Creating a Marketing Network for Limited Resource Farmers
Kathleen Earl Colverson
Heifer International, Gainesville, Florida, USA
ABSTRACT:
Limited resource minority farmers contribute to agricultural production in the United States, but
are often faced with more extensive obstacles than other small farmers. Many of these farmers
have less education, and lack the resources to participate in alternative methods of production
and marketing. They are frequently unable to access facilities that process livestock, thereby
limiting their sales to traditional and often unprofitable markets.
This paper outlines a successful collaboration among a non-profit organization, government
agency, a private cooperative and limited resource farmer groups to market agricultural products.
Networking together, each partner provides resources or skills to create a marketing
infrastructure that helps to minimize risks for limited resource farmers. The model has the
potential for transferability to other locations.
INTRODUCTION:
Small farms are an important contributor to U.S. agriculture, even though their overall numbers
have been declining for years. According to a report by the Economic Research Service they
comprise about 92% of all farms, if defined as agricultural sales of less than $250,000 annually
(USDA, 1997). “Limited resource” farms are a subset of small farmers, and generally have
household incomes of less than $20,000 per year. These farmers often have fewer years of
formal education and are older than most small farm operators (Steele, 1998a). Although this
category earns less than other small farmers, they comprise 16% of all small farms. Forty-three
percent of all farms owned by African-Americans are considered limited resource (Steele,
1998b).
Many limited resource farmers indicate they are unlikely to use government programs to assist
them with record keeping or credit, preferring cash to advisory services (Blackburn, et.al, 1979).
Only thirteen percent of limited resource farmers use government programs, as compared to
thirty percent of all small farmers (Steele, 1998b). Further, small scale producers are less likely
to spend more time on management, or improving their marketing skills (USDA, 1996).
Limited resource farmers generally have less debt than other small farmers (20% compared to
48%), but are less able to service debt with their lower household incomes. The combination of
lower levels of education, lower household income, older age, and less willingness to utilize
1
government assistance, places limited resource farmers in a precarious position for the future.
Particularly when you consider they are less likely to join cooperatives to assist with marketing
and purchasing inputs in bulk (Tackie, N., Findlay, H., and Baharanyi, N., 1998).
Yet, small farmers recognize the need to increase their competitive advantage in the market
place, and have created alternatives to traditional ways of doing business. The expansion of
community supported agriculture, farmer’s markets
and niche efforts in specialty products increase annually. However, limited resource, minority
farmers rarely participate in these ventures, because of ingrained agricultural traditions or
unwillingness to assume risk. It becomes critical that other approaches to working with this
population emerge to offer a sustainable alternative.
METHODOLOGY:
In the past two decades there has been an explosion of participatory approaches and methods
developed with farmers (Chambers, Pacey and Thrupp, 1989; Ashby, Quiros and Rivers, 1987;
Farrington and Martin, 1988). These efforts have increased farmers’ participation not only in
research, but also in the formation of community organizations and cooperatives. However,
limited resource farmers are often marginalized from the resources needed to encourage group
formation such as education, off-farm employment, local markets, and an affordable supply of
inputs. These factors, in conjunction with the behavioral characteristics described previously,
may inhibit limited resource, minority farmers from participating in alternative marketing
ventures, and joining marketing groups.
Heifer International (HI) has been working to empower limited resource families worldwide
since 1944. Fundamental to HI’s development philosophy is full participation by all
stakeholders, thereby encouraging trust and ownership of the process. In the five decades that HI
has engaged in community development, a set of guidelines, or “Cornerstones” has emerged.
These are integral to all work that HI undertakes, and become the base for project development,
implementation, and evaluation (See Figure 1, Aaker and Shumaker, 1996). HI uses a wholistic
framework for groups to utilize in defining their current situation, visioning the future, planning
the project and monitoring the process (See Figure 2). While the group is engaged in these
processes, the Cornerstones provide guidance for assessing and understanding what the
community or organization stands for, and how their priorities might match with HI’s
philosophy.
2
CORNERSTONES-BASED PLANNING
FOR JUST AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Passing on the Gift – Accountability – Sharing and Caring – Sustainability and
Self Reliance – Improved Animal Management – Nutrition and Income –
Genuine Need and Justice – Gender and Family Focus – Improving the
Environment – Full Participation – Training and Education
Figure 1: from “The Cornerstones Model: Values-based Planning and Management”
3
CORNERSTONES-BASED
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
DEFINE the Situation
Place
People
Production
Principles: Inclusiveness, Credibility, Diversity
Past & Present Perspectives
MANAGE and Monitor
Evaluation Monitoring Implementation
Principles: Partnership, Collaboration
ENVISION the Future
Values
Means
Image of Desired Future
Principles: Socially Just, Humane,
Economically Sound & Viable
PLAN the Program/Project
Resources
Strategies
Objectives
Principles: Ownership, Commitment
Figure 2: from “The Cornerstones Model: Values-based Planning and Management”
Heifer International began working with another non-profit organization, the New North Florida
Cooperative, (NNFC) in 1999 to address the marketing needs of limited resource, minority
farmers in the southeastern United States. NNFC was founded in 1995 by a group of small
farmers interested in providing a marketing network and training to low income, minority
farmers. The organization started with marketing culturally appropriate produce to
predominantly African American school districts in the southeast. Initially only collard greens
were marketed, but the product line has expanded to include strawberries, muscadines,
blackberries and hot peppers. NNFC works with limited resource farmers to identify what they
are capable of growing, and assists in securing the market for the farmer’s product. They also
assist in transportation and processing of the product, packaging the finished product with
nutritional analysis, recipes and UPC labeling. In the past few years sales have expanded to
Alabama, Georgia and Florida with well over 300,000 school children receiving fresh, locally
grown produce for lunch.
The collaboration between Heifer International and New North Florida Cooperative is unique. HI
works with limited resource, small farmer groups using the Cornerstones planning process
described above, and assists them in securing funding for agricultural projects. During the
process NNFC identifies those farmers in the group who are interested in participating in the
marketing network, and suggests crops they could grow to meet market demand. Training for all
group members encompasses both technical (planting, harvesting, selection, post-harvest storage,
etc.) in addition to non-technical subjects (organizational development, leadership skills, gender
4
awareness, etc.). When funding is received, groups plant vegetables or fruits or raise livestock to
meet specific markets identified by NNFC. The process for group development and funding
usually takes between one to two years and involves the group receiving not only training, but
learning to work together as a cohesive unit.
RESULTS:
Currently the collaborative marketing network works with nine farmer groups (averaging 10-20
families/group), and markets to school districts in Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Sixteen school
districts are receiving fresh, locally grown produce. Currently (June 2002) 321,200 children are
being served, with an estimated 551,200 children as potential beneficiaries. Farmers participating
in the network receive higher prices than they would through traditional avenues. For example,
farmers selling collard greens to NNFC receive a consistent price of $14.00/dozen plants (June
2002) whereas the market fluctuates anywhere from $4.00 - $14.00/dozen. Farmers selling peas
to NNFC are able to receive $13.00/bushel for their product, whereas farmers selling through
more traditional routes, such as vegetable brokers, earn approximately $6.00/bushel. NNFC is
able to provide farmers with this consistency due to stable contracts, and a specialized
institutional market. From discussions with farmers participating in the network, they are
delighted to have another entity securing markets for their products, and allowing them to
concentrate on what they prefer doing – raising products and farming. Additionally, the value
added production, (processing and bagging produce), provides jobs for rural residents. NNFC
currently employs 15-30 part-time employees, and three full-time staff.
Not only do the workers have jobs, but they are able to participate in training events at the NNFC
training site. Since June 2000, over twenty-five training sessions have been provided throughout
the Southeast to limited resource farmers on topics ranging from animal management to youth
leadership to marketing. Other market development efforts include produce deliveries to the
Department of Defense, and grocery stores. Most recently there has been a proliferation in youth
interest in agriculture – with a number of groups adding youth components, or forming separate
youth groups. These groups participate in training events held at HI sponsored sites, and are
beginning to create youth-run entrepreneurial activities, such as selling produce at local farmer’s
markets. One such example is a youth based project with Neighborhood Nutrition Network,
(NNN), an HPI funded group in Gainesville, FL. Over the past year NNN has created the Youth
Entrepreneurial Farm and Food Preservation Project (FFPP), a cooperative effort designed to
teach at-risk teens gardening and leadership skills. Twelve high school students were selected to
work at a community garden to raise and market vegetables to the local farmer’s market. Funds
from the sales are used to sustain the garden and purchase supplies for a spin-off enterprise, “Le
Jarr.” Students involved with Le Jarr raise and glean produce to manufacture jams and jellies that
are also sold at the farmer’s market. Both efforts involve the students working at least 12 hours
per week, and since October 2001 they have raised more than 500 pounds of produce and
5
grossed more than $1500 from the sales of Le Jarr. Excess produce is used to feed homeless
families in Alachua County.
As the number of groups continues to increase, so do new marketing endeavors. There are efforts
underway to develop markets for both pastured poultry (poultry raised in non-confined, open-air
environments) and meat goats in the southeast.
CONCLUSION:
With the alarming decline in numbers of African American farmers in the south
(a decline of over 50% in many states between 1982-1992), a new paradigm for production and
marketing must occur. The marketing network described above offers an opportunity for limited
resource, minority farmers to participate in a less risky, supportive environment that assists with
securing inputs and a better end price. Ultimately, consumers and farmers benefit by the
production and distribution of locally grown, highly nutritious agricultural products.
REFERENCES:
Aaker, J. and Shumaker, J. 1996. The CornerStones Model, Values based Planning and
Management, Heifer Project International, Little Rock, AR.
Ashby, J.A., Quiros, C.A., and Rivers, Y.M., 1987. Farmer Participation in
On-Farm Trials. Overseas Development Institute. London.
Blackburn, D., Brinkman, G., Driver, H. and Wilson, T., 1979. Behavioral and Economic
Comparisons of Commercial and Limited Resource Farmers. Canadian Journal of Agricultural
Economics. Ontario, Canada.
Chambers, R., Pacey, A., and Thrupp, L., 1989. Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and
Agricultural Research. IT Publications. London.
Farrington, J. and Martin, A. 1988. Farmer Participatory Research: A Review of Concepts and
Recent Practices. Occasional Paper No. 9. Overseas Development Institute. London.
Steele, C. 1998a. Why U.S. Agriculture and Rural Areas have a Stake in Small Farms. Rural
Development Perspectives. Volume 12, No. 2. USDA.
Steele, C. 1998b. Behavioral and Economic Characteristics of Limited Resource and Other
Small Farms. Economic Research Service. USDA.
6
Tackie, N., Findlay, H., and Baharanyi, N. 1998. Farm Products Marketing Practices by Limited
Resource Farms. Journal of Agricultural Business. Spring.
USDA. 1996. Managing Farm Risk: Issues and Strategies. Agricultural Outlook. February 2000.
Economic Research Service. USDA.
Dr. Colverson can be contacted at Heifer International, 1810 NW 6th Street, Suite E, Gainesville,
FL, 32609. Phone: 352-371-1170, Fax: 352-371-254, E-mail: Kathy.Colverson@heifer.org
7