden
Pridgen
carden produce
J & S Produce
Sysco Foods-Atlanta
Glover Foods
glover
Williams
Respondents were also asked to estimate the approximate amount that they purchased from local
producers in the 2009-2010 school year in the categories of meat, dairy, produce, and other. In each case,
more than 50% said that they purchase only a small fraction (less than 10%) of their products from local
producers. In terms of meat purchases, over 75% said that they purchase less than 10% from local
producers.
Table 2. Percent Purchased from Local Producers
Amt. from local
< 10%
10 – 25%
26 – 50%
51 – 75%
76 – 100%
Total
MEAT
DAIRY
PRODUCE
OTHER
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
Freq.
Percent
46
75.41
41
67.21
37
53.62
10
71.43
2
3.28
6
9.84
17
24.64
3
21.43
3
4.92
4
6.56
9
13.04
0
0.00
7
11.48
3
4.92
4
5.80
1
7.14
3
4.92
7
11.48
2
2.90
0
0.00
61
100.00
61
100.00
69
100.00
14
100.00
The next series of questions asks about the characteristics of the produce that the institution currently
purchases, with the choices of fresh, frozen, canned or other. The responses were required to sum to
100%. On average, the school districts purchase their produce primarily in the form of fresh (41%), then
canned (36%), followed by frozen form (23%) (See Figure 2).
4
Q. Generally speaking, of the produce your institution currently buys, what percentage is fresh, canned,
frozen or other?
Figure 2. Produce Purchases - Fresh, Canned, Frozen
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
41.3%
35.8%
22.8%
Fresh Produce
Canned Produce
Frozen Produce
When asked if the students at their school use self-serve salad bars, 78% indicated that they do not.
Table 3. Self Serve Salad Bar Usage in Schools
Q. Do students at your school
use self-serve salad bars?
No
Yes
Freq.
Percent
60
17
77.92
22.08
77
100.00
Total
When questioned about whether their institution had made efforts to purchase local farm products for
their school, nearly three-quarters (72.4%) indicated that they had made efforts to purchase local (Table
4). Further, they were asked to describe these efforts (See Appendix for complete listing of responses),
which included 51 responses. These responses often included the mention of a specific food item, with
strawberries receiving the most mentions (23 times). They also noted the use of vendors or distributors
that provide the local items requested (17), while some (18) mentioned purchasing or trying to purchase
directly from local farmers.
Table 4. Local Purchase Efforts
Q. Has your institution made any efforts to
purchase local farm products for your school?
No
Yes
Total
Freq.
Percent
21
55
27.63
72.37
76
100.00
5
The survey also included a question about whether their institution is currently engaged in a farm to
school program. More than three-quarters of the respondents said that they were not currently engaged in
such a program. However, in the following question, we inquired about their interest in a program as
outlined in the survey and nearly 60% said that they were interested. In addition, nearly 36.8% said that
they needed more information to determine their interest.
Table 5. Current Farm to School Program
Q. Is your institution currently engaged
in a farm to school program?
No
Yes
Total
Freq.
Percent
58
18
76.32
23.68
76
100.00
Table 6. Interest in Farm to School
Q. Based on the broad concept as defined, would your institution
be interested in participating in a farm to school program?
No
Yes
Need more information
Total
Freq.
Percent
5
43
28
76
6.58
56.58
36.84
100.00
Respondents were asked about their interest in talking with local growers about purchasing various forms
of produce, and which would be preferred. Three quarters (75%) said that they would be interested in
talking with producers about fresh-cut produce, while fewer indicated frozen (67%), fresh, raw (60%). A
smaller portion indicated canned (47%) or other (27%). Considered together with those who also
answered that they might consider such interaction with local growers, the fresh-cut produce had the
highest fraction of interest at 92%.
Table 7. Interest in Local Growers for Produce Purchases
Q. Would your institution be interested in talking with local growers about purchasing fresh and frozen
produce? If so, please indicate the form in which you would be interested.
Yes %
No %
Maybe %
Product Form
(#)
(#)
(#)
75%
8%
17%
Fresh-cut produce (pre-packaged, bagged) (N=71)
(53)
(6)
(12)
67%
10%
24%
Frozen, sliced and diced produce (N=63)
(42)
(6)
(15)
60%
13%
28%
Fresh, raw bulk produce (N=67)
(40)
(9)
(18)
47%
28%
25%
Canned (N=53)
(25)
(15)
(13)
27%
27%
47%
Other (N=15)
(4)
(4)
(7)
6
Most indicated that they had no preference in working with an individual, a group or cooperative, or a
distributor in pursuing this interest. Further, many indicated an interest in using an Internet-based
platform for these interactions.
Q. Would your institution be willing to use an online platform (Internet-based) in order to:
‐
‐
‐
Identify local producers 68.1%
Communicate with local producers 68.1%
Order online 67.6%
When asked about the resources that they might consider helpful in increasing their use of local food
(given a selection from which to choose and respondents could choose more than one), the highest
response was for a directory (92.3%), while the next highest included a clarification of procuring local
food using simply terms (89.6%) and of federal, state, and local regulations (89.3%). All of the resources
received a “most important” or “important” ranking from more than 65% of those that responded. Please
see Table 8 for a listing of all of the resources.
Table 8. Helpful Resources for Increasing Local Food Use
Q. Would your institution consider any of the following resources
helpful for increasing the use of local food in your school or district?
Directory of farmers, vendors, suppliers offering local food products
Clarification of how to procure local food in simple terms
Clarification of federal, state, local regulations on local food
Face to face trainings or workshops
A web site with resources, strategies, and tips
A toolkit or publication with resources, strategies, and tips
Information and newsletters to share with families
Examples of how other institutions use local food
School- & student-tested recipes incorporating local food
Access to a web-based food product ordering system
One-on-one assistance
MOST IMPORTANT
OR IMPORTANT
92.30%
89.60%
89.30%
83.70%
82.90%
80.90%
73.80%
72.30%
68.20%
65.50%
65.20%
N=
52
48
56
43
41
42
42
47
44
55
46
In considering the potential benefits of serving local food (given a selection from which to choose and
respondents could choose more than one), the highest response was for better flavor (97.5%), with the
next closest being to help Georgia farmers and/or businesses (95.7%) and the local educational agencies
supporting the local economy (89.6%). Very close behind this response is the benefit of being able to
have just in time produce (89.5%) and for children and adults to have healthier diets (89.1%).
All of the benefits listed received a “most important” or “important” ranking from more than 75% of
those that responded. The lowest three benefits included food safety, increased participation
rates/revenue, and increased shelf life. See Table 9 for a listing of all of the resources.
7
Table 9. Potential Benefits of Serving Local Food
Q. In the opinion of your institution, what are the potential benefits
of serving local food in your school or district?
Better flavor
Would help Georgia farmers and/or Georgia businesses
Local educ. agencies support local economy, farmers, community
Produce is picked just in time/seasonally
Children and adults have healthier diets
Local purchases result in good public relations
Lower transportation costs
Local education agencies know the source of products
Children and adults gain greater access to fresh fruits and vegetables
Decreased environmental impact
Special or unique varieties can be purchased and served
Better control over food safety
Increase particip. rates & revenue generated by featuring local food
Increased shelf life
MOST IMPORTANT
OR IMPORTANT
97.50%
95.65%
89.58%
89.47%
89.13%
85.00%
83.33%
82.05%
82.00%
81.82%
80.00%
76.47%
76.32%
75.68%
N=
40
46
48
38
46
40
36
39
50
33
35
34
38
37
Given choices about potential challenges or obstacles to the school or district purchasing local foods,
either now or in the future, the top two concerns for the present include the lack of products available
during certain times of the year and lack of local producers from which to purchase. For the future, the
top two concerns were the time required to prepare and handle fresh produce and fitting it into the budget.
Figure 3. Present and Future Challenges
8
Appendix
Q. Has your institution made any efforts to purchase local farm products for your school? If yes, please
briefly describe.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We purchase strawberries from local farmers during the season. All of our fresh produce is
purchased from a local produce company.
We buy strawberries annually
locally grown strawberries and peaches
Purchased local produce from various vendors each month. Conducted a promotion each month
with a "Farm To School" vendor of the month.
When approached we have tried to use the local resource. We have received from Irwin
County freshly shelled butterbeans; pink eyed purple hulled, white acre peas, and others. Had
some difficulty with product safety.
Contacted local farmers in Georgia Organics Local Food Guide by email. Only one vendor
responded. He had fresh blueberries that are not available during the school year. We have
tried to purchase fresh peaches but they are not in season during our school year. We have
been able to purchase fresh strawberries from local vendors.
We have just switched to a produce company that works with local Georgia Farmers
We purchase fresh strawberries from a local distributor. Currently, our local produce provider
also purchases several items from local farms that are delivered directly to our school facilities.
Strawberries are locally grown and we purchase direct from the grower and they deliver to the
school.
Watermelons, strawberries, some kiwi
strawberries form local farmer
Meeting with locals
We use local farmers and allow them to deliver to our warehouse and then we deliver to the
schools. We have use the fresh farm delivered strawberries, collard greens, green beans, and
sweet potatoes
Strawberries were the only available product by a local vendor that could service all schools
Locally grown apples
Our produce company purchases form regional sources
our local buyer knows our desire and tries to buy local
We are currently looking for suppliers that can deliver. We are talking with a few local farmers
at this time.
Located the farmers only and discussed food security with other counties. Produce bid
encourages the company to purchase from local farmers
We did buy potatoes from a local farmer for 1 school. Part of the problem is that the farmers
cannot supply enough product for the entire school district. The other issue is meeting all of
the purchasing criteria for schools. This probably is not as much of an issue for larger farmers
but the farms in my area are small.
Purchased GA-grown strawberries
Through our produce distributor Carolina Produce
Fresh strawberries
Coastal Georgia Farmers Coop, I also have tried to purchase fresh sweet potatoes from a local
farmer.
9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We purchase locally grown (Laurens County) grown hydroponic lettuces and strawberries,
when available. Since we began purchasing from Royal Produce for the 11-12 school year,
they are great in obtaining the most local produce from around the Southeastern states.
We purchase washed, packaged, shredded collard greens Farm to School Have used in the past
Kiwi Farm to school Tried sweet potato sticks Farm to school unsuccessfully Got quotes on
farm fresh strawberries but were higher than produce co could provide
Strawberries
Local seasonal fruit items.
once, in the past, peaches
We have purchased locally grown strawberries.
We have used a local produce company in the past to purchase our produce. We purchased
some locally grown produce from them.
We did serve strawberries from a local farm one time.
We purchase strawberries locally, but this is all at the current moment.
Peach farms, squash, watermelon
We have bought apples grown locally. Royal Produce buys from local farmers and delivers to
our schools.
We purchase fresh produce from a local supplier.
Use of local farm products has been addressed recently and over the past two years has
increased. We plan to continue this trend.
We use a local Produce company that buys seasonal produce grown locally.
Farm to school through produce vendors
We met with a local grower. She was unable to meet the demands for our program. Storage for
bulk delivery is another issue for the program.
Try to buy local produce when it’s available.
We purchase strawberries form local farmers. We have purchased fresh vegetables from the
production plant located in Americus. Green beans, zucchini, squash, cucumber, and
carrots,etc
We purchase fresh strawberries and some locally grown collards and peas.
We have farms in the area that raise fruit and we buy from them when it is in season, usually in
the spring and early fall.
collards and strawberries
purchase strawberries and collards from local growers Also ask produce supplier to negotiate
for local produce
contacted extension agent, spoke to local growers group, local farmers , talked to food vendors
None available in our immediate area
We are interested and are inquiring about having for next year.
purchase fresh strawberries
Searched local farms to provide fresh vegetables to school system
10
Endnotes
i
The survey was designed by a team from the Alliance, including University of Georgia, CAED, Georgia Organics, and
Georgia Department of Education (GDOE) and then a link was sent out to 158 school districts, specifically to School
Nutrition Directors and managers by GDOE using their listserv. Following the original request and several reminders, the
final number of usable responses was 94. However, since not all respondents answered every question on the survey, the
number of responses will be indicated in many of the summary presentations.
ii
For more details about the background, survey instrument and approach, see the unpublished paper by Watson, Escalante,
et al. Farm to School: a Market Analysis, to be presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual
Meeting in Birmingham, AL on Feb. 4-6, 2012.
11
The Center for Agribusiness
& Economic Development
The Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development is a unit of the College of
Agricultural and Environmental Sciences of the University of Georgia, combining the
missions of research and extension. The Center has among its objectives:
To provide feasibility and other short term studies for current or potential Georgia
agribusiness firms and/or emerging food and fiber industries.
To provide agricultural, natural resource, and demographic data for private and
public decision makers.
To find out more, visit our Web site at: http://www.caed.uga.edu
Or contact:
Kent L. Wolfe, Director
Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development
Lumpkin House
The University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia 30602-7509
Phone (706)542-2434
The University of Georgia and Fort Valley State University, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and counties of the state cooperating. The Cooperative Extension Service
offers educational programs, assistance and materials to all people without regard to race,
color, national origin, age, sex or disability.
An equal opportunity/affirmative action organization committed to a diverse work force.
Report Number: CR-12-02
January 2012
Issued in furtherance of Cooperation Extension Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, the
University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture cooperating.
J. Scott Angle, Dean and Director