Fillable Strengthening Local SEQUOIA CLUB (City of Northampton)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank Strengthening Local SEQUOIA CLUB (City of Northampton) Form

Use Fill to complete blank online CITY OF NORTHAMPTON (MA) pdf forms for free. Once completed you can sign your fillable form or send for signing. All forms are printable and downloadable.

Strengthening Local SEQUOIA CLUB (City of Northampton)

On average this form takes 31 minutes to complete

The Strengthening Local SEQUOIA CLUB (City of Northampton) form is 357 pages long and contains:

0 signatures
224 check-boxes
18 other fields

Country of origin: US
File type: PDF

U.S.A. forms for City of Northampton

BROWSE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON (MA) FORMS

Related forms

Fill has a huge library of thousands of forms all set up to be filled in easily and signed.

Fill in your chosen form

Sign the form using our drawing tool

Send to someone else to fill in and sign.

find another form

SEQUOIA CLUB

Strengthening Local

Agriculture in

Northampton

A SUMMARY AND SYNTHESIS OF THE

KEEP FARMING® NORTHAMPTON PROJECT

DECEMBER 2013

Strengthening Local Agriculture

in Northampton:

A Summary and Synthesis of the

Keep Farming® Northampton Project

December 2013

Authors:

Smith College Students Emily Barbour, Gaia Cozzi, Haley

Crockett, Victoria Dunch, Alexis Flora, Anne Hunter, Julia Jones,

Rebecca Schilling, Emma Ulriksen, and Julia Whiting

In collaboration with Paul Wetzel of the Smith College Center

for the Environment, Ecological Design and Sustainability, as

well as Keep Farming® Northampton.

This report incorporates information gathered by the Keep

Farming® Northampton Citizens Group. The authors of the

synthesis of this information are very appreciative of these

earlier studies and reports which are found in the appendix to

this document.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

.......................................................................................4

Survey Proﬁles

.....................................................................................10

Farmers

.....................................................................................11

Consumers

.....................................................................................15

Restaurants

.....................................................................................18

Institutions

.....................................................................................20

Synthesis of Findings

.....................................................................................24

Barriers to Local Food Use

.....................................................................................28

Case Studies

.....................................................................................30

Hardwick, VT / Greenﬁeld, MA

.....................................................................................31

UMass, Amherst

.....................................................................................34

The Kitchen Garden Farm

.....................................................................................37

La Campagna di Casa Tua

.....................................................................................40

Recommendations

.....................................................................................42

Conclusion

.....................................................................................48

Acknowledgements

.....................................................................................49

Works Cited

.....................................................................................51

Appendix

.....................................................................................52

Producer Survey Report

Consumer Survey Report

Restaurant Survey Report

Institution Survey Report

In the fall of 2009, a group of Northampton

citizens and community leaders found

common ground in their concern for long-

term food security for the city and the

preservation of the city’s history of

agricultural productivity. Community

leaders invited representatives of the

Glynwood Center to help them address

their concerns. Glynwood, a non-proﬁt

organization has developed a program

called Keep Farming® to help

communities strengthen their agricultural

economies. Glynwood’s Keep Farming®

program was introduced and explained at

a well-attended public meeting and

adopted by the Northampton Agricultural

Commission. Following that meeting, a

group of volunteers coalesced to work

under the auspices of the Agricultural

Commission, with guidance from the

Glynwood Center as Keep Farming®

Northampton (KFN). Keep Farming®

Northampton volunteers modiﬁed and

implemented a series of surveys to gather

information from Northampton farmers,

consumers, restaurants and institutions.

Throughout the process of data gathering,

analysis and report writing, the KFN

group collaborated in a variety of

important ways with Smith College faculty

and students.

This cumulative report was written by

Smith students enrolled in a Sustainable

Food Capstone course and includes a

summary of previous reports on the

farmer, consumer, and restaurant reports

previously presented by KFN, as well as

the institutional survey conducted and

analyzed by these students. It also includes

case studies developed by the students as

well as recommendations based on a

synthesis of all the information gathered to

date. These recommendations are designed

to expand the production and reliance on

local food by strengthening Northampton

agriculture in ways that beneﬁt local

farmers, businesses, and the community as

a whole.

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In general, the surveys found that local

food plays a considerable role in the

Northampton community and that

Northampton has considerable potential

to grow into a regional destination for

local food. The results from the surveys

on restaurants, consumers and

institutions all strongly indicated an

interest and desire for local food,

emphasizing a need for convenience,

information sharing and communication.

Northampton is located in the

agriculturally active Pioneer Valley,

where 2,000 farms hold 169,000 acres of

land in production and represent 25% of

farms in Massachusetts. Northampton is

home to 26 active farms with an average

size of 24 acres, ranging from small,

organic operations to large-scale

operations conventionally producing

potatoes and soybeans or crops for

animal consumption including corn and

hay.

Another important ﬁnding from the

research revealed that Northampton

institutions consume a tremendous

amount of food, produce a surprising

number of meals each day and yet

remain relatively untapped by local

farmers. The ten institutions surveyed

served more than 9,900 meals a day and

spent well over an estimated $11 million

annually on food. Restaurants surveyed

reported serving an estimated 6,000

meals each day. These estimates are

conservative and provide only a partial

picture of the food-related economic

activity that was generated by restaurants

and institutions in the city throughout

the year. Many Northampton restaurants

and institutions reported a high level of

interest and commitment to purchasing

more local food for their clients.

Many individuals, businesses and

institutions contributed to the Keep

Farming® Northampton project. They are

recognized for their effort with

appreciation in the Acknowledgements

found at the end of this report. This

report was made possible with the

support of the Glynwood Center, the

Center for Community Collaborations at

Smith College and the Northampton

Agricultural Commission. The Smith

Capstone students would particularly

like to recognize the work of Virginia

Kasinki and Melissa Adams from Keep

Farming®, Fran Volkmann, Project

Coordinator, and Adele Franks from Keep

Farming® Northampton, Paul Wetzel from

the Smith CEEDS Program, and those

who so generously contributed to the

report’s case studies.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

While agriculture is alive in Northampton, considerable barriers limit the

community’s production and consumption of local food. Farmers, residents,

restaurants and institutions had the opportunity to elaborate on those challenges

when responding to the Keep Farming® surveys. When this feedback was pooled

together and synthesized by Smith College Students in the Fall of 2013, several

common barriers surfaced, including challenges associated with distribution,

processing and storage, changes in the availability of regional produce throughout

the seasons, building and maintaining business relationships between consumers

and local farmers, limitations set by state and federal regulations, the perceived

expense of local food as well as an an overarching lack of information sharing

regarding local food.

Barriers

Distribution:

Many restaurants and institutions expressed the need for

convenient, reliable deliveries, as well as a food ordering

system. On the producer end, farmers ﬁnd delivering their

produce to customers to be expensive due to high fuel

costs, to require a large capital investment in delivery

equipment and that dedicating time and energy to making

multiple, small deliveries is inefﬁcient and time

consuming.

Processing:

Another barrier is that institutions and restaurants rely on

the convenience of minimally processed foods. Some food

service directors referred to processed foods as “labor in a

box,” allowing them to cut down on preparation time

without sacriﬁcing meal quality or the diversity of options

they offer customers. Kitchen staff often lack the time,

commercial processing equipment, and space required to

clean, chop or peel fresh produce or un-butchered meats.

Similarly, !farmers lack the time, facilities, and food safety

certiﬁcations required to provide restaurants and

institutions with minimally processed goods.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Seasonal Availability:

Institutions and restaurants expressed a need for

consistency and volume throughout the year of a wide

range of foods, many of which can not be grown in the

Pioneer Valley in the cold winter months. Although fresh

fruits and vegetables have their season in the Northeast,

businesses and consumers do serve these items year

round, regardless of changes in seasonal availability.

Relationships

The challenges surrounding seasonal availability are

compounded by the lack of up to date information on

ﬂuctuations in supply. Institutional food service directors,

restaurateurs, chefs and farmers all ﬁnd it difﬁcult to leave

the kitchen or the ﬁeld (get away from work) to build

business relationships together. Stakeholders lack the

time, the resources, the knowhow and the network to

build these long term local food connections.

Storage

Institutions and restaurants lack space in their compact

downtown locations to accommodate and store the inﬂux

of local food during the late summer and fall for use over

the winter. While farmers would like to extend the

produce season by storing crops onsite, large storage

facilities represent a major capital investment and long

term expense to maintain.

Perceived Price

Residents, restaurants and institutions together indicated !

that the real or perceived price premiums on local food

were a signiﬁcant barrier to local food consumption. At

the same time, Farmers expressed frustration with the

high cost of fuel and the prohibitively expensive cost of

farmland in Northampton due to rising property values

and development pressure. It’s uncertain whether the

local food price premium is a reality or how signiﬁcant it

may be.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Access to Information

A common theme in all of these barriers is a lack of access

to information linked to local food in Northampton,

including the absence of resources to compare local food

prices, the lack of labeling in supermarkets and

restaurants, and a lack of community awareness about

seasonality of local food. Furthermore, the surveys

indicated that many stakeholders are unaware of existing

resources, businesses and community organizations, like

the Pioneer Valley Growers Association (PVGA),

SQUASH Trucking or Massachusetts Farm to School

Project that already provide the very services for which

they express a need.

State and Federal Regulations

State and federal rules and regulations were expressed as a barrier by institutions and

farmers. While most farmers who reported regulatory challenges did not indicate the

speciﬁc regulations they struggle with, these hurdles could include costly agricultural

insurance requirements and programs, restrictive zoning policies, state tax codes, as

well as the Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) certiﬁcation process, which includes food

safety regulations. While GAP certiﬁcation is optional for farmers, it is required by most

grocery stores and many institutions for wholesale growers to sell to them. In 2013 the

Food and Drug Administration proposed updates to GAP, including new food safety

regulations that could make it harder for small farmers to meet GAP standards and earn

certiﬁcation. Institutions explained that local foods were more challenging to

incorporate into their menus due to strict state and federal regulations relating to

nutrition and food safety standards for serving at risk populations (the elderly, immune

compromised). Restrictions associated with exclusive prime vendor contracts, as well as

exhaustive corporate procedures for approving new vendors also posed a challenge for

institutional food buyers and local farmers.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Permanent Farmers Market

Support year-round direct sales between farmers and local consumers by identifying a

permanent location for all Northampton Farmers Markets. An ideal location would be

central, accessible and publicly owned, with multipurpose facilities designed to create

stability for farmers and increase access to local foods year round. !A permanent farmers

market could serve as a community center for local food activities including small

business workshops, networking nights and community workshops.

Processing Facility & Community Center

Create a small scale processing facility built into the Northampton Farmers Market for

peeling, chopping, packaging, preservation and storage. While the Greenﬁeld facility is

meant for large scale bulk processing, this facility would provide a local, small scale

option designed to meet the needs of local institutions, and would not duplicate the

services provided by the Western Massachusetts Food Processing Center in Greenﬁeld.

Northampton Local Food Week

Promote local food by developing a “Northampton Local Food Week”, a tradition

designed to celebrate local food, local farmers and the restaurants with local menus.

Events would be designed to engage the community and to promote discussions

regarding the challenges surrounding access to local food in our area. This “Local Food

Week” would feature a series of community events and activities, including local food

dinners, cooking classes, farm tours, canning and gardening workshops all aimed at

engaging the community in discussions surrounding local food access in our area while

promoting Northampton as a local food destination.

Promote Local Food in Supermarkets

Promote local food in supermarkets, by working toward consistent labeling of local food

in all Northampton grocery stores. CISA’s local hero program could be utilized in

markets to better market local food.

While a number of local organizations are working hard to decrease barriers to local food use in

the Northampton food system, there is more work to be done to strengthen agriculture in the

pursuit of a vibrant local agricultural economy and a food system with more local inputs. Our

recommendations to achieve that goal are as follows:

Recommendations

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Double Up Food Stamp Beneﬁts

Institutionalize fundraising for the Double Up Food Stamp Beneﬁts campaign by

supporting a non-proﬁt organization in championing this program. The Double Up

Food Stamps Program has been an important way for all residents to gain access to

local foods, but the program is not a permanent ﬁxture. Fundraising to support this

campaign could come from the help of institutional sponsors such as United Way or the

Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts.

Institutional Networking Nights

To address challenges institutions face making connections with local farmers, regular

networking nights would be arranged to bring food service directors, chefs and buyers

together in one room to share and develop creative solutions. Buyers interested in

purchasing from local farmers would be afforded the opportunity to meet with

colleagues who have worked through similar barriers for their own institution in order

to increase their consumption of local food. Farm to Institution New England (FINE)

and the Massachusetts Farm to School Program are well positioned to organize these

networking nights and provide matchmaking services to those institutions ready to

form a business relationship with local farmers. A “Farm to Fork Liaison” could be

appointed to support farmers in meeting institutional regulations.

Community Workshops

To ensure the success of any marketing campaigns regarding local food, Northampton

must support its consumers through a community driven program of workshops.

Depending on the target demographic and venue, the goal of each course or lecture

would be to develop practical life skills while emphasizing the beneﬁts of local food,

how to cook and preserve it, and where to purchase it on a budget.

Mobile Marketplace Application

A streamlined, electronic ordering system would be a great way !to facilitate an increase

in direct sales between local growers and institutions by meeting the needs of busy

farmers and food buyers. The Smith College Computer Science Department would be

well positioned to support a student intern in the development of a mobile application

and online platform that allows chefs, restaurateurs and institutional buyers to

purchase directly from local farmers with access to a wide range of information

regarding local foods, including where and by whom its grown, current availability,

delivery options, as well as price. CISA’s database could serve as a solid foundation for

this type of program, allowing the organization to further its mission of supporting

agriculture in the Pioneer Valley.

The four surveys administered by Keep

Farming® Northampton and Smith College

students were designed to gain insight

into four major players of Northampton’s

local food system: producers, consumers,

restaurants and institutions.!Each survey

was administered using different

methods For the producer survey twenty-

six active farms were identiﬁed through

discussion with the Agricultural

Commission and each was sent a copy of

the survey; 20 responded. !Seven

hundred residents were surveyed for the

consumer proﬁle. !All restaurants in

Northampton were contacted, but half

declined to complete the survey. !

Thirteen institutions were asked to

participate and three declined, however

the remaining 10 included

Northampton’s largest institutions such

as Smith College, Northampton public

schools and Cooley-Dickinson Hospital. !

We have summarized the ﬁndings of the

four surveys in the following four

proﬁles. !Each proﬁle outlines

characteristics that deﬁne a typical

respondent, as well as key interests and

barriers reported by each group.

Survey Proﬁles

PROFILES

Farmers

In order to asses the current farming

system in Northampton, Keep Farming®

Northampton used a two step process. First,

the amount of farmland actually

producing crops within the municipality

was determined using United States

Agricultural reports and Northampton

property records. To gain further insight

this information was put into the context of

agricultural operations of the Pioneer

Valley as a whole. The second step in the

assessment, involved surveying active

farmers in Northampton about their farm

operations, types of products they

produced, and the challenges that they face

running their operations.

Northampton is home to 4,500 acres of

farmland in 2009, a full 18% of the

municipality’s land. Seven percent of the

farmland is managed forest and the

remaining 11% is cropland (Keep Farming®

Northampton, 2009). On a regional scale,

there are nearly 2,000 active farms located

in the Pioneer Valley, with 169,000 acres in

agricultural production. A quarter of all

Massachusetts farms and a third of the

state’s agricultural land are located in the

Pioneer Valley. In 2009 Northampton farms

ranged in size from one to 345 acres, with

an average farm size of 26.3 acres (Keep

Farming® Northampton, 2009). !The average

farm in the Pioneer Valley is nearly twice

as large, at 50 acres. Four landholders farm

more than 100 acres each, accounting for

40% of all Northampton farmland. More

than 50% of the farmland in Northampton

is dedicated to the production of potatoes

and crops for animal consumption such as

feed corn, hay and soybeans (Keep

Farming® Northampton, 2009).

Keep Farming® Northampton also

investigated the characteristics and

opinions of 20 of the 26 active farmers in a

survey administered over the winter of

Figure 1: A comparison of farms in Northampton and the Pioneer Valley

Northampton

•

26 active farms

•

2,600 acres (11% of land)

•

45% of land in the Meadows

•

Average of 24 acres per farm

•

4 owners farm 100 acres (40% of

land)

Pioneer Valley

•

Nearly 2,000 farms

•

169,000 acres (14% of land)

•

33% of farmland in

Massachusetts

•

25% of farms in Massachusetts

•

Average 50 acres per farm

PROFILES

2010 and 2011. Fourteen of the farmers

surveyed have farmed in Northampton

for over 25 years. Sixty-six percent of

respondents own the land they farm on.

A full 60% of farmers surveyed reported

marketing half or more of their

agricultural output within the city limits,

while four farmers reported that they

sold none of their produce in

Northampton. A number of respondents

reported the use of sustainable

production methods on their farms. In

the three years leading up to the survey,

11 respondents planted winter cover

crops or employed crop rotation

strategies. Five managed their ﬁelds

using low-till/no-till cultivation methods

or operated an Integrated Pest

Management (IMP) system while three

farmers used organic methods. Eight

farmers said the “buy local” movement,

interests of food safety, consumer

preferences for fresh food and

community concern for agriculture has

had a positive impact on their business.

Figure 2: The number of acres used

in production of the top four food

crops (potatoes, feed corn, hay and

soy beans) reported by 20

responding farmers in

Northampton.

1,535 acres total, 58% are producing commodity crops

Northampton is in the center of an

active farming community rich

with natural resources.

SEQUOIA CLUB

Barriers and

Considerations

The challenges reported by respondents

to the Northampton farmer survey came

down to three main barriers: cost of farm

inputs, regulations and restrictions, and

availability of land and infrastructure. !

The number one concern expressed by

respondents was the price of fuel. This

concern has a direct impact on the way

farmers think about local food. High fuel

prices might make Farmers reluctant to

make deliveries to local institutions or

restaurants unless they have enough

deliveries in the area to justify transport

costs. Farmers also referred to a lack of

available processing facilities and

difﬁculty ﬁnding available, arable and

affordable land in Northampton. !

Another frequent problem was small

farms’ inability to ﬁle their land as

“agricultural land” for property tax

purposes. State and federal regulations

on agricultural practices, local land use

restrictions and labor laws also presented

considerable challenges to local farmers.

In their study, Dresdale et al. (Dresdale,

2010) determined that despite

considerable agricultural activity,

Northampton is restricted in its capacity

to feed itself due to the city’s highly

concentrated population and a low

availability of agricultural land.

Northampton is, however, located within

the Pioneer Valley, a region endowed

with exceptional natural resources, a

wealth of agricultural land in

conservation, and an active agricultural

community. Dresdale also advocated for

the conversion of nonagricultural land to

food production. While Northampton

may not be able to scale up its own

agricultural production in the short term,

the KFN surveys suggest that the city is

well positioned to connect with and

strengthen agriculture throughout with

the greater Pioneer Valley by serving as

an active consumer of and destination for

local food.

Farmer Concerns Addressed

After synthesizing the results of the

Farmer Survey, Keep Farming®

Northampton identiﬁed two issues

that were of particular concern to

Northampton farmers, including crop

loss due to trespassers in the

Meadows as well as pot-holes that

restricted the movement of farm

equipment to and from the Meadows.

In an eﬀort to resolve these

challenges, Keep Farming®

Northampton and the Agricultural

Commission of Northampton

organized a meeting to discuss these

problems. Many farmers from the area

as well as the police oﬃcers in charge

of patrolling the Meadows and the

Director of Public Works met, and

many of the worries expressed by

farmers concerning the Meadows are

in the process of being addressed.

PROFILES

Consumers

While Northampton consumers span a

wide spectrum of demographics, survey

results revealed common goals and

mindsets surrounding the importance of

local food. The 558 residents who

responded to the consumer survey

showed great interest in local food and an

enthusiasm for the preservation of farms

and rural community.

The majority of survey respondents (68%)

reported buying locally grown food on a

weekly basis, and an additional 18% said

they bought local food once or twice a

month. Their main reasons for purchasing

locally grown food included a desire to

support local farms and a belief that local

food is fresher and healthier. Northampton

consumers shop everywhere, with the

majority (75%) making food purchases at

large supermarkets or retailers like Wal-

Mart (22%). Forty-two percent of

respondents reported shopping at farmers

markets (42%). Thirty percent of the

respondents reported that they bought

Community Supported Agriculture shares

(CSAs). Respondents bought far more local

vegetables including corn, apples and fruit

than they bought locally produced milk or

cheese. Overall, respondents expressed a

desire for more local foods of all types. The

top three reasons people gave for shopping

where they do included healthy food

options, good selection, and convenient

location. A large proportion of respondents

(88%) said that they always or sometimes

check to see if their food is local, and 58%

said they will go out of their way to get

local during the growing season.

Most respondents (79%) indicated that

their family prepared its own meals ‘from

scratch’ four or more times a week. A large

proportion of respondents (56%) reported

never eating fast food, while 30% said that

they eat fast food ‘less than once a week.’

Over two thirds of respondents reported

eating at a local restaurant once a week or

more and 88% said that it is “very” or

“somewhat” important that restaurants

serve local food.

In order to fully understand the buying

habits of Northampton residents in regard

to local agriculture, it’s important to

identify those most and least likely to buy

PROFILES

locally grown foods according to the data

collected in the consumer survey. Those

most likely to go out of their way to buy

local food in season are women over the

age of 55 (70%) and college educated

women (71%) with household incomes

over $75,000 (67%). Sixty percent of

women 55 or older shop at farmers

markets at least twice per month. Women

were 16% more likely than men to

“always” check to see if the food they

buy is locally produced (47% vs. 31%

respectively). College graduates were

10% more likely to do the same when

compared to non-college graduates (43%

vs. 33% respectively). Women surveyed

were reportedly more conscientious than

men regarding local food, while those

who have lived in Northampton the least

amount of time (less than 25 years) were

most likely to purchase local food (29%),

as were households with two adults and

children (31%).

The data show that Northampton

residents have access to local foods

through a wide range of venues. The

average Northampton consumer

respondent in search of local food shops

at co-ops (46%) such as River Valley

Market, farms stands (37%), farmers

markets (about 30%), small local grocers

(28%), supermarkets (27%) or grows their

own produce in personal or community

gardens (27%). Just over a quarter of

respondents (26%) also buy food from

farm shares or CSAs. While CSAs are

often perceived as a luxury, 23% of those

most likely to purchase CSA shares

earned under $25,000 a year.

The vast majority of respondents (81%)

said that they think local food is healthier

than similar foods brought into the area,

and women were more likely to think

this than men (89% vs. 70% respectively).

Residents over the age of 55 were also

Northampton Grocery Shopping by Location

more likely to agree that local food is

healthier than than younger people (87%

vs. 78% respectively). Those least likely to

think local food is healthier included men

under 55 and the town’s most afﬂuent

people, those whose incomes are over

$75,000 a year. The pool of respondents

who expressed the least interest in local

food were more likely to have achieved

lower levels of education and reported

consuming more fast food. Lifetime

residents of the town are also more likely

to shop at large retailers than newer

residents. Non-college educated women

(40%) are more likely to shop at large

retailers like Wal-Mart, as are persons in

households with incomes of less than

$25,000 per year (18%), outlets less likely

to offer local foods.

Barriers and

Considerations

While Northampton residents certainly

expressed enthusiasm for local food and

63% of respondents said there was

nothing keeping them from buying local

food, many respondents cited price and

access as barriers in their ability to buy or

increase their consumption of local foods.

According to the results of the Keep

Farming® survey, 42% of respondents

thought local food was too expensive

while 30% of respondents said they

experience difﬁculty in accessing local

foods where its sold or where they shop.

The results of the consumer survey

suggest that Northampton residents want

local food on the table, and have the

means, the motive and the opportunity to

make that happen. Respondents

demonstrated an awareness of local food,

with 68% of buying local food on a

weekly basis. Eighty-eight percent

reported that it was important to them

that restaurants serve local food, and

always or sometimes checking to see if

the food they buy is grown locally. These

ﬁgures show an incredible level of

consumer interest in local food.

PROFILES

Northampton consumers want local food on the table.

PROFILES

Restaurants

In 2012, there were a total of 72 restaurants

in Northampton, including delicatessens,

fast-food chains, caterers and ﬁne dining

establishments. Of those 72 restaurants, 38

eateries completed the local food use

survey. No fast-food or chain restaurants

completed the survey, as some were not

allowed to discuss the sources of their

food. The meals served each day by the

surveyed restaurants ranged from less

than 100 to more than 300 for an estimated

total of over 6,000 meals per day. Of the 38

restaurants surveyed, 12 priced their meals

between $10 and $14, 12 priced their meals

between $5 and $9, and six charged more

than $20 for an average adult meal.

Restaurants were asked if there was an

interest in local food among their clientele

and whether they believed that serving

local food was good for business. Over

90% of respondents said that their clients

were sometimes or almost always

interested in the sourcing of their

ingredients and that local food was valued

by consumers. Additionally, 80% expressed

an interest in purchasing local food.

Barriers and Considerations

Freshness and quality were the top two

considerations for Northampton

restaurants when purchasing ingredients.

The second two most important factors

were price and availability. Price and

availability were cited as the two greatest

barriers preventing restaurants from

purchasing more or any local food.

Analyses of the survey results found that

as price and convenience considerations

became more important to restaurant

owners, the percentage of food obtained

from local growers decreased. When food

quality and growing methods, such as

organic, were more important to a

particular restaurant, the percentage of

food obtained from local growers

increased.

PROFILES

Price

Restaurants reported that customers are

often not willing to pay the premium for

local food which forces owners to choose

less expensive produce grown elsewhere.

As one restaurateur said, “The issue is

price. If it were the same as other food I

would do anything to get the local food.

It makes sense not to get it from halfway

around the world. It also has a lot to do

with consumer awareness and customers

making that choice.”

Northampton restaurants that reported

purchasing local ingredients (mostly

vegetables, herbs, baked goods and beer)

bought from a variety of sources within

the Pioneer Valley or the greater Western

Massachusetts and Southern Vermont

regions. These restaurants also expressed

a desire for a wider variety of foods

throughout the year and a source for

local meat. Despite their overwhelming

acknowledgment of the importance of

local food to their clientele, many

restaurateurs don’t market their use of

local foods to their customers.

Convenience

Like Northampton institutions, many

restaurants called for better

communication with local farmers, as

well as regular and reliable delivery

times, which have been a problem in the

past. This addresses two basic needs

reported by restaurateurs, chefs

and institutional food buyers:

convenience and reliability.

Often, restaurateurs are unaware of what

is available locally and where or how to

purchase it. Restaurants need to know at

least a week in advance what will be

available to them from farmers to plan

their menus accordingly. They want to

know what produce is available, when

it’s available, who they can buy it from,

how much is available and at what price

it is sold. As a Northampton restaurateur

said: “We need to know what the supply

and demand is ahead of time to be able to

make predictions. For example, if there

was a lack of tomatoes due to some

reason, knowing that ahead of time

would allow us to cut things out of the

menu that aren’t local.”

Overall, the Northampton restaurants

surveyed by Keep Farming® expressed

considerable interested in local food.

Eighty percent are interested in local food

and ninety percent reported that their

customers are interested too. That !being

said, restauranteurs need local food to be

convenient, with access to farmers

willing to provide streamlined ordering

systems and reliable delivery services

provided by farmers who are proactive in

initiating and maintaining business

relationships based on good

communication. Improvements to these

challenges could make a big difference to

increase the consumption of local food by

Northampton restauranteurs in the long

run.

Northampton restaurants want convenient local food.

PROFILES

Institutions

In the fall of 2013, ten Northampton

institutions (out of 14 contacted) were

surveyed as part of the larger Keep

Farming® Northampton initiative. Of these

institutions, four classiﬁed themselves as

health-related institutions, three as nursing

homes, two as educational institutions,

and one as a penal institution. Some

institutions also reported providing other

services, such as meal home delivery and

congregate eating. All of the institutions

serve lunch, and the majority serve

breakfast and dinner as well. !With the

exception of educational institutions, all

operate year-round. The number of meals

served ranges from 150 to approximately

4000 meals served each day, averaging 600

meals served daily. Eighty percent of the

institutions reported that the food service

director makes the decisions regarding

food purchasing. Chefs are also involved

in the process at 30% of the institutions,

and 20% have corporate ofﬁces in another

city which hold some decision making

power.

Institutions purchase food from a variety

of sources, both local and non-local. All of

the institutions surveyed bought at least

some of their food through major

distributors. Half of institutions reported

buying food from area farmers. Forty

percent of the institutions purchased food

PROFILES

from large supermarkets, and 20%

bought their food from local markets,

such as Serio’s and State Street. In some

cases, food buyers were subject to

exclusive prime vendor contracts, group

purchasing agreements, competitive bid

systems, strict state and federal

regulations and nutritional requirements

that dictate the price, source, quality,

type, quantity and origin of the foods

approved for purchase. !

Institutional food budgets varied greatly.

The majority of institutions had annual

food budgets of more than $300,000. It

was found that food budget size did not

appear to be a key determining factor in

the amount of money spent on local food

purchases. The institution that spent the

largest proportion of their food budget

on local food (70%) had one of the

smallest overall food budgets. There is a

lot of potential to increase local food

sourcing among the institutions

surveyed. Most institutional food service

directors are interested in local food.

With assistance, institutions that spend

less than 20% of their budgets on local

food could drastically increase their

purchasing.

PROFILES

Barriers and

Considerations

Top considerations that inﬂuenced

institutional food directors when making

food purchases were food security

assurance, quality, customer preferences,

and freshness. !Price and contractual

restrictions were the second most

inﬂuential factors. !Origin of the product

and agricultural practices were among

the least inﬂuential purchasing

considerations.

The main three barriers to increased

purchasing of local food in institutions

were cost, convenience, and lack of

infrastructure.

Price

Many institutional food buyers expressed

a perception that local food costs

signiﬁcantly more than non-local food.

Cost, however, is more than what the

price tag may say. Delivery cost was

highlighted as a major barrier, as well as

the cost of the extra labor that local food

requires when it arrives unprocessed.

Many institutions expressed frustration

with unreliable deliveries that caused

their kitchens more inconvenience than

local food was worth. Additionally, most

local produce is not processed at all,

which adds labor for those in the kitchen.

If an institution is serving 400 people, the

kitchen may not have time to peel and

slice enough produce for each meal. For

most institutions, that is what prevents

local food from being purchased.

Prepared meals and minimally processed

products are considered “labor in a box,”

a more affordable option than hiring

additional staff.

Convenience

Convenience is a multi-faceted barrier for

institutions. Many have expressed having

difﬁculties ﬁnding local food in the

winter. If they are able to source local

food, there is often a question of whether

or not an institution is permitted to serve

it. Some Northampton institutions serve

at risk, immunocompromised

populations, which intensiﬁes the already

strict health and safety regulations that

institutions are subject to. !

Given that most Northampton

institutions serve an average of 600 meals

per day, their food purchases tend to be

quite large in amount. It is difﬁcult for

local farms to meet these quantity

demands, thus making local food more

inconvenient for institutional food

buyers. It is easier to order from a large

distributor than attempt to piece together

deliveries from multiple farms to obtain

one item in bulk. !

Delivery coordination poses another

problem for institutions. If deliveries are

unreliable and unpredictable, institutions

cannot prepare food at the correct time.

Institutional menus are often set months

in advance, which limits their ﬂexibility

in adjusting to missed deliveries or other

production-side changes. The job of

institutional food service is further

complicated for some by mandated

vendorizing processes. These federally

mandated processes make it virtually

impossible for an institution to purchase

local food, unless they invest in more

staff—which for many is not an option.

Lack of Infrastructure

State and federal regulations pose many

problems to institutional food buyers.

Some institutions are legally unable to

purchase food from farms that are not

certiﬁed under Good Agricultural

Practices (GAP). The rigorous standards

set by GAP coupled with a time-

consuming certiﬁcation process leave few

local farms qualiﬁed to sell their food

directly to institutions. Further, it is a

challenge for institutional food directors

to ﬁnd farmers to buy from at all. Many

reported a lack of relationships with

farmers as a structural barrier to

increased local food purchasing. Even if

institutions were to purchase more local

food, there is a distinct lack of

refrigeration facilities to support such an

increase. Consumers today expect foods

that do not currently grow year-round to

be available for eating year-round.

Institutions, however, do not necessarily

have the capacity to store local produce

throughout the non-growing season. If

the infrastructure to support local food

existed, such as functional distribution

systems, year-round storage facilities,

and processing facilities, many

institutions would be able to purchase

more local food.

Ultimately, institutions represent a

relatively untapped market in

Northampton. !Only three institutions are

not serving local food, and many

institutions do have room in their

budgets to expand purchasing, as long as

it is convenient for them. !It is essential

that steps are taken to make it convenient

for institutions to purchase local food.

PROFILES

Institutions: Northampton’s Untapped

Market.

SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS

" 24" 24

Production

A generally unknown resource in the

Pioneer Valley that is already distributing

wholesale local vegetables to large and

small grocery stores all over New England

is the Pioneer Valley Grower’s Association

(PVGA). The PVGA is a cooperative of

about 30 farmers from the Pioneer Valley

that collects produce from over 80 farmers

in the area. The co-op organizes and

delivers 5 to 6 million pounds of produce a

year, using the three coolers and 11-bay

loading dock they have on their premises

in South Deerﬁeld, Massachusetts. About

300,000 pounds of this food is distributed

directly to Northampton consumers,

through Stop n’ Shop and River Valley

Market. PVGA does not process food

themselves, but several farmers do sell

them minimally processed produce that

PVGA then distributes. This produce and

fruit is sold to large supermarkets around

New England, including Stop n’ Shop,

Shaws, Market Basket, and Hannaford.

Initially the cooperative explored the

possibility of distributing directly to

institutions as well, but they determined

that it was not cost effective because the

institutions could not order a large enough

quantity of food to justify the price of the

transportation costs. However, some of

their produce does reach local institutions

through Black River Produce.

The PVGA, along with other local

wholesale endeavors such as Happy Valley

Organics in Whatley, represent an example

of local food systems already working to

bring local products to consumers without

their knowledge. The PVGA website could

also be a valuable resource for teaching

consumers about local food; they have

information on why buying local is

important, where the food comes from,

when it’s in season, how it can be prepared

and how to know if it is fresh. While this

co-operative represents an important

means of distributing local food to larger

supermarkets, the PVGA does not

advertise and relies on word of mouth to

attract farmers, and food from the PVGA

often goes unlabeled as locally grown food

in the supermarkets. !Additionally,

wholesale is not a reasonable way for small

farmers to make a good living because

wholesale prices are low and the only way

to proﬁt is to sell large quantities of

product. !However, selling a portion of

their produce to wholesale distributors can

still be a good option for smaller farms’

because at least some part of their annual

income is assured.

Synthesis of Findings

SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS

" 25" 25

Potential

Market

While consumers face considerable

barriers to local food, the Institutional,

Restaurant and Resident surveys provide

valuable information regarding the

potential market for local food in

Northampton. Northampton restaurants,

institutions and residents allocate a bare

minimum of 11.9 million dollars a year to

food purchases, with 28 restaurants

spending at least 4.5 million and 10

institutions spending well over 3 million.

When pooled, participating restaurants

and institutions serve over 16,200 meals

daily. Just ten Northampton institutions

serve 61% of those meals, producing more

than 9,900 meals each day. !It’s essential to

make clear that while this data is

optimistic, it is limited by the size and

scope of the Keep Farming® survey’s

sample size. These numbers represent an

incredibly conservative estimate of the

amount of food being purchased and

prepared in Northampton.

Northampton institutions serve a great

deal of people and yet remain a segment

of the market left relatively untapped by

local farmers. The majority of these

institutions have food budgets well over

$300,000. Seven of the ten participating

institutions report purchasing some local

food, collectively spending approximately

$798,700 on local food in the past year.

Institutions of all sizes participate in the

purchase of local food in Northampton.

While one might assume that larger

institutions would be able to purchase

more local food, it is clear from the

purchasing habits of these institutions that

larger budgets do not necessarily mean a

greater proportion of that budget is

dedicated to bringing in local food. !To

illustrate this point, it is useful to compare

the purchasing habits of two Northampton

retirement homes serving at risk

populations living on a ﬁxed income. The

ﬁrst institution operates on a food budget

of $100,000 to $199,999 while the second

pulls on a larger budget that exceeds

$300,000 per year. The retirement facility

with the smaller budget spends $80,000 on

local food, $30,000 more than the facility

whose budget is at least 50% larger. The

survey results suggest that those

institutions who remain open to the

concept of local food have the potential to

expand their consumption in order to

support a substantive expansion of the

local food supply.

By synthesizing and pooling the market

data collected from institutions,

restaurants and residents, it becomes clear

that food already plays a key role in

Northampton’s economy. While

considerable barriers exist for the

production and consumption of local food,

there is certainly room for an expansion of

local food within the Northampton

market. If these challenges can be

addressed with creative solutions and

community action, the surveys suggest

that Northampton has incredible potential

to become a regional destination for local

food that supports a stronger, more

SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS

resilient agricultural community

throughout the Pioneer Valley.

Level of

Interest

Though in Northampton there is generally

very high interest in local food, that

interest varies from one section of the food

system to another and even within the

various sectors. For example, 20 out of the

26 farmers Keep Farming® Northampton

identiﬁed in Northampton did not place a

very high interest in producing and selling

food locally. Only about 6% of land farmed

by those who responded sold 80-100% of

its sales in Northampton. Additionally,

40% of those who responded sold or used

most of their output outside of

Northampton, and four farmers sold none

of their food inside the city. These four

farmers are signiﬁcant because they

account for 2/3 of Northampton land

farmed by respondents. Additionally, only

three farms reported that all of their

outlets were in Northampton, and just

under 33% of farmers sold some or all of

their products at their farm stand, at

farmers markets, or to other farmers. And

yet, 60% of the respondents reported

marketing at least half of their agricultural

output locally.

their farm stand, at farmers markets, or to

other farmers. And yet, 60% of the

respondents reported marketing at least

half of their agricultural output locally.

In contrast, consumers, restaurants and

institutions expressed much more interest

in purchasing local food. The consumer

survey determined that 93% of

Figure 3: Level of interest managers and chefs of restaurants and institutions in

Northampton have in local food.

“Participating restaurants,

institutions and residents allocate a

bare minimum of 11.9 million

dollars a year to food purchases

while participating restaurants and

institutions serve over 16,200 meals

daily.”

respondents felt buying local helps the

local economy a lot and 90% of

respondents believe buying local will save

family farms. Additionally, 87% believed

buying local helps "a lot" in preserving the

rural character of the Pioneer Valley, and

81% of respondents think, "local food is

healthier." !

Of the restaurants that responded to the

survey 35 out of 38 reported having a

higher level of interest in purchasing and

working with local food. Eighty percent of

those who were in charge of food budgets

expressed an interest, and 70% of chefs

said they were very or moderately

interested (Figure 3). Almost all of the

restaurants (92%) that responded said their

customers were almost always or

sometimes interested in where their food

came from. A large percentage (76%)

reported that local food is important or

very important to the customers who show

interest, and 90% said that serving local

food is very good or somewhat good for

business. Finally, about 68% reported that

they are interested in buying more local

food from area growers.

Institutions that responded to the survey

reported that 80% of those who are in

charge of the food budget are very or

moderately interested in purchasing local

foods, and 60% of their chefs are very or

moderately interested in obtaining and

cooking local foods (Figure 3). Four of the

ten institutions surveyed reported that

they actively look for distributors who buy

local, and 70% of people they serve

sometimes or often express an interest in

eating local foods. Additionally, 70% of

institutions already serve local food to

their consumers (Figure 4). The high level

of interest among consumers, restaurants

and institutions resonates with the

ﬁndings of the consumer proﬁle.

While there is recognition of the value of

local food in Northampton and

encouragement for new value-added food

businesses (Pioneer Valley Food Security

Plan, 2013), not all restaurants and grocery

stores invest signiﬁcant resources in

marketing their use of local foods.

Restaurants regularly serving local food

should be clearly identiﬁable, and their

efforts should be both promoted and

celebrated.

SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS

Figure 4: Percentage of institutions that serve any

local food.

SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS

From the four surveys conducted, six common barriers emerged.

1. Seasonal Availability

Consumers and purchasers of local food often don’t know when certain foods are

available. !This lack of awareness prevents local food use. !A consumer needs to know

where to ﬁnd a product before they can buy it. !Another limitation of seasonal

availability is that many people now expect fresh produce during all seasons.

Restaurants serve customers who expect strawberries in December, which the local food

system as it currently exists cannot accomplish.

2. Relationships:

Many restaurants and institutions expressed a desire for closer relationships with

farmers as an integral part of increasing local food purchases. !Local food is about more

than numbers or monetary transactions. !A human connection is needed to strengthen

these interactions. !Such connections also build a robust local food community. !

However, these relationships take time to develop and maintain. !!

3. Processing, Storage, and Distribution: !

A streamlined ﬂow of produce from ﬁeld to fork is needed. !Restaurants and especially

institutions want minimally processed local produce. !Buyers of local food need reliable,

efﬁcient deliveries. Farmers, on the other hand, are extremely busy and don’t

necessarily have the time to provide these services. !There are several companies that

exist in the Pioneer Valley at present. !The Greenﬁeld Processing Center offers many

services including processing, and the Pioneer Valley Growers Association aggregates

the produce of many farms in the area in order to sell to grocery stores (both explored in

this paper). !The Processing Center is underutilized at present, however, and both

options are not entirely accessible to farmers.

Barriers to Local Food Use

4. Cost and Price:

Many people perceive local food as more expensive than non local. !This was reﬂected

in the consumer and restaurant survey results. !In the case of these two groups,

consumer perception, rather than actual price, seems to be the main factor. !While more

research should be conducted to investigate the real price differential between local and

non-local food, one institutional food service director expressed that they rarely

encountered local food as more expensive than non-local food. !Whether or not there is

a large price differential between local and non-local, added costs of additional

processing and any time lost through inefﬁcient deliveries are a problem. !

5. Awareness and Information: !

This is a multifaceted barrier. !Generally speaking, among all players in the

Northampton food system there is a lack of awareness about the resources available. !!

The Pioneer Valley is home to processing and storage facilities, aggregate distributors,

and nonproﬁts that attempt to make connections in the food system—yet all !of these

resources are underutilized. !Part of this is no doubt due to a general lack of information

about what is obtainable. !Consumers, institutional food service directors, and

restaurateurs often do not understand what is available during a given season. !Among

food service directors and restaurateurs who wish to purchase more local food, a

problem that often arose was knowing where to buy local food, and from whom. !

6. State and Federal Rules and Regulations:

Regulations that range from exclusive contracts with US Foods to strict health and

safety codes play a major role. Some institutions can only purchase produce from farms

who have been certiﬁed under Good Agricultural Practices (GAP)—a certiﬁcation that

only one local farmer has, and is very expensive to obtain. Others must purchase

intensively sanitized foods, including pasteurized eggs. !While this is a barrier that

cannot be easily changed, it is important to note.

SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS

CASE STUDIES

Several common barriers surfaced when all all four of the Keep Farming surveys were

synthesized, including including challenges associated with distribution, processing

and storage, changes in the availability of regional produce throughout the seasons,

building and maintaining business relationships between consumers and local farmers,

limitations set by state and federal regulations, the perceived expense of local food as

well as an a lack of information sharing regarding local food. In order to understand

these barriers more completely and inform the recommendations made to address

them, the Sustainable Food Capstone class sought out businesses, institutions and

cooperatives that have developed innovative strategies to overcome the challenges they

face in regard to local food. Students took to the ﬁelds, dining halls and phone lines to

speak with entrepreneurs and leaders to learn more about how they make local food

work. The following case studies are the product of this research. The ﬁrst takes a

deeper look at how small-scale facilities like the Western Massachusetts Food

Processing Center and the Vermont Food Venture Center connect buyers with local

food throughout the seasons through minimal processing and storage services. The case

study to follow explores how UMass Dining Services works with area farmers to bring

local food to scale in an institutional framework. The Kitchen Garden Farm is

highlighted in the third case study for their creative use of technology and networking

skills in the development of long-term business relationships with Northampton

restaurants. The ﬁnal study focuses on “ La Campagna di Casa Tua,” an Italian

cooperative of farmers who have pooled resources to reach their customers through a

streamlined ordering system, shared distribution services and exceptional marketing

campaigns.

Case Studies

A deeper look into businesses, institutions and

cooperatives working to address challenges and

barriers related to the production and use of local

food.

CASE STUDIES

The surveys revealed that a lack of a food-

processing hub for processing and storage

of food was a barrier to increasing the use

of local food. After researching the food

processing facilities in Hardwick, Vermont

and Greenﬁeld, Massachusetts it became

evident that these facilities could also

inspire solutions to barriers involving cost

and weak relationships between farmers,

processors, and consumers.

About the Food Processing Centers

The Vermont Food Venture Center is a

15,000 square foot processing center for

sauces, beverages, and dried, frozen and

cut products. It does not process meat,

meat products or fresh dairy products. !

The center offers consulting, workshops,

ServSafe certiﬁcation, and networking

opportunities. !The processing hub has a

bakery, a prep kitchen, hot pack kitchen

(for jams, sauces, beverages), cold and dry

storage ($20 or $30 for a pallet of space),

and a loading dock that receives deliveries

from 9-5 Monday-Friday. !Mostly

restaurants use this facility by signing up

for a time slot and coming in to use the

processing and freezing equipment. !The

application fee is $25 and the membership

fee is $50.

The Western Massachusetts Food

Processing Center is part of the Franklin

County Community Development

Corporation in Greenﬁeld, MA. !It offers

training for farmers interested in creating

value-added products, business planning,

and co-packing. Similar to Vermont,

Greenﬁeld offers dry and cold storage,

pallet space, and the membership fee is

also $50.

Greenﬁeld Food Processing Center acts as

a connection between farmers and

institutions. !For example, Bon Appetit, the

food service provider for Hampshire

College, sends carrots grown on

Hampshire’s farm to the Greenﬁeld

Processing Center to be chopped and

frozen. The Processing Center then sells

Processing Facilities

Hardwick Vermont and Greenﬁeld Massachusetts

CASE STUDIES

the carrots back to Hampshire College and

other schools that are part of the

Massachusetts Farm to School program.

Funding

Annie Rowell, the program associate at the

Vermont Food Venture Center, agreed to an

interview while on her way to Castleton

State College armed with broccoli samples,

hoping to talk about future ordering

between the college and the venture center.

The Vermont Food Venture Center is not a

proﬁtable business yet, but is staying aﬂoat

from a World Business Enterprise grant

from the USDA and a focus on staying

efﬁcient. !A center like this in Vermont

needs to be efﬁcient and selective in what

it tries to do in order to remain

economically viable. The center mostly

processes carrots, broccoli, and potatoes. !

The institutions Annie has surveyed about

the center’s products have responded well

to both the quality of the food and the

price point.

John Waite responded similarly about the

funding the Greenﬁeld facility receives.

The food processing center didn’t break-

even until year six. !The Center was

alternately a little proﬁtable and not at all

proﬁtable over its next six years. !As such,

it is not yet proﬁtable, even after 12 years

of being in operation. !The center cost

$800,000 to build in 2001 grants from the

Massachusetts Department of Agriculture,

USDA, and Housing and Urban

Development.

Challenges

Annie Rowell believes a big challenge is

working with farmers. !Farms in the

Northeast are mostly diversiﬁed and it is

difﬁcult for farmers to produce a

signiﬁcant quantity of one product. !

Asking for a large quantity of produce

requires farmers to use their land in a very

different way. !Farms need to create

business plans and receive technical

assistance in restructuring the farm and

acquiring larger equipment. !Such farm

restructuring may happen in the near

future because fresh produce markets are

becoming increasingly saturated, reducing

access and proﬁtability. Using the center is

an opportunity for farmers to process and

distribute greater amounts of produce.

Lessons Learned

After researching the processing centers,

touring the Western Massachusetts Food

Processing Center, and interviewing Annie

Rowell and John Waite, recommendations

that could make a difference include:

1). !Encouraging restaurants, small food

businesses, and farmers to use the

Greenﬁeld facility since it is currently

underutilized. Businesses from as far away

as Boston use the facility because one

monthly trip can help a business process a

signiﬁcant amount of food. Both the

Greenﬁeld and Hardwick facilities co-pack

products for businesses and they have

found that most farmers prefer to have the

facility process and package for them. Both

facilities also offer support for businesses

that are starting up and provide

information about funding opportunities,

potential customers, and crafting business

plans. John Waite speciﬁcally stated that

he would like to foster a deeper connection

between Keep Farming® Northampton and

other Northampton businesses and the

processing center.

2). !Annie Rowell suggested conducting a

training for food directors at Northampton

schools about what foods are in season

and how to incorporate them into menus. !

It is important that the person ordering

food feels informed and connected about

easy ways to buy local food. !A website or

catalog would work along with the

training. !The Greenﬁeld Food Processing

Center had processed an industrial-sized

freezer full of carrots for February because

that is carrot month for the Massachusetts

Farm to School Project’s Harvest of the

Month program.

CASE STUDIES

For more information, visit:

http://www.fccdc.org/about-the-

center or http://

www.hardwickagriculture.org/

vermont-food-venture-center/

CASE STUDIES

The University of Massachusetts (UMass)

is exemplary in its efforts to incorporate

sustainably grown and locally produced

food into the meals that they serve.

Through interviews with Ken Toong, the

director of dining services at UMass,

Rachel Dutton and Joe Czajkowski three

main areas of excellence became apparent,

that make UMass so successful in its efforts

to provide quality, healthy food for the

students there- adherence to strict

guidelines, encouragement of consumer

feedback and symbiotic farmer

relationships.

The University of Massachusetts Dining

Services has an annual budget of $25

million with $3 million spent on produce

each year. Last year, they spent $1 million

on food produced within the Pioneer

Valley. During peak season (late August-

mid May) UMass serves 45,000

meals a day. In the summer, they

serve roughly 8,000 meals a day.

Toong and his ofﬁce adhere to a

strict set of guidelines called the

Real Food Challenge. These

guidelines provide a framework

for them to work within as well

as goals to work towards. The

Real Food Challenge, a national

organization dedicated to

promoting a fair, green food

system through work with

universities, dictates that

institutions source 20% of their food needs

locally. For UMass “local” is deﬁned as

being within 50 miles of Amherst. Goals of

the Real Food Challenge include reducing

waste in order to save money, gauging

feedback from students and untouched

food in the next day’s menu. An interesting

fact about waste management at UMass is

that they save 50% by transporting

compost to the NE Small Farmers Institute

in Belchertown, MA instead of sending it

to the landﬁll.

The strict guidelines of the Real Food

Challenge as well as waste management

and reduction strategies help Toong and

his staff keep on track towards their goal of

20% local. Everything at UMass having to

do with their dining services is planned at

least seven weeks in advance. These

Dining Services

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

CASE STUDIES

guidelines inform their

decisions and ensure that

their progress towards the

Real Food Challenge does

not slacken.

UMass Dining Services highly values

feedback from their consumers. Toong

employs 25 “student ambassadors” who

are paid throughout the year to gather

opinions from their own eating experience

as well as from that of their friends. This

feedback is incorporated in a very serious

way into any plans that UMass dining

makes- including the weekly menus.

Students are informed as to exactly where

their food is coming from and are

encouraged to submit comments and

suggestions. Recently, Rachel Dutton of the

Sustainability Ofﬁce at UMass said that the

school has created a Sustainability

Communication position. This person

works to increase the rapport and

information that students have access to

regarding sustainable food facts, practices

and uses. UMass also employs three

nutrition specialists that sit in at planning

meetings and ensures that nutritional

needs of the students are being met. Their

emphasis on full transparency about

dining operations is also a contributing

factor to their success. Students and staff

feel conﬁdent about what they are eating

and feel empowered enough to submit

suggestions because they know that they

will be seriously considered.

When Toong began his work at UMass one

of the biggest barriers he faced was the

lack of infrastructure for collecting and

storing local food from surrounding farms.

UMass works with many local farmers but

the only way that this is possible is due to

the efforts of Joe Czajkowski, of

Czajkowski Farms in Hadley. Czajkowski

made an effort to expand his refrigeration

unit on his farm as well as buy another

refrigerated truck in order to transport

produce and other goods from farms to

institutions and restaurants. By organizing

nearby farmers, Czajkowski was able to

“Without the farmer’s willingness

to make new capital investments,

as well as their willingness to work

together, UMass would not be able to buy the

volume of food that they need.“

CASE STUDIES

supply UMass with most of the food that

they buy locally. Without the farmer’s

willingness to make new capital

investments, as well as their willingness to

work together, UMass would not be able to

buy the volume of food that they need.

However, the only reason Czajkowski was

willing to invest in new capital was due to

the assurance that UMass would be

purchasing from his farm for a number of

years.

Toong and the Ofﬁce of Sustainability still

face the challenges of increased labor costs

as well as the sometimes high costs of

locally sourced food, especially meat.

However, their willingness to think outside

of the box and to hold themselves to a

platinum standard drives them toward

sustainability despite their size as an

institution. When asked what could be

improved in the system, Dutton answered

that increasing the amount of collaboration

between the ﬁve colleges would be very

helpful. She also believes that the more

time food directors and food buyers spend

together talking and brainstorming, the

better. Lastly, she identiﬁed a strong need

for a third party who would source food

from the area and provide it to the college.

This is a common need throughout the

institutional food system and one of the

most important to address in some way

moving forward.

From this case study we can see how

important a stringent and clear set of

guidelines, consumer feedback and farmer

side cooperation and investment are for a

sustainable food program. In our list of the

six main barriers facing local food

consumption in Northampton, UMass has

effectively dealt with farmer-institution

relationship challenges, distribution/

processing/storage, and awareness and

information. While there is still work to be

done at UMass with regard to seasonal

supply challenges and cost, the institution

serves as a valuable example of how

institutions can increase the market for

local food and educate thousands of

students on the topic of local food.

“When asked what could be improved in the system, Dutton answered

that increasing the amount of collaboration between the ﬁve colleges

would be very helpful. She also believes that the more time food directors

and food buyers spend together talking and brainstorming, the better.

She identiﬁed a strong need for a third party who would source food

from the area and provide it to the college.”

For more information, visit:

http://www.umassdining.com/

sustainability

CASE STUDIES

When Tim Wilcox and Caroline Pam

started the Kitchen Garden Farm in 2006,

they brought a unique culinary

background and some truly innovative

ideas to their ﬁrst square acre of farmland

in Hadley. The pair started small, aiming

to connect with local restaurateurs looking

for rare or unique vegetable varieties. The

Kitchen Garden Farm has scaled up

production considerably over the past

seven years and now grows a wide range

of organic vegetables and ﬂowers on

twenty acres of Connecticut River

bottomland in Sunderland. Wilcox and

Pam have expanded their market and now

sell their produce and prepared foods at

local farmers markets, deliver orders to

local retailers, caterers and wholesalers.

Today restaurants represent 20% of the

farm’s produce sales, ordering the

equivalent of just two retailers. Regardless

of growth in recent years, Wilcox and Pam

remain committed to the community of

restaurants that helped build the

foundation of their business. These long-

term relationships continue to shape the

produce they grow, the connections they

establish and the identity of their business

here in the Valley.

While 55% of the respondents of the

restaurant survey said they were very

interested in purchasing local foods, most

chefs and restaurateurs explained they

were too busy to !leave the restaurant to

initiate a business relationship with local

farmers. When asked what barriers or

challenges kept them from buying local

food, 19% of Northampton restaurants

mentioned convenience, 8% referred to a

lack of information and 50% expressed

that communication was a problem. “If I

knew a local farmer who would come over

and give me a list of his products and

prices I would buy more,” explained one

restaurateur. In order to purchase more

local food, Northampton restaurants

would like farmers to reach out and

initiate the wholesale relationship (rather

than restaurants initiating) by providing

convenient access to information on the

produce they have available, pricing,

The Kitchen Garden Farm

Building Strong Relationships Between Restaurants and Farmers

CASE STUDIES

delivery services, as well as prompt

updates on any changes in supply. For

many farmers, cultivating this kind of

relationship can seem daunting. When

Wilcox and Pam ﬁrst cast their net in the

Northampton restaurant community, they

were faced with the same set of frictional

barriers. This case study explores how they

have overcome those challenges to

successfully build and maintain long-term

relationships with Northampton

restaurateurs through networking, ﬂexible,

convenient service and excellent

communication.

Cultivating the Relationship

•

One of the farm’s ﬁrst clientele was the

Green Street Café, where Pam worked as

a chef. Her personal connection with the

owner grew into a fantastic business

relationship that introduced her to a

whole network of Northampton area

restaurateurs. Pam began reaching out to

that network of chefs and owners

through well-orchestrated cold calls and

in-person inquiries. When reaching out

to prospective clients, Wilcox and Pam

were careful to call between the hours of

two and ﬁve in the afternoon, when the

chef, owner or produce buyer would

most likely be in house, but not in

service. Aware of how busy chefs may be,

Pam expressed the importance of

persistent, regular contact and patience.

Some restaurants have been on the farm’s

wholesale e-mail list for four years and

just began placing regular orders this

season. Wilcox and Pam are careful to

stay in contact with chefs as they move

from one restaurant to another, where

they may begin ordering again.

•

By growing a few niche vegetables like

jerusalem artichoke, treviso radicchio, or

okra, Wilcox and Pam are able to attract

new clientele. Although specialty crops

can be challenging to grow or inefﬁcient

to harvest on a small scale, Wilcox and

Pam began a long-term relationship with

the Blue Heron Restaurant when their

head chef began ordering squash

blossoms, which are nearly impossible to

purchase from conventional vendors.

Years later the Blue Heron fully stocks its

kitchen with a variety of Wilcox and

Pam’s produce on a regular basis.

•

Wilcox and Pam make a point to conduct

deliveries personally and have preferred

to steer clear of aggregators who might

cut relationships out of their business. As

a chef herself, Pam makes a point to

become familiar with her client’s menu

and cooking style, offering substitutions,

recipes and calling their attention to

unique varieties that would add vibrancy

to their menus.

Flexibility

•

By coordinating delivery routes and

times, Wilcox and Pam are willing to

accommodate late orders, offer

incomplete cases of their produce and

offer low minimum ordering

requirements.

•

In order to accommodate restaurants

with minimal storage space, the Kitchen

Garden will make smaller deliveries

throughout the week. The farm

CASE STUDIES

maintains a root cellar that allows for

long-term storage and a consistent

offering of root vegetables throughout

the winter.

Mobility, Constant Contact

and the Almighty

Smartphone

•

The Kitchen Garden Farm makes

ordering simple and convenient by e-

mailing their clients midweek updates on

availability and pricing twice a week.

Chefs are immediately notiﬁed by text or

e-mail of shortages, crop failures or

changes to their order.

•

Rather than being tied down to their

desk or juggling paperwork in the ﬁeld,

mobile devices allow Wilcox and Pam to

provide ﬂexible, fast-paced, streamlined

service on the go. iPhones are used to

store client information, manage orders,

conduct deliveries, market their products

and maintain good communication with

customers. Instant access to emails and

orders during harvest allows them to

respond quickly to last minute orders

and customer requests. Mobile

applications allow the pair to update

their social media feeds throughout the

day or drum up business while the

farmers market warms up for the day.

•

Wilcox and Pam capitalize on their

position in the marketplace as farmers,

processors and caterers by maintaining a

spot on regional wholesalers produce

lists. If they see Black River Produce is

charging a premium to break a case of

eggplant, Wilcox and Pam are ready to

reach out to their network of chefs,

highlighting their ﬂexible order

minimums, the quality of their eggplant,

or a competitive price.

With patience and persistence,

Wilcox and Pam have built some

truly terriﬁc relationships with

local restaurateurs and chefs.

They responded to their client’s

needs and provided these fast

paced businesses with the

convenience, ﬂexibility and

tailored services they need to

bring more Kitchen Garden

produce onto the menu. To learn

more about the Kitchen Garden

Farm, visit their website at http://

kitchengardenfarm.com/

For more information, visit:

http://www.kitchengardenfarm.com

CASE STUDIES

“La Campagna di Casa

Tua” (“Your Home’s

Countryside”) is a

project that consists of a

network of 25 farms that

collectively provide

fruits, vegetables, meat, milk, cheeses,

eggs, rice, ﬂours, wine and preserves to

their local region. !These farms are located

in the geographical area comprised

between the cities of Modena and Reggio

Emilia, and the home delivery service is

available in the same area. !This Northern

Italian subregional area is about two hours

from any big urban center and is similar in

size to the Pioneer Valley.

Until October 2013, “La Campagna di Casa

Tua” counted on a static website

(providing basic information about the

project - such as the history of the single

farms - and contacts) and a paper monthly

catalogue that was distributed to families,

restaurants, institutions (hospitals,

religious institutions etc.) on request (via

email or telephone) and featured the

products available during that month and

their price. Orders had to be made on the

phone, because this way the consumers

could be informed that one product was no

longer available when placing their order.

In October 2013, “La Campagna di Casa

Tua” launched a new website

(www.lacampagnadicasatua.it) and

renovated its services. A paper monthly

catalogue is still available and orders can

still be made on the phone (this makes the

service easily accessible to elderly people

and to people who don’t own/don’t know

how to use a computer) but now it is also

possible to shop online. The website is

more intuitive than it used to be and is

easily surfable. The fact that prices can be

consulted directly on the website (without

having to send an email or make a phone

call to get the paper catalogue) is a way for

people to approach local food and actually

realize that it is not always as expensive as

one may think. Customers can choose

whether to pick up the food themselves or

to have it delivered. !Farmers pay a modest

fee to cover the salaries of six employees,

who are involved in distribution, catalogue

development, organization and marketing.

This program works because it is ﬂexible,

ﬁnding ways to accommodate various

groups of people.

The prices that La Campagna di Casa Tua

provides are, in fact, extremely competitive

with supermarket prices. !When

comparing the prices of “La Campagna di

Casa Tua” with the ones of “Esselunga”—

the biggest food retail store chain in Italy—

it becomes clear that there are not relevant

differences. Sometimes Esselunga’s prices

are even the higher than those provided by

farmers.

“La Campagna di Casa Tua”

Italian Local Foods Catalogue & Farmer Cooperative

CASE STUDIES

•

Relationships: The main goal of “La

Campagna di Casa Tua” was to build

strong relationships between consumers

and producers. The social connections

promoted through this project represent a

powerful tool in order to shape regional

and local food systems.

•

Local food perception: The lack of

relationships between producers and

consumers often provokes a misperception

of local food, in the sense that many people seem to think that local food is more

expensive than non-local food. The possibility of consulting prices on a catalogue may

be a way for people to approach local food and realize that it is not always as

expensive as one may think.

•

Accessibility: The fact of having both a paper and an online monthly catalogue solve

problems of accessibility, which represent an important barrier to local food. The

paper catalogue makes the service easily accessible to people who don’t own or don’t

know how to use a computer.

•

Distribution: Consumers can choose whether to pick up the food themselves or to

have it delivered. This service provides farmers and consumers with a creative

solution to the distribution challenges that surfaced in the Keep Farming® Northampton

surveys.

Q: How were you able to create such a big network of farms?

A: It came naturally. An initial network was created between a few farms that met during the

weekly farmer’s market. With time, because we were featured in several magazines and

because our case was proving to be successful, other farms joined the network.

Q: What about costs?

A: Single farms could never afford to pay six extra people (six people are working at this

service) but they can afford to pay six people collectively. The products’ prices cover the cost

of these extra six people. There is no annual fee for the farms.

Product

La Campagna Price

Esselunga Price

Radicchio (0.5 kg)

€1.50

€1.38

Yellow Potatoes (1 kg)

€1.22

€1.79

William Pears (1 kg)

€2.10

€2.38

RECOMMENDATIONS

Given the findings about overlapping barriers expressed by all four types

of survey participants, better communication between farmers,

institutions, various consumers, and distributors is currently needed.

Furthermore, it is essential to increase the distribution of information and

available resources to large and small consumers alike. As a means of

accomplishing these goals, community resources and support will be

needed at both a local and state level. The following are a list of proposed

recommendations, many of which will take time and require extensive

discussion with community members.

Permanent Farmer’s Market Location

Support year-round direct sales between farmers and local consumers by identifying a

permanent location with indoor and outdoor facilities for all Northampton Farmers

Markets (Regional Planning Studio 2011, p. 19). Possible locations include the empty

parking lot on King Street (former Honda dealership), the Northampton Fairgrounds,

or the Roundhouse Plaza. Selecting a permanent, easily accessible location for these

markets would create stability for farmers and increase access to local foods year round.

A permanent, indoor location would allow the market to have longer hours into the

evening, which would be helpful for consumers. Farmers would not have to waste

precious time setting up booths before and after farmers’ markets. Other times, the

same facility could be used for community events, festivals and workshops. If there is

space for a commercial kitchen, the facility could also be used as a minimal processing

center for local foods, which we recommend. A permanent farmers’ market could serve

as an epicenter of local food activities, providing a central, reliable space. Permanent

markets draw food tourism and increase the vibrancy of the surrounding area as well,

as can be seen with the positive impact Eastern Market has had on its surrounding

neighborhood in Detroit. In Detroit, more than 250 Vendors come from Michigan, Ohio,

and Ontario to sell at the Saturday markets, serving approximately 40,000 consumers.

The market is also accessible to lower-income families because they participate in the

double up food bucks program. The market operates year-round and has revitalized

the local economy.

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATIONS

Processing Facility and Community Center

While a small-scale, minimal processing facility would be a great asset for

Northampton’s local food system, we should also encourage restaurants, small food

businesses, and farmers, to use the Greenﬁeld facility for larger scale processing as it is

currently under utilized (Pioneer Valley Food Security Plan, 2013). The processing

facility co-packs, a service used by the majority of the farmers they serve, as well as

offers support for new businesses by providing information about funding

opportunities and crafting business plans. !John Waite, the director of the Western

Massachusetts Food Processing Center, suggests that by fostering a deeper connection

between Keep Farming® Northampton, other Northampton businesses, and the

processing center, Northampton based institutions may be more apt to use the center,

therefore eliminating the need for a Northampton based processing facility.

Northampton Local Food Week

The creation of a “Local Food Week” in

Northampton, possibly in partnership with CISA and

their already established “Restaurant Week”, would

help to engage residents, in discussions that explore

the !surrounding local food access in our area. !This

“Local Food Week” would feature a series of

community events and activities, including local food

dinners, cooking classes, farm tours, restaurant

competitions for best local menu, and canning and

gardening workshops all aimed at raising awareness

and increasing public education about local food. This

festival may also be promoted as an agricultural

tourism attraction.

Double Up Food Stamp Beneﬁts

The Double Up Food Stamp Beneﬁts campaign, which uses private donations to offer

double SNAP points when shopping at a farmers market, has been an important way

for residents on food stamps to better access local foods. !However, the program is

currently set to lose its sponsorship at the end of the year and needs a new, long term

sponsor. We emphasize the importance of this program to insure increased access to

local food for all Northampton citizens and suggest that a new sponsor that can commit

to supporting the program in the long term should be found. !Examples of such a

sponsor are United Way or CISA. !With this new sponsor, fundraising to support this

RECOMMENDATIONS

campaign could continue, and the program could be possibly integrated into other

recommendations. !For example, restaurants participating the “Local Food Week” could

be asked to donate a portion of their proceeds to the program. !Ideally, if an endowment

of sufﬁcient size could be secured, an account could be set up through the Community

Foundation of Western Massachusetts, which would then be able to take care of the

administrative work.

Marketing

A wide range of studies (some conducted

by Slow Food International, an

organization committed to local food)

shows that linking food to the identity and

the cultural memory of a geographical area

is a marketing choice that often results in a

high economic value for local food.

Foods that reﬂect the distinctive alchemy

of history and culture that makes each

place unique are the expression of a

diversity that globalization tends to erase.

However, today many recognize such

diversity as an important resource. Following the example of the Slow Food Presidia,

the creation of a Pioneer Valley brand would be an opportunity for food producers to

effectively promote their products, and to stimulate the rise of agricultural tourism in

the region. !

CISA’s “be a local hero” campaign has been highly successful in bringing more

attention to local food issues and reenergizing the local food movement. !This well-

established and widely known symbol of the local food movement in the Pioneer Valley

could be revamped and included in new efforts to create a cohesive “brand” that would

mark Northampton or Pioneer Valley local products. !This consistent, easily recognized

mark would allow consumers to quickly identify local products and become more

engaged in the process of selecting local products over global ones.

Institutional Networking Nights

Institutional buyers expressed their struggle to connect with local farmers in order to

bring local food to scale in a way that’s economically and logistically feasible. Contract

restrictions, distribution needs, ordering and budgetary constraints are just some of the

common barriers that face institutions regarding local food. In the institutional surveys,

several institutions cited Good Agriculture Practices (GAP) as a barrier for obtaining

RECOMMENDATIONS

local foods. !GAP is a program that was started by the

United States Department of Agriculture that applies

to on-farm production and post-production

processes. !Many institutions only buy food from

farms that are GAP certiﬁed. Food safety regulations

are a concern for farmers because the cost associated

with additional requirements and administration for

farmers is often a burden. While GAP certiﬁcation is

optional, most grocery stores and many institutions

require that their wholesale growers be certiﬁed. This

time consuming process and the rigorous standards

set by GAP regulations leave few local farms

qualiﬁed to sell to these markets. In order to help

institutions address these challenges, regular

networking nights would be arranged that bring food

service directors, chefs and buyers together in one room to share and develop creative

solutions to increase the use of local food. Buyers interested in buying from local

farmers but unsure of how to begin, who to

contact or how to make local foods work on a

limited budget would have the chance to meet

with colleagues who have worked through those

very same barriers to bring local food to scale in

their own institution. In order to improve

awareness regarding seasonality, a vegetable pin-

up calendar could be created in collaboration

with local farmers. The calendar would be

distributed to Northampton institutions as a way

of highlighting the range of fresh produce and

foods grown locally throughout the year. Farm to

Institution New England (FINE) and the

Massachusetts Farm to School Project are well

positioned to organize these networking nights and provide matchmaking services to

those institutions ready to form a business relationship with local farmers. !The

importance of aiding communication between institutions and farmers to facilitate the

inclusion of local food in more institutional menus has also been highlighted in several

local food reports, including the Food System Toolkit for Hampden and Hampshire

Counties by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and Building Local Food

Connections: A community food system assessment by Christina Gibson and Jamie

Pottern of The Conway School Food System (Regional Planning Studio, 2011).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Community Workshops

Northampton restaurants, institutions and

producers all expressed concern for

consumer awareness, speciﬁcally about

seasonality and price. It is crucial to promote

community involvement when trying to

implement a new program or to expand

awareness (Regional Planning Studio 2011, p.

16-17). One way to do this is to educate the

public about local food through courses,

workshops and lecture series. Possible

venues include libraries, community centers,

penal institutions and schools. The Pioneer

Valley Planning Commission can help kick-

start such programs, but it will be important

to get other organizations and the entire community involved in the process to ensure

its success. There should be an interaction between these food education workshops

and local agricultural organizations and

institutions, such as local farms, school and

community gardens, and farmer’s markets. This

would promote the success and popularity of

them all.

Depending on the target demographic and venue,

each course would strive to teach attendees to

cook with local ingredients, exposing them to

unfamiliar fruits, vegetables, grains, herbs and

spices; to plan quick, nutritious and affordable

meals using those ingredients; to be smart

consumers by educating them about seasonality,

available beneﬁt programs and ﬁnancial

assistance. !Programs to teach the importance and

preparation of local foods in schools are widely

considered to be a useful tool to widen the scope of local food involvement and are

suggested as well in the Food System Toolkit for Hampden and Hampshire Counties by The

Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and Planning for Food Access and Community-based

Food Systems by Kimberly Hodgson (Regional Planning Studio, 2011). !

RECOMMENDATIONS

The curriculum would change, depending on venue, timeline and target audience. Here

are the main topics for a culinary course:

•

The Basics of Nutrition and Food Science (creating a healthful & balanced meal)

•

Local Meat, Poultry, Game, Fish, Shellﬁsh, Fruit and Vegetable Identiﬁcation

•

Purchasing and Identiﬁcation of Local Dairy and Eggs

•

Dry Goods Identiﬁcation

•

Seasonality, Canning and Other Preservation Techniques

•

Basics of Urban or Indoor Gardening and Harvesting

•

How to be a Smart Shopper: Know your Beneﬁts and Resources

Mobile Marketplace Application

Restaurateurs and institutions expressed the need

for improved coordination and convenience in order

to initiate and maintain a relationship with local

farmers. While CISA’s local food database is a

fantastic resource for information on local farms and

their products, it lacks an order function as well as

updated information on price and availability. A

streamlined, electronic ordering system would be a

great way of bridging this gap to facilitate an

increase in direct sales between local growers and

institutions by meeting the needs of busy farmers and food buyers. The Smith College

Computer Science Department is well positioned to support a student intern in the

development of a mobile application and online platform that allows chefs,

restaurateurs and institutional buyers to access to a wide range information regarding

local foods, including where and by whom its grown, current availability, delivery

options, as well as price. Restaurants and institutions would use this application or the

online platform to compare prices, place orders and arrange deliveries on the go using

their smartphone or computer. Payments would be made online using a PayPal account

or credit card. Farmers would receive automatic notiﬁcations on their smartphone or

computer when orders are placed or edited, allowing them to organize their harvest

and delivery schedule from the ﬁeld. Some services like this already exist in

Massachusetts and in the Pioneer Valley. !In the Planning for Food Access and Community-

based Food Systems, Kimberly Hodgson reinforces the importance of using local

universities and colleges as a resource to support local food initiatives. Joe Blotnick, a

member of the local community, has already invested a great deal of time and money

into software that would allow restaurants or institutions to order directly from farmers

and says it is about 90% done. !He previously approached CISA to ask if they would be

interested in hosting this system and they were receptive. !Additionally, he has said that

he would be willing to give the software to Smith IT if the project were to proceed.

CONCLUSION

Glynwood’s community-based Keep Farming® program allowed community members

to establish a better understanding of the role of local agriculture and local food in

Northampton’s food system. The information gathered in the Keep Farming®

Northampton surveys identiﬁed Northampton as a potential destination for local food in

which agriculture, food related businesses and events become a driving force for

economic development. The recommendations made in this report offer exciting

opportunities to increase the consumption of local food and strengthen Northampton

agriculture in ways that are good for farmers, good for business and good for the

community.

In Conclusion

ACKNOWLADGEMENTS

In Appreciation...

We appreciate the contributions of the following people and organizations to this

project and to our group.

The Glynwood Center

•

The Keep Farming® program formed the basis of our methodology.

•

Virginia Kasinki, Director of Community-Based Programs, offered invaluable

advice and support

•

Andrea Burns and Melissa Adams served as liaison and worked with us each

step of the way.

Keep Farming® Northampton Working Group

" Project Coordinator: Fran Volkmann

" Agricultural Economics Coordinator: Professor Nola Reinhardt

•

A group of volunteers from the community worked with the Northampton

Agricultural Commission and the Glynwood Center on various aspects of the

survey. Community members include Robin Anderson, Joan Cenedella,

Adele Franks, Mari Gottdiener, Donna Harlan, Deb Jacobs, Carmel Kelly,

Daryl La Fleur, Marcie Stock, Alan Wolf, and Betsey Wolfson.

Northampton City Government

The Agricultural Commission served as sponsor of the project and helped us

understand what kinds of information would be most useful to the

agricultural community. Wayne Feiden, Director of the Ofﬁce of Planning and

Development, provided constructive feedback on the survey and kept us

connected with the Agricultural Commission.

Smith College

•

The Center for Community Collaboration provided support for our work

and an inviting space for the working group to meet.

•

The Center for the Environment, Ecological Design, and Sustainability

(CEEDS), especially Paul Wetzel and Joanne Benkley, provided an important

connection with the Keep Farming® group.

•

Professor Phil Peake contributed expertise in survey preparation and

analysis, and student oversight.

•

Six Smith College students worked on surveys: Aqdas Aftab completed a

Special Studies project in which she oversaw the SurveyMonkey program

and conducted the statistical analyses of the data. Maya Kutz worked on all

aspects of the project as part of a CEEDs internship. Alina Ahmad, Charlene

Gemora, Dalyn Houser, and Mina Zahin conducted surveys as part of a

course taught by Prof. Julia Jones.

ACKNOLADGEMENTS

Other Individuals and Organizations

•

Joana Griciute provided invaluable expertise with the preparation of the

charts and graphs.

•

Over the course of the entire project, we have beneﬁtted from the work of

CISA (Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture), and GFN (Grow

Food Northampton), and especially appreciate the expertise and values that

they have shared with us.

•

Others include: Former Director of Board of Health Ben Wood, Agricultural

Commission Chair John Omasta, Liaison to the Farmer’s Survey Group Rich

Jaescke, GIS Coordinator James Thompson, Katherine Halvorsen of the

Smith College Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Smith Professor of

Psychology Lauren Duncan, Smith Special Studies Students and Interns

Astrid Burke, Lizzie DeHuff, Wendi Liebl, Samara Ragaven and Dana

Sherwood, CISA’s Phil Korman, Kelly Coleman, and Margaret Christie,

Grow Food Northampton’s Lilly Lombard, Lauren Howe and Jen Morrow.

Thanks to Joel Russell, Sarah Bankert, Kelly Erwin and Liana Foxvig.

APPENDIX

People Interviewed

Czajkowski, Joe. Czajkowski Farms, Hadley, MA. October 2013

Dutton, Rachel. Sustainability Ofﬁce at UMass, Amherst, MA. October 2013

Rowell, Annie. Program Associate at the Vermont Food Venture Center, Hardwick, VT.

October 2013

Toong, Ken. Director of Dining Services at UMass, Amherst, MA. October 2013

Waite, John. Executive Director of Franklin County Community Development

Corporation, Greenﬁeld, MA. October 2013

Wilcox, Tim and Pam, Caroline. Kitchen Garden Farm, Hadley, MA. October 2013

Literature Cited

Agricultural Economics Committee. Keep Farming® Northampton Producer’s Survey

Report. Rep. N.p.: n.p., 2011. Print.

Dresdale. Northampton Food Security Report. Rep. N.p.: n.p., 2010. Print.

Hodgson, Kimberly. Planning for Food Access and Community-based Food Systems. Rep.

N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Pioneer Planning Commission. Pioneer Valley Food Security Plan. Rep. N.p.: n.p., n.d.

September 2013 Print.

Regional Planning Studio. Food System Toolkit for Hampden And Hampshire Counties. Rep.

N.p.: n.p., Fall 2011. Print.

Sustainable Northampton Steering Committee. Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive

Plan. Rep. N.p.: n.p., 2008. Print.

SEQUOIA CLUB

! 52

Appendix

The following appendix includes detailed reports presenting

the results of each of the four Keep Farming Northampton

surveys. These reports provide an in-depth analysis of the role

of local food and agriculture in Northampton according to

responses submitted by Northampton Farmers, Residents,

Restaurants and Institutions.

KEEP FARMING NORTHAMPTON

Report on Northampton Agriculture

by the

Agricultural Economics Committee

October 5, 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Agriculture is an important element of our productive landscape: according to city property

records, approximately 11% of Northampton land is farmed, and another 7% is in managed

forests. Nearly 45% of the farmland is in the Meadows section of the city, fertile land lying in the

floodplain of the Connecticut River, with the rest of the farmland, and the forestland, scattered

throughout the city. According to property records, which give only a broad sense of how the land

is utilized, field crops (hay, corn, etc.) are the principle products of Northampton farmland.

The Agricultural Economics Committee of Keep Farming Northampton conducted a survey of

Northampton farmers in the winter of 2010–2011 to learn more about the agricultural sector. The

results give us a more detailed look at Northampton farming. While the majority of the farmland

is used for hay, feed corn, and pasture, respondents also grow soybeans, sweet and Indian corn,

vegetables of all kinds, fruit, flowers, and bedding plants. Farmers produce honey, maple syrup

products, eggs, wine, jams and other fruit products, pickles, wool, meat, Christmas trees, and

firewood. In addition to beef cattle, sheep, and poultry, Northampton farmers also raise goats,

llama, rabbits, donkeys, and emu. In addition to more common crops and animals, Smith

Vocational and Agricultural High School, located in Northampton, also raises dairy cattle, pigs,

horses and fish for educational purposes.

Sixty percent of the respondents market at least half of their agricultural output locally. Almost

one third of the respondents sell some or all of their products at farm stands, and one third sell

products at local farmers markets. However, 40% of respondents sold or used most of their output

outside of Northampton.

Three quarters of respondents said they were satisfied with their Northampton farm operations,

and 25% said they were very satisfied. While Northampton farmers have benefited from the “buy

local” movement, agri-tourism, and more local outlets and ways of distributing and marketing

their products, they also reported many problems. These include the rising costs of fuel,

pesticides, fertilizer, farmland, and labor; insurance concerns; pests and diseases; theft,

trespassing and vandalism; and state regulations and local land use laws.

The findings of this survey have led the Agricultural Economics Committee to recommend a

number of potential actions that could strengthen Northampton’s farming sector to benefit the

city’s economic future, including: engaging city leadership to help solve the problems of

vandalism, trespassing, and dumping on farmland; providing education for farmers on succession

planning and permanent preservation of farmland; erecting permanent farmers market

infrastructure; expanding the marketing of farm products to schools, hospitals, businesses and

restaurants; creating regional facilities to process and market locally grown products; creating

regional solutions to supply problems; and matching farmers with available farmland.

Keep Farming Northampton 2

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 2

I. INTRODUCTION: THE KEEP FARMING NORTHAMPTON STUDY

This report summarizes the first research project of the Glynwood Center’s Keep Farming

program in Northampton. The Glynwood Center (www.glynwood.org) is a not-for-profit

organization based in Cold Spring, NY, that specializes in helping communities plan for their

agricultural futures. In the fall of 2010 Glynwood offered to help Northampton engage in a

community-wide assessment and planning effort through its program called “Keep Farming

.”

At a public meeting on September 22, 2010 about 50 members of the community expressed

enthusiastic support for the program. The Northampton Agricultural Commission

(

www.northamptonma.gov/agcomm/) officially endorsed the program, sponsored the present

research, and provided expert guidance to the project.

The Glynwood Keep Farming

program is designed to help communities assess their agricultural

systems by gathering important information, analyzing the results, and engaging in informed

discussions aimed at setting priorities for how to strengthen farming and the local food system.

Here are some of the questions that the program is designed to address:

 How much land do we currently have in farming?

 What do we grow?

 How seasonal is it?

 Where is it sold?

 Who are its consumers?

 Can we do better job of making healthful food available to all of the members of our

community?

 What do we process locally?

 How do we add value to our agricultural products?

 How effective is local agriculture as an economic engine for the community?

 Can local agriculture play a larger role in business and tourism?

 How can we improve our local food infrastructure?

 Can we do better with the management of transportation and waste as components of a local

food system?

 Can local food play an increased role in bringing us together as a mutually supportive

community?

This report begins to address some of these questions – those directly concerned with agricultural

economics. Subsequent research will address additional aspects of the topic.

To lay the groundwork for this project, Glynwood provided materials, training, and ongoing

support free of charge to the Agricultural Commission and the citizen volunteers participating in

the study.

The Agricultural Economics Committee was established in the fall of 2010 (see Appendix A for

membership). The committee worked over the winter with the Agricultural Commission to gather

baseline information, design a questionnaire, and conduct a survey of Northampton farmers. The

first step was to identify existing sources of information. Two sources consulted were the 2007

U.S. Agricultural Census and the City of Northampton property records. While these enabled the

committee to form a broad overview of Northampton farming, they had several limitations. The

information in both sources was dated, the census provided very little information at the city

level, and the property records did not indicate the amount of land that was actually farmed, nor

give more than a broad indication of land use.

Keep Farming Northampton 3

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 3

In order to obtain a more up-to-date picture of agricultural land use in the city, as well as a more

detailed picture of farm operations, the committee created a farmer survey based on the

Glynwood methodology. This survey, as well as a snapshot of information obtained from city

property records, was presented for discussion to a gathering of farmers held at Smith Vocational

and Agricultural High School (SVAHS) on January 27, 2011. The survey was distributed in

January and February 2011 to all farmers identified through property records and conversations

with the Agricultural Commission as currently operating farmland in Northampton – a total of 26,

including SVAHS.

II. THE FINDINGS

There is very little information available from the U.S. Agricultural Census at the city (zip code)

level. According to the 2007 Agricultural Census, there were 29 farmers operating in the

Northampton city limits that year: zip code 01060 = 7 farms; 01061 = 2; 01062 = 14; and 01053

= 6. However, the fact that 2 farms were listed under zip code 01061, which is the city’s post

office box number, raised the question of whether farms were based on the address of the farmer

rather than the physical location of the land. This is an important distinction, since farmers in this

area often reside in one community while farming land in another.

A. United States Agricultural Census

In addition, it was not possible to compile information on farm size and production from the

census data, since these were reported as ranges rather than specific amounts. We also found that

it was not possible to use census data to determine trends in the number of Northampton farms

over recent decades, since the information for some Northampton zip code levels was missing for

some years.

A more useful source of information was the city property records maintained by the Assessor’s

Office, and obtained by the committee through the Planning Office. The 2010 records provide

information on 2009 property ownership. State land use codes (LUC) were used to identify farm

properties, which in Northampton in 2010 included Chapters 61 (managed forest) and 61A

(agricultural/horticultural) properties, and LUC 393 (agricultural lands not included under 61A).

B. Northampton Property Records

According to these records, as summarized in Table B.1, a total of 302 plots were cultivated or in

managed forest in 2009, covering 4,499 acres. This represents 18% of Northampton land,

approximately 11% in farmland (2,624 acres) and 7% in forest (1,875 acres). Some 45% of the

Additional information was obtained on city and state owned land farmed in Northampton.

These are based on the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) publication “Property Type

Classification Codes” (Bureau of Local Assessment, Revised June 2009), which specifies Land Use Codes

for tax assessment purposes. Under Massachusetts General Law (Mass DOR: Taxpayer’s Guide to

Classification and Taxation in Massachusetts), Chapter 61A is a designation for agricultural/horticultural

land that consists of “at least 5 contiguous acres of land under the same ownership.” Chapter 61 is a

designation for woodlots that requires “10 or more contiguous acres of private woodland managed for

forest production under an approved long-term forest management plan.” In each case, the owner must

certify each year that the land is in active use. While this classification results in a lower tax rate, it also

comes with stipulations that the city has first option to purchase if the owner wishes to sell the land or

convert it from agricultural/woodlot use, and imposes a tax penalty if the land is no longer actively farmed.

LUC 393 properties are “agricultural/horticultural lands not included in Chapter 61A,” often properties less

than 5 acres in size, or ones where the owner wishes to avoid the 61A conditions.

Keep Farming Northampton 4

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 4

cultivated land was in the “Meadows,” an area in the Connecticut River floodplain in the

southeast portion of the city. For an historical comparison, in 1902/03 there were 551 farmers in

Northampton cultivating 6,243 acres in crops with an additional 4,142 acres in permanent pasture.

At that time the Meadows, today the most intensively cultivated section of the city, was largely

uncultivated or inefficiently farmed (S. S. Warner, “Agriculture in Northampton,” Daily

Hampshire Gazette, 1902).

Table B.1: Farmed lots and area, 2009, from city records

Type of Lot Number Acreage

Privately owned:

– LUC 61A

– LUC 393

Subtotal

– LUC 61

154

104

294

2,056

361

3,919

1,502

Leased from city 5 42

SVAHS 3 538

TOTAL 302 4,499

In 2009, a total of 258 plots were listed as LUC 61A or 393, covering 2,417 acres. These plots

were owned by 92 landowners, 52 of whom had Northampton mailing addresses, while 33

resided in neighboring towns, and 7 lived out of state. The number of parcels per owner ranged

from 1 (over half the owners) to 31. The average quantity of farmland owned by individual

owners was 26.3 acres (a range of 1 to 345 acres, with over half owning 9 acres or less). The 7

out-of-state owners own a total of 55 acres (ranging from 1 to 24 acres each). There were 4

owners of farms larger than 100 acres (150–345 acres), comprising over 40% of all

Northampton’s farmland. One of these owners is located in Northampton and 3 are in nearby

towns where they own and farm additional acres.

Harvesting of trees occurs on 1,502 acres in Northampton, as indicated by assessor’s records of

36 parcels of land filed as Chapter 61(forestry), owned by 23 owners (14–229 acres each). There

are 3 out-of-state owners of forestry land (owning 13–60 acres), and 3 owners who live in

neighboring towns.

An important observation that emerges from these data is the fragmentation of farmland in the

city, which raises costs and lowers efficiency for Northampton farmers. Although 258 assessor’s

plots were registered as farmland, the committee identified only 26 farmers active in the city in

2009. Thus many farmers operate multiple plots, some of which are contiguous and some not.

The average plot size for LUC 61A properties was 13.4 acres, and for LUC 393 properties, 3.6

acres. A second significant finding is that much active Northampton farmland is leased, some

from absentee owners, creating a considerable degree of uncertainty about future availability of

farmland.

City- and state-owned land is also being farmed in Northampton. In 2009 the city leased 42 acres,

in 5 plots, for private agricultural use. In addition, Smith Vocational and Agricultural High

School runs one of the largest agricultural operations in the city as part of its educational

program. SVAHS operated 3 plots of land in 2009 totaling 538 acres, some of which is part of

school property, but the majority of which was leased from the state. Of the 538 acres, 187 were

in managed forest and 165 were actively farmed.

Property records give us only a general picture of today’s land use. Unfortunately, the LUC 393

properties do not specify the type of agricultural use. The 61A usage categories are very broad

and give only one category per property. If the land is used in multiple ways, only the principle

Keep Farming Northampton 5

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 5

use is reported. Bearing in mind these limitations, the following Land Use table gives the totals

from the LUC 61 and 61A property records, and the reported SVAHS usage. Forestry accounted

for almost of half of the reported land use. For land being farmed, these data suggest that field

crops (hay, corn, etc.) were far and away the principle use, in terms of both lots and acreage. Data

from the farmer surveys, discussed below, corroborate this conclusion. This is one aspect of

Northampton agriculture that has not changed since the early 1900s, when some 72% of

cultivated acreage was in hay (S. S. Warner, “Agriculture in Northampton,” Daily Hampshire

Gazette, 1902). The numbers in Table B.2 should be considered as indicative only, however, and

may be inaccurate: local farmers are quite certain, for example, that despite the 75 acres reported

in tobacco, no tobacco has been farmed in Northampton for many years.

Table B.2: Land Use: 61, 61A, SVAHS

Agricultural Use Number of Lots Total Acreage

Tobacco (61A: 711) 8 75

Truck Crops (61A: 712) 35 367

Field Crops (61A: 713) 113 1649

Orchards (61A: 714) 1 1

Pasture (61A: 718) 5 64

Forestry (CH61) & Woodlands (61A: 717) 41 1965

Nursery (61A: 719) 1 1

Through discussion with members of the Agricultural Commission we identified 26 farmers

actively farming in Northampton, including SVAHS. We distributed surveys to these 26 farmers

and received 20 responses, for a response rate of 77%. The survey is presented in Appendix B:

Northampton Farm Survey. The survey results provide useful information that is summarized

below. Given the special mission of SVAHS, we separate out the numbers for their operation

where appropriate. It is important to remember that care must be taken not to over-generalize

from these results, given that not all farm operations are included. Often, useful information

comes in the form of trends and relationships rather than absolute numbers. It should also be

noted that almost none of the respondents answered all of the questions on the survey, so

individual questions have different numbers of respondents. Results for each question are based

on the number of respondents for that question.

C. Farmer Surveys

Question 1 collected basic farmer information, from which we see that the respondents are a

diverse group. As Question 1a indicates, some families began farming in Northampton fairly

recently, while others have farmed here for over a century, including SVAHS. Eleven of the

respondents indicated they were full-time farmers, while seven farm part-time (Question 1f).

Farmer Profile

Question 1a: Years farming in Northampton

Years # of farmers

<25 3

25–50 5

50–100 5

>100 4

Keep Farming Northampton 6

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 6

Questions 1b–1d give us a picture of respondents’ access to farmland in Northampton. Thirteen

respondents cultivated only Northampton land, while the other five had 20–50% of their farmland

outside the city. The amount of Northampton land per farm (Question 1c below) ranged from 1

to 500 acres (165 for SVAHS), and the amount of Northampton cultivated forest from 40 to 187

acres (SVAHS).

The managed forest operated by the respondents is only a fraction of the Chapter 61 total because

we did not seek out for the survey those whose only agricultural operations were productive

forestland. The total of 1,827 acres cultivated by the respondents represents approximately 70%

of the city’s 2,624 acres reported as cultivated in property records or as public leased land. This is

fairly consistent with our survey response rate of 77%.

Question 1c: Acres farmed in Northampton

Acreage: cultivated land # of farmers Acreage: forest # of farmers

1–11 6 40–55 2

15–35 5 187 1

50–90 3

100–500 6

Total Cultivated Acreage: 1,827 Total Forest Acreage: 282

Overall, the respondents owned 66% of the land they farmed in Northampton: 1,388 acres out of

2,109 acres. Eight owned all their Northampton farmland, while nine leased some or all of their

land. Of these, four rented Northampton farmland from one owner, four rented from 3 or 4

owners, and one rented from 7 owners (Question 1e). This contributes to the pattern of land

fragmentation noted in the previous section.

Question 1d: Acres owned in Northampton

Acreage # of farmers

0–11 7

20–30 4

60–90 5

100–300 4

Total acreage 1,388

Questions 2 through 5 collected information on recent farm products and practices and give us a

more detailed picture of Northampton agriculture than was possible with the property records. We

can see from the answers given by 17 respondents to Question 2 that the bulk of their cultivated

land was used for potatoes, feed corn, hay, and soybeans. These farmers also cultivated a wide

range of other crops including fruits and vegetables, herbs and flowers, and Christmas trees, as

well as maintaining pastures and managed woodland. They produced many processed goods

(Question 3 below) and raised a wide variety of farm animals (Question 4 below).

Farm products and practices

Keep Farming Northampton 7

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 7

Question 2: Use of Northampton Farmland in past three years

Farmland use Produced in past 3 years

(Northampton acreage)

Stopped

Producing

(# farmers)

Would like to

add or increase

(# farmers)

Potatoes 575

Feed corn 514 1

Hay 343 (SVAHS=100) 1

Soybeans 103

Pasture 80 1/2 (SVAHS=55) 1

Sweet corn 30

Indian corn Unspecified acreage

Grain (wheat/rye/etc.) 1

Pumpkins/gourds 5 1/2 (SVAHS–5) 1

Other vegetables 11 1/2 + unspecified acreage 1

Orchards (apples/pears/etc.)

3 1/2 (SVAHS=1) 1

Other fruit

(berries/grapes/etc.)

1/4

Herbs 1/4

Flowers 4

Bedding/nursery plants 3/4 (SVAHS=1/2)

Christmas trees 2 1/4 (SVAHS=2)

Forest 282 (SVAHS=187)

Question 3: Northampton Processed Farm Products (ranked by number of farmers)

Farm product Produced in

past three

years

Stopped

producing

Would like to

produce

Firewood 4 1

Fruit or vegetable products (jam, cider, pickles, etc.) 2

Maple syrup/products 2

Eggs 2

Meat 2

Wool or fiber 2

Honey 1

Wine 1

Flour or baked goods 0

Milk or other dairy (cheese, yogurt, etc.) 0

Keep Farming Northampton 8

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 8

Question 4: Northampton Farm Animals

Animals Have now

(# of animals)

Stopped having

(# of farms)

Would like to have

(# of farms)

Poultry/fowl 70 1

Sheep 57 (SVAHS=12) 1 1

Beef cattle 27 (SVAHS=11) 1 1

Dairy cattle 15 (all SVAHS)

Llama or alpaca 23 1

Goats 14 (SVAHS=9)

Swine 6 (all SVAHS) 1

Horses: boarding 6 (SVAHS) 1

Horses: breeding 1 (SVAHS)

Donkeys 1 1

Fish 11 (SVAHS)

Oxen 0 1

Other 2 rabbits, 2 emus

We can see from Question 5 that the respondents used many practices to care for the soil (crop

rotation, winter cover crops, low-till/no-till, organic methods). Almost one third used greenhouses

to extend the growing season. Forty percent used either organic or integrated pest management

systems to control pests. Only three farmers used irrigation, although two others would like to.

Question 5: Northampton Farm Practices (ranked by # farmers using)

Practices Used past 3 years Stopped using Would like to use

Winter cover crops 11

Crop rotation 11 1 1

Greenhouse to extend season 6 1

Low-till/no-till 5

IPM 5

Organic 3

Irrigation 3 1 2

No farmers gave any additional information about their farm (

Question 6).

The survey respondents found a variety of outlets for their products (Question 7). Just under one

third sold some or all of their products at their farm stand, at farmers markets, or to other farmers

(the latter selling mainly hay and feed corn). The responses indicate a wide diversity of outlets for

farm products in the area, although several farmers expressed a desire for additional ones.

Disposition of Products

Keep Farming Northampton 9

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 9

Question 7: Methods used for selling/distributing Northampton farm products

(ranked by number of farmers using)

Sales practice Currently use Stopped using Would like to use

Farm stand/store 6

Farmers market 6 1

Direct sales to other farmers/stables 5

Sales to grain mills/processors/

slaughterhouses

Not sold, used as farm inputs 3

Direct sales to retail stores 3 1 1

Sales to wholesalers/distributors 3

Direct sales to schools & institutions 2

Cooperative auction 2

Pick-your-own 1 1

Direct sales to restaurants/caterers 1 2

CSA 1 1

Internet sales 1

Other (direct to consumer, used for B&B,

consumed by farmer)

Most of the respondents sold or used some or all of their products outside of Northampton

(Question 8). Only three reported that all their outlets were in Northampton, while four had no

outlets in the city. These four, however, accounted for two-thirds of Northampton land farmed by

the respondents. These responses suggest considerable scope for increasing local distribution.

Question 8: Percent of farm products sold/used in Northampton

Percent of use/sales

in Northampton

Number

of farmers

Acres farmed

In Northampton

0 4 1187

20–30 4 190

50–75 4 339

80–100 6 111

Reported sales revenue from Northampton farm operations are generally low (Question 9), in

keeping with the finding that 40% of the respondents are part-time farmers and that, for many

respondents, Northampton is just part of their overall operation,). Eight of sixteen respondents

indicated that their sales in 2009 were below $20,000, and two others reported between $20,000

and $50,000 in sales. Four respondents reported sales in the $50,000 to $100,000 range and two

above $100,000. While these latter numbers may seem high, it is important to note that they are

gross sales figures and do not take account of farm expenses.

Two farmers responded to Question 10, “Are you thinking of adding non-farming activities?”

One reported offering a workshop series, and the other is considering a trucking operation.

Keep Farming Northampton 10

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 10

Of the eighteen respondents who indicated any farm problems (Question 11), the most

frequently cited problem was the cost of fuel. As the answers to this question demonstrate,

farmers face a variety of challenges; a number related to cost/availability of farm inputs, others

related to depredations from pests, predators, and trespassers. The problem of trespassing (and

dumping) is particularly acute for farmers in the Meadows). Farmers also cited difficulties related

to state and local regulations and taxes. Some of the problems in the list below might be

addressed at the local or regional level.

Issues affecting farm businesses

Question 11: Problems affecting your farm

Number Citing Problem

11 Cost of fuel

7 Availability/cost of pesticides/fertilizer

State regulations/restrictions

Theft, trespassing, or vandalism

6 Insurance concerns

5 Availability/cost of farmland

Availability of machinery/parts

4 Availability/cost of qualified seasonal help

Local land use laws

Marketing/distributing products

Plant/animal pests/diseases/predators

3 Property taxes

Availability of processing facilities

2 Complying with labor laws

Storing products

Availability of water

1 Availability/cost of qualified full-time help

Availability of technical assistance

Complaints from neighbors

Availability of veterinary services

Wildlife

Time

Manure disposal

At the same time, a number of factors have had a positive impact on these farmers (

Question

), the most important being the Buy Local movement, along with an increased interest in food

safety, freshness, and agri-tourism. A number of farmers also cited more ways of

distributing/marketing their products, as well as more local outlets, increased interest in organic

products, and local land use laws:

Keep Farming Northampton 11

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 11

Question 12: Factors having a positive impact on your farm

Number Citing Factor

8 “Buy local" movement

Increased interest in food safety/freshness

6 Increased interest in agri-tourism

5 Increased awareness of farming and farming issues

More ways of distributing products

4 More local outlets for products

More ways of marketing products

3 Increased interest in organic products

Local land use laws

2 More ways of storing products

Availability of qualified seasonal help

State or federal farm programs

1 Availability of farmland

Availability of technical assistance

New methods to control pests/diseases

Wine sales allowed at farmers market

Attraction of local creative economy

Of the 16 farmers who responded to a question about satisfaction with their Northampton

operation (

Question 13), four said they were very satisfied and the rest indicated they were

satisfied. None said they were dissatisfied.

Question 14:

Farmers responded to this open-ended question asking “What would make it easier

for you to continue your Northampton agricultural operations, or make it grow, in the future?”

with a variety of answers:

— Better public transportation

— Change conservation restrictions to allow farm-related infrastructure and electric

fences on city conservation land

— Access to more affordable land

— Conservation commission more favorable to farming

— Less regulation

— Central distribution area for farms

— Own the land

— Possibility of 61A tax designation for plots under 5 acres

— Lower costs/higher farm income/lower risk

Farmers were also asked about any strategies they felt “the community should pursue to help

keep farming viable in Northampton” (Question 15). Respondents made the following

suggestions, most of which could be implemented at the local level:

Keep Farming Northampton 12

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 12

— Reduce regulatory overhead

— Place farmers with available land to keep it as viable farmland

— Advertising fallow city land for lease/rent for farming

— Change Conservation Restrictions to allow farming-related activities by right

— Adopt local zoning changes to allow more backyard farming (i.e. hens, community

root cellar, greenhouses)

— Host workshops on food production, including cooking, storage and preservation

— Increased infrastructure to make small operations viable in the Meadows

— Support local farmers even if it costs more per item

— More CPA grants for farmers instead of housing

— Smith Voc students helping plant and maintain trees (fruit, maple etc.)

on small farms

— More local campaigns: grown in Northampton by owner

— More of a tax break for farmers

— Free health care for full-time farmers

Question 16 asked farmers if they were interested in a variety of educational or service

options; the largest number expressed interest in a farmer discussion session and in learning

about farmland preservation:

Number

Expressing Interest

Option

Attending a session for farmers to voice their issues and concerns

Learning more about the possible options for preserving farmland

(i.e. Transfer of Development Rights, Conservation Easements,

Tax Abatement Programs etc.)

Learning more about succession planning

Learning more about the Northampton APR program for floodplain land

Serving on the Agriculture Commission

Twenty farms responded to Question 17 on farm labor. These farms employed 49 full-time

family members, 24 part-time family members, 20 full-time hired workers, and 46 part-time hired

workers. Family members working on the farms ranged in age from under 20 to over 60 years

old:

Farm Resources/Inputs

Question 17: Number and age of family farm workers

Age of family members working on Northampton

Farms

Number of workers

≤ 20 years old 3

20–40 25

40–60 29

over 60 16

Keep Farming Northampton 13

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 13

There was a wide range of spending on supplies for Northampton operations (Question 18a),

with 60% spending less than $25,000:

Question 18a: Amount spent on supplies for Northampton farm operation (fertilizer, parts

& equipment, seeds, feed, plant & live stock, vet supplies, computers, fencing).

Amount spent Number of farms

$10,000 4

10,000–25,000 4

35,000–60,000 4

80,000–100,000+ 2

Question 18b: Of the fourteen farmers who responded, eight purchased no supplies in

Northampton, five purchased some, and only one purchased all.

In response to Question 19a, most spent little on services, with twelve spending between

$0 and $5,000:

Question 19a: Amount spent on services for Northampton farm operation (vets, farrier,

insurance, slaughter, repair, and maintenance)

Amount spent Number of farms

0–<$1,000 6

1,000–5,000 6

15,000–25,000 2

100,000 1

Of those who purchased services, five purchased from 50 to 100% in the city, while seven

purchased under 25% or none in Northampton, as shown in the following table:

Question 19b: Percent of service dollars spent in Northampton

Purchased in Northampton (% of spending) Number of farms

0 3

10–25% 4

50–70% 3

100% 2

There are clearly service and supply dollars leaving the city, especially the latter. Responses to

Question 20, asking about recent changes in where farmers purchased these supplies and

services, suggest that this loss has been increasing:

— Fewer options, more distance

— Fewer supplies, fewer services

Keep Farming Northampton 14

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 14

— Feed store moved from Haydenville to Williamsburg

— Suppliers not available in Northampton

— Have to travel further

— Fewer farm machinery dealers with experienced staff

— Buy more parts online

This general theme, of decreasing availability/knowledge of local suppliers, was echoed in the

responses to Question 21, “What one thing causes the most problems for you when you need to

purchase supplies or obtain services?”; the other factor mentioned was high cost:

— People not knowing what they are doing

— (Having to go) out of area

— Availability

— Not many local services

— Lack of local stores

— Distance

— Suppliers don’t stock products, need to be ordered

— Travel to obtain supplies and services

— Finding qualified personnel to work on complicated farm machinery

— We pay high prices for shipping because we often need small quantities

— Cost/price

— Lack of capital

III. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION

 Develop local initiatives to support local food purchases:

The diversity of outlets for their products has been an important element in the ongoing success

of Northampton farmers, as can be seen in the responses to Questions 7 and 12. The work of

Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) and its “Local Hero” initiative has

undoubtedly been helpful for some local farmers. Nevertheless, survey responses indicate that

only a few farmers took advantage of sales to restaurants, caterers, schools and institutions, and

wholesale distributors. A next step of the Keep Farming initiative will be to gather information

about where these local outlets obtain agricultural products and whether local products might be

used more widely. The Agricultural Commission might also work with organizations such as

CISA and Grow Food Northampton to explore possible additional strategies for marketing local

agricultural products.

On a positive note, farm stands, which have long been an important means of selling local

products, have benefitted greatly from the recent “buy-local” and “food safety” movements.

Farmers’ markets have expanded rapidly in the area, and one third of the respondents participate

in them. One possible local initiative could be to follow the lead of cities like Ithaca or

Brattleboro in setting up a permanent structure for farmers markets, which makes setting up and

breaking down market stalls each week much less strenuous and time-consuming for farmers and

vendors.

 Promote regional initiatives to support local inputs suppliers and food

marketing:

Keep Farming Northampton 15

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 15

The decreased availability of farm supplies and services has been a significant problem for local

farmers (Questions 21–22), costing them time and money on shipping. Although respondents

spent more than $450,000 in 2009 on farm supplies, less than 6.5% was spent in Northampton.

Given that there are economies of scale in the provision of inputs, the shrinking of suppliers can

be seen as a regional factors for which broader Pioneer Valley efforts to support local inputs

suppliers could be useful. There may be opportunities to encourage regional suppliers to locate in

Northampton.

Given that there are similar economies of scale considerations on the marketing end, expansion of

Valley processing and distribution centers might be a venture of considerable benefit to local

growers. Again, CISA could be a helpful partner in identifying such regional possibilities.

 Create a regional Agricultural Commission

Given that farmers throughout the Pioneer Valley often lease land in several communities, and

that there are economies of scale in addressing supply, marketing, and distribution concerns, it

might be helpful to create a regional Agricultural Commission for Hampshire County or the

Pioneer Valley. Such an agency could work with regional organizations such as CISA or the

UMass Extension Service, as well as with the city Agricultural Commissions, to promote region-

wide initiatives.

 Identify and protect vulnerable farmland:

One quarter of the respondents indicated that the cost/availability of farmland was a problem for

them. Over half of those who responded lease at least some of their farmland. City property

records show that, while more than half the declared agricultural acreage is owned by 7 owners,

the remainder of the farmland is divided among 85 owners, the majority with fewer than 10 acres

each. Given that there are only 26 farmers operating these lands, it is clear that most of these

landowners lease out some or all of their land. This situation has contributed to farmland

fragmentation, which results in higher costs and lower efficiency for farmers. The physical

disconnect between landowners and their property contributes to the uncertainty associated with

the future availability of farmland in Northampton. The Agricultural Commission may want to

work on identifying vulnerable parcels of land. It was encouraging that approximately one third

of the survey respondents were interested in learning more about preserving their farmland. This

offers an opportunity to follow up with suitable educational workshops that could ultimately

result in protecting more of Northampton’s farmland from development pressures.

 Address theft and vandalism, land use, and conservation issues through

improved city policies and laws:

The city can support farmers through modifying local policies and laws such as those that

address theft and vandalism, land use, and conservation. The vandalism that farmers

experience, especially in the Meadows area, demands that local leadership (Mayor, City

Council, Police Department) work with farmers to give them the security they need. There

are some other concerns that can be addressed through the zoning process, such as allowing

fencing, if needed, on conservation land, and adopting local zoning to allow more backyard

farming (the keeping of chickens, etc.). The city’s Agricultural Commission may want to

work with the ordinance committee on some of these changes.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Despite the “urbanization” of Northampton over the past century, agriculture has remained an

important element of city life. The results of this survey yield salient information that may be of

Keep Farming Northampton 16

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 16

use to the City of Northampton and its residents in assuring the continued vitality of our farm

sector.

The strength of Northampton farming can be seen in the diversity of farm products and outlets, as

well as in the longevity of family farm operations. Although field crops continue to be important,

respondents also produce an expanding variety of farm products, from fruits and vegetables,

flowers, and bedding plants to processed products of many types. Farmers raise a variety of

animals in Northampton, from fowl to sheep, cattle, and llamas. It is important to note that Smith

Vocational and Agricultural High School owns a large share of the animals in the city (about 20%

of the sheep, almost 50% of the beef cattle, more than 50% of the goats, and 100% of the dairy

cattle, horses, swine, and fish). Nevertheless, 20% of the survey participants aspire to raise more

farm animals on their property.

Farmers of all ages have chosen to carry out their work in Northampton. Many of them have deep

roots in the area. Over half of the farm families in our survey have been farming in Northampton

for over 50 years – some for over 100 years – and another quarter for 25–50 years. Over 60% of

the respondents identify themselves as full-time farmers. However, reported gross sales figures

suggest that very few of the respondents could live on the income from their Northampton

operations. As is true of the vast majority of American farm households today, many make ends

meet through non-farm income-earning activities. Many Northampton operators also cultivate

land in neighboring communities, which means we must consider their successes and difficulties

from a regional rather than purely local perspective.

The responses suggest a variety of city initiatives that could help Northampton farmers. While

many of the farmers’ concerns are out of our control (e.g. fuel costs, health insurance, pests, etc.),

the survey responses point to a number of efforts that can strengthen local farming. Areas for

improvement include surveillance to discourage dumping, trespassing and theft; infrastructure to

facilitate processing, marketing and distributing farm products; expanded local and regional

markets for farm products and supplies; a service to match prospective farmers with available

farmland; and allowing more farming on conservation land. Individuals can also support

Northampton farmers by facilitating, promoting, and attending collaborative meetings that

generate dialogue in the form of workshops, local campaigns, and educational initiatives on

farmland preservation. Farmers themselves expressed strong interest in further opportunities to

meet together to discuss common problems and opportunities. The fact that the Agricultural

Commission has sponsored this initial effort to gather information and that numerous local

farmers have actively participated, provides reason to be optimistic that communication and

collaboration between citizens, farmers, and the municipality can be continued and expanded in

future years to the benefit of all.

Respectfully submitted,

The Agricultural Economics Committee of Keep Farming Northampton

Nola Reinhardt, Chair

Adele Franks

Deb Jacobs

Fran Volkmann

Betsey Wolfson

Andrea Burns, Glynwood representative

Jen Morrow, Grow Food Northampton Intern

Keep Farming Northampton 17

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 17

Lauren Howe, Grow Food Northampton Intern

Keep Farming Northampton 18

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 18

APPENDIX A: KEEP FARMING NORTHAMPTON

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Nola Reinhardt, Chair

Adele Franks

Deb Jacobs

Carmel Kelley

Marcie Stock

Fran Volkmann

Betsey Wolfson

Rich Jaescke, Agricultural Commission liaison

Andrea Burns, Glynwood representative

Jen Morrow, Grow Food Northampton Intern

Lauren Howe, Grow Food Northampton Intern

Keep Farming Northampton 19

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 19

APPENDIX B: NORTHAMPTON AGRICULTURAL COMMISSION/KFN

SURVEY OF NORTHAMPTON FARMERS

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. The information you provide will help us as

we look for ways to help farms thrive in our city. We are asking for this information to get an

accurate profile of the importance of farming in Northampton, and to get a better understanding

of what you think the community can do to help support agricultural operations.

The information we collect will not ever be connected to your name or farm. The information

from many farmers will be combined and presented in general graphs and charts. You may

choose not to answer any individual questions but we hope you will see how valuable it is to the

success of our efforts to have accurate information from a wide range of farmers. All participants

will receive a copy of the final report.

SECTION ONE: BASIC INFORMATION

1. Basic Farmer Information

a. How many years have you and your family been farming in Northampton?

b. What percent of the land you farm is in Northampton (approximately)?

c. How many acres do you farm in Northampton?

d. Of these, how many acres do you own?

e. If you rent, from how many owners?

f. Do you farm: __ Full-time __ Part-time __ Other (please describe)

2. Use of Northampton Farmland in past three years: indicate all that apply

Farmland use

Produced in past 3 years

(give Northampton acreage)

Stopped

producing

Would like

to add

Hay

Feed corn

Soybeans

Pasture

Sweet corn

Indian corn

Grain (wheat/rye/etc)

Potatoes

Pumpkins/gourds

Beans/legumes

Other vegetables

Orchards (apples/pears/etc)

Other fruit (berries/grapes/etc)

Herbs

Flowers

Bedding/nursery plants

Christmas trees

Forest

Other

Keep Farming Northampton 20

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 20

3. Northampton Processed Farm Products: indicate all that apply

Farm product

Produced in

past three years

Stopped

producing

Would like to

produce

Fruit or vegetable products (jam,

cider, pickles, etc)

Flour or baked goods

Honey

Maple syrup/products

Eggs

Milk

Other dairy (cheese, yogurt, etc)

Wine

Meat

Wool or fiber

Firewood

Other

4. Northampton Farm Animals: indicate all that apply

Animals

Have now (give #)

Stopped having

Would like to have

Dairy cattle

Beef cattle

Swine

Sheep

Goats

Llama or alpaca

Oxen

Donkeys

Poultry/fowl

Horses: breeding

Horses: boarding

Fish

Other

Keep Farming Northampton 21

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 21

5. Northampton Farm Practices; check all that apply

Practices

Used past 3 years

Stopped using

Would like to use

Crop rotation

Winter cover crops

Greenhouse to extend season

Low-till/no-till

IPM

Organic

Irrigation

Additional information/comments about the farm

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

SECTION TWO: SALES AND DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS

7. What methods do you use for selling and distributing your Northampton farm products?

Check all that apply. Give approximate percentage of sales for current use.

Sales practice

Currently use (give %

of current product

sales)

Stopped

using

Would like

to use

Farm stand/store

Pick-your-own

Farmers market

Direct sales to retail stores

Direct sales to restaurants/caterers

Direct sales to schools &

institutions

Direct sales to other farmers/stables

Internet sales

Sales to grain mills/processors/

slaughterhouses

Sales to wholesalers/distributors

CSA

Cooperative auction

Not sold, used as farm inputs

Other

Keep Farming Northampton 22

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 22

8. What percent of your Northampton farm products do you sell/use in Northampton?

Would you like to sell more of your products in Northampton? If so, what

could make that easier?

9. Please check a range of sales in 2009 from your Northampton farmland:

_ Under $20,000 _ $20,000-49,999 _ $50,000-100,000 _ Over $100,000

10. Are you thinking of adding non-farming activities? If so, what are you considering?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

SECTION THREE: ISSUES AFFECTING YOUR BUSINESS

11. Do the following issues present problems for you? Please check all that apply on the

LEFT. Then on the RIGHT rank order the top 5 problems, with #1 being the issue that

presents the most problems.

This Issue is a Problem for Me:

Rank-Ordered Top 5 Problems

__ Availability/cost of qualified full-time help

__ Availability/cost of qualified seasonal help

__ Availability/cost of farmland

__ Complying with labor laws

__ Availability of housing for farm workers

__ State regulations/restrictions

__ Local land use laws

__ Availability of technical assistance

__ Theft, trespassing, or vandalism

__ Property taxes

__ Availability of machinery/parts

__ Complaints from neighbors

__ Availability of veterinary services

__ Availability of processing facilities

__ Marketing/distributing your products

__ Storing your products

__ Insurance concerns

__ Availability/cost of pesticides/fertilizer

__ Plant/animal pests/diseases

__ Availability of water

__ Wildlife

__ Manure availability

__ Manure disposal

__ Cost of fuel

__ Other (please specify) .................................................................................................................

Keep Farming Northampton 23

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 23

12. Which of the following have recently had a positive impact on your farm? Check all

that apply on the LEFT and then rank order the top 5 on the RIGHT ( #1 being the most

positive factor)

This has recently benefited my farm:

Rank-Ordered Top 5 Most

Beneficial

__ More local outlets for your products

__ More ways of marketing your products

__ “Buy local" movement/increased interest in food safety/freshness

__ Increased interest in organic products

__ More ways of distributing your products

__ More ways of storing your products

__ Increased interest in agri-tourism

__ Increased awareness of farming and farming issues

__ Local land use laws

__ Availability of qualified full-time help

__ Availability of qualified seasonal help

__ Availability of housing for farm workers

__ State or federal farm programs (please specify)

__ Local land use laws (please specify)

__ Availability of farmland

__ Availability of technical assistance

__ Availability of machinery/parts

__ Availability of veterinary services

__ New methods to control pests/diseases

__ Other (please specify) ................................................................................................................

13. Overall, how satisfied are you with your Northampton farm operation?

__ very satisfied __satisfied __dissatisfied

14. What would make it easier for you to continue your Northampton agricultural

operation, or make it grow, in the future?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………

15. Please list any strategies that you feel the community should pursue to help keep

farming viable in Northampton.

……………………………………………………………………………………………...

.…………………………………………………………………………………………………

16. Are you interested in any of the following (check any that apply):

__ Learning more about succession planning

__ Learning more about the possible options for preserving your farmland (i.e. Transfer of

Development Rights, Conservation Easements, Tax Abatement Programs etc.)

__ Learning more about the Northampton APR program for floodplain land

__ Attending a session for farmers to voice their issues and concerns

__ Serving on the Agriculture Commission

__ Other ……………………………………………………………………………………

Keep Farming Northampton 24

Keep Farming Northampton – Agricultural Economics Committee Report – 24

SECTION FOUR: FARM RESOURCES/INPUTS

17. Farm labor

a. In 2009, how many family members worked on your Northampton farm full-time?

Part- time?

Of these, how many are in each of the following age ranges:

under 20 20-40 40-60 60+

b. How many other full-time workers worked on your Northampton farm?

c. How many other part-time or seasonal workers worked on your Northampton farm?

18. Farm supplies

a. In 2009, approximately how much did you spend on supplies for your Northampton farm

operation (including things like fertilizer, equipment and parts, seeds, feed, plant stock, live

stock, vet supplies, computers, and fencing)?

b. Of the amount spent in 2009 on supplies, approximately how much was purchased in

Northampton?

19. Farm services

a. In 2009, approximately how much did you spend on services for your Northampton farm

operation (including things like vets, farrier, insurance, slaughter, repair and maintenance)?

b. Of the amount spent in 2009 on services, approximately how much was purchased in

Northampton?

20. What changes, if any, have there been in where you purchase supplies or obtain services

in the past few years?

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

21. What one thing causes the most problems for you when you need to purchase supplies

or obtain services for your farming operation?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Do you have any other comments or suggestions?

THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS SURVEY

OCTOBER 25, 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Keep Farming Northampton, a volunteer group sponsored by the Northampton Agricultural

Commission, used the methodology of the Glynwood Keep Farming® program to survey

558 Northampton residents regarding their food consumption preferences and attitudes.

Surveys were conducted both in person and on line, sampling residents in a variety of

locations with the goal of approaching a representative sample of the Northampton

population. Comparison of the survey population with the city’s demographic composition

allowed evaluation of instances where the two populations were similar and where they were

different. These are summarized in the Discussion section of this report.

Results strongly support the conclusion that Northampton residents are committed to local

food and to the preservation of farms and the rural community. The work of our local

farmers over hundreds of years of farmland husbandry and the recent work of groups such as

Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) and Grow Food Northampton (GFN)

has clearly had an enormous impact on the attitudes of residents towards fresh local food and

the importance of agriculture to the character of our city.

A majority of respondents (68%) reported buying locally grown food every week. Reasons

given for purchasing local food included supporting local farms and farming, as well as

believing that local food is fresher and healthier.

Northampton residents shop at a variety of food outlets, including large supermarkets, small

grocers, food co-ops, natural food stores, farmers’ markets, farm stands, and farms offering

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) shares. The most frequently cited locations where

people buy local food are farmers’ markets, food co-ops and farm stands. Smaller numbers

get it at small grocers and supermarkets. Because 75% of respondents report shopping at

large supermarkets, one way to increase local food purchasing would be through marketing

more local food to large supermarkets. About a quarter of respondents get local food from

their own gardens or from the gardens of friends and relatives.

Respondents buy a wide variety of local foods and are interested in buying more of just about

everything, including meats, fruits, and grain and grain products. For farmers to increase

production of locally raised meat and grain, regulatory support as well as infrastructure

development will be required.

While a large majority of respondents prepare and eat most of their meals at home, and

report almost never eating at fast-food establishments, over two-thirds eat at a local

restaurant once a week or more. Moreover, over 88% of those surveyed indicated that it is

‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ important that local restaurants serve local food.

KEEP FARMING NORTHAMPTON

NORTHAMPTON RESIDENTS FOOD SURVEY REPORT

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!8!

Analysis of the survey data in terms of age, education, gender, and income yielded a picture

of who shops at farmers’ markets, who participates in CSA shares, and an array of other

results that suggest ways of marketing local foods to particular populations. For example,

least interest in local food, and most fast food consumption, were each associated with lowest

levels of education, suggesting opportunities for outreach, perhaps in the early school years.

For additional information regarding this project, or to request an e-copy of this report,

please contact Fran Volkmann: franv@comcast.net.

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!9!

CONTENTS

Topic Page

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 04

Methods…. .................................................................................................................. 04

Results……. ................................................................................................................. 05

Where do Northampton residents shop for food?...... ............................................ 05

Reasons for choice of shopping venue.. ................................................................ 07

Food spending. ....................................................................................................... 08

Importance of local food… .................................................................................... 08

What Northampton residents buy and want to buy. ......................................... 10

Where Northampton residents buy local food….. ........................................... 11

Attitudes about local food…………… .................................................................. 12

The value of buying local. ............................................................................... 12

Who shops at farmers’ markets?. ........................................................................... 13

Who participates in CSAs?. ................................................................................... 14

Who gets food from home gardens?.. .................................................................... 15

Eating at home/Eating out. ..................................................................................... 16

Northampton restaurants should serve local food. ........................................... 18

Discussion… ................................................................................................................ 19

Conclusions.. ................................................................................................................ 22

Appendices ................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix I: Contributors to Project. ..................................................................... 23

Appendix II: Methodological Details: Population sample; Data treatment. ........ 25

Appendix III: Summary of municipal Wards’ residents. ...................................... 27

Appendix IV: Keep Farming Northampton Residents Survey ............................. 29

In English… ..................................................................................................... 29

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!In Spanish…………………………………………………………………….41

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!:!

INTRODUCTION

This survey is part of a larger project designed to provide a detailed picture of food in

Northampton: where it is grown, how it is distributed, what is sold in restaurants and served

in institutions, and what is bought and eaten by Northampton residents. The survey is

sponsored by the Northampton Agricultural Commission and uses the methodology of the

Glynwood Center’s Keep Farming Program® www.Glynwood.org.

The Glynwood Center is a not-for-profit organization based in Cold Spring, NY, that helps

communities plan for their agricultural futures. In the fall of 2010, Glynwood offered to help

Northampton engage in a community-wide assessment and planning effort through its Keep

Farming® Program. The idea was enthusiastically endorsed at a public meeting on

September 22, 2010, and the Northampton Agricultural Commission signed on to serve as

local sponsor and to provide expert guidance to the project.

Keep Farming Northampton engages a group of citizen volunteers to assess several aspects

of our local food system. Many people and organizations have given their time, expertise,

financial support, and resources in support of the project. They are listed and acknowledged

in Appendix I.

A previous survey, Report on Northampton Agriculture, completed in the fall of 2011,

provided a detailed look at Northampton farming: who are Northampton’s farmers, what they

grow, where they market their products, and what are their needs and interests. This report is

available on the city website: www.northamptonma.gov/agcomm (click on Files and

Reports). The present survey of Northampton Residents is the second survey in the larger

project. Future surveys will include Northampton restaurants, food distributors, schools, and

institutions.

The surveys, along with information from other sources, are designed to provide the bases

for wide-ranging public and municipal conversations about how our community might build

a better, economically stronger, healthier, more accessible food system. These conversations

will be advertised widely, including on the City of Northampton website.

METHODS

Design. The Glynwood Keep Farming® Workbook (www.Glynwood.org, 2010) provided the

basic methodology for this research. In consultation with the Northampton Agricultural

Commission and a number of local and regional organizations (see Appendix I), we modified

the Keep Farming Residents Survey to address the Northampton population (see Appendix

IV for our survey). We included questions previously asked by another group, Community

Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA), in order to provide a basis for comparison.

There are many definitions of ‘local food’, so it was important that all respondents had the

same definition in mind as they completed the survey. Therefore, we inserted the following

instruction into the survey:

“For the purposes of this survey, “local food” is defined as edible products (such as fruit,

vegetables, meat, eggs, dairy, jams, honey, bread, herbs, microbrews, maple syrup, etc.) that

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!;!

have been grown or produced ONLY in the Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts. These

items may or may not be certified organic.”

Sample population. Since we wanted to use Northampton as a case study in local food, we

limited the survey to Northampton residents. Using a variety of approaches to obtain

participation from many sectors, we sampled 558 residents, with the goal of obtaining a

sample that would represent as closely as possible the demographic profile of the city. The

demographic profile of our sample is shown in Appendix II, “Population Sample and

Treatment of Data”.

Procedure. The Northampton Keep Farming group, augmented with five trained Smith

College Special Studies students, administered paper surveys individually to 255 residents in

a number of public locations, including Wal-Mart, Stop & Shop, Forbes Library, the Senior

Center, the Survival Center, Casa Latina, the Northampton Athletic Club, schools, public

meetings, and other high-traffic locations throughout the city. In addition, the survey was

made available on the web-based survey tool Survey Monkey and publicized through word-

of-mouth and social media, including e-mails to constituents sent by all of Northampton’s

City Councilors. Exactly 283 residents completed the survey on line, for a total of 558

surveys. The time required to complete each survey was approximately 15-20 minutes.

As an incentive to complete the survey, cider and local doughnuts were offered to

participants in most of the public locations.

The survey ran from late October 2011 through early March of 2012, with most of the data

collected in the fall of 2011. The Smith College students presented a preliminary report of

findings in late December 2011.

Treatment of data. The data were weighted by the demographic values for gender, age,

Ward, and race to ensure that the population accurately reflected the actual demographic

makeup of the city of Northampton (see Appendix II). Data analysis included breakdowns by

gender, age, education, and income. Instances in which the survey sample departed from the

Northampton demographic profile are reviewed in the Discussion Section, below. We also

analyzed Ward of residence, but include only a summary of those results in Appendix III

since it was of secondary interest.

RESULTS

Where do Northampton residents shop for food?

The first step in understanding the contours of Northampton’s local food consumption is to

understand where residents shop for their food. At the outset of the survey, prior to asking

any questions about opinions on locally grown or produced food issues, we asked

Northampton residents how often they shopped at each available food retailer in our area.

By far, most respondents reported shopping at large supermarkets in the area such as Stop &

Shop, Big Y, or Price Rite (See chart below). Three-quarters (75%) reported shopping at one

of these stores two or more times a month (44% shop there at least four times per month).

Conversely, 25% reported rarely or never shopping at these large supermarkets. Next comes

smaller, independent grocery stores like Serio’s Market, Cooper’s Corner, The State Street

Fruit Store and Cornucopia, with 57% overall shopping at one these stores at least twice a

month (25% go there four or more times).

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!<!

Half (50%) the respondents reported shopping at Food Co-ops (e.g. River Valley Market) at

least twice a month, 46% frequent Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s or other ‘natural’ grocery store

chains, 42% go to a local farmer’s market twice a month or more, just under a third (30%)

regularly pick up a CSA farm share, and 24% stop at farm stands at least twice a month.

Only 22% of residents reported food shopping at the large retail stores such as Wal-Mart,

Costco, and Target, and fewer reported shopping at convenience stores or specialty markets.

The following chart outlines shopping patterns by venue:

Different demographic groups tend to get their food from different places. In each of the

following paragraphs we describe the types of people who tend to shop more often at each of

the venues.

Large Supermarkets. The demographic groups reporting the greatest frequency shopping at

big supermarkets (more than 4 times per month) included 56% of residents over age 55, 61%

of men over age 55, 60% of long-term Northampton residents (25 years or more), and 63%

of those who have lived in Northampton all their lives. In addition, 53% of male primary

shoppers and 54% of households with two adults and no children reported shopping at large

supermarkets four or more times per month. Half of those who rarely shop at farmer’s

markets, and 57% of those who indicated little interest in CSA farm shares frequent large

supermarkets.

Small Grocers. Thirty-one percent of those who said they buy locally grown food every

week shop at these stores. A third (34%) of people who often shop at farmers’ markets also

frequent small grocery stores. The small grocers appear to be serving as neighborhood

markets, as 40% of Ward 2 respondents report shopping there 4 or more times per month.

"#! $"#! %"#! &"#! '"#! ("#! )"#! *"#! +"#! ,"#!

-./0!123/45!

637847947:4!123/45!

1;4:9.<2=!>./?425!

@3.A59A4!-./0!12.7A5!

B./C4!@42.9<!D!E.<D>./2!

-./04/F5!>./?425!

FG.2H/.<F!:I.975D!EI3<4!-33A5!

10.<<!J7A4;47A472!K/3:4/5!

61L!

-33A!63DM;5!N@984/!O.<<4=!>./?42P!

B./C4!1H;4/0./?425!D!Q9C!R!

%#!

'#!

)#!

$"#!

$(#!

%(#!

%)#!

%*#!

''#!

+#!

$&#!

%'#!

%%#!

'%#!

')#!

(*#!

&"#!

("#!

*(#!

S'T!Q4<3U!95!.!<952!3V!;<.:45!UI4/4!=3H!:.7!C42!V33A!97!3H/!

./4.T!W<4.54!:I4:?!2I4!X3Y!2I.2!5I3U5!.X3H2!ZME!

>LGR[J>\1!W\@!>MG[Z!=3H!C42!V33A!.2!2I4!V3<<3U97C!;<.:45T!

']! %]! [32.<!

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!=!

Food Co-ops. Thirty-seven per cent of those who reported buying local food every week

shop at a food co-op four or more times a month, as do 46% of those who have a CSA farm

share, and 42% of those who grow a lot of their own food.

Thirty-two percent of respondents with college degrees reported shopping at a food coop

four or more times per month. Interestingly, those who tend not to shop at a food co-op are

people with little interest in a CSA farm share (16%), people who buy local food only once

or twice a month (1%), people who don’t think locally grown or produced foods are healthier

(19%), households where the primary shopper is male (9%) and those who have lived in

Northampton 25 years or longer (19%).

CSA or Farm Share. Slightly more than a quarter of respondents (26%) reported

participation in a CSA farm share program every week. Demographic groups most likely to

pick up a weekly CSA share include women under age 55 (38%) and college graduates

(31%). Though residents with higher incomes were more likely to report CSA membership

(31 percent earn $75,000 or more per year), 23% of those reporting less than $25,000 per

year income also participated. Duration of Northampton residence was associated with CSA

involvement in that those living here longest were least likely to report CSA membership

(29% of residents of less than 25 years vs. 19% of those living here longer). The likelihood

of CSA participation increased with household size, with only 10% of single person

households participating, and 31% of households with 2 adults and children. Thirty-seven

percent of people who buy locally produced or grown food every week participate in CSAs.

Farmer’s Markets. More than half of Northampton respondents 55 years of age or older

reported shopping at least twice per month at a farmers market, with women 55 or older

reporting the greatest likelihood (60%). However, only 20% of people who reported

purchasing locally grown food every week shop at a farmers market every week.

Large Retailers. Only 5% of Northampton respondents with a college degree reported

shopping at least 4 times per month at large retailers such as Wal-Mart. The subgroup most

likely to shop this often at such stores was non-college-educated women (40%).

Households with less than $25,000 per year income were most likely to report frequent

shopping at these stores (18%) compared with those households with incomes above $75,000

(7%). Other demographic groups reporting frequent shopping at large retailers include 23%

of lifetime Northampton residents compared with 9% of those who are not lifetime residents.

Reasons for choice of shopping venue

When asked the basis for their food store choices, four main factors emerged as the most

important reasons: the availability of healthy food options (55%), good selection (54%),

convenient location (50%) and price (48%). Much less important reasons included

convenience factors such as one-stop shopping, hours, store layout, and kinds of payment

accepted. See chart Q5 below.

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!>!

Among the survey’s respondents, non-college-educated women (65%) and those earning less

than $25,000 per year (57%) are the most price-conscious shoppers. In addition, those with

household incomes less than $25,000 per year were most likely to report that form of

payment influenced their choice of food shopping location (25%). Men 55 years of age or

older are most concerned with good selection (63%) and convenient location (57%), while

healthy food options were most important to college graduates (66%), and people living in

Northampton 10 years or less (62%).

Food Spending

Three quarters of respondents reported spending $150 or less each week on all kinds of food

(not including restaurant purchases). However, 46% of households containing two adults and

children spend more than $150 per week on food.

Importance of Local Food to Northampton Residents

The vast majority (88%) of respondents reported checking “always” (40%) or “sometimes”

(48%) to see if the food they buy is grown locally. Just 13% report checking rarely or never.

Overall more women than men said they always check (47% vs. 31%), as did college

graduates (43% vs. 33% of non-college graduates). Other groups that always check for

locally grown food include people who buy locally grown every week (51%), shop at

farmers’ markets often (52%), participate in a farm share (53%), and grow a lot of their own

?@! A?@! 8?@! 9?@! :?@! ;?@! <?@!

BCC#$.2!D-'(2!-D!$&7(#*.!E!F&*.!.-!52#!

G-(D-'.&HI#!F)./!2.-'#!I&7-5.!

J*#!2.-$!2/-$$)*+!K!D&2.!

G-*6#*)#*.!L-5'2!

BM-'3&HI#!N')C#2!

G-*6#*)#*.!O-C&P-*!

Q--3!2#I#CP-*!

L#&I./7!D--3!-$P-*2!!

S(T![I97?97C!.X3H2!2I4!;<.:4!=3H!5I3;!0352!3^47_!UI.2!U3H<A!

=3H!5.=!./4!2I4![MW![Z@\\!@\L1MG1!=3H!5I3;!2I4/4`!

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!R!

food (53%). Lifetime residents of Northampton show approximately the same level of

interest in checking as non-lifetime residents (36% and 41%).

In addition to checking to see whether food is locally grown, Northampton residents

generally buy locally grown food--68% of respondents reported buying locally produced or

grown food every week, with another 18% choosing local once or twice a month. A majority

of every group measured in this survey, except for non-college educated respondents (31%)

reported buying local food weekly. College-educated women comprise the group most likely

to report buying local food every week (84%).

When local foods come into season, most respondents (58%) said that they will go out of

their way to buy it. Thirty percent will buy local but not go out of their way for it. Just 11%

reported that they do not change their purchasing habits at all. Women over age 55 (70%),

college educated women (71%), and households with incomes over $75,000 (67%) are most

likely to go out of their way to purchase local food in season.

Driving this behavior is a strong desire to support local farms and farmers- 80% of

respondents listed ‘supporting local farms and farmers’ as one of their top three reasons they

buy local food. Demographic groups with the greatest belief in buying local to support local

farms include college-educated respondents (86%) residents with annual incomes greater

than $75,000 (85%) and respondents who have not lived in Northampton all their lives

(82%).

The second most important reason given to buy locally is freshness, with 55% listing this as

one of their top three reasons. A third tier of ‘organically and sustainably grown,’ ‘healthier,’

‘good for the environment,’ and ‘I know how and where it was grown’ were all chosen by

25-33% of Northampton residents. Few shoppers list family preference, diet, or cheaper food

costs as important factors. See chart below for more detailed information.

S,T!EI.2!./4!=3H/![MW![Z@\\!@\L1MG1!V3/!XH=97C!<3:.<!V33A`!

E.!25$$-'.2!I-C&I!D&'(2!&*3!

D&'(#'2!

E.!)2!D'#2/#'!

E.!)2!-'+&*)C&II7!-'!252.&)*&HI7!

+'-F*!

E.!)2!/#&I./)#'!

E.!)2!+--3!D-'!./#!#*6)'-*(#*.!

E!S*-F!/-F!&*3!F/#'#!).!F&2!

+'-F*!

E!3-*T.!2$#C)UC&II7!H57!I-C&I!

D--3!

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!A?!

When asked what three factors make buying local food more difficult, 63% reported that

nothing prevents them from buying local food. When instructed to pick additional reasons,

42% said it could be too expensive, and 30% said it could be difficult to get to the places

where it is sold. The types of payment accepted is an issue for 9% of respondents, with 15%

of residents without a college education and 15% of households with two adults and children

having this difficulty.

Asked slightly differently as, “If you DO NOT buy available local food, what are your TOP

THREE reasons for not buying it?” some 86% report that they do buy local food. Among the

reasons given for not buying locally, again, expense and access were the chief concerns.

What Northampton residents buy and want to buy

We asked Northampton residents what are their top three favorite local food items to buy.

People responded to this question in different ways. Some listed general categories such as

vegetables or fruit while others listed specific items (see following chart). Specific items

reported most frequently were corn, apples, tomatoes, eggs, asparagus, squash, dairy, and

lettuce. Older people and long-time Northampton residents focus on buying vegetables and

fruit, and men favor corn more than do women. People with CSA memberships were more

likely than other groups to report buying local meat (23%) and dairy (12%).

When asked what other food items they would like to see grown locally, Northampton

residents offered a wide variety of options. A third of respondents indicated that would like

to buy more locally grown vegetables (16% vegetables in general and 17% cited specific

vegetables). Thirty one percent said they would like to buy locally produced meat in general

(19%), or specifically more beef, lamb or chicken (12%). The next most frequently cited

?@! ;@! A?@! A;@! 8?@! 8;@! 9?@! 9;@!

O#V5C#!

G/##2#!

W)IS!

4X5&2/!

Y&)'7!Z+#*#'&I[!

B2$&'&+52!

\++2!

W#&.!Z+#*#'&I[!

Q'##*2!!Z+#*#'&I[!

]-(&.-#2!

%'5).!Z+#*#'&I[!

B$$I#2!

G-'*!

^#+#.&HI#2!Z+#*#'&I[!

*#!

+#!

$"#!

$&#!

$(#!

$,#!

%$#!

%&#!

%(#!

&&#!

S$'T!EI.2!./4!=3H/![MW![Z@\\!V.83/924!!

<3:.<!V33A!92405!23!XH=`!

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!AA!

categories of food people would like to have grown locally included fruits (23%) and grain

products and bread (17%). Requests for more local cheese/milk/dairy were made by 4% of

respondents, eggs by 2%, beer and maple syrup by 1% for each.

Men drive the desire for more meat, as they were twice as likely to request meat in general

than women (25% to 12%), along with residents who have lived in Northampton more than

25 years (29%), the wealthiest residents (23% of those earning more than $75k), and

respondents who grow food themselves or get food from the gardens of friends or family

(30%).

Where Northampton residents buy local food

Food co-ops such as River Valley Market and farm stands lead the pack in supplying local

food to Northampton residents. When asked all the places where they shop for local food,

nearly half (46%) of respondents listed co-ops as a primary source. Thirty seven per cent

indicated that they stop at local farm stands. Farmers markets also attract many of these

shoppers (30% said the Saturday market, 28% said the Tuesday market), followed by small

local grocers (28%) and supermarkets (27%). Twenty-seven percent said they get local food

from their own or a neighbor’s or family-member’s garden. Finally, smaller numbers report

getting food at the Wednesday market or the winter market.

The demographic breakdown for shoppers at the various venues follows.

Farmers’ Markets are discussed in detail in a later section of this report.

River Valley Market and Co-ops. Demographic groups most likely to purchase their local

food at River Valley Market include college graduates (60%), college men (58%), men under

age 55 (56%), people who’ve lived in Northampton 10 years or less (54%), those with

incomes greater than $75,000 (49%), those who share the shopping with others (52%) and

people who shop for local food every week (54%).

Just 7% of respondents with a high school education or less report purchasing their local

food at a co-op like River Valley Market, as do only 20% of those who report having lived in

Northampton all of their lives. Among residents who rarely or never visit a farmers market,

only 34% reported shopping at a local food co-op.

Farm Stands. Older residents and those living in Northampton the longest were the most

likely to report buying their local food at farm stands. Just 26% of those living in

Northampton 10 years or less report getting local food from a farm stand, compared to 37%

of those who have lived here 11-25 years and 56% of those who have lived in Northampton

more than 25 years. More than half (51%) people age 55 or older reported buying their local

food at farm stands.

Small Grocers. There was little variation among demographic groups in buying local food at

small grocers with the exception that fewer non-college educated women (16%) reported

purchasing their local food there.

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!A8!

Attitudes about Local Food

Eighty-one percent of respondents said they agree with the statement that local food is

healthier than similar foods brought in from other places. While support for this notion is

strong across all demographic groups, there were some noteworthy differences by gender and

age. Women were more likely to agree (89% of women compared to 70% of men). Residents

aged 55 and over (87%) were more likely to agree than those under 55 years of age (78%).

Those least likely to agree with the statement were men under age 55 (37%) and

Northampton’s most affluent residents, those earning more than $75,000 per year (28%).

When asked why they feel local food is healthier, Northampton respondents listed a number

of reasons (see chart below).

Many indicated that they believe local food is healthier because of a combination of all of the

factors listed. Others cited that local food is healthier because it is less likely to be

contaminated by pesticide and more likely to be organically grown, or because it is fresher

and spends less time traveling from farm to table.

The Value of Buying Local

Ninety-three percent feel that buying local helps ‘a lot’ to support the local economy of the

Pioneer Valley, with nearly every demographic group rating this at or near the top of their

list.

]&2.#!_#V#'!

W-'#!,5.')P-*&I!^&I5#`!^).&()*2!

Y#$#*32!

45$$-'.!O-C&I!%&'(#'2!

J./#'!

\*6)'-*(#*.`!,-!F&2.#!D5#I!

a5)CS!B6&)I&H)I).7!K!%)#I3!.-!]&HI#!

E!S*-F!&H-5.!).`!*-.!(&22!$'-3b!

E.T2!./#!4&(#`!,-!Y)M#'#*C#!

%'#2/#'`!%'#2/#'!./&*!.'5CS#3!

,-`O#22!N#2PC)3#2!K!W-'#!J'+&*)C!

G-(H)*&P-*!-D!%&C.-'2!

A@!

9@!

;@!

<@!

=@!

R@!

A?@!

A8@!

A9@!

8:@!

S$&T!W<4.54!4Y;<.97!=3H/!.75U4/!23!SH45a37!$%!!

NL/4!<3:.<!V33A5!I4.<2I94/TTTP!

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!A9!

Similarly, 90% overall believe buying local will help save family farms, with little

demographic variation. Eighty-seven percent overall believe buying local helps ‘a lot’ in

preserving the ‘rural character’ of the Pioneer Valley while 69% overall believe buying local

food helps the environment ‘a lot.’ Lastly, 68% overall think buying local helps by keeping

people healthy with fresher food.

Who shops at farmers’ markets?

While a large majority of respondents indicated that they shop at one of the city’s several

farmers’ markets ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’, a profile emerges for frequent shoppers, casual

shoppers, and those who rarely or never buy food from farmers’ markets.

“Often” shoppers. Overall, 36% reported shopping at farmers markets often, including 46%

of those over 55 years of age, 50% of women over 55, 41% of college educated women, 40%

of those who think locally produced food is healthier, and 46% of those who buy local food

every week. “Often” shoppers include 40% of those have a farm share and 50% of those who

do not currently have a farm share, but have had one in the past. Those earning less than

$25,000 annually are least likely to shop often at a farmers market (24%).

“Sometimes” shoppers. Overall, 34% reported shopping at farmers markets “sometimes”,

including 43% of college-educated men, and 43% of men under age 55. Forty two percent of

respondents who reported buying local food “once or twice a month” shop at farmers

markets “sometimes” as do 43% of those who were not subscribed to a farm share but were

interested in doing so, and 45% of those who got a lot of food from their own or family or

friends’ gardens.

“Rarely” shoppers. Overall, 22% of respondents reported rarely shopping at farmers

markets. The group with the highest percentage reporting that they rarely shop at farmers

markets was those who did not graduate from college (27%). Other “Rarely” shoppers

included 28% of those who reported buying local food once or twice a month, and 29% of

those with no interest in participating in a farm share.

“Never” shoppers. Nine percent of respondents reported never shopping at a farmers market,

with little demographic variation: 3%-19% among all the demographic subgroups.

Thirty five percent of respondents who reported having a CSA farm share indicated that they

rarely or never shop at a farmers market because they have a CSA share instead. On the other

hand this suggests that 65% of those with a CSA farm share shop at farmers markets often or

sometimes.

Asked to explain why they do not shop at farmers’ markets, Northampton residents gave

several responses. The most frequently cited reasons were related to convenience, having a

CSA share instead, and issues of expense and lack of time (see chart below).

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!A:!

Who participates in CSAs?

Many Northampton residents reported currently having, or previously participating in a

Community Supported Agriculture program, or CSA farm share, or being interested in a

farm share. Very few respondents had not heard of the concept (see Chart Q 20, below).

Those most likely to participate in a CSA farm share tend to be women under age 55 (39%),

college educated women (39%), the wealthiest residents (37%), and residents of Ward 4

(41%).

Demographic groups showing the least interest in having a farm share include 43% of seniors

aged 65 and over, 42% of those with a high school education or less, 45% of those who have

lived in Northampton more than 35 years, and 48% of households with one adult and no

children. Interestingly, only 33% of people who grow ‘a lot’ of their own food are not

interested in farm share.

MU7!C./A47!

K42!<3:.<!.2!1H;4/0./?42!

[33!:/3UA4Ab![3H/952=!

\Y;475984!D!K474/.<!

G32!473HCI!a04!

61L!97524.A!

630X97.a37!3V!-.:23/5bM2I4/!

637847947:4!D!K474/.<!

)#!

,#!

$"#!

$'#!

$,#!

S$,T!JV!=3H!/./4<=!3/!7484/!5I3;!.2!V./04/5F!0./?425_!UI=!95!

2I.2`!

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!A;!

Who gets food from home gardens?

A total of 61% of respondents reported that they grow food or receive garden grown food

from family or friends (13% reported receiving ‘a lot’ of homegrown food while 48%

reported ‘a little’). Forty nine percent of those age 65 or older reported not growing food or

receiving garden-grown food from family or friends.

Just over a third of respondents (36%), or 188 people, reported not having a garden but were

interested in growing their own food. Fully half of those age 18-34 fall into this category, as

do 53% of those with incomes less than $25,000 per year.

When asked what they would need in order to do more gardening, most said more time

(39%), more space (36%) and education or training (26%). The following chart outlines the

most common responses chosen in a question where respondents were allowed to mark any

that applied. “I’m already gardening” was removed from this chart, but 45 percent selected

that option.

%,#!

%"#!

%%#!

%'#!

(#!

S%"T!c3!=3H!:H//472<=!I.84!3/!;./a:9;.24!97!.!-./0!1I./4!3/!

61L!N6300H792=!1H;;3/24A!LC/9:H<2H/4P!;/3C/.0`!

R45!

G3_!XH2!I.84!97!2I4!;.52!

G3_!XH2!9724 /4524A!

J!I.84!73!9724/452!

J!A37F2!?73U!UI.2!2I95!95!

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!A<!

Eating at home/ Eating out

The vast majority of respondents (79%) indicated that their family prepares its own meals

‘from scratch’ four or more times a week, and 63% indicated that they rarely eat store-bought

meals.

The biggest difference in cooking at home 6-7 times per week was between those with a high

school education or less (14%) versus college graduates (40%). A high percentage of

families (82%) with two adults and children cook at home at least 4 times per week.

?@! ;@! A?@! A;@! 8?@! 8;@! 9?@! 9;@! :?@!

1304374!23!C./A47!U92I!

[I4!0374=!23!C42!UI.2!J!744A!23!C./A47!

\dH9;0472!23!I4<;!04!C/3U!V33A!

1304374!23!I4<;!04!C./A47!

6300H792=!C./A47!;<325!74./!0=!I304!

\AH:.a37!3/!2/.9797C!.X3H2!I3U!23!C/3U!V33A!

\73HCI!5;.:4!V3/!.!C./A47!

>3/4!.8.9<.X<4!a04!23!247A!.!C./A47!

,#!

$)#!

$*#!

%"#!

%)#!

&)#!

&,#!

S%&T!JV!=3H!U3H<A!<9?4!23!C/3U!=3H/!3U7!V33A_!!

UI.2!U3H<A!=3H!744A!23!52./2`!!

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!A=!

A majority of respondents (56%) reported never eating fast food, and an additional 30% said

they eat fast food ‘less than once a week.’ In all, just 14 % indicated that they eat at a fast

food restaurant once a week or more. College graduates (61%) are more likely to report

never eating fast food than those with a high school education or less (31%). People who buy

locally grown food every week are more likely to report never eating fast food (63%) than

those who report buying local food once or twice a month (44%). Those with a high school

education or less were most likely (32%) to report eating fast food at least once per week.

G484/b!L<0352!G484/!

$D&!c.=5!

'D(!c.=5!

)D*!c.=5!

&#!

$,#!

'&#!

&)#!

S%'e!Z3U!0.7=!cLR1!L!E\\f!A3!=3H!3/!5304374!97!

=3H/!V.09<=!:33?!A9774/!gV/30!5:/.2:I`g!

G484/b!L<0352!G484/!

$D&!c.=5!

'D(!c.=5!

)D*!c.=5!

)&#!

&"#!

)#!

$#!

S%(e!Z3U!0.7=!cLR1!L!E\\f!A3!=3H!3/!=3H/!V.09<=!

4.2!523/4DX3HCI2!!;/4;./4A!V33A5!.2!I304_!5H:I!.5!

V/3h47!3/!X3Y4A!0.97!A95I45!3/!A9774/5`!

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!A>!

Respondents indicated that they do patronize other eating establishments, with almost two-

thirds (64%) reporting eating at a non-fast-food restaurant at least once per week, including

29% who eat out from two to five times a week.

The demographic breakdown shows that more than half of both men and women in all age

groups eat at a non fast food restaurant at least once per week. However, respondents with

less than a high school education are somewhat less likely to do so (42%). Similarly, those

with the lowest annual income (<$25,000) are less likely (36%) to report eating at restaurants

at least once per week than those of higher incomes (81% of those with >$75,000 in income).

Northampton Restaurants should serve locally produced food

Overall 88% of respondents indicated that it is ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ important that local

restaurants serve local food, with 45% saying that it is “very important.’ Women are more

likely (56%) to consider it ‘very important’ that restaurants serve local food than are men

J!7484/!4.2!V.52!V33A!

B455!2I.7!37:4!.!U44?!

M7:4!.!U44?!

%D(![9045!.!U44?!

)D$"![9045!.!U44?!

>3/4!2I.7!$(!a045!.!U44?!

()#!

&"#!

,#!

'#!

"#!

$#!

S%)e!M7!.84/.C4_!I3U!0.7=![J>\1!L!E\\f!A345!

=3H/!V.09<=!;H/:I.54!V33A!V/30!-L1[!-MMc!

/452.H/.725!<9?4!>:c37.<Ai5_!QH/C4/!f97C_!3/!

1HXU.=_!492I4/!23!4.2!2I4/4!3/!2.?4!.U.=`!

J!37<=!4.2!V33A!;/4;./4A!.2!I304!

B455!2I.7!37:4!.!U44?!

M7:4!.!U44?!

%D(![9045!.!U44?!

)D$"![9045!.!U44?!

>3/4!2I.7!$(!a045!.!U44?!

'#!

&%#!

%,#!

&#!

"#!

S%*e!M7!.84/.C4_!I3U!0.7=![J>\1!L!E\\f!A345!

=3H/!V.09<=!;H/:I.54!V33A!V/30!/452.H/.725!M[Z\@!

[ZLG!-L1[!-MMc!@\1[Lj@LG[1!492I4/!23!4.2!2I4/4!

3/!2.?4!.U.=`!

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!AR!

(29%). Not surprisingly, those who buy local food every week (52%), those who think local

food is healthier (50%), those who often shop at farmers markets (64%), have a farm share

(57%), and those who claim to never eat fast food (51%) also think it is very important to be

served local food in Northampton’s eateries. Interestingly, level of education and income do

not differentiate people in the importance they ascribe to local restaurants serving local food.

DISCUSSION

The degree to which Northampton residents are committed to local food and the preservation

of agrarian values is impressive and heartening. Throughout the survey, this substantial

sample of residents told us that they think about what they eat and make choices for local

food. Undoubtedly, the credit for a good part of this commitment goes to the local farmers

that produce and market local foods, and the organizations such as CISA and Grow Food

Northampton that support them.

Overall, Northampton residents shop at a variety of retail food outlets, with at least 40%

shopping at large supermarkets, small grocers, food co-ops, natural food stores and farmers

markets at least twice per month. Decisions about where to shop are influenced primarily by

four considerations: healthy food options, good selection, convenient location and affordable

prices. The large majority of shoppers indicate that they check to see whether their food is

locally grown.

Over two-thirds (68%) of respondents reported buying local food every week. The most

frequent reason cited for purchasing local food was to support local farms and farmers.

Additional reasons include freshness, healthfulness, the use of sustainable/organic growing

methods, and benefits to the environment.

The primary reason to buy local for large majorities of Northampton respondents was based

on a sense of wanting to preserve something valuable about the Pioneer Valley – family

farms, the local economy, and our rural character. Concerns about protecting the

environment or keeping people healthy come in a distant second to people’s concerns about

the local farming economy of our area. When you add how much buying local food helps ‘a

lot’ or ‘a little’ across every possible benefit, every demographic group scored over 90%,

indicating broad agreement that buying local is beneficial.

A large majority (81%) of our respondents stated that local food is healthier than similar food

brought in from other places. Some of the reasons cited include a greater likelihood that it

was grown organically or without pesticide, greater freshness and knowing where their food

comes from.

Of interest is that these findings so closely parallel the findings of a survey conducted by

CISA in two local counties (Hampshire and Franklin) in 2006.

Comparisons with that

survey should be made cautiously since the population and survey methodology differed

substantially. Nonetheless, the CISA survey also showed that a substantial majority of

respondents sought to purchase locally grown food every week, and reported that buying

local food was important for saving family farms, supporting the local economy, keeping

people healthy with fresh food, and preserving the rural character of our region. Our

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Community Involved in Sustainable Agriculture Primary Shoppers Questionnaire, June, 2006, South

Deerfield, MA.

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!8?!

respondents reported purchasing a wide variety of locally grown and produced foods, and

expressed interest in more locally grown vegetables, meat, fruit and grain products. The most

frequently cited locations where respondents purchase locally grown food include food co-

ops, farmers’ markets, and local farm stands. Smaller numbers purchase local food at small

grocers and supermarkets.

About a quarter of respondents get local food from their own garden or the gardens of friends

or relatives. Just over a third reported not having a garden, but having an interest in growing

their own food. When asked what they would need in order to do more gardening, the most

common things mentioned were more time, more space, and education/training. There is no

significant impact of household size or composition on whether or not residents garden, and

gardeners are only slightly more likely than the overall population to buy local food

regularly.

When asked how often they cook at home, eat at a fast food establishment, or go to a

restaurant, a large majority of respondents reported preparing most of their meals at home,

although almost two-thirds (64%) eat at a non fast food restaurant at least once a week. Very

few reported eating at fast food establishments. Respondents believe it is very important for

local restaurants to serve local food.

Some general demographic trends emerging from our data suggest that women (especially

those with a college education) are the most likely to believe that local food is healthier, to

check regularly to see whether the food they are buying is locally grown, to shop regularly at

farmers markets, to have a CSA share, and to believe it is very important for restaurants to

serve local food. These trends may be especially salient since women tend to be the primary

food shoppers. People with the least amount of education (high school or less) were more

likely to report eating fast food, and less likely to report eating at non-fast food restaurants,

purchasing local food weekly, and cooking at home nearly every day.

Since many respondents report shopping at large grocery stores for convenience, it may be

worthwhile for farmers to devote increased efforts towards developing business relations

with large grocery stores. As food from afar becomes more expensive, the large grocery

stores may become more interested in purchasing food from local growers. As such market

opportunities expand, farmers may wish to tailor their crops accordingly. Interestingly,

CISA also concluded from its earlier cited study that marketing locally grown food to large

grocery stores is an important strategy to influence purchasing patterns.

Seniors (over the age of 65) reported little interest in having a garden if they didn’t already

have one, and little interest in a farm share. Nonetheless, when Grow Food Northampton

(GFN) initiated the CISA senior farm share program in Northampton in 2011 there were

more applicants than available shares. In 2012 GFN doubled the size of the program yet still

the demand could not be completely satisfied. Perhaps the popularity of that program is

related to the fact that the shares are smaller, designed with senior food preferences in mind,

and that the food is delivered to the senior center for the share holders’ convenience.

Similarly, single person households were unlikely to indicate interest in a farm share,

suggesting that CSA farms might consider marketing smaller shares for this group as well.

The group least likely to appreciate the value of local food includes those with the least

amount of education. This group may thus present an important opportunity for outreach

efforts. Early school programs may be especially important for this demographic group, as

well as general educational campaigns highlighting the increased nutritional value and safety

of local food.

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!8A!

Our findings show that price is a factor in discouraging residents from purchasing local food

and shopping at farmers markets. The current effort to double the value of SNAP (food

stamp) benefits at farmers markets should help reduce this barrier, and should be expanded if

possible. In addition, it is likely in the future that food imported from afar will rise

substantially in price (as the cost of fuel rises and water becomes scarce in the western part

of the U.S.) at which point the perceived disadvantage of local food may no longer be

relevant. Meanwhile, strengthening local food systems (farms, food processing businesses)

should be vigorously supported by policies and financial incentives so that they are ready to

supply food in larger quantities to meet future needs. In particular, increased use of local

produce in creating ‘value-added’ products such as baked goods, canned and preserved food,

beer and wine might be promoted.

Similarly as we plan for a future in which imported food is prohibitively expensive or

unavailable, encouraging residents to grow some of their own food is wise. Our survey

suggests that over a third of respondents who currently do not have a garden would like to

grow some of their own food, and that they currently lack land to do so. The fact that

Northampton is currently doubling the number of community garden plots from 400 to 800

should help meet this need but cannot totally fulfill it. Therefore we should be exploring

additional community gardening space for the future especially in or near low-income

neighborhoods. In addition support should be given to efforts to match people desiring

garden space with those who have land they might be interested in sharing with others.

Another need voiced by respondents was for education and training to prepare them for

gardening. That Grow Food Northampton is offering gardening and food preserving

workshops and plans for expanded offerings in the future should help address this need.

Other organizations might be inspired to provide similar opportunities.

It is important to recognize the limitations of our data. Though every effort was made to

obtain a representative sample of Northampton residents responding to this survey, (and the

age, race and gender distributions were weighted to accurately reflect these characteristics),

the sample obtained was not representative of Northampton residents in some ways. For

example, in our sample, one quarter of respondents reported participating in a CSA farm

share every week, which is clearly an overestimate of such participation. It is likely that

people interested in being interviewed about food were those with a greater interest in food,

and thus our survey may have attracted residents enthusiastic about local food in particular.

Thus, there may be more of an opportunity to persuade Northampton residents of the benefits

of local food than our findings suggest.

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!88!

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial majority of Northampton respondents to our survey believe that local food is

healthier than similar food brought in from other places. Opportunities to increase the sale of

locally grown food include marketing local food to large grocery stores where most residents

shop, and reaching out in a variety of ways to segments of the population that have low

levels of education to highlight the increased nutritional value and safety of local food

Farmers’ decisions to grow more livestock and more grains seem to be supported by these

survey results. Both these endeavors will require development of appropriate infrastructure

(for animal slaughtering and grain processing) as well as more favorable regulations at the

state and local level.

In order to build CSA memberships, local CSA’s might wish to target recent arrivals and

frequent or semi-frequent farmers’ market shoppers. In addition CSA farms might consider

marketing smaller shares to single-person households. Our data indicates that both seniors

and young people represent a real target for CSA programs if CSAs could craft a small share

that these groups could find affordable, and make it easy for them to pick up or receive their

shares.

The messages used by farmers markets and CSAs in attempts to increase business will

strongly overlap. Both will undoubtedly want to highlight the benefits of local food

(freshness, healthfulness, less environmental and climate impact, support for local farmers,

and knowing where their food is produced and by whom). In order to draw in those who

supply much of their own local food, both farmers’ markets and CSA farms may wish to

highlight products difficult to grow in home gardens.

The strongly held opinions about the desirability of restaurants serving local food indicate

that there are some significant opportunities for Northampton’s restaurants to cross-market

with local food sources to attract customers. Many local customers are undoubtedly attracted

to restaurants that use local ingredients. A number of farm-restaurant partnerships already

exist in Northampton, and it appears that more of these would be welcomed by consumers.

Such partnerships could be promoted through the farmer’s markets, the co-op, and perhaps

even CSA farm shares, with a mutually beneficial outcome for both restaurants and farms.

A future area of exploration might be the increased use of local produce in creating “value-

added” products such as baked goods, canned and preserved products, and beer and wine.

! !

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!89!

APPENDIX I

Contributors to the Project

Many people and organizations played a role in the construction, administration, and analysis

of this survey and the preparation of this report. We want to recognize them here with

appreciation for their contributions to the project and to our group. We couldn’t have done it

without them.

The Glynwood Center

The Keep Farming® Program formed the basis of our methodology.

Virginia Kasinki, Director of Community-Based Programs, offered invaluable advice and

support; Andrea Burns, and Melissa Adams served as liaisons and worked with us each step

of the way.

Smith College

The Center for Community Collaboration provided funding for the preparation, production,

and statistical analysis of the survey, an inviting space for the working group to meet, and

refreshments for the participants and the public presentation.

Professors Phil Peake and Lauren Duncan contributed expertise in survey preparation and

student oversight.

Professor Katherine Halvorsen and her Statistics class created a separate, shorter,

questionnaire based on ours, and administered it in a fully randomized fashion. Results are

similar to those shown here.

Five Smith College students, Astrid Burke, Lizzie DeHuff, Wendi Liebl, Samara Ragaven,

and Dana Sherwood, worked on the survey as a Special Studies project in fall, 2011. They

were full members of our working group, participated in the construction of the survey,

received approval from the Smith Institutional Review Board for the survey, administered it

to hundreds of participants in locations all over Northampton, analyzed the preliminary data,

and gave a public presentation at the end of the semester.

Keep Farming Northampton Working Group

A group of volunteers from the community worked with the Northampton Agricultural

Commission and the Glynwood Center to prepare, administer, analyze, and write up the

survey. Community members include Robin Anderson, Joan Cenedella, Adele Franks, Mari

Gottdiener, Daryl LaFleur, Fran Volkmann (Coordinator), Alan Wolf, and Betsey Wolfson,

along with the Glynwood representatives and the Smith students.

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!8:!

Northampton City Government

The Agricultural Commission, and especially its Chair, John Omasta, served as sponsors of

the project and helped us understand what kinds of information would be most useful to the

agricultural community.

The Office of Planning and Development contributed in a number of ways. Director Wayne

Feiden provided constructive feedback on the survey and kept us connected with the

Agricultural Commission. James Thompson, GIS Coordinator, helped with demographic

maps, advice, and Census data.

Board of Health former Director, Ben Wood, provided us a Survey Monkey account and

advice on health-related aspects of our work.

Other Organizations and Individuals

CISA (Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture), especially Kelly Coleman,

contributed advice and connected us with previous related research that they had done.

GFN (Grow Food Northampton), especially Lilly Lombard, helped us hone our questions.

GFN also contributed two interns, Lauren Howe and Jen Morrow, who provided invaluable

help during the summer of 2011 as we were in the early stages of our work.

Cooley Dickinson Hospital, especially Sarah Bankert, connected us with research on health

aspects of local food.

Joel Russell led us to think about the larger context of our work and the structure and

importance of local food systems.

Liana Foxvog provided the Spanish translation of the survey.

A number of organizations allowed us to administer the survey on their premises. These

include Forbes Library, the Survival Center, the Northampton Athletic Club, the

Northampton Senior Center, Stop & Shop, Wal-Mart, Thornes, Jackson Street School, Leeds

School, where else? We are especially grateful to the people in these organizations that made

it possible for us to work there.

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!8;!

APPENDIX II

Methodological Details: Population Sample; Treatment of Data

The data were weighted slightly by the demographic values for gender, age, and race, and

evened across Ward to ensure that the population accurately reflected the actual demographic

makeup of the city of Northampton. The final weighted tallies were 329 online and 229 in-

person surveys.

In the table below is a comparison of actual Northampton demographic data versus the

survey data. Values can be more than 100% due to rounding.

L:2H.<

1H/84=!

NE49CI24AP!

K47A4/!

%#(&I#!

;=@!

W&I#!

:9@!

J./#'!

A@!

!!!

LC4!

A>KAR!

A@!

8?K9:!

9:@!

9;@!

9;K::!

A:@!

:;K;:!

A>@!

A:@!

;;K<:!

A;@!

A>@!

<;K=:!

>@!

A:@!

=;!-'!-6#'!

R@!

:@!

@.:4!.7A!B.2973!

W3;H<.29375!

c/).#!

>=b:@!

R8@!

_I&CS!

8b8@!

8@!

B2)&*!

9b=@!

:@!

J./#'!

<b<@!

8@!

O&.)*-!!

Z-D!&*7!'&C#[!

<b9@!

=@!

In interpreting survey results, all sample surveys are subject to possible sampling error; that

is, the results of a survey may differ from those that would be obtained if the entire

population were interviewed. The size of the sampling error depends upon both the total

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actual demographic data was taken from the document “Northampton Community Data Profile (PVPC 2011)

by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission 2011 and available at

http://www.northamptonma.gov/City_Statistics__Demographics/ ; age data was adjusted to reflect the fact that

respondents to the survey were all 18 and over.

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!8<!

number of respondents in the survey and the percentage distribution of responses to a

particular question. For example, the margin of error for percentages near 50% is about +/-

4.4%. So, on question 6, where respondents were asked, “How often do you check to see if

the food you buy is grown or produced locally?”

– 48 percent said, “Sometimes.” Therefore we can be confident that the true value for this

response is between 43.6 and 52.4 percent. The table below represents the estimated

sampling error for different percentage distributions of responses.

Sampling Error by Percentage

(at 95 in 100 confidence level)

W\@6\G[LK\1!G\L@!

1L>WB\!1Jk\!

$"!

%"!

&"!

'"!

("!

)"!

*"!

+"!

,"!

)""!

8b:!

9b8!

9b=!

9bR!

:b?!

9bR!

9b=!

9b8!

8b:!

(""!

%T)!

&T(!

'T"!

'T&!

'T'!

'T&!

'T"!

&T(!

%T)!

'""!

8bR!

9bR!

:b;!

:b>!

:bR!

:b>!

:b;!

9bR!

8bR!

&""!

9b:!

:b;!

;b8!

;b;!

;b=!

;b;!

;b8!

:b;!

9b:!

%""!

:b8!

;b;!

<b:!

<b>!

<bR!

<b>!

<b:!

;b;!

:b8!

$""!

;bR!

=b>!

Rb?!

Rb<!

Rb>!

Rb<!

Rb?!

=b>!

;bR!

It is also important to keep in mind that different numbers of people answered different

questions, so that the percentages shown do not always reflect the total sample. We will be

happy to provide the raw data to anyone interested in a more detailed analysis.

! !

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!8=!

APPENDIX III

Summary effects of residence in different municipal Wards

In our effort to approach a representative sample of the Northampton population we tracked

responses according to the Ward in which people live (see Ward map, below) and sought

additional interviews in underrepresented Wards. Given the relatively small size of the city,

we have not presented detailed results by Ward, although the raw information is available to

interested parties. We can, however, make a few generalizations about respondent’s food-

buying behavior and attitudes based on the Ward in which they live. The comparisons below

are intended to draw attention to responses which appear to differentiate the wards to some

extent

Residents of Ward 1 tend to buy their food, including local food, at large supermarkets. They

shop less at Farmer’s Markets than the majority of other respondents. There is some interest

in growing their own gardens, but they said they would need garden space.

Residents of Ward 2 are more likely than most other wards’ residents to shop at Small

Grocers, the Food Co-op, Farmers’ Markets, and to hold CSA shares. They report going out

of their way to obtain local food, believing that it is fresher and growing it helps the

environment. They overwhelmingly do not eat fast food, and they believe that it is very

important for restaurants to serve local food.

Residents of Ward 3 report going out of their way to obtain local food, and grow a lot of food

in their own gardens. They tend to shop less at Farmers’ Markets.

Residents of Ward 4 tend to shop at Small Grocers and hold CSA shares. They report eating

very little fast food, and they believe that it is very important for restaurants to serve local

food.

Residents of Ward 5 report shopping especially at the Food Co-op and obtaining local food

from their own gardens or those of neighbors or relatives.

Residents of Ward 6 surveys were insufficient in number to permit analysis.

Residents of Ward 7 tend to shop at Large Supermarkets, but also frequently at Farm Stands

and Farmers’ Markets. They go out of their way to get local food, and obtain a good deal of

it from their own gardens or those of neighbors or relatives.

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!8>!

Map of wards and precincts in Northampton

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!8R!

APPENDIX IV

Northampton Residents Food Survey

Fall 2011

Thank you for your willingness to participate in the Northampton Residents Food Survey. This

survey is being conducted by citizen volunteers interested in learning more about how

Northampton residents shop for food. The project is sponsored by the Northampton Agricultural

Commission.

Please take this survey ONLY if you are a resident of Northampton, Florence, or Leeds.

Your answers will be kept strictly confidential, and your information will not be added to any

kind of list for e-mail or other communications or solicitations. The survey should take

approximately 10 minutes.

In order to make sure we collect an accurate cross-section of Northampton residents, we need to

make sure we talk to residents from every part of the city. The only way we can verify we’ve

done this is if you’re willing to share your address with us.

1. What is your street address in Northampton (includes Florence and Leeds)?

………………………………………………………………Ward, if known………..

2. Who is the primary food shopper for your household? (Check one.)

____ I am the primary shopper

____ Someone else is the primary shopper

____ I share the shopping equally with others

3. How many people, including yourself, currently live in your household?

(Enter number.)

____ Adults

____ Children under age 18

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!9?!

4. Below is a list of places where you can get food in our area. Please check the box that

shows about HOW MANY TIMES PER MONTH you get food at each.

4 or

times

2–3

times

1 or

fewer

times

I don’t

shop

here

Large supermarkets, such as Big Y, Stop & Shop, or

Price Rite

Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, or other “natural” grocery

store chains

Stores such as Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, or other large

retail or wholesale stores

Convenience Stores, such as 7-Eleven or Hess

Food co-ops, such as River Valley Market

Small independent grocery stores, such as Serio’s,

Cooper’s Corner, or Cornucopia

Markets specializing in foods not normally carried by

supermarkets, such as World Foods Market or

Maple Valley Market

Farmers markets, such as the Saturday or Tuesday markets

Farm stores, such as Hickory Dell Farm or Outlook Farm

Roadside farm stands

A CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) farm)

Other

5. Thinking about the place you shop most often, what would you say are the TOP THREE

REASONS you shop there?

Check three

Affordable Prices

Accepts forms of payment I want to use

Convenient Location

Convenient Hours

Comfortable with store layout

One stop shopping – fast

Good Selection

Healthy food options

Other: please give reason

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!9A!

For the purposes of this survey, "local food" is defined as edible products (such as fruit,

vegetables, meat, eggs, dairy, jams, honey, bread, herbs, microbrews, maple syrup, etc.)

that have been grown or produced ONLY in the Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts.

These items may or may not be certified organic.

6. When you are purchasing food, how often do you check to see if the food you are buying

was produced or grown locally?

Check here

Always

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

7. How often do you buy locally produced or grown food?

Check here

Every week

Once or twice a month

Several times a year

Hardly ever / I don’t know

8. When local produce is in season, do you change your shopping habits to shop

at local Farmers markets, local farms, or other outlets for local food?

Please select the answer that comes CLOSEST to your situation.

Check here

Yes, I go out of my way to buy as much as possible there

Yes, but I don’t go out of my way

No, I don’t change my habits much or at all

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!98!

9. What are your TOP THREE REASONS for buying local food?

Check three

I don’t specifically buy local food

It is fresher

It is healthier

My family likes it

It fits my diet

It is organically or sustainably grown

It supports local farms and farmers

It is good for the environment

I know how and where it was grown

It is less expensive

10. What are the TOP THREE reasons that make it difficult for you to buy local food?

Check three

Nothing prevents me from buying local food

It is too expensive

It is difficult to get to the places that sell it

My family won’t eat it

The places that sell it do not accept my preferred form of payment

11. If you do NOT buy local food, what are your TOP THREE reasons for NOT

buying it?

Check three

I DO buy local food

It is too expensive

It is not convenient to prepare

My family won’t eat it

It is low quality

Lack of variety

It is not readily available where I shop

I do not know where to go to get it

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!99!

12. In general, do you think locally produced or grown foods are healthier than similar

foods brought in from other places?

____ Yes

____ No

13. Please explain your answer to Question 12:

………………………………………………………………………………………………

14. What are your TOP THREE favorite LOCAL FOOD ITEMS to buy?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

15. Based on your knowledge of what local foods are available to you in this area,

what OTHER food items would you like to have grown locally? List up to three items.

………………………………………………………………………………………………

16. In your opinion, how effectively does buying locally produced food help to achieve the

following goals?

A lot

A little

Not at all

Protecting the environment

Saving family farms

Keeping people healthy

Supporting the local economy of the Pioneer Valley

Preserving the rural character of the Pioneer Valley

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!9:!

17. If you eat local food, where do you most often get it? Please choose UP TO THREE.

Check three

I don’t specifically eat local food

Saturday Farmers Market on Gothic Street

Wednesday Farmers Market in Florence

Tuesday Farmers Market behind Thorne’s Market

Winter Farmers Market in Thorne’s basement

Farm Stands

Pick-your-own

Local markets, such as Serio’s

Food co-ops such as River Valley Market

Supermarkets

My own/Family member’s/Neighbor’s garden

Some other place; please specify:

……………………………………………………………………………………

18. How often do you shop at one or more of the Northampton farmers markets?

Check one

Often

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

19. If you rarely or never shop at farmers markets, why is that?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

20. Do you currently have or participate in a Farm Share or CSA (Community Supported

Agriculture) program?

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!9;!

Check one

Yes

Name of farm(s)

……………………………………………………………………………………

No, but I have in the past

No, but I am interested in a farm share

I have no interest in getting a farm share

I don’t know what this is

21. Do you grow food in your own garden or community plot, or get it from the gardens of

friends or family members?

Check one

Yes, a lot of food

Yes, a little

22. Would you like to grow your own food?

Check one

I’m already gardening for food

Yes, I would like to grow food

No, I am not interested at growing my own food

! !

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!9<!

23. If you would like to grow your own food, what would you need to start?

Please mark all that apply.

Check here

I’m already gardening for food

Education or training about how to grow food

Equipment to help me grow food

Someone to garden with

Someone to help me garden

Enough space for a garden

Community garden plots near my home

The money to get what I need to garden

More available time to tend a garden

24. How many DAYS A WEEK do you or someone in your family cook dinner

“from scratch”?

Check one

Never or almost never

1–2 days a week

3–5 days

6–7 days

25. How many DAYS A WEEK do you or your family eat store–bought prepared foods at

home, such as frozen or boxed main dishes or dinners?

Check one

Never or almost never

1–2 days a week

3–5 days

6–7 days

! !

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!9=!

26. On average, how many TIMES A WEEK does your family purchase food from FAST

FOOD restaurants, such as McDonald’s, Burger King, or Subway, either to eat there or

take away? In your answer, please include all meals at all times of the day.

Check one

I never eat fast food

Less than once a week

Once a week

2–5 times a week

6–10 times a week

11–15 times a week

More than 15 times a week

27. On average, how many TIMES A WEEK does your family purchase food from

restaurants OTHER THAN FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS, either to eat there or take

away? In your answer, please include all meals at all times of the day.

Check one

I only eat food prepared at home

Less than once a week

Once a week

2–5 times a week

6–10 times a week

11–15 times a week

More than 15 times a week

28. How important is it to you that the restaurants you eat at serve locally grown food?

Check one

Very important

Somewhat important

Not very important

Not at all important

! !

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!9>!

29. On average, how much does your household spend on all kinds of food for the home per

week, not including food you purchased at restaurants? If you are not sure, please make

your best guess.

Check one

Less than $25 per week

$26–50

$51–100

$101–150

$151–200

$201–$250

$251–$300

More than $300 per week

30. Across your entire life, how many years have you lived in the city of Northampton?

Check here

5 years or less

6–10

11–15

16–25

26–35

More than 35

31. Have you lived in Northampton (including Florence and Leeds) all your life?

____ Yes

____ No

32. Do you identify yourself as:

____ Male

____ Female

____ Other

33. What is your age?

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!9R!

Check here

18–19

20–34

35–44

45–54

55–64

65–74

75 and over

34. Do you identify yourself as Hispanic or Latino?

____ Yes

____ No

35. With what race do you identify? (Select all that apply)

____ American Indian or Alaska Native

____ Asian

____ Black or African American

____ Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

____ White / Caucasian

____ Other (please specify) ……………………………………………………………

36. What is your highest level of education?

Check here

Have not completed High School

High School graduate

G.E.D.

Two-year college

Four-year college

Graduate degree

37. What is your household income?

____ Less than $10,000

"##$!%&'()*+!,-'./&($.-*!0!1#2)3#*.2!%--3!45'6#7!1#$-'.!!!!!!!!!!!!:?!

____ $10,000–$14,999

____ $15,000–$24,999

____ $25,000–$34,999

____ $35,000–$49,999

____ $50,000–$74,999

____ $75,000–$99,999

____ More than $100,000

38. Are there any further comments that you would like to make about local food

or this survey?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

If you would be willing to be contacted at a later date to participate in a focused discussion group

on local food and agriculture, we ask that you complete the form on the accompanying sheet. In

order to keep this survey completely anonymous, do not attach the form to the survey.

_________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for taking the time and effort to complete this survey.

The results will contribute to planning for effective food systems for Northampton residents in

the future.

Thank you again.

Encuesta de Northampton Alimentos Residentes

Otoño 2011

Muchas gracias por su disposición a participar en la Encuesta de Northampton Alimentos

residentes.Esta encuesta se lleva a cabo por ciudadanos voluntarios interesados en aprender

más acerca de cómo los residentes en Northampton compram su comida. El proyecto está

patrocinado por la Comisión Agrícolas de Northampton.

Por favor, tome esta encuesta sólo si usted es un residente de Northampton, Florence o Leeds.

Sus respuestas serán estrictamente confidenciales y su información no será añadida a ningun

tipo de lista de correo electrónico u otras comunicaciones o solicitudes. La encuesta es

aproximadamente 10 minutos.

Con el fin de asegurarnos de obtener una sección transversal precisa de los residentes en

Northampton, necesitamos asegurarnos de hablar con los residentes de todas partes de la

ciudad. La única manera de comprobar que hemos logrado este objetivo es si usted está

dispuesto a compartir su dirección con nosotros.

1. ¿Cual es su dirección en Northampton (incluyendo Florence and Leeds)?

………………………………………………………………Ward, si sabes………….

2. ¿Quién está a cargo de hacer comprar los alimentos en el hogar? (Marque uno)

____ Yo estoy a cargo de las comprar los alimentos

____ Otra persona está encargada de comprar los alimentos

____ Comparto este deber con los demás miembros del hogar

3. ¿Cuántas personas, incluyéndose usted viven actualmente en el hogar? (Entre el

número)

____ Adultos

____ Niños menores de 18 años

Keep Farming Northampton 2

– 2 –

4. A continuación se muestra una lista de lugares donde se puede obtener los alimentos

en nuestra área. Por favor, marque la casilla que muestra CUÁNTAS VECES POR

MES compra en los lugares incluidos aqui.

4 or

mas

veces

2–3

veces

1 or

menos

veces

comprar

aqui

Los supermercados grandes como Big Y, Stop & Shop, o

Price Rite

Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, u otras bodegas “natural”

Tiendas como Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, u otras tiendas grande de

al por mayor o menor

Tiendas de convivencia, como 7-Eleven o Hess

Las cooperativas de alimentos, tales como el mercado del

River Valley Market

Pequeñas bodegas independiente, como Serio’s,

Cooper’s Corner, o Cornucopia

Mercados especializados en los alimentos que normalmente

no se lleva a los supermercados, tales como World Food

Market o Mercado de Maple Valley

Mercados de agricultores, como los mercados Saturday o

Tuesday

Mercados de agricultores, como Hickory Dell Farm o el

mercado Outlook

Granjas en la carretera

(CSA) Agricultura Apoyada por la Comunidad o granjas

Otro

Keep Farming Northampton 3

– 3 –

5. ¿Pensando en el lugar en el hace sus compras más a menudo. Que diría usted son

LAS TRES RAZONES principales por las cuales usted compra ahí?

Marque tres

Precios asequibles

Aceptan la forma de pago que quiero usar

Locación conveniente

Horas conveniente

Cómodo con la distribución de la tienda

Una parada de compras rápida

Buena selección

Opciones alimenticias saludables

Otra: por favor incluye la razón

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Para el proposito de esta encuesta, "alimentos locales" son definidos como productos

comestibles (como la fruta, verduras, carne, huevos, lácteos, mermeladas, miel, pan,

hierbas, cervezas, jarabe de arce, etc). Que han sido cultivados o producidos SÓLO en

Pioneer Valley del Oeste de Massachusetts. Estos artículos pueden ser o no ser

certificadas como orgánicos.

6. ¿Cuando usted está comprando la comida, ¿Con qué frecuencia la examina para

determinar si los alimentos que compra hayan sido producido o cultivados localmente?

Marque aqui

Siempre

A veces

Casi nunca

Nunca

Keep Farming Northampton 4

– 4 –

7. ¿Con qué frecuencia usted compra alimentos cultivados o producidos localmente?

Marque aqui

Cada semana

Una o dos veces al mes

Varias veces al año

Casi nunca/ no sé

8. ¿Cuando la producción local es de temporada, usted cambia sus hábitos de compras

para cambiar a los mercados de agricultores locales, las granjas locales, o de otros

puntos de venta de alimentos locales? Por favor, seleccione la respuesta que más se

acerca a su situación.

Marque aqui

Sí, hago todo lo posible de comprar tanto como sea posible

Sí, pero no trato mucho

No, yo no cambio mis hábitos

9. ¿Cuáles son sus tres principales razones para comprar alimentos locales?

Marque tres

Yo no compro comida local

Es más fresca

Es más saludable

A mi familia le gusta

Encaja mi dieta

Es orgánica o cultivada localmente

Apoya las granjas locales y los agricultores

Es bueno para el medio ambiente

Yo se como y donde es cultivada

Es menos costosa

Keep Farming Northampton 5

– 5 –

10. ¿Cuáles son las tres principales razones que hacen comprar alimentos locales difícil?

Marque tres

Nada me impide comprar alimentos locales

Es muy costosa

Es difícil llegar a los lugares que venden alimentos locales

Mi familia no comería alimentos locales

Los lugares que la venden no aceptan mi preferencia de pago

11. ¿Si usted no compra alimentos locales ¿Cuáles son sus tres principales razones para

no comprarlo?

Marque tres

Yo sí compro alimentos locales

Es muy costoso

No es conveniente de preparar

Mi familia no comería alimentos locales

Es de mala calidad

Falta de variedad

No so disponible en donde hago mis compras

No sé donde ir para obtenerlos

12. En general, ¿Cree que los alimentos cultivados o producidos localmente son más

saludables que similares alimentos traídos de otros lugares?

____ Si

____ No

13. Explique su respuesta a la pregunta 12:

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Keep Farming Northampton 6

– 6 –

14. ¿Cuáles son sus TRES PRODUCTOS FAVORITOS de alimentos locales para

comprar?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

15. Basado en su conocimiento sobre los alimentos locales disponibles para usted en su

área, ¿Cuáles OTROS productos alimenticios le gustaría que hayan sido cultivado

localmente? Haga una lista de tres productos.

………………………………………………………………………………………………

16. En su opinión, ¿Qué tan eficiente es comprar alimentos producidos localmente para

lograrlos siguientes objetivos?

Bastante

poco

Para

nada

Protegiendo el medio ambiente

Salvando familias

Manteniendo las personas saludable

Apoyando la economía local de Pioneer Valley

Preservando las características rural de Pioneer Valley

Keep Farming Northampton 7

– 7 –

17. Si usted come comida local, ¿Dónde los compra más a menudo? Por favor, elija

HASTA TRES.

Marque tres

Yo no consumo alimentos locales

Sábados Farmers Market en Gothic Street

Miercoles Farmers Market in Florence

Martes Farmers Market detrás de Thorne’s Market

Invierno Farmers Market en Thorne’s basement

Granjas en la carretera

Elija donde usted compra amenudo y si no esta mencionado aquí

Mercados locales, como Serio’s

Cooperativas alimenticias como River Valley Market

Supermercados

Mi propio/ de un familiar/ o jardín de un vecino

Otros lugares: por favor especifique

18. ¿Con qué frecuencia usted hace compras en uno o más de los mercados de los

agricultores en Northampton?

Marque uno

A menudo

A veces

Casi nunca

Nunca

19. Si rara vez o nunca compra en los mercados de agricultores, ¿Por qué no?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Keep Farming Northampton 8

– 8 –

20. ¿Tiene usted actualmente o ha participado en un programa de compartir su granja

o de agricultura apoyada por la comunidad?

Marque uno

Sí

Nombre de la granja(s)

No, pero he participado en el pasado

No, pero estoy interesada(o) en compartir una granja

No tengo ningún interés

No sé de que se trato esto

21. ¿Usted cultiva alimentos en su propio jardín o parcela de la comunidad, o lo

consigue de los jardines sus de amigos o familiares?

Marque uno

Si, muchos alimentos

Si, un poco

22. ¿Le gustaría cultivar su propia comida?

Marque uno

Ya estoy cultivando mi propia comida

Si, me gustaría cultivar mi propia comida

No estoy interesada(o) en cultivar mi propia comida

Keep Farming Northampton 9

– 9 –

23. Si usted desea cultivar su propia comida, ¿Qué usted necesita para ccomenzar? Por

favor, marque todas las respuestas que correspondan.

Marque aqui

Ya estoy cultivando mi propia comida

Capacitación sobre cómo cultivar alimentos

Equipo para ayudarme a cultivar los alimentos

Alguien con quien compartir el jardín

Alguien que me ayude a cultivar los alimentos

Suficiente espacio para cultivar

Parcelas de jardín comunitario cerca de mi casa

El dinero para conseguir lo que necesito para jardín

Más tiempo libre para cuidar de un jardín

24. ¿Cuántos DÍAS A LA SEMANA usted o alguien en su familia preparan la comida

"desde cero"?

Marque uno

Nunca o casi nunca

1–2 días a la semana

3–5 días

6–7 días

25. ¿Cuántos DÍAS A LA SEMANA, usted o su familia comen comida comprada o pre-

preparadas fuera del hogar, tales como comida congeladas o en cajas para la cena?

Marque uno

Nunca o casi nunca

1–2 días a la semana

3–5 días

6–7 días

Keep Farming Northampton 10

– 10 –

26. En promedio, ¿cuántas VECES A LA SEMANA su familia compra comida de

restaurantes de COMIDA RÁPIDA, como McDonalds, Burger King, o SubWay, ya sea

para comer allí o para llevar? En su respuesta, por favor incluya todas las comidas en

todo momento del día.

Marque uno

Yo nunca como comida rápida

Menos de una vez por semana

Una vez por semana

2–5 veces por semana

6–10 veces por semana

11–15 veces por semana

Más de 15 veces por semana

27. En promedio, ¿cuántas VECES A LA SEMANA su familia compra comida en

restaurantes QUE NO SON DE COMIDA RÁPIDA? Ya sea para comer allí o para

llevar. En su respuesta, por favor incluya todas las comidas en todo momento del día.

Marque uno

Solo como comidas preparadas en casa

Menos de una vez por semana

Una vez por semana

2–5 veces por semana

6–10 veces por semana

11–15 veces por semana

Más de 15 veces por semana

28. ¿Qué tan importante es para usted que los restaurantes que usted frequenta sirva

alimentos cultivados localmente?

Marque uno

Muy importante

Un poco importante

No muy importante

No me importa

Keep Farming Northampton 11

– 11 –

29. En promedio, ¿cuánto dinero su hogar gasta en todo tipo de alimentos para el hogar

por semana, sin incluir los alimentos que usted compra en los restaurantes? Si usted no

está seguro, por favor escriba su mejor promedio.

Marque uno

Menos de $25 por semana

$26–50

$51–100

$101–150

$151–200

$201–$250

$251–$300

Más de $300 por semana

30. A través de toda su vida, ¿cuántos años hace que vive en la ciudad de Northampton?

Marque uno

5 años o menos

6–10

11–15

16–25

26–35

Más de 35

31. ¿Ha vivido en Northampton (incluyendo Florence y Leeds) toda su vida?

____ Si

____ No

32. ¿Se identifica a sí mismo como:

____ Masculino

____ Femenino

____ Otro

Keep Farming Northampton 12

– 12 –

33. ¿Cuál es su edad?

Marque aqui

18–19

20–34

35–44

45–54

55–64

65–74

75 o más

34. ¿Se identifica a sí mismo como Hispano o Latino?

____ Si

____ No

35. ¿Con qué raza usted se identifica? (Seleccione todas las que corresponda)

____ indio americano o nativo de Alaska

____ asiático

____ negro o afro-americanos

____ nativo de Hawai u otras islas del Pacífico

____ blanco

____ otro (por favor especifique) …………………..……

36. ¿Cuál es su nivel más alto de educación?

Marque aqui

No he completado la escuela secundaria

Se graduó del colegio

G.E.D.

Dos años de universidad

Licenciatura

Título de posgrado

Keep Farming Northampton 13

– 13 –

37. ¿Cual es su ingreso familiar?

____ Menos de $10,000

____ $10,000–$14,999

____ $15,000–$24,999

____ $25,000–$34,999

____ $35,000–$49,999

____ $50,000–$74,999

____ $75,000–$99,999

____ Más de $100,000

38. ¿Hay algún otro comentario que le gustaría hacer acerca de los alimentos locales o

acerca de esta encuesta?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

Si usted estaría dispuesto a ponerse en contacto en una fecha posterior para participar en un

grupo debate centrado sobree alimentos locales y la agricultura locales, le pedimos que

complete el formulario en la siguiente hoja. A fin de mantener esta encuesta totalmente

anónima, por favor no entregen ambos formularios juntos.

_________________________________________________________________________

Gracias por tomar el tiempo y esfuerzo para completar esta encuesta.

Los resultados contribuirán a la planificación de los sistemas alimentarios efectivos para los

residentes de Northamptonen el futuro.

Gracias de nuevo.

!""#$%&'()*+$,-'./&(#.-*$0$1"#-'.$-*$2-3&4$%--5$)*$,-'./&(#.-*$1"6.&7'&*.6$$8$9$

MAY 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As the third in a series of surveys designed to gather information on Northampton’s local

food system, this survey was conducted among Northampton’s restaurants. The purpose was

to ascertain how much and what kinds of foods served are locally grown or produced, level

of interest in purchasing more local food, and what considerations facilitate or impede the

purchase of local ingredients.

Of the 72 restaurants initially reached through a preliminary interview designed to determine

whether they serve local food and whether they were willing to participate in a second, more

comprehensive, survey, 30 declined or failed to answer the questions. 42 restaurants

participated in the longer survey. Keep Farming volunteers obtained 38 usable questionnaires

over a period of 3 months in the fall of 2012.

More than 90% of respondents indicated that their customers are sometimes or almost always

interested in where the food they serve comes from, and that local food is important to these

customers. Over 90% believe that serving local food is very good or somewhat good for

business. No respondent believed that serving local food is not good for business. At the

same time, only 50% of restaurants say that they are very or somewhat effective in marketing

local food to their customers.

Nearly 80% of respondents indicated an interest in purchasing local food. Nearly all reported

that freshness and quality of food are the most important considerations influencing

purchasing patterns, with price and availability ranking nearly as high. When asked what

impedes their purchasing more local food, they reported the combination of price,

availability, convenience and delivery reliability. Challenges communicating with local

farmers underlay many of these issues.

Restaurateurs reported purchasing a wide variety of local foods, most frequently vegetables,

herbs, baked goods and beer. They named approximately 100 suppliers, most of which are

local to the Pioneer Valley or the surrounding hill towns of Western Massachusetts and

Southern Vermont.

Though most of the restaurateurs indicated a desire to purchase more locally grown or

produced food, it is clear that better communication is needed to help them understand what

foods are available, when, at what cost, and in what quantity. Mechanisms such as an

electronic Food Hub, a system for coordinating deliveries from various farms and producers

to restaurants, and pre-season meetings between farmers and buyers, would greatly increase

convenience and efficiency and likely result in greater reliance on local food on the part of

Northampton’s restaurants.

For additional information regarding this project, or to request an e-copy of this report,

please contact Fran Volkmann: franv@comcast.net.

KEEP FARMING NORTHAMPTON

REPORT on LOCAL FOOD in NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS

!""#$%&'()*+$,-'./&(#.-*$0$1"#-'.$-*$2-3&4$%--5$)*$,-'./&(#.-*$1"6.&7'&*.6$$8$:$

CONTENTS

Topic Page

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3

Methods .................................................................................................................................... 5

Results ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Profile of restaurants surveyed ........................................................................................... 7

Customer interest in local food ........................................................................................... 9

Restaurateurs’ interest in buying, preparing, and marketing local food ........................... 11

What considerations drive where restaurants buy their food? .......................................... 12

What locally grown foods do Northampton restaurants use? ........................................... 14

How can we increase the amount of local food that restaurants use? ............................... 17

Where do Northampton restaurants get their food? .......................................................... 18

Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 21

Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 23

Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 24

Appendix I: Contributors to the project ........................................................................... 24

Appendix II: Participating restaurants .............................................................................. 25

Appendix III: Keep Farming Northampton Restaurant Survey ........................................ 26

!""#$%&'()*+$,-'./&(#.-*$0$1"#-'.$-*$2-3&4$%--5$)*$,-'./&(#.-*$1"6.&7'&*.6$$8$;$

INTRODUCTION

This survey is part of a larger project designed to provide a detailed picture of

Northampton’s local food system: where our food is grown, how it is distributed, what is

sold in restaurants and served in institutions, and what is bought and eaten by Northampton

residents. The project also seeks to develop a continuing dialog among local consumers and

food providers. It is sponsored by the Northampton Agricultural Commission and uses the

methodology of the Glynwood Center’s Keep Farming Program® (www.Glynwood.org).