Layout 1 (Page v)

I guess you'd say

we were poor, but

we had a lot to eat

and didn't know

we were poor.

– Maurice Turney, 78

Tahlequah, Oklahoma

C L O S E R T O H O M E

The Kerr Center is a 501c(3) non-profit educationalfoundation. The home office, farm, and ranch are locatednear Poteau in southeastern Oklahoma.

The Kerr Center believes that a sustainable agriculturemust be socially equitable, profitable for producers andecologically sound. The Kerr Center values and supportsthe family farm structure of agriculture, a fair playing fieldfor independent farmers and ranchers, public researchfor the public domain, the enhancement and protection ofnatural resources, respect for nature, and local/regionalfood systems that enhance local economies.

Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Inc.PO Box 588

Poteau, OK 74953918.647.9123 fax: 918.647.8712

[email protected]

Closer to Home:Healthier Food, Farms and Families in Oklahoma

A Centennial Report

Maura McDermott, Editor

Wylie Harris, Lead Writer and Researcher

Doug Walton and Mary Penick

Community Foods Grant Principal Investigator: James E. Horne, Ph.D.

Kerr Center for Sustainable AgriculturePoteau, Oklahoma


Editor, Researcher, Writer: Maura McDermottLead Researcher and Writer: Wylie HarrisResearcher/Writer: Doug WaltonResearcher/Writer/Maps: Mary Penick

Contributing Writers:Emily Oakley, Mike Appel, Robert Waldrop,Shauna Lawyer Struby, Shaun Chavis

Policy Priorities:Maura McDermott, James E. Horne,Wylie Harris, Doug Walton

Layout, Design, Production:Tracy Clark, Argus DesignWorks

Photos:Maura McDermott, Doug Walton, Wylie Harris,Mary Penick

and

Cover, pgs. i, 8, 52, 54, 136: Mike Appel/EmilyOakley

p. 25 and 26: Barbara Denney

p. 32: David Crenshaw, courtesy Tulsa World

p. 103, 104: Broderick Stearns, Noble Foundation

p. 130: Duane Harrel, Oklahoma Department ofAgriculture, Food and Forestry

p. 131: Mandy Gross, Oklahoma State UniversityFood and Agricultural Products Center

p. 132: Todd Johnson, Oklahoma State University,Agricultural Communications Services

Closer to Home was funded by agrant from the USDA CooperativeState Research, Education andExtension Service, CommunityFoods Projects ProgramGrant # 2004-33800-1514

Community Foods Grant Principal Investigator: James E. Horne, Ph.D.

Oklahoma Food System Assessmentand Report Project Manager:Maura McDermott

Thank you to all who contributed time,information and spirit to this report.

Copyright © 2006Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture

Turney quote from: Smith, Betty.It's hot, but 1936 was even worse.Tahlequah Daily Press, July 21, 2006http://www.adaeveningnews.com/statenews/cnhinsall_story_202111547.html

Closer to Home:Healthier Food, Farms and Families in Oklahoma

A Centennial Report

Preface

Maura McDermott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Introduction

Maura McDermott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

How to Read This Report's County Snapshots

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Chapter One: Nutrition and Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Good Food for Good Health: Combating Poor Nutrition and

Obesity with Locally Grown Foods

Doug Walton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A Strong and Healthy Oklahoma: State and Private Employee

Health and Wellness Initiatives

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Public Policy Priorities: Nutrition and Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

A Going and Growing Market in Muskogee

Doug Walton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Who Shops at Oklahoma Farmers' Markets? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Snapshot: Muskogee County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Chapter Two: Food Insecurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Feeling Hungry: Food Insecurity in Oklahoma

Maura McDermott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Public Policy Priorities: Food Insecurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Hands Together for Community Food Security:

Community Gardens

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Snapshot: Oklahoma County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Chapter Three: Children's Health and Food Education . . . . . . . . 25

A Garden to Grow on: The Leach School Garden

Doug Walton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Snapshot: Delaware County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Curing Our Kids: Better Food for Better Health

Doug Walton & Maura McDermott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Melons Carry Seeds of Change:

Oklahoma's Farm to School Program

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Public Policy Priorities:

Children's Health and Food Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Stop the Supersizing of Oklahoma's Student Body:

Integris CEO and the Fit Kids Coalition Lead the

Way to Healthier Choices for Kids

Shauna Lawyer Struby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Chapter Four: The Cost of Good Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Getting What You Pay for: Affording Healthy Food

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

The Teacher Only Sets the Table: The Community Nutrition

Education Program

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Meeting the Food Stamp Challenge with Local Foods:

Slow Food for Low and Moderate Income People

Robert Waldrop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Public Policy Priorities: The Cost of Good Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Fresh and Affordable:

A Comparison of Farmers' Market and Grocery Store Prices

Emily Oakley & Mike Appel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Chapter Five: Access to Good Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

You Can't Get There from Here: Community Food Security in

Oklahoma's Food Deserts

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Coupons Worth Clipping

Doug Walton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Northeast Oklahoma City's “Grocery Gap”

Shaun Chavis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Public Policy Priorities: Access to Good Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

Chapter Six: Direct Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Direct From the Source:

Direct Market Produce from the Crows' Farm

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Who Sells at Oklahoma Farmers' Markets? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Farm Direct: Direct Sales' Potential for Increasing

Community Food Security

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Table of Contents


Local-plicity:

The Large Economic Multiplier Effects of Small Farms

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Public Policy Priorities: Direct Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Chapter Seven: State of the State's Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Changing with the Times: Oklahoma Farms in Transition

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

CSA in Oklahoma:

Linking Farms and Communities, City and Country

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Snapshot: Creek County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

It's Not Quite the Middle of Nowhere: CSA Goes Country

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Snapshot: Comanche County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Green Grass and Murray Greys: Beaver Creek Farms' Direct

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Public Policy Priorities: State of the State's Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Chapter Eight: Food Imports and Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Eating Cooperatively and Locally: The Oklahoma Food Co-op

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Town and Country: Kim Barker's Grassfed Beef and Lamb

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Balancing Trade for a Balanced Diet:

Oklahoma's Farm Exports and Food Imports

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Growing What We Eat?

Mary Penick & Maura McDermott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Importing Oklahoma's State Meal

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Public Policy Priorities: Food Imports and Exports . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Chapter Nine: Farm Diversification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

From Horn of Plenty to Plenty of Horns: Crop and Livestock

Diversity on Oklahoma Farms

Wylie Harris & Mary Penick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Land of Opportunity:

Steve Upson's Vision for Oklahoma Farms

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Snapshot: Carter County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Just Right in the Middle:

Sam's Sweet Onions as a Model for Diversification

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Public Policy Priorities: Farm Diversification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Chapter Ten: Local Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Local Food, Local Prosperity:

Local Farm Sales and Community Food Security

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

A Cool Peach of an Idea: Regrowing a Local Specialty

at Peach Crest Farm

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

The Buyer's-Eye View

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Public Policy Priorities: Local Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Chapter Eleven: Making Something New:

Adding Value to Oklahoma's Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

LOVAs for LIFE:

Value Added Processing and Community Food Security

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Adding Value to the Country:

Oklahoma's Rural Food Processors

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Snapshot: Cleveland County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Snapshot: Kiowa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Snapshot: Kingfisher County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129


Locally-Owned Value-Added (LOVA) Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Chapter Twelve: Something Different: Food Labels . . . . . . . . . . 133

Demand for Health: Community Food Security Surfs

the Wave of Value Added Food Labeling

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Spirit in the Dust:

Organic Wheat and Natural Beef at John's Farm

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Public Policy Priorities: Food Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Snapshot: Major County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

SPARC-ing Change on the Plains:

Soil, Health, and Sustainable Wheat

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Chapter Thirteen: Saving Farmland:

Urban Sprawl and Family Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Farmland Preservation in Oklahoma

Mary Penick & Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Farming the Family Way: Conrad Farms

Mary Penick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Snapshot: Tulsa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Public Policy Priorities: Saving Farmland:

Urban Sprawl and Family Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Chapter Fourteen: Keeping It Closer to Home:

Food Miles and Regional Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153

Food Miles: The Long Road to Community Food Security

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

How Far Can Food Miles Carry Community Food Security:

The Case of Braum's Dairy Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Public Policy Priorities: Keeping It Closer to Home:

Food Miles and Regional Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Concentration in the Food System

Wylie Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Snapshot: Grady County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Farming and the Environment: The Local Food Connection

Maura McDermott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

On the Menu: A Taste of Oklahoma

Maura McDermott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Appendix A: Price Comparisons Tulsa Cherry St.

Farmers' Market and Tulsa Grocery Stores 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

The Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture FAQs . . . . . . . . . . . .168

The Oklahoma Food Policy Council FAQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Building a Foundation for Food Security in Oklahoma . . . . . . . 171

The USDA Cooperative State Research, Education

and Extension Service: Community Food Projects . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

TABLES

Major Diet-Related Illnesses in Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Nutrients of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Recommended Daily Amount of

Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Farm to School Programs 2004-2006

and County Poverty Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

In Comparison: Fresh, Frozen, Canned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Busting a Myth:

Farmers' Market Produce is Fresh and Affordable . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Food Desert Counties; Severe Food Desert Counties . . . . . . . . . . 57

Change in Numbers of Food Store Types

by Food Desert Status, 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Rural Counties, Population Change, and Food Access . . . . . . . . . 63

Food Desert Counties with Schools Participating

in Farm to School Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Potential Increase in Average per Farm Income

from Direct Farm Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Direct Sales in Oklahoma and

Selected Other States, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

More Than Enough: Top Crops for Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Not Growing Enough: Food Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Percentages of Oklahoma Farms Producing

Selected Crops and Livestock, 1930-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100-101

Percentages of Oklahoma Farms Producing

Selected Crops and Livestock, 1940 and 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Number of Oklahoma Farms Producing

Selected Fruit and Vegetable Crops over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

The Most Important Factor that Buyers Consider

When Purchasing Fruits and Vegetables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Suppliers of Fruits and Vegetables to Buyers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Types of Post-harvest Services Oklahoma Buyers Would

Expect Local Producers or Their Cooperatives to Provide . . . . . 117


FIGURES

Prevalence of Overweight among Children and

Adolescents Ages 6-19 Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Percent Change in Number of Food Stores 1998-2002 . . . . . . . . 57

U.S. Direct Sales Farms and Sales, 1982-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Oklahoma Direct Sales Farms and Sales, 1982-2002 . . . . . . . . . 69

Oklahoma Farm Size, 1992-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Oklahoma Farm Operators by Age, 1982-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Oklahoma Principal Farm Operators

by Gender/Ethnicity, 1982-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Percent Change in Market Value of Farm Products Sold

and Farm Numbers, Selected Farm Sectors, 1992-2002 . . . . . . . 76

Per-acre Net Returns for Top Oklahoma Commodities,

1996-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Peanuts in Hughes County, 1987-2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Environmental Costs of Food System, Farm to Table . . . . . . . . . 154

Concentration in Selected Food Industry Sectors,

1982-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

MAPS

Maps created or adapted by Mary Penick

Oklahoma Registered Farmers' Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Percent of Total Population in Poverty, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Poverty Rates and Number of School Districts per County

Interested in Farm-to-School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Oklahoma Counties Serviced by Community

Nutrition Education Program (CNEP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Food Deserts in Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Food Deserts and Farmers' Market Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Food Deserts and Farm-to-School Interest per County . . . . . . . . 64

Oklahoma's Wheat Belt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Oklahoma: Farming on the Edge (Farmland Loss) . . . . . . . . . . . 145

v

Introduction

From Field to Fork: Community Food Security in Oklahoma

Homeland security; social security; householdsecurity - security is in the news and on theminds of Americans.

What about food security?

Is America food secure? Is Oklahoma food secure?

How one defines food security determines the answer.

To some people food security equals protection -protecting agriculture from diseases such as Mad Cow,protecting food from contamination by pesticides orfood-borne pathogens such as E. coli, or protectingfood distribution networks from terrorist attack.People trust government agencies to be on guard andsound the appropriate alarms when problems arise.

Many people simply equate food security with foodabundance: if America's grocery shelves are full, asthey are, the food supply must be secure.

Others see food security through completely differentglasses. To people who work in social services, foodsecurity means that individuals have physical andeconomic access to sufficient food to meet theirdietary needs.

In fact, the numbers of households who are foodinsecure are regularly counted: in Oklahoma in2004, 15.2% of households in the state had “limitedor uncertain access to nutritious, safe foods…”

Members of five percent of Oklahoma householdswent hungry on a regular basis, ranked worst amongthe fifty states. This statistic sounds a different kindof alarm.

Food security: same term, different points of view.

In recent years, yet another way of looking at food secu-rity has gained currency - “community” food security.

At the heart of the community approach to foodsecurity is the notion that as much as possible, foodshould be grown, processed and distributed locally,making “farm-fresh” goods available to everyone,

including those with low incomes.

This is the exact opposite of how it is now done.Much of the food Oklahomans eat is not grownhere, not processed here, and is shipped in from faraway. The result: a population increasingly alienatedfrom its food and therefore subject to poor eatinghabits, obesity and obesity-related diseases. The currentsystem leaves everyone, and especially low-incomepeople, without good access to fresh fruits and veg-etables. This system, with its many miles betweenfarm gate and dinner plate, is particularly vulnerableto disruption and the rising costs of energy.

The community food security movement proposes acommunity, or locally-based, food system as thelynchpin of food security.

What is a food system? The food system begins on thefarm and ends at the dining table. It encompassesagricultural production, food processing and distri-bution, and consumption and nutrition.

A community food system proposes expanded localproduction of a diverse array of foods, expandedmarkets for locally-grown foods, more local process-ing, and more direct contact between farmers andconsumers. It supports farms that are sustainable:environmentally friendly, socially equitable andeconomically viable over the long term.

The goal is to make high-quality, locally-grown foodavailable to everyone, no matter their income level,in the process rejuvenating family-scale agricultureand reconnecting urban consumers with their foodand their rural neighbors.

A community-based food system is appealing, pro-ponents say, because it has something for everyone.It goes beyond food handouts to the hungry orsubsidies for farmers. It promises fresher, tastierfood for everyone who eats and a style of economicgrowth with benefits that stay home, rather thanvanishing out-of-state or overseas.

C L O S E R T O H O M E vi

Community Food Security: A Short HistoryTraditionally, food insecurity has been tackled on thehousehold level. Government programs, such as foodstamps, and private efforts, such as food banks andsoup kitchens, have focused on getting food assistanceto the individuals and families who need it most.

Despite these strong efforts, rates of hunger andfood insecurity in the United States remain atvirtually the same levels as ten years ago.

Perhaps because of the seemingly intractable natureof the problem, public health researchers beganlooking at food security on a different level - thecommunity level - analyzing the quantity, qualityand affordability of food available in low-incomecommunities.

Factors that indicate a community may be food insecure:

• There are inadequate resources (such as grocerystores) from which people can purchase foods

• The available resources are not accessible to allcommunity members

• The food available through the resources is notsufficient in quantity or variety

• The food available is not competitively pricedand thus is not affordable to all households

• There are inadequate food assistance resourcesto help low-income people purchase foods atretail markets

• There are no local food production resources

• Locally-produced food is not available to com-munity members

• There is no support for local food productionresources

• There is any significant household food insecuritywithin the community. [1]

In 1996 the USDA launched its nationwide commu-nity foods program, which “seeks to forge partner-ships between USDA and local communities….” Animportant part of this initiative is connecting low-income people with fresh, locally grown food. [2]

The Federal Agriculture Improvement and ReformAct (FAIR) of that year established a federal grantprogram to support the development of CommunityFood Projects and the farm bill of 2002 reauthorizedthe program. The program is designed to

• Meet the needs of low-income people byincreasing their access to fresher, more nutri-tious food supplies

• Increase the self reliance of communities inproviding for their own food needs

• Promote comprehensive responses to localfood, farm and nutrition issues.

The USDA has identified a number of communityfood programs it sees as important to reducinghunger and food insecurity in the United States.These programs include

• farmers' markets - that boost incomes of smalllocal farms and increase consumers' access tofresh produce

• community gardens - that help low-incomeconsumers supplement their diets with home-grown produce

• community supported agriculture (CSA) farms -that can help provide small farms with economicstability and consumers with high quality produce,often at below retail prices

• farm-to-school initiatives - that help local farmerssell fresh fruits and vegetables directly to schoolmeals programs. [1]

Over the long term, the hope is that communityfood security programs will both “strengthen localcapacity for food production, processing and market-ing; and boost the effectiveness of federal food assis-tance and education programs by increasing theavailability of high quality affordable food within acommunity.” [1]

Community food programs, says USDA, can also“support rural communities by strengthening tradi-tional ties between farmers and urban consumers.” [2]

vii

Thinking Globally, Buying LocallyIn the ten years since the community foods programbegan, a diverse array of groups concerned withfood, farm and nutrition issues has come together toform the community foods movement.

Anti-hunger and anti-poverty advocates form thecore of this movement, which has as its fundamentalconcern the ability of low-income people to obtainadequate amounts of nutritious food. They havebeen joined by people promoting sustainable agri-culture, who were already involved in building localmarkets and increasing opportunities for family farms.

The sustainable agriculture activists have added theirperspective to the movement and identified severalproblems they believe indicate an ailing food system,including

• The loss of family farms since World War IIand the lack of opportunities for small- andmedium-sized family farms that remain

• The globalization of food - increasing importsof food produced without the safety or laborstandards in effect in the U.S.

• The concentration of food industries, with a fewgiant companies dominating and eliminatingcompetition

• Communities, both rural and urban, losing theability to feed themselves. [3]

Public health advocates have also joined the discus-sion, bringing up issues that impact most Americans,regardless of income level, such as

• Alarming rates of obesity and diet related diseases

• Public ignorance about proper diet, nutritionand agriculture.

Environmentalists concerned with energy conservationand global warming add to the mix such issues as

• The 1,500 miles the average food item travelsfrom “gate to plate”

• The industrial-style production of meat inCAFOs (confined animal feeding operations),which can pollute the environment.

Advocates propose that many of these problems canbe solved with community food systems. They claimfar-reaching benefits, such as better nutrition andhealth for everybody (including those with lowincomes), more opportunities for family farms, andmore jobs and a better economy. They point out theenvironmental benefits of smaller-scale farms thatuse sustainable or organic production techniques.Others say that more food self-reliance makes com-munities and individuals more secure in this age ofterrorism and dwindling/threatened oil supplies.

Closer to HomeThis report is a picture of Oklahoma's food system,seen through the lens of community food security.It is an attempt to answer the question posed at thebeginning of this piece: Is Oklahoma food secure?

Two years in the making, this groundbreaking reportfeatures extensive research and original analysis. It isthe first attempt to look at Oklahoma's food systemfrom field to table, the first time that informationabout agriculture and agricultural markets have beencombined with information on nutrition, health andfood access into one report.

Closer to Home has a reader-friendly format. Thereport features about two dozen magazine-stylearticles about innovative people, businesses andprograms contributing positively to community foodsecurity in Oklahoma. The profiles run the gamutfrom a successful community garden at a small coun-try school in Delaware County, to Oklahoma's ownregional dairy, Braum's.

Alongside the profiles, we examine the community

Childhood Poverty in Oklahoma

In Oklahoma, 21.1% of children live in poverty.

In 45 of Oklahoma’s 77 counties the rate meets or exceeds

that average.

Rates rise above 30% in five rural counties: Pushmataha,

McCurtain, Seminole, Choctaw and Harmon. [10]

C L O S E R T O H O M E viii

food security issues raised by the articles. For exam-ple, alongside a profile of the Oklahoma Farm-to-School program, we explore the diet-related healthproblems of Oklahoma's kids. Along with a profileof Ricky and Claudia Crow's farm near Shawnee,we investigate the economic potential of farmersselling direct to consumers.

In the first five chapters of Closer to Home, we take anin-depth look at food insecurity in the state, as wellas the diet-related health problems of Oklahomansand efforts to find solutions to these problems.

Despite strong ongoing efforts by state and federalagencies and concerned citizens, Oklahoma has ratesof household food insecurity higher than the nationalaverage, and in recent years, the highest rate ofhunger in the nation. Thirty-two counties inOklahoma have been classified as “food deserts,”meaning residents have poor access to supermarketsand consequently to a variety of foods.

Closely correlated with a high rate of food insecurityis a high rate of poverty. Again, Oklahoma's numbersare higher than the national average. In 2003,Oklahoma's poverty rate was 14.6%, compared tothe national rate of 12.5%.

Oklahoma is also struggling with an obesity epidemic,a crisis that is costing its citizens dearly, both in lifeand wealth. Because of obesity-related diseases,thousands of Oklahomans die prematurely each year(and Oklahoma is the only state whose age-adjusteddeath rates have been getting worse). Oklahomanswho are overweight or obese account for $864 millionper year in direct medical expenditures. [4]

In the next nine chapters, we explore the possiblesocial and economic benefits of more self-reliant,locally-based, community food systems.

While some important programs (such as the Madein Oklahoma label) are in place to promoteOklahoma-grown food products, much potential hasyet to be realized. Oklahomans spend $8 billion onfood each year, yet much of that amount flows out ofthe state. Why? As the number of Oklahoma farmshas declined by one-half since 1940, so too has thediversity of the crops produced on the farms that

A New Way to Look atthe Food SystemLooking at food and agriculture issue through the lens of community

food security requires one to look at the whole food system and

understand how each part affects the whole food security of a given

community.

Community food security programs and policies address a broad

range of issues, including, but not limited to:

• Participation in and access to federal food assistance programs

• Economic opportunity and job security

• Community development and social cohesion

• Ecologically sustainable agricultural production

• Farmland preservation

• Economic viability of rural communities

• Direct food marketing

• Diet-related health problems

• Access to emergency food. [9]

At first glance, some of these topics don't seem to be related. For

instance, what does farmland preservation have to do with diet

related health problems? Or direct marketing?

But digging a bit deeper, one can see the connections. In Oklahoma,

high rates of obesity and diet-related health problems are due in part

to diets with too many high fat, high sugar foods and not enough

fresh fruits and vegetables.

Many argue that the best tasting, and therefore most likely to be

eaten, fruits and vegetables are those grown nearby - picked ripe,

handled properly and served as quickly as possible. When this is done,

the nutritional value is high.

In order to have highly palatable, fresh fruits and vegetables close at

hand, one must have a viable local agriculture and viable local markets

such as farmers' markets where farmers make direct sales to consumers.

In order to have a viable local agriculture, local farm land must be

preserved. Much of the best farmland in the nation surrounds cities,

where it at most risk of being lost, converted into subdivisions or

industrial parks (this is also true in Oklahoma). Hence, there is a need

for farmland preservation programs.

Looking at food and agriculture through the lens of community food

security allows one to see the connections between seemingly

unrelated issues.

ix

remain. The result: much of the food eaten here isgrown and processed elsewhere.

So while Oklahoma agriculture makes money onlarge crops of a few commodities such as cattle andwheat, it forgoes potential income by failing to meetits own consumer demands for many other fooditems. That argument runs like this: if Oklahomansstarted spending ten percent of their $8 billionannual food budget on Oklahoma-grown foods, thatwould be an $800 million boost to the state's agri-cultural income.

But the economic power of local food goes farbeyond simple addition and subtraction. Everyadditional dollar spent on Oklahoma food multipliesits own value many times over in the local economy,circulating through the community and creatingwealth. According to a study in Iowa, every dollarspent at a farmers market generated $1.58 in addi-tional sales, and every dollar earned by vendorstranslated into $1.47 in other income.

Rural communities in Oklahoma are in need of suchincome. Rural rates of poverty (16.3%) are muchhigher than urban rates (13.7%). Fifteen countiesin Oklahoma have been labeled “persistent poverty”counties, where poverty is long-standing and results“from a complex of social and economic factors….” [5]

In general, per capita income is quite a bit (25%)lower in rural Oklahoma counties than in urbancounties. In addition, Oklahoma State Universityresearchers have reported a “widening gap betweenretail sales in metro areas and retail sales in non-metro (rural) areas” which has a “tremendous impli-cation for rural communities.”

Declining sales tax revenues from retail sales (oftengroceries) can lead to a loss of services, which can inturn cause residents “to move toward the metropoli-tan areas” resulting in a “a vicious cycle for thesetroubled towns.” [6]

These statistics make the question of how to buildOklahoma's rural communities crucial to the futurewell-being of Oklahoma. In “community listeningsessions” conducted by the Oklahoma CooperativeExtension Service in 2002 in every county in the

state, Oklahomans were asked to identify the crucialissues that needed to be addressed in their communities.

Citizens in 38% of Oklahoma counties expressed adesire for more agriculture-based development, suchas the development of value-added agricultural prod-ucts. Examples of value-added products are cuts ofbeef, cheese, breads, juices - agricultural crops whichhave been processed to varying degrees to becomethe foods people eat. [7]

This report takes a closer look at twelve counties inOklahoma in the series of “county snapshots” thatare paired with profiles throughout. For example,alongside an article about the Muskogee Farmers'Market is a “snapshot” of Muskogee County.Together on one page are key indicators of thephysical and economic health of county residents,information on crops and farm profitability, andindicators of the potential for greater communityfood security, such as interest in farm-to-schoolprograms and dollars spent on food.

The county snapshots could easily serve as a startingpoint for groups who want to conduct a more in-depthassessment of their community's food security.

Indeed, Closer to Home is meant to be an ice-breaker,a conversation starter, a catalyst for further study andaction to improve Oklahoma's food system so that itserves everyone well.

In each chapter, we propose policies and actions thatcould bring greater food security, in all its flavors, toOklahoma in the 21st century.

Sustainable Community Food Systems:The Main Idea

• Food is produced, processed and distributed as locally as possible

• Supports a food system that

• Preserves farmland

• Fosters community economic vitality

• Requires less energy for transportation

• Offers consumers the freshest food [8]

C L O S E R T O H O M E x

Scattered throughout this report, you'll comeacross "snapshots" of Oklahoma counties thatrelate in some way to the topic being discussed -

the county that's home to the farm in a profile, forexample, or a county that's classified as a food desertin the section on food deserts.

These "snapshots" are collections of statistics, orindicators, that, taken together, help to give an ideaof what the current status and future prospects ofcommunity food security are for those counties.

While this report looks at Oklahoma overall, thesecounty-level indicators could serve as a jumping-offpoint for more detailed analyses of community foodsecurity at a more local level. [1]

Here, we present a "snapshot" of the state ofOklahoma, using the same indicators contained inthe individual county snapshots, as a guide to usingthis information.

(In the county snapshots, some indicators are fol-lowed by other numbers, italicized and in brackets.These are state averages for the same indicator, toshow how individual counties compare to what'shappening statewide. In this state snapshot, the ital-icized and bracketed values are nationwide averages.)

Population - total, and % change: How many peopleneed to be fed? How many people are buying food? Isthat number rising, and putting development pressureon farmland, or falling as rural areas empty out? [2]

Number of farms - total, and % change: How manyfarms are there, and is the number increasing ordropping? [3]

To give depth to that information, the numbers offarms that are making and losing money, and theaverage amount that farms in each of those situa-tions are taking in or losing, is also reported.

The number of farms receiving government subsi-dies, and the average subsidy amount, is also shown.This is meant to counter the perception that farmsupport programs necessarily benefit all farms, or

small family farms, and to stimulate thought aboutwhat subsidy programs are accomplishing, or couldaccomplish.

Per capita personal income, and % change: These aremeasures of the economic health of the county. [2]

Average farm net income, and % change: These offer asimilar gauge of the farm economy specifically, and,when compared to per capita personal income, givea sense of whether farming is a relatively more orless financially rewarding occupation than others inthe area. [3]

Poverty rate [4], unemployment rate [2], and percentageof students eligible for free and reduced-price school lunch-es [5]: These are all measures of household econom-ic well-being; the lower these numbers are, the lessfood-secure are the people they represent.

Percentage of population that is underweight/normal,overweight, and obese: These indicators spell out howsevere the obesity crisis is on a local level. They canbe considered together with the foregoing economicindicators to shed some light on the relationshipbetween poverty on the one hand and poor nutritionand health on the other. [6]

Amount spent on food: This carries an idea of howmuch buying power a community exercises in itscurrent food purchases - which is also a measure ofhow much economic support could potentially existfor sales of locally grown food. [7]

Value of direct sales [3], number of farmers' markets [8],and number of schools interested in farm-to-school pro-grams [9]: If the previous indicator shows theheights that local food systems could reach, this oneshows how far they have to climb, tallying the dollarvalue of food sales transacted by farmers face to facewith their customers, the number of nearby farmers'markets where such transactions can take place, andthe number of schools willing to work toward feed-ing their students more food grown by local farms.

Major crops: Lists the top three crops in value of sales

How to Read This Report’s “County Snapshots”

xi

[Bracketed figures in italics

are national averages

for comparison.]

Community Food Security: Snapshot

Oklahoma

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

< $1

,000

< $2

,499

< $4

,999

< $9

,999

< $1

9,99

9

< $2

4,99

9

< $3

9,99

9

< $4

9,99

9

< $9

9,99

9

< $2

49,9

99

< $4

99,9

99

> $5

00,0

00

3,511,532 people in 2003 +2% since 2000 [+3 %]

83,300 farms in 2002 -1% since 1997 [-4 %]:

36,375 with net gains, averaging $31,559

46,907 with net losses, averaging $ 9,878

24,316 with federal subsidies, averaging $6,166

Per capita personal income, 2003: $25,936 [$31,472]

Average farm net income, 2002: $ 8,220 [$19,032]

Poverty: 14.5 % [12.1%] Unemployment: 5.66% [5.80%]

Students receiving free and reduced price lunches: 54.1% [59.0%]

Percentage of state population that is

Underweight/normal: 39.9 [40.6] Overweight: 36.0 [36.6] Obese: 24.1 [22.8]

Amount spent in 2004 on

groceries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,470.0 million

meals at restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,076.5 million

Value of direct sales, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.7 million

Farmers’ markets in state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Number of school districts interested in farm-to-school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Major crops: cattle, poultry, hogs

Fruit/vegetable crops (on # of farms): pecans(2,879), watermelons(311),

peaches(277), tomatoes(271), apples(239), grapes(234), and many others

Percent of farms with gross sales...

14 METRO COUNTIES32 FOOD DESERT COUNTIES

C L O S E R T O H O M E xii

receipts, as an indicator of the dominant kinds offarming in the area. These are almost always low-margin commodity crops, the bulk of which areshipped out of Oklahoma for value-added processingelsewhere. [3]

Fruit/vegetable crops: In contrast to the previous indi-cator, this one lists the number of farms growing rel-atively higher-value crops, many of which are ideal-ly suited to production for local use. It can be readas a measure of the existing potential for communi-ty food security on the agricultural side: what kindsof crops work in a given area, and how many farmsare currently raising them? [3]

Percentage of farms in different gross sales brackets:This indicator can help to upend contending mythsabout farm economics: both that farming is a dead-endoccupation, and that all farmers are rich.

In the state as a whole, for example, nearly a quarterof all farms gross less than $1,000 a year, and halfgross less than $10,000. Such figures can help fleshout the net farm income indicator given earlier; ahigh average net farm income can sometimes resultfrom a relatively small number of farms with extremelyhigh returns, surrounded by neighbors with low ornegative net incomes. [3]

Metro/nonmetro: These categories correspondroughly to “urban” and “rural” respectively. Theyare taken from a USDA classification system basedon counties' populations and proximity to largecities. [10]

Food desert/non food desert: Counties are classified asfood deserts when more than a quarter of theirresidents live more than 10 miles from the nearestsupermarket or supercenter, and as “severe” fooddeserts when all of their residents do. [11]

1

Chapter One: Nutrition and Health

Good Food for Good Health: Combating Poor Nutritionand Obesity with Fresh Locally Grown Foods

Serious problems don’t always require complicated solutions. In a stateranked second in deaths due to cardiovascular disease and last in thepercentage of adults eating five or more fruits or vegetables a day, it’s

not very difficult to conclude that if Oklahomans ate better, they wouldbe healthier.[1,2]

The Girth of a State As seen in recent headlines and newsreels, obesity has become a nationalepidemic. In Oklahoma, over one third of adults are overweight, and thepercentage of those who are obese has more than doubled since 1990,up from 11 to 24% of all adults, according to the Centers for DiseaseControl.[3] (See sidebar for definitions.) The percentage of children andadolescents who are overweight has also significantly increased over thepast few decades.[4]

With obesity comes a long list of associated physical and emotional sideeffects, on top of increased risks for life threatening and disabling diseases.Researchers at the National Institutes of Health report that overweightand obesity are responsible for a two to three fold increase in the risk ofcardiovascular disease.[5]

Likewise, obesity has been shown to raise the risk of diabetes by as muchas five times, as was evident between 1994 and 2003, when rates of dia-betes doubled in Oklahoma.[6,7] Other serious chronic diseases besidesheart disease and diabetes have also been linked to obesity and poor diets(Table 1). According to the American Cancer Society, “about one thirdof the cancer deaths that occur in the U.S. each year are due to nutritionand physical activity factors, including excess weight.”[8]

While Oklahomans of all ages, incomelevels, races and genders are facing thehealth consequences of poor diets andsedentary lifestyles, an even higherprevalence of chronic illness is foundwithin some ethnic minorities.

Rates of diabetes and obesity are nearlytwice as high in Native Americans, anddeaths from heart disease are 20% higherin African-Americans, compared to allOklahomans.[9,10] Also, the death ratefrom colorectal cancer among African-

Defining and MeasuringOverweight and Obesity

Being overweight simply means

having a body weight that is

disproportionate to one’s height.

Obesity occurs when this height to

weight relationship becomes extreme.

Both overweight and obesity are

universally measured using the Body

Mass Index (BMI), which is a simple

calculation showing an individual’s

body weight adjusted for height.

A frequently cited

1998 national study

found that overall,

taste was the most

important influence

on people’s food

choices. The next

most important

consideration was cost,

followed by nutrition,

convenience and

weight control.

5

“Calorie addiction”

is cited by the State

Department of Health

as one of the top causes

of death and disease

in Oklahoma.

C L O S E R T O H O M E 2

American Oklahomans is nearly twice that of theirwhite counterparts.[11]

High Costs of Poor Diets Obesity and diet-related illnesses place a huge burdenon the state’s health care system. They also signifi-cantly impact the productivity and quality of life formany Oklahoma families. Studies cited in the journalObesity Research found that obese adults have 36%higher average medical expenditures compared withthose of normal weight adults.

In 2003, the total annual medical costs of obesity inOklahoma were estimated to be $854 million, withapproximately 45% of these costs borne by Medicareand Medicaid.[12] The annual costs of cardiovascu-lar disease and lost productivity from death and dis-ability are estimated at nearly five billion dollars inOklahoma.[13]

These heavy financial tolls are passed on to familiesthrough ever increasing health care prices and insur-

ance premiums, as well as through higher taxes tooffset government health programs. Furthermore, asfamily members become consumed with caring fortheir loved ones, their own personal productivity atwork and in their communities is diminished.

From the 2005 State of the State’s Health Report, theOklahoma State Board of Health concludes, “Unlesswe can reverse the obesity epidemic, especially amongour youth, our healthcare system will be strained tothe breaking point as the population ages.”

Garbage In / Garbage Out“Calorie addiction” is cited by the State Departmentof Health as one of the top causes of death and diseasein Oklahoma.

Over the past 30 years, U.S. diets have undergone dra-matic changes, marked by increased consumption offast foods, soft drinks and high calorie processed foods.USDA food consumption data shows that between1970 and 2003, America’s average consumption of

Table 1: Major Diet-Related Illnesses in Oklahoma

Chronic Illness % of State State Major Dietary Diets High in These Increase Diets High in These Decrease

Deaths1 Rank2 Risk Factors Risk of Chronic Illness Risk of Chronic Illness

Heart Disease 31 49 High blood cholesterol Saturated fats Fruits and vegetables

High blood pressure Trans fatty acids Whole grain products

Obesity and overweight Dietary cholesterol Legumes

Diabetes Refined carbohydrates

Stroke 7 43 High blood pressure High-sugar foods Fruits and vegetables

Diabetes Saturated and trans fats Whole grain products

Arterial plaque buildup Dietary cholesterol Legumes

Heart disease Added salt Fish, reduced fat milk

Cancer3 6 N/A Obesity and overweight Saturated fats Fruits and vegetables

High fat red meats Beans and whole grains

Refined carborhydrates

Diabetes 3 39 Obesity and overweight Refined carbohydrates Fruits and vegetables

Elevated blood glucose Saturated fats Whole grain products

High blood pressure

High blood cholesterol

1 Oklahoma State Department of Health. 2005. 2003 Oklahoma Vital Record Statistics.2 Oklahoma State Board of Health. 2006. A Strong and Healthy Oklahoma: 2006 State of the State’s Health.3 Primarily cancers of the breast, colon, rectum, esophagus, gallbladder, pancreas, liver and kidney”

SOURCES:

American Heart Association - http://www.americanheart.org

National Cancer Institute - http://cis.nci.nih.gov

American Cancer Society - http://www.cancer.org

American Diabetes Association - http://www.diabetes.org

3

high-fructose corn syrup grew from a half pound to 43pounds per person each year, mostly coming from softdrinks, but also from processed and refined foods.[14]

These food and drink products displace highernutrient, lower calorie foods such as fruits, vegetablesand whole grains from people’s diets. In fact, only15% of adults in Oklahoma eat five or more servingsof fruits and vegetables per day, ranking the statedead last in the nation.[13]

Besides not eating fruits and vegetables, mostAmericans are barely eating one of the three recom-mended daily servings of whole grains, while nearly40% eat no whole grains at all.[15]

This soaring consumption of unhealthy foodstuffsrelative to nourishing foods leaves many people high

and dry, in terms of body weight and nutrition,respectively. According to the 2005 DietaryGuidelines for Americans, “Many Americans con-sume more calories than they need without meetingrecommended intakes for a number of nutrients.”[16]This holds true for Oklahoma as well, where a highpercentage of people are not getting a sufficientintake of many nutrients considered essential forgood health (Table 2).

Bad nutrition cuts across all age levels, includingthe state’s senior citizens. Less than a quarter ofOklahomans age 65 and older eat five servings aday of fruits and vegetables, leaving only one state,Louisiana, with a worse record. A state-by-stateReport Card on Healthy Aging published by theMerck Institute on Aging and Health also found that

Table 2: Nutrients of Concern[1]

% of Oklahomans % of U.S. Population

not meeting not meeting High Nutrient Food Sources

Nutrient recommended intake2 recommended intake Grown in Oklahoma3

Vitamin A* 60 54 sweet potato, carrots, spinach, collard and turnip greens,

pumpkin, winter squash, sweet red peppers, cantaloupe

Vitamin C* 53 48 sweet and hot peppers, strawberries, broccoli, cantaloupe,

cauliflower, red cabbage, turnip and mustard greens, peas

Vitamin E 88 86 sunflower seed, spinach, turnip greens, red sweet pepper,

broccoli, peanuts, asparagus, tomato, blackberries

Calcium 77 73 yogurt, milk, collard greens, spinach, black-eyed peas,

cheddar cheese, turnip greens, okra, mustard greens

Magnesium 72 68 whole wheat flour, spinach, cornmeal, pumpkin and squash

seeds, soybeans, lima beans, black-eyed peas, okra,

peanuts

Potassium4 93 91 potato, lima beans, winter squash, soybeans, spinach, sweet

potato, black-eyed peas, yogurt, beets, whole wheat flour

Fiber 91 90 whole wheat flour, lima beans, black-eyed peas, blackberries,

winter squash, collards, broccoli, pears, sweet potato

1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

2 USDA-ARS Community Nutrition Map - http://www.ba.ars.usda.gov/cnrg/services/state40.html

3 Food sources listed in descending order of nutrient content. Method of preparation can affect nutrient levels.

USDA - ARS Nutrient Database - http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR17/wtrank/wt_rank.html

4 Nowverl, A. 2005, 2006. Personal Communication. USDA-CNRG.

* Low intake of Vitamins A and C are of particular concern in adults


Oklahoma’s seniors ranked poorlyin the number of “physicallyunhealthy days” reported during athirty-day period, with only fiveother states logging moreunhealthy days.[17]

Oklahoma’s overall populationincludes a slightly greater percent-age of seniors (13.2%) than thenational average (12.4%). But inrural Oklahoma counties, thepercentage of the population thatis over age 65 jumps to nearly 18%(see sidebar).[18] The nutrition ofOklahoma’s seniors should there-fore be of even greater concern.

Key Recommendation: More Fruits, Vegetables and Whole Grains Since Americans’ average daily consumption of nutritious foods fallswell below recommended guidelines, nutritionists on all fronts of thebattle against the bulge agree that Americans need to eat fewer sugarsand fats, and more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains (Table 3).

These vital foods come straight from nature with a powerful packageof health benefits. Their consumption is associated with reducing therisks of numerous chronic diseases and illnesses such as heart disease,stroke, cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol andkidney stones.

Fruits, vegetables and whole grains are also leading sources of severalnutrients essential for good health, such as vitamins A, B, C and E, aswell as calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium and dietary fiber.Furthermore, fruits and vegetables are naturally low in fats and calories,and none have cholesterol.

Eat Fresh for FlavorPeople who work in public health are rightly concerned about theincreasing incidence of obesity and related illnesses in Oklahomans.A number of better-health and weight loss initiatives from state agencies,the state legislature, and grassroots groups, have been launched inrecent years.[19] They generally urge Oklahomans to both increasetheir physical activity and improve their diets.

At the same time, researchers around the U.S. have been studying whyit is that people eat what they do. Armed with this information, publichealth officials can be more effective in their efforts to get people to

Selected Age Group: Oklahoma Census 2000

65 years and over

Number Percent

Rural Counties

ADAIR 2535 12

ALFALFA 1243 20.4

ATOKA 2050 14.8

BEAVER 992 16.9

BECKHAM 3059 15.5

BLAINE 2015 16.8

CADDO 4499 14.9

CHOCTAW 2664 17.4

CIMARRON 585 18.6

COAL 1078 17.9

COTTON 1174 17.8

CRAIG 2418 16.2

CUSTER 3593 13.7

DELAWARE 6501 17.5

ELLIS 895 22

GARVIN 4883 17.9

GRANT 1103 21.4

GREER 1215 20

HARMON 691 21

HARPER 773 21.7

HASKELL 2024 17.2

HUGHES 2626 18.6

JEFFERSON 1372 20.1

JOHNSTON 1621 15.4

KINGFISHER 2139 15.4

KIOWA 2079 20.3

LATIMER 1718 16.1

McCURTAIN 4611 14

McINTOSH 4238 21.8

MAJOR 1465 19.4

MARSHALL 2576 19.5

MAYES 5703 14.9

MURRAY 2331 18.5

NOBLE 1737 15.2

NOWATA 1829 17.3

OKFUSKEE 1925 16.3

PUSHMATAHA 2131 18.3

ROGER MILLS 644 18.7

SEMINOLE 4169 16.7

TILLMAN 1795 19.3

WASHITA 2160 18.8

WOODS 1808 19.9

Average Percent 17.8

If the production

and promotion of

locally grown fruits

and vegetables

were increased,

Oklahoma families

would have more

home-grown

nutritious options

from which to choose.

eat a more healthful diet.

A frequently cited 1998 national study found thatoverall, taste was the most important influence onpeople’s food choices. The next most important con-sideration was cost, followed by nutrition, conven-ience and weight control. Gender, age, ethnicity,income level and orientation towards a healthy lifestylepredicted the relative importance of the various factors.As might be expected, cost was of greater importanceto low income people, as was convenience.

The report’s authors concluded that emphasizing thegood taste of healthful foods would be a promisingapproach to encourage those not currently eating ahealthy diet to make more health-promoting foodchoices. They also recommended that nutritioncampaigns stress the convenience of eating healthyfoods such as fruits and vegetables and promote con-venient ways to include them in the diet.[20]

Community food activists suggest that a general lackof familiarity and connection with healthy foods

5

Table 3: Recommended Daily Amount of Fruits, Vegetables and Grains(vegetable subgroup amounts are per week)1

Average DailyFood Group2,3 Calorie Level4 Consumption in U.S.5,6

1,600 2,000 2,400

Fruits 1.5 cups 2 cups 2 cups .7 cup

(3 servings) (4 servings) (4 servings) (1.4 servings)

Vegetables 2 cups 2.5 cups 3 cups 1.9 cups

(4 servings) (5 servings) (6 servings) (3.7 servings)

Dark green veg. 2 cups/week 3 cups/week 3 cups/week 0.7 cups/week

Orange veg. 1.5 c/wk 2 c/wk 2 c/wk 0.7 cups/week

Legumes 2.5 c/wk 3 c/wk 3 c/wk 0.7 cups/week

Starchy veg. 2.5 c/wk 3 c/wk 6 c/wk 4.6 cups/week

Other veg. 5.5 c/wk 6.5 c/wk 7 c/wk 6.3 cups/week

Grains 5 servings 6 servings 8 servings 10 servings

Whole grains 3 srvg 3 srvg 4 srvg 1 srvg

Other grains 2 srvg 3 srvg 4 srvg 9 srvg

NOTES:1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.2 Food items included in each group and subgroup:

Fruits - All fresh, frozen, canned and dried fruits and fruit juice.

Vegetables - All fresh, frozen and canned sources.

Dark green vegetables - including broccoli, spinach, romaine, collard, turnip and mustard greens.

Orange and deep yellow vegetables - including carrots, sweetpotatoes, winter squash and pumpkin.

Legumes - All cooked dry beans and peas and soybean products.

Starchy vegetables - including white potatoes, corn and green peas.

Other vegetables - including tomatoes, tomato juice, iceberg lettuce, green beans and onions.

Grains

Whole grains - including whole-wheat and rye breads, whole-grain cereals and crackers, oatmeal and brown rice.

Other grains - including white breads, enriched grain cereals and crackers, enriched pasta and white rice.

3 Quantity equivalents for each food group:

Fruits and vegetables - 1 serving equals 1/2 cup cut-up raw or cooked fruit or vegetable; 1/2 cup fruit or vegetable juice; one cup leafy salad greens.

Grains - 1 serving (one ounce-equivalent) equals: 1/2 cup cooked rice, pasta or cooked cereal; 1 ounce dry pasta or rice; 1 slice bread;

1 small muffin (1 oz); 1 cup ready-to-eat cereal flakes.

4 Calorie requirements based on age and activity level.

1,600 calories per day - average 8 - 10 yr. old with moderate activity level.

2,000 calories per day - average female teenager or adult with moderate activity level.

2,400 calories per day - average male teenager or adult with moderate activity level.

5 Guthrie, J.F., Lin, B.H., Reed, J., and Stewart, H. 2005. Understanding Economic and Behavioral Influences on Fruit and Vegetable Choices. Amber Waves 3(2):36-41.

6 Busby, J., Farah, H., and Vocke, G. 2005. Will 2005 be the Year of the Whole Grain?Amber Waves 3(3):12-17.


contributes to their low consumption. The solution:give people the chance to experience farm-fresh food.Farm-fresh, locally grown fruits and vegetables (aswell as whole grains) taste great, to which anyonewho has ever had the pleasure of eating a just-pickedtomato or ear of sweet corn can attest. In addition,many of the nutrients Oklahomans lack are found athigh levels in many crops currently or historicallygrown in Oklahoma (Table 2).

Increasing consumer access to fresh farm and gardenfoods, through home and community gardening,farmers’ markets, farm stands, community supportedagriculture, and farm-to-school programs, willempower more Oklahomans with the joy of eatingwell and help build a strong and healthy Oklahoma.

We Can Grow ItWhile recognized nationally for their production ofbeef and wheat, Oklahoma farmers have historicallyraised a wide variety of fruit and vegetable crops, fromapples and asparagus to watermelons and zucchini.As recently as 1959, thousands of Oklahoma farmswere commercially growing apples, peaches, pearsand sweet potatoes, among many other crops.[21]

Like other states in the southern Plains, the SoonerState has the fortune of having many acres of goodsoil and a lengthy growing season. In fact, somegrowers are demonstrating that they can raise many

cool season crops, including leafy nutritious cropssuch as spinach, throughout the winter using aminimum of inputs.

Even though Oklahomans eat significantly less fruitand vegetables than are recommended, the state stillimports most of the produce items that could begrown locally. Very few fruit and vegetable crops arecurrently produced in the state on a scale capable ofmeeting present demand, much less meeting anincreased demand for fresh produce.

If the production and promotion of locally grownfruits and vegetables were increased, Oklahomafamilies would have more home-grown nutritiousoptions from which to choose, while the state’scommunities would become more food secure. Bykeeping food dollars closer to home, Oklahomafarmers would, in turn, be given some much-neededeconomic opportunities, as they strive to provide allOklahomans with good food for good health.

As Oklahomans have increased the energy

input into their bodies, energy output has

lagged. According to the CDC, Oklahoma is the

3rd most sedentary state in the nation, with

over 30% of adults reporting no regular physical

activity.[22]

Nearly 40% of Oklahoma’s seniors don’t engage

in any leisure-time physical activity. Just eight

other states had fewer seniors who exercised.[17]

Even though Oklahomans

eat significantly less fruit and

vegetables than are recommended,

the state still imports most

of the produce items that could

be grown locally.

With everyone from soccer moms to supermarketclerks struggling to make ends meet, manyOklahomans simply don’t have enough money

in their monthly budgets to devote to healthy dietsand exercise.

That fact doesn’t just impact the individuals who eatunhealthy foods and don’t get enough physical activ-ity. It’s also felt by the companies who employ thoseindividuals, in terms of reduced worker productivity,more days out due to sickness, and higher healthinsurance costs.

Recognizing that problem, the head of the largestemployer in Oklahoma – state governor Brad Henry– in 2005 launched an employee health and wellnessinitiative called “Strong and Healthy Oklahoma.”[1]

As of January 1, 2006, all 35,000 active state employeesbecame eligible for the initiative. By participating,employees receive an expense-paid initial health riskassessment by their primary care physican, includinglabwork. Based on that assessment, they’ll be sched-uled for a number of appointments with a personalprofessional health mentor over a 12-month period.

The personal health mentors help each participatingemployee develop a set of diet and exercise goals, anda plan for accomplishing them. Regular appointmentshelp participants monitor their progress toward thosegoals, which can include things like a set number ofdaily servings from each food group, and a maximumnumber of daily grams of fat consumed.[2]

In addition, the Strong and Healthy Oklahoma ini-tiative offers participating state employees a discountedmembership at a fitness center. Depending on whichagency of the state they work for, there may also bepay incentives, ranging from $100 to $500.[3]

Similar programs in the private sector have resultedin savings to employers. For every dollar Motorolaspends on its employee wellness program, it report-edly saves $3.93. Johnson & Johnson’s program saves

the company over $200 per participating employeeevery year.[1]

Governor Henry hopes that numbers like that,together with the state’s own lead in helping itsemployees take care of themselves, will inspireprivate Oklahoma employers to do likewise.

Those who do can gain recognition for their actionthrough the Oklahoma Certified Healthy Businessprogram. A joint project of the Oklahoma Academyfor State Goals, the Oklahoma Turning PointCouncil, and the state health department, theCertified Healthy Business program recognizesbusinesses that provide health and wellness opportu-nities for their employees.

The steps that employers can take to help qualify forthe Certified Healthy Business program includethings like offering free cholesterol screenings andbody fat evaluations, promoting healthy menu itemsin the cafeteria, encouraging employees to bringhealthy snacks, and posting nutritional informationin break areas.[4]

As of November 2005, 120 Oklahoma businesseshad been certified through the Healthy BusinessProgram.[5] As the program grows, its partners hopethat it will come to be considered by private healthinsurers as grounds for reduced rates to certifiedbusinesses.

7

A Strong and Healthy Oklahoma:State and Private Employee Health and Wellness Initiatives


Nutrition and Health

Goal: Link Oklahoma-grown foods with good taste and health. The health of Oklahomanscan be improved if Oklahomans increase their consumption of farm-fresh fruits, vegetablesand whole grains.


• Establish a state goal of 75% ofOklahoma adults eating five ormore servings of fruits andvegetables a day by 2012 – the“Five (a Day) in Five (Years)”campaign.

• Incorporate rewards forincreased consumption of farm-fresh fruits and vegetables intothe state employees’ Strong andHealthy Oklahoma initiative.

• Encourage the private sectorto make farm-fresh fruits andvegetables available to employeesthrough programs like theCertified Healthy BusinessProgram.

• Develop government procure-ment policies that favor fresh,local, healthy food.

• Develop a joint public relationscampaign between the stateagriculture and health depart-ments, private hospitals, and theextension service to promotethe healthful aspects of eatingOklahoma-grown fresh fruits andvegetables, emphasizing goodtaste, affordability, and conven-ience, as well as nutrition.

• Mobilize the health care com-munity by making fresh fruitsand vegetables available tohealth care institutions’ staff,patients and nearby communityresidents through cafeteria use offarm-fresh foods, mini farmersmarkets, and subscription-farmfood deliveries.

• Help health care and social serviceworkers educate clients aboutsources of fresh, locally grownfoods such as farmers’ markets.

• Promote meetings betweenhealth professionals and farmers –for example, conduct farm tours,farmers’ market tours, neighbor-hood tours, and healthy eatingevents in which everyone canparticipate.

• Provide incentives for groupsthat do not currently shop atfarmers’ markets (such as familieswith children and low-incomeindividuals) to do so. One incentivewould be repealing the sales taxon sales at farmers’ markets andother direct sales outlets (seechapter one).

9

When making a salad in Oklahoma, what arethe chances that the ingredients were grownhere?

Not likely, if they came from the grocery store. Thelettuce, spinach, carrots, bell peppers, onions andeven tomatoes were probably grown a thousand ormore miles away, perhaps even across the border inMexico or Canada.

Not to say these items can't be grown in Oklahoma- as a trip to one of the farmers' markets in the statewill confirm.

A leisurely stroll down the shade-covered sidewalkat the Muskogee Farmers' Market reveals an arrayof locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables

During the course of the season, a rainbow of differentfruits and vegetables can be found at the market -enough to stir up any number of different salads.In the springtime, asparagus, green onions, radishes,turnips, spinach and a mix of other leafy greens aresome of the first crops to come off, soon to be joinedby lettuce, peas, potatoes and beets. Next comecabbage, carrots, cucumbers, green beans andsquash. And by early summer, sweet corn, tomatoes,eggplant, peppers, and okra are showing up.

Fruits that are seasonally available for foraginginclude blackberries, blueberries, cantaloupe, grapes,nectarines, peaches, pears, plums, strawberries, andwatermelon.

Along with these, other products available through-out the market year include fresh-baked bread, free-range eggs, live plants, cut flowers, soaps, candles,gourds and even packaged composted chicken litter.(Some markets in the state offer cheeses, grass-fedbeef, buffalo and lamb products.)

Between 2001 and 2005, ten new farmers' marketsopened in Oklahoma, joining markets such as thosein Norman and Stillwater which have been in opera-

tion for over 25 years. In 2005, 24 of the state's40-plus farmers' markets, including Muskogee's,exclusively sold produce grown in Oklahoma.These “Oklahoma Grown” farmers' markets ensurethat customers will find the freshest locally grownitems available.

The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Foodand Forestry estimates sales of at least $3.3 millionat all farmers' markets during the 2005 season.[1]

In the U.S. there were over 3,700 farmers' marketsin 2004, twice as many as there were ten years earlier.

A Natural GrowthWhat is fueling the growth of farmers' marketsacross the nation and in Oklahoma? A look at theformation and evolution of the Muskogee Farmers'Market may help answer that question.

It was in the late spring of 1995 when three Muskogeearea farmers, Deno Clopton of Ft. Gibson, CharlieDavis of Webers Falls, and Susie Lawrence of Braggs,came together in an effort to tap into what seemedto be a growing public interest in farm fresh produce.

Clopton and Davis were already raising a variety ofvegetable crops. Clopton had a large market gardenand was selling through a local flea market and froma vehicle parked near various street and highwayintersections. Davis raised cattle and hay, as well asproduce, which he was mostly wholesaling to grocers

A Going and GrowingMarket in Muskogee


and also selling roadside off his truck.

Lawrence was new to farming, having quit a job inretail sales to begin growing specialty flowers fordried and fresh-cut bouquets.

The three say that they started the market in orderto establish a reliable base of customers they couldsell to and get a fair price.

Surveys of Oklahoma farmers' market producers in2001 showed the top reason for selling at the marketwas to receive retail value for the products sold.[2]

Davis recalls, “I couldn't count on wholesalers tobuy all my crops, and got tired of feeling my pro-duce was worth more than I was getting paid.”

The three growers began meeting on Saturdaymornings to sell their crops in a downtown parkinglot. Within a few years, the three had grown to tenand moved to their present location, along theshade-covered sidewalk behind the Muskogee PublicLibrary. The market is open on Saturday morningsand during the peak growing season, on Wednesdays.

In 2005, the Muskogee Farmers' Market Associationstill included the three founding farmers, as well asover 25 other market members.

One member is Burl Doyle, a second generationtruck farmer in his seventies, who raises strawberries,blackberries, tomatoes and a variety of other horti-cultural crops near Stilwell.

Doyle sells his produce at his on-farm store and alsowholesales mainly to roadside farm-stands throughoutnortheastern Oklahoma. However, Doyle says hissales at the Muskogee farmers' market have allowedhim to remain profitable as a full-time farmer.

“Coming to this market has increased my overallsales by at least 50%, reaching a large group ofcustomers who would probably never make thedrive to my farm,” he says.

Lawrence, the flower grower, has volunteered asmarket manager since the market's inception.“When the three of us set up in that first parkinglot, it was hard to imagine we would ever see thismany vendors and customers,” she says. “The cus-

tomer support has been just incredible. Overall sales atour market have increased by 20 to 40% each season.”

In fact, the Muskogee Farmers' Market has been sosuccessful that a city sales tax increase was passed byvoters to build a new site for the market.Permanent, covered pavilions will be constructedadjacent to the Civic Center, as part of a downtownfestival-market square to be completed by spring2007. City leaders and downtown merchants expectthe market's vibrant atmosphere and regular shop-pers will spill over into adjacent businesses.

“We're really looking forward to having the farmers'market situated right near the heart of downtown atthe Civic Center,” says Jim Eaton, chairman of theMuskogee Downtown Revitalization Committee.“We definitely can see the market bringing morepeople into downtown Muskogee.”

Sue Harris, president of the Muskogee Area Chamberof Commerce, suggests the farmers' market is animportant part of the local economy. “The moneyspent by customers not only supports our local farmersand family-owned enterprises, it also goes to otherarea businesses as the farmers and vendors spendsome of their earnings.”

Harris often shops at the market. “The market addssuch a wonderful sense of community to our town,”she says. “It just feels good to go down there, andit's one of those things that really adds to our qualityof life here in Muskogee.”

As Muskogee's market manager, Susie Lawrence (left), hasguided its steady expansion.

11

Future ChallengesIn moving to a new, more visible location, SusieLawrence expects customer traffic to be greater thanever. “My biggest concern is that we'll have enoughproduce to offer our customers a good variety,” saysLawrence, who also serves as an officer for theOklahoma Farmers' Market Alliance, a statewideassociation of farmers' markets.

As some farmers' markets expand and as new marketsare opened within towns and cities throughout thestate, Lawrence says continuous efforts are neededto recruit more produce growers.

“When markets don't have a consistent supply offresh produce, it's hard to attract and maintain astable base of customers. A lack of steady customerscan then discourage other growers from participatingin a struggling market,” she says.

Meanwhile, other more established markets havesufficient volumes of produce and other items, yetneed to reach out to include more customers.Lawrence suggests agencies, businesses and civicorganizations all work together to develop andpromote the many benefits of successful farmers'markets in their own communities.

Survey SaysIn 2001, Oklahoma State University, the OklahomaDepartment of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, theKerr Center and the Oklahoma Farmers' MarketAlliance conducted surveys of farmers' market cus-tomers and managers, as well as producers.[2]

The customer surveyindicated that an impor-tant reason for shoppingat a farmers' market ishaving direct contactwith the food producer.

Jim Beller, a regular cus-tomer at the MuskogeeFarmers' Market agrees.“I just like knowing whomy food came from.”

Interacting directly with

Who's Got Markets?

• California is first with 444.

• New York is second

with 275.

• Texas has 102.

• Missouri has 97.

• Kansas has 70.

• Arkansas has 28.

• With 178, Iowa has the

most per capita.

customers is also important to producers. “By sellingdirectly to the consumer, I can give them tips on cooking and answer otherquestions about my produce,” says Clopton. “Also,they can let me know it there's something they wantme to grow or if they're ever unhappy with somethingthey've bought from me. The feedback really helps.”

Another important reason customers choose to shopat farmers' markets is to support local farmers.

“I just like to keep the dollars in our state, wherethey belong,” says David Willis, who shops regularlyat the Muskogee market.

And while the customer surveys indicated that lowprices are not an important reason for shopping atfarmers' markets, anecdotal studies suggest that pro-duce prices at two different markets in Oklahomacompare favorably to nearby retail food stores.[3,4,5]

What was the top reason that Oklahomans gave forshopping at farmers' markets? “Quality” of the freshproduce was cited by 89% of surveyed customers.

As one Muskogee farmer tells his customers, “Youcan't get it fresher, unless you grow it yourself.”

“I just like to keep the dollars in

our state, where they belong,”

– David Willis, farmers’ market regular


Age:

41% are 51 to 65 yrs. of age



10% are over 75 yrs. of age


Gender:

79% Female

21% Male

Household Make-up:

67% have 2 adults

23% have 1 adult

19% have children under 18 yrs. of age

Annual Household Income:

60% with less than $60,000

(13% with less than $20,000)

28% with $60,000 to $100,000

12% over $100,000

How far they live from their market:

67% .5 to 10 miles

13% over 15 miles

9% less than .5 mile

9% 11 to 15 miles

How customers first learned abouttheir farmers’ market:

30% by word of mouth

24% from a newspaper article

16% driving by

9% newspaper ad

How often they shop on Saturdays:

32% weekly

23% every other week

12% once a month

Indicated the following items were veryimportant when shopping for fresh produce:

89% Quality

54% In season

47% Grown in OK

46% Free of chemical residues

44% Grown by vendor

How important having organically grownproduce at their market is:

51% Somewhat important

31% Very important

How they expect produce at the farmers’ marketto compare to produce purchase elsewhere:

84% Higher quality

47% Greater variety

44% Same price

The number one reason they shop attheir farmers’ market:

30% Product quality and freshness

28% Supporting local farmer and businesses

24% Community involvement

Who Shops at Oklahoma’s Farmers’ Markets?

CUSTOMER PROFILE

13

What if Oklahomans bought just five percent oftheir groceries at their nearby farmers' market?

- Approximately $148 million was spent in 2004 on groceries in

Muskogee County.

- Spending five percent of these grocery expenditures at the farmers'

market would put $7.4 million in the pockets of local farmers and

food entrepreneurs.

- If every Oklahoma county had at least one farmers' market where

shoppers could purchase five percent of their groceries, farmers

and other food businesses in the state would realize approximately

$223 million in sales.

FARMERS' MARKET NAME CITY

Ada Farmers' Market Ada

Alva Farmers' Market Alva

Bartlesville Farmers' Market Bartlesville

Broken Arrow Farmers' Market Broken Arrow

Cherry Street Farmers' Market Tulsa

Chandler Park Farmers' Market Tulsa

Chickasha Farmers' Market Chickasha

The Children's Center

Farmers' Market Bethany

Collinsville Farmers' Market Collinsville

Coweta Farmers' Market Coweta

Cushing Farmers' Market Cushing

Durant Farmers' Market Durant

Eastern Oklahoma County Farmers' Market Choctaw

Edmond Farmers' Market Edmond

El Reno Farmers' Market El Reno

Elk City Farmers' Market Elk City

Enid Farmers' Market Enid

Eufaula Farmers' Market Eufaula

Haskell County Farmers' Market Stigler

Hobart Farmers' Market Hobart

Idabel Farmers' Market Idabel

Jenks Farmers' Market Jenks

Lawton Farmers' Market Lawton

McAlester Farmers' Market McAlester

Muskogee Farmers' Market Muskogee

Norman Farmers' Market Norman

North Tulsa Farmers' Market Tulsa

OSDH Wellness Market Oklahoma City

OSU-OKC Farmers' Market Oklahoma City

OSU-OKC Downtown Farmers' Market Oklahoma City

Perry Farmers' Market Perry

Piedmont Farmers' Market Piedmont

Shawnee Farmers' Market Shawnee

Stillwater Farmers' Market Stillwater

Valliant Farmers' Market Valliant

Weatherford Farmers' Market Weatherford

Wilburton Farmers' Market Wilburton

Wilson Farmers' Market Wilson

Woodward Farmers' Market Woodward

Yukon Farmers' Market Yukon

The Oklahoma Grown Program

Farmers’ markets who comply

with all licensing require-

ments of the Oklahoma

Department of Health may

register with the Oklahoma

Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (ODAFF). If the

registered market also offers 100% Oklahoma grown foods, it is

designated as an “Oklahoma Grown” market and may use that logo.

ODAFF’s Market Development Services Division runs the program.

Number of Farmers’Markets per County

List is not all-inclusive: "registered" markets have met certainrequirements of OK Dept. of Ag.

Oklahoma Registered Farmers’ Markets


70,255 people in 2003 +1% since 2000 [+2 %]

1,740 farms in 2002 -3% since 1997 [-1 %]:

668 with net gains, averaging $18,579

1,071 with net losses, averaging $7,307

309 with federal subsidies, averaging $2,994


Average farm net income, 2002: $2,637 [$8,220]

Poverty: 17.7% [14.5%] Unemployment: 7.26% [5.66%]


Percentage of county population that is



groceries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $48.8 million

meals at restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $71.3 million

Value of direct sales, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $149,000

Farmers’ markets within 75 miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Number of school districts interested in farm-to-school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Major crops: cattle, grains, milk

Fruit/vegetable crops (on # of farms): pecans(51), apples(7),

watermelons(7), cantaloupes(6), sweet corn(5), and many others

Muskogee County

NONMETRO - NON FOOD DESERT

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

< $1

,000

< $2

,499

< $4

,999

< $9

,999

< $1

9,99

9

< $2

4,99

9

< $3

9,99

9

< $4

9,99

9

< $9

9,99

9

< $2

49,9

99

< $4

99,9

99

> $5

00,0

00

This "snapshot" is a collection of

statistics that indicate the level of,

and potential for, community food

security in the county. It includes

indicators of economic well-being

for individuals, households, and

farms. Also included is an indicator

of diet-related health (weight) of

county residents. Information

showing the potential for

increased local food production

and sales is also presented.

See Introduction for more detail.


are Oklahoma statewide

figures for comparison.]



15

Most Oklahomans have never heard the termfood insecurity.

This could be because most people in Oklahoma –84.8%, according to the USDA – have “consistentdependable access to enough food for active healthyliving.” In other words, they are food secure. [1]They can afford to buy the food they need (and want).

While people may fuss when one food item oranother goes up in price, the majority of people inOklahoma feel secure in their ability to feed them-selves and their families, living as they do in one ofthe best-fed nations in the world.

Most Oklahomans take for granted this basic levelof well being, but not all do. In every community inthe state, people struggle to consistently have enoughfood to feed themselves and their children. They runout of food and money for food, they skip meals,they cut back on servings, they feed their childrenunbalanced diets, they rely on a few kinds of cheapfoods to get by.

In 2004, about 15% (213,408) of 1.4 millionOklahoma households were caught in this trap anddeemed “food insecure” by the USDA. The nationalaverage was 11.9%

In 5.6% (about 79,000) of households in Oklahoma,people went hungry and were classified as “food inse-cure, with hunger.” The national average was 3.9%. [1]

Oklahoma had the highest rate in the nation of foodinsecurity with hunger. The state’s rate of hunger

has been on the rise – up over a percentage pointsince the late 1990s, while other states with similarlypoor showings have improved. [2]

Everyone suffers in food insecure households. Oftenmothers go hungry in order to feed their children,and in the worst cases, the children go hungry. Infamilies with the most extreme food insecurity,adults and children both can become chronicallyundernourished. [3]

Food insecurity and hunger can reduce children’scognitive development and learning capacity andimpair adults’ work performance. [4] Costs, both toindividuals and communities, can be considerable.

A Private Misery, a Public Problem Hunger and food insecurity are usually out of oursight, private miseries suffered by the poor thatbecome public during food drives and holidays,when Oklahomans invariably respond generously.

The poor depend on a safety net of federal and stateprograms, such as food stamps, the school lunch andbreakfast programs, and the Women, Infants, and

Chapter Two: Food Insecurity

Feeling Hungry: Food Insecurity in Oklahoma

It is a particularly cruel irony that in ruralOklahoma, where the wheat waves, the

pecans drop and the cattle fatten in whatWoody Guthrie called “pastures of plenty,”

people are not eating well.


Children (WIC) supplemental nutrition program,and these have been very effective in preventingstarvation in the U.S. [3]

Oklahoma has a high rate of participation (96.6%) inthe federal food stamp program, and was recentlyrecognized for its efforts for significantly improvingaccess to this program. [5]

In addition to the government safety net, privatenon-profit organizations like the Regional FoodBank in Oklahoma City and the Community FoodBank of Eastern Oklahoma together serve everycounty in the state, supplying food pantries, sheltersand soup kitchens with donated food for over100,000 people each week. [6]

Despite these public and private efforts, in recentyears the campaign to reduce rates of food insecurityeven further has stalled, with rates going up anddown according to the health of the economy. Afterthe 1996 World Food Summit, the United States setforth a national goal of cutting in half the rate offood insecurity – from 12% to 6% – by 2010. [7]However, in 2004, the national rate was hung at11.9%, having gone up in the previous five yearsinstead of down. [1]

The Meaning of Food Insecurity In Oklahoma, about half a million people are foodinsecure. This data comes from an annual surveythat the USDA conducts of a nationally representa-tive sample of 60,000 households, including 1,927 inOklahoma. The survey asks ten questions about“food conditions” at the household level and amongadults in the household. If there are children present,an additional eight questions are asked. [1]

Food insecurity can be occasional or chronic. Accordingto the 2004 survey, the food insecure households atsome time during the year had difficulty providingenough food for all their members due to a lack ofresources.

About a third of those households were food insecureto the extent that one or more household memberswere hungry at least some time during the yearbecause they could not afford enough food. [1] InOklahoma, almost 200,000 people lived in these“food insecure with hunger” households.

According to the USDA, “the prevalence of foodinsecurity varies among households of various types.Rates… were higher in households headed by singlewomen with children and in Black and Hispanichouseholds. Geographically, food insecurity wasmore common in central cities and rural areas thanin suburbs, and in the South and the West.”

As one would expect, food insecurity goes hand inhand with poverty. [1]

It shouldn’t be surprising then that Oklahoma, aspart of the South, with many rural counties and highpoverty rates, has high rates of food insecurity.

The Poor: Always with Us?In Oklahoma over half a million people are belowthe poverty line – 14.6% of the state’s population of3.5 million. [8] This is higher than the national rateof 12.5%. [9]

In rural Oklahoma, the average rate was 16.3%.The dozen poorest counties in the state are rural,with rates of poverty approaching or exceeding 20%.[8] (See map.)

Oklahoma has the highest rate in the

nation of food insecurity with hunger.

e

What is household food security?Definitions from the Life Sciences Research Office [4]

Food security – Access by all people at all times to enough food for

an active, healthy life (without recourse to emergency food sources

such as food pantries and soup kitchens). Food security includes at

a minimum: 1) the ready availability of nutritionally adequate and

safe foods; 2) an assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in

socially acceptable ways.

Food insecurity – Limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally

adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire

acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways.

Hunger – The uneasy or painful sensation caused by a lack of food;

the recurrent and involuntary lack of access to food.

In Oklahoma, the numbers of children in poverty are even higher: anaverage of 21% statewide. In five counties – Pushmataha, McCurtain,Seminole, Choctaw and Harmon – over 30% of the children are poor. [8]

The Oklahoma State Board of Health has identified poverty as a “funda-mental factor” that prevents the state from improving its health status.In its 2006 State of the State’s Health report, the board says that “povertyis the single best predictor of health status whether we are speaking ofcountries, states, counties or zip codes. Poverty, poor health and pooreducation are linked.” [10]

Another contributor to poor health among low-income Oklahomans isobesity.

This seems counterintuitive: how can someone be food insecure and alsooverweight?

Researchers have found that the highest rates of obesity are found amongpopulation groups with the highest poverty rates and the least education.Poverty and food insecurity are associated with lower food expenditures,low fruit and vegetable consumption and lower quality diets. [11]

Researchers point to over-consumption of “energy-dense” foods (suchas snack foods, desserts, fast foods and soft drinks) which may containa higher proportion of refined grains, added sugars and vegetable fats.Such foods are tasty and cheap – and fattening, if eaten too often. [12](See sidebar.)

Such foods are readily available everywhere, whereas healthier alternatives

17

Obesity and Food Insecurity

According to the Center on Hunger and

Poverty and the Food Research and Action

Center, there are specific factors that

contribute to weight gain among people

who are food insecure:

The need to maximize caloric intake –

low-income families must stretch their food

money. Families may choose to

maximize the calories they buy (more

calories per dollar) so that family members

do not suffer hunger.

The trade-off between food quality and

quantity – food-insecure households will

reduce food spending by changing th

quality or variety of food they eat before

they reduce the quantity of food eaten.

As a result, while families may get enough

food to avoid feeling hungry, they also may

be poorly nourished because they cannot

afford a diet that promotes health and

averts obesity.

Overeating when food is available – research

indicates that chronic ups and downs in

food availability can cause people to eat

more when food is available than the

normally would.

Physiological changes – the body can

compensate for periodic food shortages

by becoming more efficient at storing

more calories as fat. [15]

In Oklahoma, the numbers of children in poverty

are even higher: an average of 21% statewide.

Percent of total population in poverty, 2003

Oklahoma

Less than 10 percent

10 to 14 percent

15 to 19 percent

20 percent or more

Resource: USDA Economic Research Service


such as fruits, vegetables and whole grains are not.People in many rural counties in Oklahoma are find-ing that access to healthier foods is getting more dif-ficult as convenience stores and gas stations move inand grocery stores move out of their communities.(See Chapter 5.)

It is a particularly cruel irony that in rural Oklahoma,where the wheat waves, the pecans drop and the cat-tle fatten in what Woody Guthrie called “pastures ofplenty,” people are not eating well.

The Community ApproachPoverty and hunger are nothing new in Oklahoma.Many Oklahomans have experienced privation orheard stories of how their parents or grandparentscoped during the Great Depression – families livingon potatoes and biscuits (made from that all-essentialsack of flour), kids seining for fish in the creek, daddiesshooting squirrels and mamas picking lambs’ quartersfrom the side of the road – working every day to scrapetogether the next meal, and sometimes not making it.

Oklahomans are justly proud of this tradition of self-reliance. In good times and bad, farm families lookedforward to eating the fruits of their labors. Theyenjoyed the green beans, tomatoes, peaches andother fruits and vegetables picked fresh from thefield or home garden, and shared the surplus withneighbors. Some sold to local processors or at farmstands or in urban markets.

This rural landscape has almost, but not completely,vanished. And looking back, it can be easy to forgetthat rural poverty fifty years ago was twice what it istoday. [13]

Arguably much has been gained in rural Oklahoma –but much has also been lost, including the traditionof self-sufficiency.

The Community Food Security Initiative, launchedby the USDA in 1999, is a different approach tocombating America’s food insecurity that draws onthis tradition of self reliance. This initiative connectslow-income people with fresh, locally grown food.

The agency, which spends half of its budget on foodassistance programs, sees community-based initiativessuch as farmers’ markets, community gardens, com-munity supported agriculture (CSA) and farm-to-school programs as ways to boost the effectivenessof its nutrition assistance and education programs“by increasing the availability of high-quality andaffordable food in a community.” [14]

Researchers at Rutgers University see communityfood security as “a process in which community-based programs work in tandem with a strongFederal nutrition safety net. The goal: movingpeople to self sufficiency and food security.” [14]

In addition, these initiatives can help rejuvenaterural economies by increasing market opportunitiesfor farmers. In a state where more than half of thefarms net less than $10,000 per year, such initiativesare needed.

Oklahoma has a number of fledgling communityfood projects, but many more are needed if the stateis to make progress in eliminating hunger and foodinsecurity. And, with the state facing a long-termhealth crisis, caused in part by what Oklahomans areeating (and not eating), more opportunities to buyand/or eat fresh locally-grown produce will benefitall, regardless of income level.

Food Insecurity: State Rankings

In 2004, with 15.2% of Oklahoma households deemed food insecure,

Oklahoma was ranked 47th among the states, with only Mississippi,

New Mexico and Texas ranked lower. Oklahoma’s rate had increased

since 1996.

Nearby states Kansas (12.3%) and Missouri (11.3%) had fewer food

insecure people.

Best ranked states were North Dakota, New Hampshire, Delaware,

Massachusetts and Montana, all with rates less than half of

Oklahoma’s. [1]

What is poverty?

For a family of four with two children

under 18 years: an annual income of

$19,157 or lower.

Food Insecurity

Goal: Increase food security in Oklahoma by making fresh, affordable locally-grown foodmore available to low-income Oklahomans.

19

• Set a state goal of cutting the incidence of foodinsecurity in half and completely eliminatinghunger in Oklahoma by 2012 (five years). Makethis goal the subject of a state public healthcampaign, Hunger is not OK!

• While maintaining support for public and privatefood and hunger programs, redouble efforts tomove from emergency hunger and feedingprograms to hunger prevention programs.

• Connect low income people with high quality,affordable food, including fresh, local produce,through community based initiatives such as farm-ers’ markets, CSA farms, farm-to-schoolprograms, and school and community gardens.(See Chapter 4 for more policy suggestions.)

• Establish a statewide Community Food SecurityFund to dispense mini-grants funded from avariety of public and private sources (on thesame model as the grants available from USDA’sSustainable Research and Education (SARE)program, and the Kerr Center Producer Grants)that would help connect low-income people withhigh-quality, affordable food.

• Bring “growing power” back to Oklahomacommunities.

• Recognize that community gardens are a toolin the fight against hunger.

• Increase support for existing community gardensand expand community gardens into communitiesin every county, making rural counties with thehighest poverty rates top priority.



“Community gardening” means just what it says:communities coming together to grow food.That’s a core concept for community food

security, and the Oklahoma City Regional FoodBank is putting it into practice though the city’scommunity garden program.

The Food Bank took over the program’s 12 gardensin 2001. Since then, with help from a grant fromthe Oklahoma City Community Foundation, theRegional Food Bank of Oklahoma’s Urban Harvestprogram has planted 13 new gardens, mostly in theOklahoma City metro area, but including three inNorman.

Urban Harvest provides guidelines and advice on howto build partnerships to make a successful communitygarden.

“You can go into any neighborhood and start acommunity garden, but you need the support of thecommunity to be successful,” says Chris Kirby, formerUrban Harvest director. “You have to get an invest-ment from everybody to sustain a garden.”

Guiding HandsTo persuade people to make that investment, UrbanHarvest’s current director, Bruce Edwards, givespresentations to interested groups. In turn, UrbanHarvest rewards those groups’ commitment tocommunity gardening, providing equipment, seeds,plants, and grants.

Oklahoma State University cooperates with the program,providing soil testing, fact sheets on various crops,and nutritional education. Urban Harvest also hasa school gardening curriculum available on request.

Planting the seed is only the first step in successfulgardening. For constant care and cultivation of thecommunity gardens, Urban Harvest relies on local

community members who step up and nurture thegardens with their own energy – and character.

For instance, at the City County community garden,“foster grandfather” Floyd Jameson coaxes threecrops a year from an acre and a half across fromParker Elementary school. Jameson sees the cropsfrom planting right on through to harvest time,when he welcomes the entire community to comeand pick.

Many Hands, Many MouthsJust as a single garden contains a variety of crops,each with its own particular preferences and require-ments, the community gardens in the Food Bank’snetwork have sprung up from a diverse collection oflocations, backgrounds, and needs.

Neighborhood groups, schools, and churches aresome of the many entities that have started commu-nity gardens.

One of the earliest community gardens in OklahomaCity, at Selecman First United Methodist Church atIndependence Avenue and SW 41st, has individualplots alongside the community ones. Anyone canget a plot, with the produce going to the needy in

Hands Together forCommunity Food Security:Community Gardens

Bruce Edwards. Last year he and his crew grew sixteen differentfruits/ vegetables in the Urban Harvest Gardens and also startedvegetables from seed to transplant in Oklahoma City's comm-munity gardens.

the congregation and the local community, includinglow-income and elderly residents.

Almost all the plants in Selecman’s garden are trans-plants started at the Food Bank. It is also one of theFood Bank’s “tractor gardens,” tilled at the beginningof each season courtesy of the Food Bank’s tractor.

Over in the Westlawn neighborhood, one of the city’snewest community gardens serves the needs of theresidents of the Pershing Center as they transition outof homelessness. As well as going to other membersof the local community, produce from the gardencomplements Food Bank provisions to help feed thePershing Center’s residents.

For those at the center who are completing drugrehabilitation, the vitamins and nutrients in the freshproduce are particularly important for the role theyplay in the recovery process. The Food Bank suppliesseeds, plants, and the tractor for the garden, which ishelping the area come together as a neighborhood.

Plans are in the works for fencing, and an edible-landscape border, as well as a hoop house for seasonextension.

At the Central Park Community Garden, at NW31st and Shartel, Allan Parlier began with a front-yard garden, and eventually got city permission toexpand to 4 additional lots for a community garden.

Some of the lots had chlordane contamination. Aftersome research, Parlier combined a bioremediationproduct from an Arkansas firm with several years’ crop-ping of barley to remove the pollutant from the soil.

In the meantime, the gardens had drawn people outof their houses, and the area’s crime rate had dropped.A project intended to get people to grow more oftheir own food thus ended up increasing other formsof security as well; the gardens’ positive effects cas-

caded into greater safety and neighborliness.

In St. Louis, Missouri, as well as New York City,studies have documented such positive impacts ofcommunity gardens on surrounding neighborhoods.Property values and rates of home ownership tend toincrease in areas surrounding community gardens;those changes continue over time, and are greatestin lower-income areas. [1]

Younger HandsMany community garden sites serve another popula-tion whose involvement in gardening gives a bigboost to community food security: youth. One isthe Memorial Park Boys’ & Girls’ Club, at NW36th and Military Avenue. There, summertime finds175 kids using the garden to learn about nutritionand grow food – while having fun in the process.The Boys’ Club is also one of the sites for a programcalled Kids’ Café, an after-school program withmentoring and nutrition education.

There are about 20 Kids Café sites in Oklahoma.Some, like the Memorial Park Boys’ & Girls Club,incorporate the produce from the community gardenplots into the kids’ lessons – and also their meals.

21

Kids at the Memorial Park Boys' & Girls' Club CommunityCenter in OKC tend a garden under the direction of A. JayeJohnson (back left).

One study found that community

gardeners eat more fruits and

vegetables than the national average.


One, at Lambuth United Methodist Church, turneda potentially devastating episode of vandalism into afurther opportunity for learning, as the childrenhelped to rebuild their own garden.

Another Kids’ Cafe garden site, at the PresbyterianUrban Mission, had no bare soil available for cultiva-tion. Undeterred, Urban Harvest built raised gardenbeds atop the site’s existing concrete slab surface.The children now grow, harvest, and eat the producefrom the beds, and have even started a worm com-posting bin.

Even outside the Kids Café program, communitygardens offer avenues for youth to get their hands inthe dirt, and their mouths – and minds – aroundhealthy, homegrown produce.

Students from Parker Elementary School gravitateto the City-County community garden across thestreet. Community Youth Outreach, based atQuayle United Methodist Church, incorporatescommunity-garden horticulture in its programs.

The McFarland YWCA has also added a gardeningcomponent, with the ultimate aim of opening north-east Oklahoma City’s first farmer’s market, to sell

some of the produce the kids grow.

Providing youth with a much-needed source of freshfruits and vegetables, as well as education on thehealth and nutritional importance of those foods, arevital impacts of community gardens and the Kids’Café program. In addition, these initiatives involvekids with food in ways that stimulate their ownmotivations to eat healthy.

“The study that was put out about kids that gardenhaving a lot higher consumption level of fresh fruitsand veggies is very true,” Kirby says. “I see it everytime I work with a Kids Café program or a volunteergroup.”

Community gardens’ positive impacts may beginwith youth, but they certainly don’t stop there.

One study found that community gardeners eatmore fruits and vegetables than the national average.Three-quarters of community gardeners preservedgarden produce for eating later in the year, and 95%of them share what they grow – with neighbors aswell as with emergency food services. [2]

Joining HandsThough community gardens may be more commonlyassociated with large cities, they also have a presencein some of Oklahoma’s more rural communities.Their benefits, including their powerful positive influ-ence in the lives of youth, are strong in both settings.

In Ardmore, the Martin Luther King OutreachCenter operates the Community Bootstrap Gardenas a summer employment program for area youth.While teaching the technical aspects of high-valuecrop production, the program also instills citizenship,self-esteem, entrepreneurship and the work ethic.

Ada’s Chickasaw Nation Community Garden ismodeled after the Bootstrap Garden. Youth workerssell a portion of the garden’s produce to the generalpublic, while another portion goes to the ChickasawNutrition Program.

These rural Oklahoma community gardens, like othersaround the country, highlight the unique characterthat community gardening assumes in regions of

Community gardens offer avenues for

youth to get their hands in the dirt, and

their mouths – and minds – around

healthy, homegrown produce.

lower population density.

Some rural community gardens play roles ofdemonstration and education, some are integratedwith school educational curricula, and others areaffiliated with other community institutions, such aschurches or apartment complexes. Despite thesevaried natures, all these examples illustrate the wayrural community gardens adapt to foster communityfood security in their particular circumstances. [3]

Helping HandsWith all their positive contributions, communitygardens are proving their worth as a means ofrectifying the difficulties inherent in traditionalfood bank approaches to food insecurity.

Critics say food banks foster dependency among theirclients or treat symptoms rather than underlyingproblems. Anti-hunger activists counter by sayingfood banks meet immediate, pressing needs forfood. With its community gardening initiative, theOklahoma Regional Food Bank addresses theseconcerns, involving people in producing fresh,nutritious produce for their own and their neighbors’sustenance that will, it is hoped, translate into greaterfood security over the long term.

Still, questions sometimes pop up about whetherthe money the Food Bank spends on communitygardens wouldn’t supply more food if it were simplyspent to buy fresh produce directly. The answermay well turn out to be no – and Edwards currentlyhas efforts underway to get a better tally of theamount of food that the community gardens grow.

Whatever the answer, the community garden programis not just about food. “It’s also about relationshipbuilding, knowledge, understanding where fruitsand vegetables come from,” Kirby says. “It goesback to the saying of, ‘If you give a man a fish, heeats for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he eats fora lifetime.’”

In other words, community gardening is just whatits name says, and more: a key tool for increasingcommunity food security – and an idea that deservesa big hand.

23

Oklahoma Food Banks:Feeding the Hungry

In addition to running the Urban Harvest community gardens pro-

gram, the Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma also does the jobs

that more typically come to mind when people think of food

banks. It distributes emergency food supplies – 22.8 million pounds

in 2005 – to 53 counties in western and central Oklahoma. [1]

The Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma, in Tulsa, serves

24 counties in the eastern part of the state and distributed over 8.5

million pounds of food for the 2004 fiscal year. [2]

Both the Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma and the Community Food

Bank of Eastern Oklahoma complement these traditional services

with several other innovative programs for getting food into the

hands of those who may have difficulty getting it:

Second Helpings/Table to Table – collects extra prepared food

from food service providers and distributes it to on-site feeding

locations.

Plant a Row for the Hungry – local gardeners grow extra produce

for donation to the food bank.

Food4Kids – provides backpacks full of food for hungry school-

children to take home on weekends.

Summer Feeding Program – offers summer meals to students who

depend on free and reduced-price lunches during the school year.

Gleaning – collects unharvested and unused food from OSU

research stations, farmers’ markets, and individual farmers and

gardeners. Urban Harvest gathered 66,000 pounds of fresh local

nourishment in 2004, and boosted that total to 92,000 pounds

in 2005.

Despite these programs’ success, there is still a strong and growing

need for fresh, nutritious produce in the diets of lower-income

Oklahomans.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

< $1

,000

< $2

,499

< $4

,999

< $9

,999

< $1

9,99

9

< $2

4,99

9

< $3

9,99

9

< $4

9,99

9

< $9

9,99

9

< $2

49,9

99

< $4

99,9

99

> $5

00,0

00


Oklahoma County

676,066 people in 2003 +2% since 2000 [+2%]

1,268 farms in 2002 -5% since 1997 [-1%]:


835 with net losses, averaging $8,536



Average farm net income, 2002: $ 1,901 [$8,220]






groceries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,004.0 million

meals at restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,258.5 million

Value of direct sales, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $167,000

Farmers’ markets within 75 miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Number of school districts interested in farm-to-school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Major crops: nursery/greenhouse, cattle, hay

Fruit/vegetable crops (on # of farms): pecans(28), peaches(12), apples(11),

tomatoes(8), pears(7), sweet corn(6), blackberries(5), and many others

METRO - NON FOOD DESERT



















25

It only takes up a small amount of space, but theschool garden in the small town of Leach is makinga big difference in the lives of those involved. At

only 20 by 50 feet, the garden contains a colorfularray of vegetables, fruits, herbs and flowers grownby students at the Leach School, with help fromparents, grandparents, teachers and DelawareCounty OSU Extension educators.

The garden was first started in 2003 as schooladministrators and extension educators acted uponthe need to help students and their families addressconcerns about poor diets, lack of food preparationskills and physical inactivity.

After conducting surveys and focus groups, the chosensolution was to help create a garden as an after-schoolhealth education project. The goal was to provideyouth with the knowledge, skills and behavior tolead healthier lives.

Barbara Denney, a Delaware County extension edu-cator and the project’s chief architect and visionary,took the initial steps of recruiting students, parentsand staff to help plan and lay out the garden. Shehelped the kids to start seeds indoors for plantingout into the garden beds, which she also helped thekids prepare.

“The garden makes kids more aware of healthyfoods, and makes them want to go home and eathealthier,” says Leach School Principal Bruce Davis.

OSU research conducted on-site seems to back thisup, showing increased vegetable intake and decreasedconsumption of candy, desserts and chips by youthparticipating in the program. [1]

In fact, Beverly Hansen, school cafeteria manager,claims that student use of the salad bar doubledafter the garden began, and she has since gotten ridof the school’s only deep fat fryer.

According to Davis, “Even in this rural setting, mostof our kids come from homes without gardens, andthis is something they really seem to enjoy doing.”

When Helen Page, OSU Project Coordinator,began working with the kids in the garden, shecouldn’t believe how much they liked doing thegarden work. “They actually wanted to pull weeds,”she said. Page attributes the students’ high enthusiasmto their sense of ownership and purpose in the garden.

This innovative approach to nutrition and healtheducation, however, is not limited to just growingnutritious fruits and vegetables. A small buildingadjacent to the garden area, often referred to as “thehealth room,” boasts a complete kitchen and class-room with tables and chairs, and colorful nutrition

Chapter Three: Children’s Health and Food Education

A Garden to Grow On: The Leach School Garden

OSU research… showed

increased vegetable intake

and decreased consumption

of candy, desserts and chips.


posters covering the walls.

So, the kids not only plant, water,weed and harvest, they also get tohelp wash, chop, cook and, mostimportantly, eat, the fruits of theirlabors. They’ve grown peanuts,then roasted and ground theminto fresh peanut butter; turnedtomatoes into spaghetti sauce,salsa and bruschetta; stuffed bellpeppers and baked zucchini bread.

When the kids garden, cook, and eat together, "thepower of the peers" lets the kids feel good aboutopening up and trying new things, says Helen Page.

“They all just seem to get caught up in the joy ofeating what they’ve grown, as they learn first-handwhere food comes from,” she says.

Research conducted in New York State by ground-breaking child nutritionist Antonia Demas hasshown that this process of seeing and tasting newfoods in the classroom can significantly increase theamount of those foods eaten in the school cafeteria.This early and frequent exposure to nutritious foodsincreases the likelihood of developing healthy eatinghabits that last a lifetime. [2]

Besides the nutritional benefits, the experiences ofgardening, cooking and eating together allownumerous opportunities for interdisciplinary studiesin math, science, reading, social studies and art, whilealso helping develop team problem solving skills.

Cooking and eating activities can also provide occa-sions for practical discussions about food safety andthe use of proper manners.

“Even in this rural

setting, most of

our kids come from

homes without gardens.”

– Bruce Smith,Leach School Principal

Children from Leach Public Schools are involved in caring for the school’s garden

Gardening can give children a sense of fulfillment,responsibility and patience that can only come fromnurturing life and having to rely on nature’s ownpace. Furthermore, gardening is widely recognizedas an excellent source of physical activity.

Over the seasons, the Leach school garden andHealth Room have not only been utilized by theafter-school program, but also by other teachers andtheir classes, special education classes and summerschool activities.

A recent grant from the Grand Gateway Foundationhas allowed the construction of a 24 by 36 footgreenhouse next to the garden. This will allow theyoung gardeners to start their transplants early fromseed, getting a head start on spring planting. Thegreenhouse will also be used to grow additional cropsthat can be sold for school fundraisers, such as herbsand vegetable transplants, fall mums and poinsettias.

As the Leach school garden program continues toblossom in rural eastern Oklahoma, DelawareCounty Extension educators have their sights onhelping another school to learn the true joys ofgardening and eating well.

27

















Delaware County

38,709 people in 2003 +4% since 2000 [+2%]

1,393 farms in 2002 -5% since 1997 [-1%]:








Percentage of state population that is



groceries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$20.9 million

meals at restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $27.9 million

Value of direct sales, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$15,000

Farmers’ markets within 75 miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Number of school districts interested in farm-to-school . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Major crops: poultry, cattle, hogs

Fruit/vegetable crops (on # of farms): peaches(6), pecans(6), apples(4),

snap beans(4), blackberries(2), tomatoes(2), grapes(1), blueberries(1)

NONMETRO - FOOD DESERT




It is surely a sign of the times that more and moreOklahoma children are overweight and experienc-ing health problems as a result.

The kids’ “obesity crisis” is a problem nationwide.During the last 30 years in the United States, thepercentage of overweight children ages six to elevenhas quadrupled, while the percentage of adolescentswho are overweight has increased by two and a halftimes (Figure 1). [1]

Data collected by the Centers for Disease Control(CDC) show that 16% of Oklahoma’s high school-age boys and six percent of girls are overweight,resulting in an average of 11% for both genders.Another 14.2% are at risk for overweight (see side-bar for definitions). [2]

While Oklahoma does not currently collectstatewide obesity data on children, the TexasDepartment of Health found an alarming 39% offourth-graders and 37% of eighth-graders wereoverweight or obese. [3]

Kids at RiskChildren and adolescents who are overweight havean increased risk for developing two serious diseases:cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Overweight kidshave greater incidence of high blood pressure, elevatedcholesterol and insulin levels, and arterial calcification.

In fact, results from a 30 year heart study inLouisiana showed that at least 50% of overweightschoolchildren already had two or more risk factorsfor heart disease. [4]

As if the threat of heart disease weren’t enough, arapidly growing number of youth are being diagnosedwith Type II diabetes (also known as adult-onsetdiabetes), a disease rarely found in children prior tothe mid 1980s. Obesity is a major risk factor for thistype of diabetes.

Although this disease was extremely rare in Oklahomaonly ten years ago, fully one-third of children with

newly diagnosed diabetes have Type II, according tothe Oklahoma State Department of Health. Childrenof Hispanic, African American or Native Americanancestry are at higher risk. [5]

The long-term health effects from early exposure tothese life threatening diseases have leading healthprofessionals extremely concerned. The likelihood ofdeveloping complications from diabetes goes up thelonger one has the disease. Complications from diabetescan include greater risk of cardiovascular disease,impaired vision or blindness and kidney disease.

As if the risk of physical disorders weren’t enough,obese children and adolescents have higher incidenceof social and emotional problems such as low self-esteem, anxiety and depression. [6]

Furthermore, severely overweight children miss fourtimes as much school as normal-weight students, and

Curing Our Kids: Better Food for Better Health

Defining and MeasuringOverweight and Obesity

Meeting the definition of overweight simply means having a

body weight that is disproportionate to one’s height. For children

and adolescents, because they are still growing and their

amount of body fat normally changes as they mature, over-

weight and obesity are measured by plotting BMI’s on growth

charts that adjust for age and gender, resulting in what is

known as BMI-for-age.

According to the American Obesity Association, a BMI-for-age

that plots between the 85th and 95th percentiles indicates

overweight, while a BMI greater than or equal to the 95th

percentile signifies obesity, whereas the CDC designates a BMI

between the 85th and 95th percentile as “at risk for overweight”

and over the 95th percentile is considered overweight. Because

of variability implicit in the use of weight tables for growing

children and a concern about the stigmatizing potential of the

term “obesity,” some researchers use the CDC terminology, while

others use the term “childhood obesity.” [24,25] In this article

we use CDC figures and terms.

29

mounting evidence suggests overweight childrenattain lower grades. [7,8]

It used to be that kids “outgrew” their “baby fat” asthey matured. However, research shows that over-weight children and adolescents today stand a goodchance of becoming overweight or obese adults. [9]

The situation is so serious that researchers writing inthe New England Journal of Medicine suggest obesityand its related diseases could shorten the averagelifespan of an entire generation – today’s children –by two to five years. [10]

The Skinny Behind the BulgeA number of interconnected factors likely contributeto the childhood obesity problem in Oklahoma andthroughout the country.

One factor frequently cited is over-consumptionof fast food. Between 1977 and 1996, children didincrease their intake of foods from restaurants andfast food outlets by 300%, while soft drink con-sumption by adolescent boys tripled over a similartime frame. [11]

A survey published in the journal Pediatrics confirmedthat children who eat fast foods consume moresugar-sweetened beverages, less milk, and fewerfruits and non-starchy vegetables, than children who

do not. [12]

A conclusion that could be drawn: many children arenot eating balanced, nutritious meals. Other researchsupports this: nationally, only two percent of school-aged children consume the recommended dailynumber of servings of all five major food groups. [13]

In Oklahoma, only 14% of high school students eatfive or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day,well below the already low national average of 22%. [2]

Getting Healthy with Farm-to-SchoolParents are ultimately responsible for what theirchildren eat or don’t eat. But ever since PresidentTruman signed the School Lunch Act, the federalgovernment has also been involved in child nutrition.

The two goals of the act were to improve the healthof the nation’s children and ensure a market for

4 4

7

11

16

5

6

5

11

16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1963-70 1971-74 1976-80 1988-94 1999-2002

Percent

6-11

12-19

Age in years

Excludes pregnant women starting with 1971-74. Pregnancy status not

available for 1963-65 and 1966-70. Data for 1963-65 are for children

6-11 years of age, not 12-19 years. Source: CDC/National Center for

Health Statistics (NCHS), National Health Examination Surveys (NHES)

and National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES).

Move It and Lose ItWhile children and youth have ramped up their energy intake

in the form of food calories, energy output (i.e. physical activity)

has not kept pace. In 2003, only 34% of Oklahoma high school

students enrolled in physical education actually spent more than

20 minutes per class exercising or playing sports, compared with

80% nationally. [30]

In 2005, the Oklahoma legislature passed SB 312, which requires

mandatory physical and health education in grade schools and

elective physical education in junior high and high schools.

Prevalence of Overweight AmongChildren and Adolescents Ages 6-19 Years


America’s farmers. Today, in order forschool cafeterias to receive federalreimbursements, foods served throughUSDA school meal programs arerequired to meet certain nutritionalstandards.

Other foods available at schools, suchas those sold in a la carte lines, vend-ing machines, snack bars and throughfundraisers, are not subject to nutri-tional requirements.

In recent years, a variety of people andinstitutions, from local school boardsto state legislatures to the federal gov-ernment, have been looking for waysto improve children’s nutrition. TheUSDA has emphasized the importance of fresh fruits and vegetablesas part of what it calls “a healthy school meal environment.” [14]

In 1997, the agency began a comprehensive effort to connect local farmsto school meal programs. The 2002 National School Lunch Act encour-aged institutions participating in the school lunch and breakfast programsto purchase locally grown food to the maximum extent practicable. [15]

These efforts, often referred to as “farm-to-school,” are becoming widespread–in 400 school districts in 23 states, including forty in Oklahoma. [16]

What is farm-to-school? Farm-to-school programs feature schoolpurchases of food (usually fresh fruits and vegetables) from local farmers.Nutrition lessons are often coordinated with the fresh produce beingserved in the cafeteria.

Comprehensive farm-to-school programs also include school gardens,farm/farmer visits, food tastings and cooking classes, and agriculture-related curricula, all designed to get kids empowered and excited abouteating healthy food.

The overarching goal of these efforts: help kids develop healthy eatinghabits that will last a lifetime.

A major premise behind farm to school projects is that kids will eat morefruits and vegetables when they have easy access to a variety of highquality, fresh items such as on a school salad bar. Research is showingthis to be the case, even in kids from varying socio-economic levels. [17]

Across the nation, three-fourths of the schools participating in the USDAFruit and Vegetable Pilot Program reported an increase in children’sacceptance of fruits and vegetables, as more produce items were offeredas part of school meals. [18]

Poor Diets, Poor Health,Poor Performance

Besides the numerous health risks associat-

ed with poor diets and inactivity, nutrition

researchers have observed links between

child nutrition, academic performance and

behavioral problems.

Poor diet has been shown to adversely

affect the ability to learn and can decrease

motivation and attentiveness. [26]

“Poor diet” not only refers to the unhealthy

eating habits, which can lead to obesity; it

also applies to those who lack the resources

for acquiring enough food on a regular

basis. In 2005, Oklahoma had the highest

rate of households in the U.S. experiencing

food insecurity with hunger. [27]

In Oklahoma, 21% of children live in

poverty; however, in many rural Oklahoma

counties, the rate exceeds that, with rates

above 30% in five counties: Pushmataha,

McCurtain, Seminole, Choctaw and

Harmon, all classified as rural. [28]

Statewide, 54% of Oklahoma students

qualify for free and reduced lunches, and

in many rural counties, rates are well over

65%. [29] Improving the nutritional

choices made by school kids could greatly

help in confronting the ill effects of both

obesity and hunger upon student health

and school performance.

“…obesity and its

related diseases could

shorten the average

lifespan of an

entire generation –

today’s children –

by two to five years.”

In Oregon, school nutrition staff found as theyincreased fruit and vegetable choices to six items perday, food waste decreased by as much as 36%. [14]

Indeed, recent surveys of high school students inmetropolitan Tulsa indicated 35% recommend morefresh fruits and vegetables in their cafeterias as a wayto create a healthier school environment. [19]

Kids are responding favorably to having more freshoptions, and locally-grown produce is the pick of thecrop. Because it’s harvested at peak ripeness andbrought to the consumer in the shortest time possible,locally grown is often of the highest quality – attrac-tive to the eye, with pleasant aroma, flavor, and tex-ture – attributes that encourage kids to dig in. Theresult: better nutritional health.

Research into existing farm-to-school programs isconfirming that students choose significantly moreservings of fruits and vegetables when given thechoice of high quality, farm-fresh produce. In LosAngeles, the University of California reported thatthe Farm-to-School Salad Bar Program increasedelementary aged kids’ consumption of fruits andvegetables by 50%. [20]

Practitioners of farm to school efforts that includegardening and/or cooking activities, contend thatwhen the superior taste of farm-fresh items is com-bined with a new-found appreciation of where realfood comes from, a transformation often occurswithin participating students.

Researchers with Oklahoma State University foundthat over one fourth of students involved with anafter-school garden project in Leach, Oklahoma,showed improvements in healthy behaviors, includ-ing fruit and vegetable consumption and physicalactivity. [21]

A number of projects have also shown positivechanges in self-esteem, attitudes toward school,social skills and behavior in students participatingin garden-based learning programs. [22,23]

Taken together, these innovative farm-to-schoolapproaches are helping to give children (and adults) adeeper understanding of the important connectionsbetween healthy farms, healthy foods and healthy bodies.

31

Healthy Advertising?• The combined 2003 budgets for three leading nutrition

education programs at the CDC, USDA and National Cancer

Institute represented less than ten percent of the annual U.S.

advertising budgets for just two leading soft drinks and one top-

selling candy bar.

• Twenty-five percent of all advertising by food manufacturers

in 1999 was for candy, snacks and soft drinks, while only two

percent was for fruits, vegetables, grains and beans. [31]


On August 25, 2004, truckloadsof watermelons traveled 70-oddmiles between Bob Ramming’s

farm outside Hinton and the schoolcafeterias in Edmond.

Though the melons were of a seedlessvariety, they were in fact carryingseeds of a different sort – seeds thatwhen planted might transformOklahoma lunchrooms and even thehealth of children in the state.

The melons were part of Oklahoma’sfirst farm-to-school pilot project: forseveral weeks in late August andSeptember, four school districts –Edmond, Broken Arrow, Tahlequah,and Shawnee – served Oklahoma-grown watermelons for lunch.

“This was the best watermelon I ever had, period,”says Jill Poole, Broken Arrow food service director.Food service directors, cafeteria workers, teachersand especially, the kids, said the same thing: we loveit and we want more.

In the fall of 2005, two more school districts – Tulsaand Muskogee – joined the original four to serveOklahoma-grown watermelons for lunch. The addi-tional districts tripled the number of watermelonsserved.

In May 2006, Governor Brad Henry signed legislationcreating the Oklahoma Farm-to-School program.The legislation encourages Oklahoma school districtsto “purchase… locally and regionally produced foodsin order to improve child nutrition and strengthenlocal and regional farm economies.”

When school resumed in fall of 2006, the programexpanded in a big way, with over 300 schools in 40school districts serving Oklahoma-grown watermelonsand honeydew melons.

“School districts from all over the state are partici-pating,” says Chris Kirby, the new program coordina-tor. “Some larger school districts, such as OklahomaCity, Norman, Moore, and Mid-Del, got involvedfor the first time.”

Good Food for Good HealthFarm-to-school has twin goals, both aimed at gettingmore Oklahoma-grown food on the cafeteria trays ofOklahoma school kids. On the one hand, it encouragesfarmers to sell their fresh produce to schools; on theother, it encourages schools to fill part or all of theirfresh fruit and vegetable needs by buying from farmerswithin the state.

When everything works, both parties benefit.Oklahoma ranks 12th in the nation in watermelonproduction, yet until the pilot project, few of thosemelons were being served in Oklahoma schools.

Ramming, the first farmer to participate in the pilotproject, signed on because of the opportunity itoffered him to expand his business.

Melons Carry Seeds of Change:Oklahoma’s Farm to School Program

Children enjoy locally grown watermelon at a Broken Arrow school.

Food Service: Factors and Concerns that AffectDecisions to Buy Locally Produced Foods

• Oklahoma Office of Central Purchasing including local foods in

contract services

• Competitive prices

• Availability of local sources consistent in timeliness and quality

• Food safety

• Order size

• Processing and preparation

• Payment arrangements

• Awareness of Oklahoma food production and processing

• Categories of desired food

“Public and private responses can be made to most of these barriers,

improving the purchase and consumption of Oklahoma-produced food

by Oklahoma public institutions. For example, private cooperatives can

improve access, availability, consistency of timeliness and quality,

accommodation of order size, payment arrangements, competitive

prices and, to a lesser extent, categories of desired food.

“The state, through legislative actions and agency rules, can be sup-

portive of local purchases, education on access, availability and safety.

The target for education initially is the key person most systems have

designated to make food purchase and preparation decisions. Since

most institutions are willing to provide their names to area producers,

state agencies could facilitate the process of linking buyers and sellers.

“Seasonality and economic production of some desired foods may be

problematic. Initial focus on foods for which Oklahoma has a competitive

advantage, and public research on local production, processing and

distribution are suggested strategies.”

Food Service: Top Motivations to Buy Local

• Support for the local economy and local community (42%)

• Access to fresher food (42%)

• Helping Oklahoma farms and businesses (41%)

• Ability to purchase smaller quantities (38%)

• Higher quality food (34%)

• Good public relations (26%)

• Lower transportation costs (24%)

• Less use of pesticides (23%)

From the “2002 Institutional Food Service Survey,” in the

2003 Oklahoma Farm to School Report. [5]

As for the schools, he says, “It just makes sense.”

The most important winners, naturally, are the kids.The melons were fresh, nutritious – and tasty.Buying the watermelons locally and having themdelivered weekly allowed the schools to have water-melon on the menu much more often, and for alonger time period – five weeks.

Confirming DemandHaving fresh fruit that kids like on the menu isimportant in a state where only about one-quarter ofOklahoma fifth graders eat five or more servings offruits and vegetables per day, and even fewer highschool students do.

The farm-to-school pilot project had its beginningsin 2002, when the Oklahoma Food Policy Councildevised a survey to gauge interest in buyingOklahoma-grown food among institutional foodservice providers.

The survey was mailed out to 638 public institutions,545 of which were schools. (Others were colleges,prisons, state hospitals, career techs and state resorts.)

The response was strong and favorable, with almost67% of institutions replying to the survey (see sidebarfor key results). Provided that local sources with suf-ficient quantities at competitive prices could befound, over two-thirds of the responding institutionsagreed that they would purchase from those sources.

Of those that had already purchased locally, over80% said that they would do so again. More thanhalf wanted to make contact with local food sources.

The significant finding of the survey, says OSU pro-fessor Larry Sanders, is that a majority of these insti-tutions would be willing make such purchases ifinstitutional practices and policies supported suchdecisions (see sidebar for factors and concerns thataffect decisions to purchase locally).

In 2003, the Food Policy Council published thesurvey results in the Oklahoma Farm-to-School Report. [1]It also began to address one of the barriers to buyinglocally—finding local producers from whom to pur-chase. The Oklahoma Food Connection: A Directory of

33


Agricultural Producers, Crops and Institutional Buyerslisted farms in 63 of 77 counties and what they grow,along with an extensive list of school districts willingto be contacted by farmers. [2]

Connecting with SupplyEncouraged by the wide interest in farm-to-school,the Food Policy Council began to plan a pilot project,bringing together in a series of meetings key peoplefrom state and federal agencies with food servicedirectors and a produce distributor. The Councildecided the pilot should start small, with one produceitem and four schools, in order to work out anylogistical bugs that might come up.

The meetings resulted in the pilot project in 2004.The four school districts ordered 721 cases, or about46,000 pounds, of seedless watermelons, procuredthrough the U.S. Department of Defense's Farm-toSchool program. The USDA's Food and NutritionService provided grants to the pilot schools to payfor the watermelons the first year. The deliverieswent very smoothly, and with more schools onboardin 2005, orders tripled, totaling over $20,000.

The ball was rolling. The Oklahoma Department ofEducation organized farm-to-school workshops forfood service directors, and the Kerr Center sponsoreda workshop for both farmers and food service. These,

Comprehensive farm to school initiatives

can truly be “win-win” situations, offering

a number of possible benefits to everyone

involved as:

School kids:

• Eat more fruits, vegetables and other nutritious foods

• Adopt healthy eating habits early in life

• Build self-esteem and improve school performance

• Meet farmers and learn where food comes from

Teachers and Food Services:

• Gain numerous opportunities for integrating

core curriculum and nutrition education

• See greater student participation in school lunch programs

• Receive satisfaction from improving students’ eating habits

• Have healthier, more attentive, higher achieving students

Farmers:

• Gain access to reliable institutional markets paying fair prices

• Can diversify crop production away from less profitable

commodities

• Share their knowledge and love of the land with

school children

• Become valued within their communities for the

vital roles they serve

Communities:

• Have greater food security through less reliance on

distant sources

• In metropolitan areas preserve open space as local farms

remain viable.

• In rural areas become revitalized as farmers increase

local sales

• Become more connected to local agriculture as students

and their families learn about it

along with passage of the state farm-to-school legis-lation, helped the program take off in 2006.

What is the potential for farm-to-school in Oklahoma?The Food Policy Council survey found food servicedirectors interested in purchasing many items locally.Tomatoes were tops on the list, followed by cucumbers,onions, lettuce, eggs, potatoes, strawberries, groundbeef, cheese and other dairy products.

Food Policy Council Chairperson Jim Horne hopesthe project can expand in future years to include manymore farmers and produce items. If Oklahoma schoolsbought even half of their fresh fruits and vegetableslocally, purchases could reach $6 million per year,according to one estimate. With such potential, astatewide farm-to-school program could do much torevitalize Oklahoma’s struggling rural communities.

“Farm-to-school programs keep dollars circulatingin local communities,” he says.

Meanwhile, the project can help children understandthe connections between their own health and whereand how their food is grown.

The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture’s Ag inthe Classroom program is working hard to makesure that they do. The program has a curriculumof 166 lessons, based on agriculture but covering allsubject areas. The program has developed speciallessons for the farm-to-school project.

One, called “Melon Meiosis,” teaches basic geneticsby explaining how seedless watermelons are produced.Others focus on vocabulary, geometry, botany, geog-raphy, and math. The lessons also cover nutrition,a critical topic in light of the state’s growing childobesity crisis. [3]

Winners All AroundAt Cheyenne Middle School in Edmond the kidssavoring the watermelon had a wide range of guessesat how far the other food on their trays had traveledto get there. One said two hundred miles; another,two thousand.

The second guess is closer. According to a study byIowa’s Leopold Center, the typical piece of food inthe U.S. travels 1,500 miles from farm to table. [4]

In contrast, the truck hauling the Oklahoma melonsthe 70 miles from field to table burned just a fractionof the gasoline needed to deliver the typical fooditem, all the while cutting pollution and greenhousegas emissions, and conserving expensive fossil fuels.

Thriving farm communities, a cleaner environment,and a healthier and more food-savvy populationsound like a pretty tall order for a truckload ofwatermelons.

But the more local Oklahoma’s food system becomes,the more it will realize all those benefits. The farm-to-school pilot project is a strong first step on thelong road toward such a system.

35

“Farm-to-school programs

keep dollars circulating

in local communities.”

– Jim Horne

Oklahoma-grown watermelons are a natural choice for schoollunches.

Children’s Health and Food Education

Goal: Improve the diets of Oklahoma’s children through increased consumptionof farm-fresh fruits and vegetables.


Public Policy Priorities:• Establish and expand comprehensive farm-to-school

initiatives in school districts throughout the state.

• Aggressively and continually recruit additionalschool districts, farmers, and crops to Oklahoma’sexisting Farm-to-School program.

• Incorporate locally grown produce into summerfeeding programs.

• Address barriers to the use of farm-fresh foods inOklahoma schools

• Create a competitive grants program to fundpilot models for:

• farm-to-school program districts to developon-site preparation capacity for local foods.

• farmers to develop season-extension and storagetechniques to expand the season of fresh pro-duce availability for farm-to-school programs.

• Incorporate instruction about food, agriculture,nutrition, cooking, and gardening into elementaryand high-school curricula as a necessary componentof, and complement to, farm-to-school programs.

• Continue to expand the scope of, and funding,for the Oklahoma Ag-in-the-Classroom program.

• Expand and develop programs through thestate’s career techs and universities to trainyouth in small scale agriculture and foodproduction.

• Establish a program that funds farm tours forteachers, food service and school wellnesscommittees.

• Promote the development and use of schoolgardens, cooking classes, and food tastings inschool districts throughout the state.

• Conduct school gardening workshops forteachers and parents.

• Create a statewide competitive grant programto start or expand school instructional gardens.

• Encourage Extension to work with schools andcommunity groups to establish school gardens.

• Make food and nutrition education part of thecore curriculum in the lower grades.

• Incorporate cooking and gardening into afterschool programs.

Stop the Supersizing of Oklahoma’s Student Body:Integris Health CEO and the Fit Kids Coalition Lead the Way to Healthier

Choices for Kids

37

The black-and-white photo of a puffy faced kidwith a serious expression and sprinkling offreckles across his nose captures the attention

right away. He could be anybody’s child, the kidnext door, a nephew, even one’s own child.

Then comes the provocative headline, “How to StopSupersizing the Student Body,” and facts about thehealth risks associated with childhood obesity, thegrowing crisis, and possible solutions. The expertscatch the eye next, scrolling photos of pediatriciansaccompanied by quotes about the complicationsassociated with childhood obesity.

The website’s clickable words “Wake up” launch thereader further into the plethora of information andonce there, an impressively organized array of infor-mation designed to compel action takes a tenacioushold. And reading through the info, one begins tounderstand just how pervasive obesity has become andwhy is it so threatening to Oklahoma on a numberof levels.

This isn’t the website of “Good Morning America,”CNN or the New York Times. It’s a homegrown, 100percent Oklahoma-initiated website organized andbacked by the Oklahoma Fit Kids Coalition, a groupof more than 90 organizations that takes Oklahoma’sgrowing obesity problem very seriously.

The Fit Kids coalition is the brainchild of IntegrisCEO and president, Stan Hupfeld. Hupfeld headsthe state’s largest Oklahoma-owned health system,with hospitals, rehabilitation centers, physicianclinics, mental health facilities, independent livingcenters and home health agencies throughout muchof the state.

In a 2004 interview he noted that after successfulwork on State Question 713 in 2004, which raisedcigarette taxes by a net 55 cents per pack and isestimated to raise $200 million a year for health-related initiatives, Fit Kids turned its attention to

Oklahoma’s growing obesity crisis.

A number of Integris pediatricians had expressedconcern about the number of pre-teens and teensthey were seeing with Type II diabetes, historically adisease seen in adults aged 40 plus, often as a resultof obesity. Hupfeld says as the doctors began to lookat national statistics, they were alarmed at what theyfound. The Centers for Disease Control andPrevention reported an increase in diabetes of 33%nationally, with eight to forty-five percent of childrenwith newly diagnosed diabetes having Type II.

Further, as the U.S. population becomes increasinglyoverweight, CDC researchers reported that theyexpect Type II diabetes to appear more frequentlyin younger, pre-pubescent children. The statisticsdovetailed with what Integris pediatricians wereseeing in their practices in Oklahoma.

In addition to the many unpleasant and often life-threatening consequences obesity exacts on individu-als and families, obesity threatens the economichealth of Oklahoma and the nation. For instance,the Washington, D.C.-based National BusinessGroup on Health (NBGH) estimates that obesity

Oklahoma Fit Kids Coalition’s web site.


costs employers $12 billion a year. Armed with suchdata, Hupfeld said Integris felt compelled to act.

“We began to ask ourselves basic questions. As thelargest provider of health services in Oklahoma,ought we to be taking proactive positions in publichealth issues? And if not us, then who?” saysHupfeld. “Our answer was, ‘Yes,’ we should take amore proactive role.”

Hupfeld led the charge in forming the coalition as apublic interest group that could affect opinions andlegislation. He also serves as chairman of Fit Kids.

Once the coalition formed and began meeting, itrecognized obesity as a societal and family problembut also realized that, as with any problem, it’simportant to find a starting point.

“We thought the easiest place to grab hold was inthe school system. While at the same time under-standing it’s certainly family and societal based,schools shouldn’t make the problem worse,” saysHupfeld.

Working with several partners, and contracting withthe Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy to pro-vide administrative services, the Coalition researchedwhat other states were doing, collected data, andconducted field work, actually going to a middleschool in the Oklahoma City metro area and tapingthe food being served in the cafeteria.

“We were absolutely appalled by what our kids werebeing fed, both in the regular line and particularly invending machines,” said Hupfeld. “In our judgment

the schools were in fact making the obesity issueworse by what they fed kids, both in the cafeteriaand in vending machines, and by the fact that manyof them had eliminated physical education as part oftheir curriculum.”

The Coalition’s solution? When it makes sense, pro-pose legislation to effect change. And during the lastthree legislative years, Fit Kids has done just that,leading the charge on six bills, five of which havepassed.

The first, SB 1627, created the Healthy and Fit KidsAct of 2004 by providing for the establishment oflocal Healthy and Fit School Advisory Committees,which get parents involved firsthand in working withschool administrators to address health and fitnessissues.

The second, SB 265, limits students’ access to junkfood by mandating healthier food choices for vend-ing machines by 2007. And the third, SB 312,addresses physical fitness by requiring mandatoryphysical and health education in grade schools andelective physical education in junior high and highschools.

Jim Horne, Stan Hupfield and Anne Roberts

A number of Integris pediatricians

had expressed concern about the

number of pre-teens and teens they

were seeing with Type II diabetes,

historically a disease seen in adults

aged 40 plus, often as a result of obesity.

“You start with a good cause, something that makes sense

to do, and you put some organization behind it and raise

an effective following that will call and

write letters, and you can make changes.”

– Stan Hupfeld

39

In the 2006 legislative session, the coalition lobbiedfor SB 1459, which provides additional resources forthe Healthy and Fit Schools Committees. Anothercoalition-backed measure, which establishes a statefarm-to-school program, HB2655, passed bothhouses unanimously. The only strikeout was a billthat would have urged school districts to test studentsfor fitness.

The ability to overcome powerful opposition in sucha short time not only demonstrates the persuasiveskills of the coalition, but shows that the issuereached critical mass in the minds of public, saysAnne Roberts, executive director of the OklahomaInstitute for Child Advocacy and project director forthe Coalition.

“For an organization as young as Fit Kids to be ableto be so successful at the legislature is a testament tothe urgency of the issue and the widespread supportwe got from parents, superintendents and physicians,”says Roberts.

The greatest opposition to the Coalition’s work camewhen they addressed unhealthy snacks in vendingmachines. Schools dependent on revenue from vend-ing machines to fund vital programs like debate andband, as well as vending machine and snack compa-nies, vigorously fought what they saw as a directassault on their economic livelihood. The Coalitionwas able to work with the schools and vendingmachine and snack companies, contending that providing healthier snack foods wouldn’t changethe revenue stream of the schools and companies.

“We’re not asking Pepsi to go away; we’re askingPepsi to replace bad Pepsi products with good Pepsiproducts,” says Roberts. “I think it’s a win/win foreveryone.”

Hupfeld fully realizes that the measures that Fit Kidshas championed are controversial and jokes aboutbeing labeled “Food Nazis,” but says in the end theprocess of debate on the issue itself is healthy, ameans of getting all the stakeholders to come tothe table and work on what’s best for the kids.

Roberts maintains that a key ingredient to theCoalition’s success is the coordinated efforts of somany partners, members and individuals withcourage.

“The Oklahoma Fit Kids Coalition has beenremarkably successful in its legislative efforts. TheUniversity of Baltimore publishes a report cardcomparing all 50 states’ efforts to fight childhoodobesity. In one year, Oklahoma rose from an ‘F’ toa ‘B,’ and is now ranked as one of the top 12 states.We improved our ranking by getting junk food outof schools and reinstating physical education,” saysRoberts. “It was a textbook example of citizen-gen-erated change….”

Ruminating on the lessons learned in the short life ofthis remarkable organization, Hupfeld, meanwhile,appears well suited for the next battle in helpingOklahomans live healthier lives.

“This is really a textbook case of a public healthissue getting enough organization and impetus –which includes money, time and people – that youcan win out over the vested interests, and that‘snever easy,” says Hupfeld. “You start with a goodcause, something that makes sense to do, and youput some organization behind it, raise an effectivefollowing that will call and write letters, and youcan make changes.”


Oklahoma: Rates of Poverty, 2003

Poverty Rates and Number of School Districts per County Interested in Farm-to-School

School districts interested in participating

in a farm-to-school program compiled from

the 2002 Institutional Food Service Survey in

The Oklahoma Farm-to-School Report.

Farm to School Programs 2004-2006 and County Poverty Rates

School District County Years Participating Poverty Rate (%) Child Poverty Rate

State average 14.6 21.1Sayre Beckham 2006 16.1 21.9

Binger-Oney Caddo 2006 18.8 26.9

El Reno Canadian 2006 9.2 13.1

Mustang Canadian 2006

Tahlequah Cherokee 2004, 2005 19.2 27.0

Moore Cleveland 2006 10.2 13.1

Noble Cleveland 2006

Norman Cleveland 2006

Tupelo Coal 2006 18.5 26.3

Bishop Comanche 2006 16.6 22.8

Bristow Creek 2006 13.8 19.7

Arnett-Ellis Ellis 2006 11.9 18.5

Pond Creek - Hunter Grant 2006 13.0 18.6

Ponca City Kay 2006 15.9 23.7

Kingfisher Kingfisher 2006 10.5 14.0

Davenport Lincoln 2006 14.0 20.4

Wellston Lincoln 2006

Thackerville Love 2006 13.1 19.5

Turner Love 2006

Muskogee Muskogee 2005 17.8 26.3

Morrison Noble 2006 13.3 19.2

Edmond Oklahoma 2004, 2005, 2006 15.5 22.6

Luther Oklahoma 2006

Midwest City-Del City Oklahoma 2006

Oklahoma City Oklahoma 2006

Western Heights Oklahoma 2006

Beggs Okmulgee 2006 18.3 27.3

Stillwater Payne 2006 17.0 19.5

Bethel Pottawatomie 2006 15.0 23.1

Shawnee Pottawatomie 2004, 2005, 2006

Comanche Stephens 2006 14.3 21.1

Broken Arrow Tulsa 2004, 2005, 2006 13.2 18.6

Liberty Tulsa 2006

Sperry Tulsa 2006

Tulsa Tulsa 2005, 2006

Dewey Washington 2006 12.2 18.1

Mooreland Woodward 2006 12.8 18.1

Less than 10 percent

10 to 14 percent

15 to 19 percent

20 percent or more

41

Today’s food-insecure and hungry Oklahomansface a web of paradoxical barriers in theirattempts to eat enough, and eat right, on limited

incomes. (See Chapter 3 for a definition and discussionof food insecurity).

The people with the least money to spend on foodare often also among the most likely to suffer fromobesity and all its related health risks. They paythe highest prices for food, yet can least afford it.

Such self-contradictory obstacles to communityfood security are woven from several closely con-nected causes: some economic, some geographic,and some educational.

Enough to Go Around?The first obstacle to food security is the dollars-and-cents kind: how much money do people needto afford a healthy diet? The affordability of goodfood is perhaps the most commonly recognized(and most debated) barrier to food security, asfood-aid advocates battle budget cutters in stateand federal governments.

The question is a crucial one for the future ofOklahoma, as is a related one: What can individualsand communities do to make it possible for low-income people to eat a healthy diet? Is it just aquestion of money, or are there other approachesthat would help?

Oklahoma needs to find answers. The state leadsthe nation in some measures of hunger, and rankswell above national averages for several obesity-related diseases. [1] In Oklahoma, only 15% ofadults eat the recommended five-a-day of fruitsand vegetables.

Empty Pockets, Empty CaloriesPeople with less to spend tend to go for whatever’scheapest – and in the U.S. food system, the cheapestcalories are definitely not the healthiest. For instance,according to USDA research, fats and oils are thefoods that most need cutting back in the U.S. diet.[2] Yet these are also the cheapest products on thiscountry’s supermarket shelves. [3,4]

In contrast, people in the United States don’t eatenough fruits and vegetables, and low-incomehouseholds consume fewer still. Part of the reasonis cost. [3] With less money to go around, people onlower incomes spend more of their disposableincome on food, but less per person on fresh fruitsand vegetables.

Households in the lowest 20% of incomes in the

Chapter Four: The Cost Of Good Food

Getting What You Pay for: Affording Healthy Food

For produce, fresh offerings

are often cheaper…


country spent about 50 cents per person per dayon fruits and vegetables, compared to 68 cents forpeople in the top 20% income bracket. [5,6]

However, the proportion of lower income households’food spending that goes to fruits and vegetables(17.9%) is about the same as that of someone in ahigher income tax bracket (17.5%). The actualdollar amount spent in that category – and thus theamount of those food consumed – is lower simplybecause less affluent people spend less on foodoverall. [5,6]

Recent studies back this up. The USDA’s EconomicResearch Service found that “there were major income-related differences in the consumption of lettuceand lettuce-based salads, melons, berries, and otherfruit.” Women in the highest income group weretwice as likely as the women in the lower-incomegroup to eat salad and fruit on a given day. OtherUSDA surveys have also found that higher qualitydiets went hand in hand with higher income. [7]

This begs the question: Given the lower amount ofmoney available to them, can low-income peopleafford to eat a healthy diet?

Opinion among public health researchers and advo-cates is divided. Some say it may be necessary tospend more money, [7] while others point to educationas key to achieving a healthy diet.

Not What You Make, But How You Spend ItBecause lower income people are less likely to eathealthy diets, they therefore suffer from some of thehighest rates of obesity and Type II diabetes. Theystretch their food budgets by buying so-called“energy-dense foods” – foods high in sugar and/orfat (such as potato chips, chocolate and doughnuts)which are cheap and also well liked. [7]

Because the cost of food is an important factor infood-buying decisions, especially for low-incomepeople, [8] some government and private programsattempt to educate low-income consumers abouthow to make the most of their food dollars throughcareful shopping.

In fact, some USDA research suggests that it maybe possible, by choosing the right items, for shoppersto spend just 12% (for low-income shoppers, 16%)of their daily food expenditures on fruits and vegeta-bles – while still meeting dietary recommendations(three servings of fruit and four servings of vegetablesper day). [9]

These researchers say that careful grocery shopperscan zero in on certain fruits and vegetables that costless than other seemingly cheaper, and assuredly lesshealthy, options.

They also point out that high per-pound prices cancause shoppers to perceive fruits and vegetables asmore expensive than other choices. But becausemany fruits and vegetables contain several servingsper pound, they are more affordable than the pricetag might seem to suggest (see table).

The form of food also influences its purchase price.For produce, fresh offerings are often cheaper thancanned, frozen, or other preserved alternatives. [9]

Thus, while fruits and vegetables are still not alwaysthe least expensive offerings on grocery store shelves,many are much more affordable than they are com-monly perceived to be. Apples and bananas (at

With less money to go around, people

on lower incomes spend more of their

disposable income on food, but less per

person on fresh fruits and vegetables.

eleven and seventeen cents per serving, respectively)are some of the cheapest fruits; potatoes and cabbage(six and four cents per serving) are others. [9]

Even when considering a single food item, the pricediffers depending on who’s selling it. The placesthat are commonly perceived as offering the bestdeals can actually be more expensive.

As a comparison of fresh produce prices at Tulsa-area retail food stores with those at the CherryStreet Farmers’ Market found, super centers andsupermarkets charge more per pound for most freshproduce items than local farmers selling direct to theconsumer. [10]

In one study of three Massachusetts community-sup-

ported agriculture (CSA) programs, where consumersbought directly from farmers, supermarket producecost 60 to 150% more than the same items purchasedthrough a CSA. [11]

That observation opens one path for lower-incomefamilies with access to home food preservationequipment to stock up on affordable, nutritious fooditems while they’re in season, and freeze or can asurplus to continue eating well during the wintermonths.

A Penny Saved Is a Mouthful LearnedWhile cost is certainly a factor in what low-incomeOklahomans buy at the grocery store, researchshows that other factors also impact food choices.

One important reason that people with less to spendend up eating fewer healthy foods is that they livefurther from more affordable sources of those foods.In both rural areas and inner city neighborhoods,food retail outlets with more affordably priced pro-duce are scarcer than in affluent suburban zones,[12] as are farmers’ markets. (See Chapter 5.)

Other barriers that keep low-income people from eat-ing healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables includethe time and effort needed to prepare them, lack ofcooking skills, lack of storage space, and just plain notliking them or being unfamiliar with them. [12]

43

In How Much Do Americans Pay for Fruits and Vegetables? researchers from USDA’s Economic Research Service used 1999 household purchase

data from all types of retail outlets to estimate an annual, national retail price per pound and the price per serving for 69 fresh and processed

fruits and 85 fresh and processed vegetables.

More than half of the fruits and vegetables were estimated to cost 25 cents or less per serving in 1999. Eighty-six percent of the vegetables and

78% of the fruit cost less than 50 cents a serving – that’s 127 different ways to eat a serving of fruits and vegetables for less than the price of a

3-ounce candy bar. (The authors estimate today’s prices would be about ten percent higher on average.) [17]

Fresh Frozen Canned

$/lb. $/serving $/lb. $/serving $/lb. $/serving

Blackberries 3.94 0.66 2.97 0.66 2.71 0.92

Spinach 1.35 0.21 1.15 0.41 0.62 0.30

Peaches 0.97 0.21 1.99 0.73 0.93 0.25

Green beans 1.07 0.19 1.70 0.32 0.75 0.18

Pears 0.88 0.21 - - 0.95 0.25

Zucchini squash 1.42 0.24 - - - -

While fruits and vegetables are still

not the least expensive offerings on

grocery store shelves, many are much

more affordable than they are

commonly perceived to be.

In Comparison: Price of Fresh, Frozen, Canned

Cost per pound and cost per serving for afew popular fruits and vegetables that canbe grown in Oklahoma. In most cases, thecosts of fresh, frozen, and canned arealso compared.

Prices per serving are after adjusting for waste(non-edible rinds, seeds, etc). A pound yieldsanywhere from two to fourteen servings.Based on 1999 average prices. [9,17]


Addressing these barriers through education is a good first step tohealthful eating. Exposing families to unfamiliar foods through tastetesting a variety of fruits and vegetables is one strategy, as is teachingquick and easy ways to prepare them. [12]

Such tips are the stock in trade of the Community Nutrition EducationProgram (CNEP), which works to get such knowledge into the hands andminds of the people who need it most. [13] The Oklahoma CooperativeExtension Service also has a wide range of educational materials availableto assist lower-income people with dietary decision-making.

Some Oklahoma-based food aid groups also engage in education. Witheach of its weekly deliveries of food to needy families, the Oscar RomeroCatholic Worker House also leaves a copy of its Better Times Almanac ofUseful Information, a compendium of smart strategies for buying foodand recipes for preparing it. [14]

The Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma boasts demonstration gardensand runs Oklahoma City’s community gardening program, on theprinciple that the best deal of all on food is growing it yourself. [15]

There’s little doubt that education pays off, literally, in bringing ade-quate, healthy diets within reach of people of more limited means.Surveys have found that education has a stronger effect on quality ofdiet than income. [7] One USDA study found that the single largestfactor in countering the trend toward reduced spending on fresh fruitsand vegetables, regardless of income, is a college-educated head ofhousehold. [16]

Grasping the threadOklahoma’s present tapestry of food insecurity is woven of paradox,knotted with complicated problems. Yet a community food securityperspective helps to identify certain economic and educational threadsthat, when pulled, can bring down the whole sorry curtain, creatingopportunities to weave a new food system that makes healthy foodaffordable for all Oklahomans.

Oklahoma Grown for 5 (or More) A DayOklahoma produces an abundance of fresh

produce - so much that it ships large amounts

of some crops to buyers outside the state.

Yet Oklahomans' diets are deficient in many

of the nutrients supplied by these same

fruits and vegetables.

What if Oklahomans got two of their two to

three recommended daily servings of fruit

from Oklahoma blackberries during the

month-long blackberry season?

Per capita consumption of blackberries

would rise from 0.5 servings to 8 servings

of blackberries per person per year.

That increase in demand would take the

acreage of blackberries in the state from

130 to 660, and boost sales from just over

$1 million to more than $5 million.

Likewise, what if Oklahomans got one-third

of the recommended six weekly servings of

dark green vegetables from spinach grown

on Oklahoma farms?

People would need to eat 83 more servings

of spinach on top of the 17 that they're cur-

rently putting away in one year.

With that increase in spinach consumption,

an additional 2,800 acres would be needed

to grow spinach, over and above the 1,500

already used for spinach farming. Sales

would soar from their current $6.7 million

value to $19.1 million. [18]

Because many fruits and vegetables contain several

servings per pound, they are more affordable than

the price tag might seem to suggest.

Knowledge, the old saying has it, is power. Seenthrough the lens of community food security,knowledge also means empowerment, by way

of improved nutrition.

With precisely those ends in mind, a dedicated groupof Oklahoma health and nutrition professionals areworking to spread knowledge of healthy eatingamong the state’s lower-income families.

Their program, called the Community NutritionEducation Program, or CNEP, teaches limited-resource families how to eat healthy on a tight budget.

Every week, CNEP educators in 39 Oklahomacounties, both urban and rural, visit one-on-onewith families, usually in homes, and occasionally insmall “learning circles” in churches, vo-tech schools,extension offices, commodity sites, and whateverother locations present themselves. (See map.)

Each visit covers a lesson on a topic chosen by theparticipants, from a list including topics like foodsafety, meal preparation skills, food budgeting, andgeneral nutrition. All the lesson topics cover thegeneral theme of eating a healthy diet on a limitedbudget.

Families participate voluntarily, and can opt for along- or short-term CNEP enrollment. The long-term program is meant to provide an in-depth edu-cation to families who are committed to betterhealth. It runs for six to eleven months, duringwhich participants complete at least 16 lesson topics.

The short-term program helps families who are more

mobile, or otherwise unable to commit for a longerperiod, with short-term nutritional and resourcemanagement needs. Over a two to five month term,participants complete lessons on the food guidepyramid, label reading, budgeting, meal planning,food safety, and one of three optional topics.

On average, participants who complete a CNEPprogram are enrolled for seven months and finish 15lessons. CNEP doesn’t consider its mission completeif participants only improve their knowledge ofnutrition. Rather, the program tracks the effect thatknowledge has on the food and nutritional choices –and changes – that they make in their daily lives.

The Power of ChangeThose impacts are significant. To measure them,CNEP uses two main tools. One of these is the 24-hour food recall, in which participants list the foodsthey’ve eaten during the past day.

The other main measurement tool is the CNEP sur-vey, which records participants’ practices in resourcemanagement, food safety, and nutrition. Participantsmeasure their nutritional know-how once when theyenter a CNEP program, and again when they finish.

The changes are impressive. In 2005, CNEP reachednearly 6,000 Oklahoma families, including nearly14,000 youth. Over 90% of participants recordedchanges toward a healthier diet as a result of theirCNEP education.

CNEP graduates’ consumption of fruits, vegetables,and calcium/dairy foods went up by an average of 32%.

Forty percent of graduates had enough food to makeit to the end of the month more often than before,and nearly one third reported that their children atebreakfast more often.

Their intakes of important nutrients, such as iron,calcium, and vitamins A, C, and B6, all increased.

45

The Teacher Only Sets the Table:The Community Nutrition Education Program

Over 90% of participants recorded

changes toward a healthier diet

as a result of their CNEP education.


Those gains are even more exceptional consideringthe uphill ground on which they’re won. Families inlower income brackets commonly contend with adietary double whammy: they buy half the amountof fresh fruits and vegetables that wealthier house-holds do, and the higher relative cost of produce isassociated with more overweight children. [1,2]

For that reason, fresh fruits and vegetables havealways been a major focus of CNEP’s education. Forexample, according to Debra Greene-Garrard, CNEPCoordinator, the 24-hour recall shows that “peoplehave no trouble getting the meats. They have themost trouble getting fresh fruits and vegetables.”

In urban areas, Garrard continues, many residents’closest source of fresh fruits and vegetables may bea convenience store with limited selection and rela-tively high prices. That helps to create a perceptionthat healthier foods are more expensive.

CNEP works to dispel that myth. For certain fruitsand vegetables, Garrard explains, the per-serving

cost is actually lower than for many seeminglycheaper (and nutritionally poorer) choices.

To broaden its participants’ options for fresh, afford-able produce, CNEP educators partnered with theKerr Center in 2005 to distribute a flyer showingthe location of every farmers’ market in Oklahoma,and encouraged participants to incorporate the mar-kets in their food shopping.

CNEP plans to repeat that approach in 2006. Inaddition to the farmers’ market fliers, the educatorswill distribute the Oklahoma Nutrition Cookbook, amixture of recipes featuring fresh seasonal andcanned/frozen ingredients, hot off the OU press.

On top of that, each of CNEP’s nine service areascontains at least one farmers’ market, and the pro-gram’s area coordinators will be organizing carpoolsto take participants to the markets’ opening days –a trip that many will be making for the first time.

Oklahoma Counties Serviced by Community Nutrition Education Program (CNEP)

Counties not serviced by CNEP

Counties serviced by CNEP

Resource: Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service

Oklahoma

Up Close and PersonalA good part of CNEP’s knack for effecting this kindof change in the lives of the families it serves is itsunique teacher pool. The teachers, called “NutritionEducation Assistants,” or NEAs, come from thesame community as their pupils.

Often, NEAS have received public food assistancethemselves in the past, and many are graduates ofCNEP educational programs. This gives familiesenrolled in CNEP programs the comfort and con-nection of knowing that their teachers have facedsimilar straits in their own lives.

The close contact of in-home visits reinforces thatbond. “Very few programs actually go into thehome,” says Garrard. “It’s more of a teachablemoment – in their kitchens, on their turf.”

Teaching in this setting, she explains, allows NEAsto become intimately involved as family “nutritioncoaches,” enabling them to devise any number ofpersonally tailored strategies for overcoming theobstacles that limit lower-income families’ access tohealthy food.

Some of these strategies are as simple as persuadingkids to snack on fresh fruits instead of processedsweets. Others are a shade sneakier, such as addingcorn to chili, or grating carrots into the peanut but-ter part of a PBJ sandwich.

While the cost of food does constitute a barrier tohealthy eating, there are ways to lower it, and thoseare another major focus of CNEP’s teaching. Manyfood stamp recipients, for instance, simply do notrealize that their food stamp allotment is not intend-ed to cover their entire food budget.

Others may receive such a small allotment that theylet it go unused, feeling that it won’t buy enoughfood to make it worth their while. So one common

CNEP demonstration is to show just how many meals’worth of food $10 in food stamps can purchase.(“Several,” says Garrard.)

Transportation can be another major obstacle to foodaccess, particularly in rural areas where residentsmay have to travel several miles to a small grocerystore that has trouble simply keeping fresh fruits andvegetables in stock.

For program participants who make infrequent foodshopping trips, CNEP educators are trained to pointout how buying a mixture of types of fruits and veg-etables can alleviate this difficulty. Fresh produce canbe eaten early on, with frozen and canned varietiesmaking up that portion of the food guide pyramid’srecommendations toward the end of the month.

Though CNEP’s programs are focused on improvingthe lives of their participants, these aren’t the onlypeople who benefit. The NEAs receive their owncontinuing training program as well.

For some NEAs, the job with CNEP is often a legin their own journey from aid recipient to sought-after recruit for other jobs. Beatrice Perez, of Lawton,was first exposed to CNEP as a program participant.She went on to become an NEA, moved from thatposition to one as director of Lawton’s Child andAdult Food Care program, and is currently interningto become an elementary school teacher.

As CNEP’s investment in education and nutritionenhances participants’ ability to contribute to theeconomy, the productivity of the entire state improves.

47

Some of these strategies are as simple

as persuading kids to snack on fresh

fruits instead of processed sweets.


Money Where the Mouths AreThat investment comes from varied, and limited,sources. CNEP’s teaching involves two distinct pro-grams. One is the thirty-year old Expanded Foodand Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP), whichis funded by the federal government throughUSDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, andExtension Service. EFNEP serves families withyoung children who receive any kind of federal foodaid, such as WIC, food stamps, or free or reducedschool lunches.

EFNEP also reaches out to youth in counties wherehalf or more of school students receive free orreduced-price lunches. Among the more than10,000 third- and fourth-graders the program edu-cated in 2004, 18% improved their ability to selectnutritious, affordable foods, and 12% became betterat food preparation and safety.

CNEP’s second program is the Oklahoma NutritionEducation (ONE) Program. In its fifth year ofoperation, ONE offers nutritional education topeople who receive, or are eligible to receive, foodstamps or commodities, as well as some WICrecipients and seniors. ONE’s sponsors are theUSDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, the OklahomaCooperative Extension Service, and the OklahomaDepartment of Human Services, which oversees thestate’s food stamp program.

One of CNEP’s greatest challenges, according toGarrard, is maintaining the resources necessaryto support the intensive, one-on-one nature of its

educational outreach. For example, the nationallevel of funding for EFNEP only allows theprogram to reach 2% of the eligible participants.

CNEP’s monitoring of its results shows greaterbehavioral changes in participants the longer theystay enrolled, so another ongoing struggle is thesearch for ways around the circumstances that limitthe amount of time that families can afford to devoteto participation in the program.

CNEP thus becomes something of a role model forits participants, as it is forced to practice what itpreaches about stretching every dollar as far as possible.CNEP’s strong record of success at improving thefood budgeting and dietary choices of Oklahomans inlimited circumstances makes it a strong model forprograms to increase community food security inthe state.

“Very few programs actually go

into the home. It’s more of

a teachable moment –

in their kitchens, on their turf.”

– Debra Greene-Garrard,

CNEP Coordinator

In November a “food stamp challenge” was postedon the Community Food Security listserv: eat fora week on a food stamp budget. We decided to do

this using as much food as we could from local farmers,so we expanded the challenge to show how the com-bination of (1) frugal supermarket shopping, (2)preparing meals from basic ingredients, (3) buyinglocal foods, (4) gardening, (5) food storage, and (6)home preservation of food could add up to a healthy,affordable, practical, and environmentally sustainablemeal plan, even though the local meats, eggs, anddairy products are typically more expensive thantypical supermarket fare.

And the food had to be satisfying and taste good too;otherwise, what’s the point? Call this the Slow Foodfor the Poor Challenge.

I am happy to report that we succeeded on allaccounts. Here’s the summary of our results:

Total spent on food for week: $60.43

Food stamp allowance, 2 people 1 week $61.87

Amount under budget $1.44

Food cost average amount per day $8.63

Amount bought from farmers $44.18

Amount from supermarket $16.80

Percent of local foods 73%

Percent of supermarket foods 28%

Besides coming in under budget, we had at least twomore meals of leftovers in the fridge. We had applepie filling in the freezer for later. [1]

The meats we ate during the week were buffalo,

100% grass-fed beef,and pork. Yes, we atea lot of ground meat(sausage, beef, andbuffalo) but we alsohad a great pot roastfor a festive weekendmeal. The meatsranged in price from$2.95/lb (groundbuffalo wrapped inbutcher paper) to$4.50/lb for thebuffalo round roast.

We ate ground meat nearly every day, and somemight ask, “Wasn’t that boring?” No, because wefixed it many different ways. We had RedneckSalisbury Steaks (ground buffalo patties browned ina skillet, and then cooked in gravy in the oven),homemade spaghetti sauce with ground buffalo andpasta, rice pilaf with ground buffalo, and beef stewmade with hamburger.

Ground meat can take on many different flavors,depending on the herbs used with it, and we madeliberal use of our garden-grown dried herbs thatweek. If we had tried to eat unseasoned hamburgerpatties for a week, it would have gotten boring veryfast. Instead one day we were south of the border,and the next we were dining in Italy and the dayafter in southwest Oklahoma.

We were liberal with our use of herbs, onions, garlic,hot red peppers, habanero pepper salsa, and chipotlepeppers, all from our garden with us-ens doing theprocessing (smoking for the chipotles, boiling watercanning for the habanero pepper salsa, dehydrating

49

Meeting the Food Stamp Challenge with Local Foods:Slow Food for Low and Moderate Income People Oklahoma Food Cooperative president Robert Waldrop took on the challenge of eating for a week on a food stampbudget, using as much food as possible from local sources. In this article, he discusses the results. Detailed information,showing the meals, ingredients, and prices, is at www.bettertimesinfo.org/challengetable.htm.

Robert Waldrop


for the peppers, curing for the onions and garlic).

All of that work was done earlier, in the summer andfall, now we get to eat these items all year thanks toa couple of hours of work in the summer or fall.

Our eggs were from certified organic, free-ranginghens, bought directly from a farmer through theOklahoma Food Cooperative, costing $3/dozen.Every day we had home baked rolls or biscuits madewith 100% certified organic stone ground flour,made with Oklahoma wheat.

We made intelligent use of leftovers, by design.Sunday’s supper was a delicious hearty winter soup.It had leftover cabbage and the broth from cookingthe cabbage, leftover beans and bean soup, some ofthe rice pilaf, and the gravy from the pot roast, sim-mered for a couple of hours, and served with freshbaked whole wheat rolls.

We would not have had such nice treats (apple pieand apple cobbler) if we had not preserved applesduring the summer that were given to us by a friendwho had picked and preserved so many for her fami-ly she was out of room in her freezer. So we sliced,dipped, and froze several bags of apples and eachmonth we have apple treats.

We did not cut any corners on quality. We usedolive oil and butter, not shortening and margarine.

Our garden and home preservation skills made amajor contribution to our diet. Home grown and/orpreserved items we used during the week includedspaghetti sauce, corn on the cob (bought from afarmer in the summer and frozen), green beans,peach and plum jam, chipotle peppers, habanerosalsa, dried herbs, cured onions and garlic. We hadfresh greens (chard) from the garden. Food process-ing techniques that contributed to our menu thatmonth included jam making, boiling water canning,dehydrating, freezing, smoking peppers, and curingof alliums.

The meats were bought through the OklahomaFood Cooperative. Our meat and egg prices arehigher than supermarket fare, but they are lowerthan what is generally found in health food storesand natural groceries.

Supermarket items included pasta, white flour (forthickening gravies and sauces and for the pie crust,the cobbler was made with whole wheat flour),sugar, salt, rice, cabbage, carrots, potatoes, celery,dried beans, canned tomato sauce (we used the lastof our frozen sauce this week, sigh), butter, and milk.We are hoping to add carrots to our list of “we growall we eat” items next year but in the meantime webuy them at the supermarket.

Food storage proved its utility, in that I didn’t haveto buy anything except cabbage, carrots, potatoes,and celery; everything else was on hand.

PreparationIt is a myth that this kind of cooking takes a hugeamount of time. Generally I spent about 15 minutesactive preparation time, on average, for these meals.The actual cooking time was often longer, but ifsomething is in the oven, or if dough is rising, Idon’t stand around watching it and doing nothing.

One of the real time saving techniques we used wasplanning leftovers.

ConclusionsMy conclusion is that depending on the access tolocal foods, feeding your family a high quality dietusing many local ingredients is absolutely do-able.This experiment integrated

• frugal supermarket shopping• use of many local foods• preparing meals from basic ingredients• food storage• gardening• home preservation of foods.

Each of these six areas was essential to our abilityto stay within the food stamp budget.

Recommendations:Based on this experiment, encouraging/helping lowand moderate income people in these areas seems tome to be most promising of success. I think peopleshould start with their situation as it is, and overtime add the six basic areas of food security until

51

they all work together. People will be better able totake advantage of local foods, for example, if theyhave already learned to prepare meals from basicingredients. They also need easy access to local foods.

This project grew out of my own personal experiencewith poverty. For the 20-year period 1977-1997,there were only 3 years when my income was higherthan $10,000. The recipes and menus I used wereoften based on recipes and menus I used during thatlong period of poverty, and it is still the way ourhousehold generally eats today. They are basicallypeasant foods, typical fare of rural Oklahoma.

A Note About the Amount ofthe Food Stamp Challenge:The weekly amount of food stamps for two personsis based on households without any income at all. Ifthe household has some outside income, the amountof food stamps available to them drops radically.

The Cost of Good Food

Goal: All Oklahomans, including thosewith low incomes, should be able to affordto buy healthy food. All Oklahomansshould be “food literate”: knowledgeableabout what healthy food is, how, whenand where to buy it, and how to cook it.

Public Policy Priorities:• Improve low-income Oklahomans’ acceptance

and consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables.

• Expand food education programs such as theCommunity Nutrition Education Program.

• Encourage government agencies, charities, churchesand civic groups to help make fresh produceaffordable by

• Subsidizing shares for low-income families inCSA farms.

• Organizing farmers’ markets and farm standsin low-income communities and subsidizingcosts.

• Establishing and supporting food buyingclubs and co-ops, such as the Oklahoma FoodCooperative.

• Providing incentives/support for farmers andfarmers’ markets to provide recipes, nutritioninformation to customers, and to conductcooking demonstrations.

• Emphasizing the affordability of Oklahoma-grown produce in promotional campaignssuch as the Grown in Oklahoma Programs.


We love almost all aspects of farming.But there is one challenge we arenever quite sure how to deal with

– farmers’ market customers who complainabout the price of local food.

The overwhelming majority of ourcustomers are extremely loyal, supportive,and excited about the opportunity to pur-chase farm-fresh produce. They makefarming joyful, and their positive commentsfar out-shadow the few skeptics. We fre-quently hear encouraging remarks such as,“What a bargain!”

Yet each season there are a handful of cus-tomers who feel our prices are too expen-sive when compared with the supermarket.

We have even had the same gentlemanreturn two years in a row around the start of tomatoseason to try to pick a fight about the price of ourjust-off-the-vine, juicy, ripe tomatoes. “I can go toWal-Mart and get these for a lot less,” he tells us.

Does he know the tomatoes in the grocery storewere picked green?

Listening to criticism about local food prices bothersus on more than just a personal level. We have chosenfarming as our profession in order to give our com-munity an alternative to the food available in gro-cery stores. When someone grumbles about prices,it hurts more than our feelings. It hits right at thesoul of why we do what we do.

We began to wonder, are our prices really that muchmore expensive? They do not seem outrageous to us.We decided to put that question to the test.

Fresh and Affordable:A Comparison of Farmers’ Market and Grocery Store PricesIn an effort to determine whether the prices at their stand at the Tulsa Cherry Street Farmers’ Market were moreexpensive than neighboring grocery stores’, farmers Mike Appel and Emily Oakley of Three Springs Farm decided tofind out for themselves. The following is a revised version of their article, which appeared in the September 2005 issueof Growing for Market, www.growingformarket.com, the national monthly journal for direct market farmers.

Emily Oakley (right) of Three Springs Farm

We selected three area supermarkets with which tocompare our farmers’ market prices: Wild Oats, anorganic/health food chain, as we grow organically(though not certified); Albertson’s, the most wide-spread grocery store in town, with eleven locationsthroughout the city; and Wal-Mart NeighborhoodMarket, with their reputation for low prices. Theproduce at the two conventional grocery stores wasnot organic (except for the cauliflower at Wal-Mart).

We visited all three stores once in May and once inJuly of 2005. We went to each store on the sameafternoon, as we realize produce prices fluctuatefrom day to day. With each visit, we made a list ofthe items on our farmers’ market table that week andnoted the grocery store’s price.

We started our project in early May with the Wal-Mart

Neighborhood Market. The first item on our list wasromaine lettuce. At the lettuce section of the produceaisle we saw that they were charging $1.38 a headwhile we were charging $2.50 (which includes sales tax).

On the surface, Wal-Mart seemed cheaper, but thosewere tiny lettuce heads. We took the lettuce over tothe scale, and were shocked to find it barely weighedone pound. Our romaine weighed three pounds, andwas greener, had fewer culled outer leaves, and hadnone of that tell-tale sign of old produce-wilt. Thus,we refined our research by noting both the price andthe weight of each item.

When adjusted to a price per pound basis, Wal-Mart’slettuce would have cost $4.49 if it weighed as muchas ours did.

We compiled the weight and price of 22 springitems and 20 summer crops that we and the grocerystores offered in common. From this data we createda table that calculated the price per pound.

Analyzing the data on a price per pound basis yieldedinteresting results. While much of what people buyin the grocery store has a cheaper price tag than whatthey purchase at our market stand, in nearly everycase the grocery store food weighed significantly less.

For the spring crops, our produce was the cheapestoption – eleven of the 22 items were cheaper at ourstand. (See Appendix A.) Only two were most expen-sive at our stand – broccoli and cauliflower. For thesummer crops, again we had more items (eight)cheapest.

Our results reveal that it is perception rather than

53

Selected produce price comparisons ($/lb.), Tulsa-areafarmers' market and supermarkets.

FARMERS' MARKET WAL-MART ALBERTSON'S WILD OATS

S P R I N G

Romaine Lettuce $0.76 $1.38 $2.65 $4.55

Turnips $0.91 $1.46 $0.99 $1.99

Green Onions $1.63 $3.26 $4.21 $5.96

S U M M E R

Vine Ripe Tomatoes $2.74 $2.84 $2.99 $2.99

Red Bell Peppers $2.74 $4.48 $5.31 $7.99

Eggplant $1.83 $1.54 $1.99 $2.29

Basil

Beets

Bok Choy

Green leaf lettuce

Chard

Green garlic

Green onion

Lacinato kale

Leeks

Red leaf lettuce

Butterhead lettuce

Romaine lettuce

Green peppers

Red bell peppers

Yellow bell peppers

Poblano peppers

Salad mix

Patty pan squash

Yellow squash

Heirloom tomatoes

Vine-ripened tomatoes

For a table with a complete price comparison see Appendix A.

Busting a Myth: Farmers’ MarketProduce is Fresh and AffordableThe following items grown by Three Springs Farm and sold at the

Tulsa Cherry Street Farmers’ Market in 2005 were either cheaper

than or comparably priced* to produce sold at Tulsa supermarkets.

*25 cents or less per lb difference between the cheapest of the

grocery store prices and the farmers’ market price.

"Analyzing the data on a price per pound

basis yielded interesting results. While much

of what people buy in the grocery store has a

cheaper price tag than what they purchase at

our market stand, in nearly every case the

grocery store food weighed significantly less."

– Emily Oakley


fact which influences the assumption that grocery store food isalways cheapest. It turns out that even that gentleman who thinks hecan get vine-ripened tomatoes for less at Wal-Mart was wrong.

But the point of this article is not to convince the public that localfood is cheap too. Your local farmer is not the place to look for abargain. If anything, we should be getting a premium for providingthe invaluable service of food truly picked fresh. When farmers’market prices are too cheap, the farmer is in essence subsidizinghis/her customer’s grocery bill, making their food artificially dis-counted.

Moreover, the grocery store prices do not include the hidden costsof that food. Conventional produce in particular is subsidized byuniversity and industry research, health care and clean up costs ofpesticide pollution, and substandard wages for farm laborers. Muchof the organic produce comes from a similar agribusiness modelthat takes advantage of low wages and minimal regulatory oversightin developing countries.

The reasons for buying locally produced food are compelling. Theseinclude the benefits of eating fresher, tastier, and more nutritionallyintact food, reducing air pollution and fossil fuel consumption throughdecreased transportation miles, greater variety selection, preservingfarmland and open space, and keeping money within the local econ-omy. Grocery store food from half-way around the world can nevercompete with the benefits of eating food from your neighborhood.

Farmers’ Markets – PricingIn 2001 and 2002, Oklahoma Department of

Agriculture, Oklahoma State University, the

Kerr Center and the Oklahoma Farmers’ Market

Alliance collaborated on a survey of farmers’

market customers, producers and managers.

The surveys paint a picture of farmers’ markets

in Oklahoma and point to ways to increase

their success. [1]

From the SurveyHow Do Farmers Think About Pricing?

The most common methods of settingprices at the farmers’ market:

27% Grocery store comparisons

22% Matching other vendors

19% Cost of production plus mark-up

The top reasons farmers sell at afarmers’ market:

58% Receive retail value for products sold

38% Customer interaction

25% Convenience

19% To advertise products

19% To sell surplus produce from garden

How do shoppers expect produce at thefarmers’ market to compare to producepurchased elsewhere?

84% Higher quality

47% Greater variety

44% Same price Mike Appel on Three Springs Farm, near Tulsa.

55

The three most important things in real estate, thesaying goes, are location, location and location.Oftentimes, the same holds true for community

food security.

If the only source of food that people can get toeasily and regularly doesn’t carry nutritious food,or closes up shop altogether, their odds of beingpoorly-nourished or even going hungry will increase.That could happen, say, to a carless family in anOklahoma City neighborhood with no supermarketnear at hand, or to an elderly farm couple whosehometown grocery store goes out of business whena Wal-Mart Super Center opens up in the nextcounty over.

That’s precisely what’s been happening in recentyears in Oklahoma, and across the nation. As retailfood stores get ever larger, with traditional mom-and-pop grocery stores and supermarkets being replacedby “warehouse clubs” and “supercenters,” foodsources are literally getting fewer and farther between.

Being ThereThis trend in the retail food industry has been evi-dent for over a decade. Between 1992 and 1997,nine per cent of the grocery stores in Oklahomawent out of business. [1]

From then until 2002, urban Oklahoma countiesgained a total of 15 new food retail stores – but thestate as a whole lost 28 food stores, overwhelminglyfrom less-populated counties.

As smaller and more remote food stores close upshop, warehouse clubs and supercenters are takingtheir places. The number of these doubled duringthat same time period, from 26 in 1997 to 52 in2002. [2] Most of these are opening in the suburbanfringes of Oklahoma’s largest urban centers.

People in both rural and urban areas are affected bythe ongoing sequestration of food in the hands of afew large retail chains, as those companies locatetheir stores according to where consumers’ incomes,rather than people’s need for food, are highest.

These trends deliver the most affordable food toaffluent areas, while leaving people with less wealthor mobility marooned in “food deserts,” placeswhere a quality diet can simply be too far away, ortake too long, to reach. [3,4,5]

It’s a Desert Out ThereLack of physical access to adequate supplies ofhealthy, affordable food is often seen as an inner-city issue. In low-income northeast Oklahoma City,for example, there are fewer grocery stores than inother sections of the city and selections of healthyfoods in these stores are limited. [6]

While food insecurity and hunger in urban areas arerelatively well-publicized, most people in the UnitedStates do not realize that a higher proportion ofpeople go hungry in rural areas, where the food thatfeeds the nation is grown, than in cities. [7]

Chapter Five: Access to Good Food

You Can’t Get There from Here:Community Food Security in Oklahoma’s Food Deserts


Contributing to rural food insecurity and hunger is lack of access tosupermarkets and supercenters, which offer the most affordablerange of nutritionally adequate food.

Thirty-two of Oklahoma’s 77 counties are classified as food deserts,meaning that at least 25% of their population lives ten miles ormore from a supermarket or supercenter (see sidebar). Nine ofthose counties are “severe” food deserts, with the entire populationliving that far from such sources of food. [8,9]

While lack of physical access to food can also be an issue in urbanareas, the food deserts occur in rural counties.

Three-fourths of Oklahoma’s food desert counties lie west ofInterstate 35, including a solid tier along the state’s western edgeand in the panhandle. The other major concentration of fooddesert counties is in the extreme southeastern corner of the state(see map, p.57).

These are areas where population is dwindling (see table, p. 63),poverty is rampant, and farm income commonly accounts for 30%or more of total earnings. [8]

In food desert counties in the South as a whole, studies have foundthat fewer households own vehicles, more people suffer from dis-abilities, and the Hispanic population is double that in non-fooddesert counties.

The counties where those trends are most exacerbated areOklahoma’s severe food desert counties; again, they are located inthe western parts of the state – with the exception of HughesCounty, barely more than an hour’s drive from the capital. [8,9]

These food deserts are forming due to shifts in the kinds of foodstores, the types of food that they sell, and where they sell it.Smaller grocery stores are in decline everywhere, and in about thesame proportion.

But the larger supermarkets, while also disappearing, are vanishingfastest from rural areas - and taking their fresher produce, largerselections, and lower prices with them (see figure, p.57). [9]

Their replacements – supercenters and warehouse clubs – are strik-ingly absent from the most remote rural areas, where no comparablydiverse and affordable source of food is appearing to take the placeof the grocery stores and supermarkets (see figure, p.57).

Instead, gas-station convenience stores and “quick marts” are spillinginto the void. These kinds of food stores offer little in the way offresh fruits and vegetables, whose scarcity in Oklahomans’ dietsalready contributes to so many of the state’s health problems, and they

Food DesertsIn the United States, most people have physical

access to some form of retail food outlet.

However, the quality and affordability of the food

available at those outlets is not always adequate.

In particular, convenience stores charge higher

prices for a smaller selection of less nutritious

foods. Therefore, lack of access to supermarkets

and supercenters, which offer the most affordable

range of nutritionally adequate food, is considered

the defining feature for food deserts in the

United States.

Technically, a food desert is any place that lies

farther than ten miles from a supermarket or

supercenter (or fifteen miles, if part of the route

follows an interstate highway). A county is a

food desert county if more of its population than

is normal for the region lives in a food desert.

For the Southern region of the U.S., which

includes Oklahoma, the median percentage of

the population living in food deserts is 24%.

Thus, any Oklahoma county where more than

24% of the population lives in a food desert is

considered a food desert county. Severe food

desert counties are those in which the county’s

entire population lives in a food desert. [8,9]

In the analysis described in this article,

supermarkets are grocery stores with 50 or

more employees. [8]

57

Food Deserts in Oklahoma

Food DesertCounties:

Alfalfa

Beaver

Beckham

Blaine

Caddo

Carter

Choctaw

Coal

Cotton

Delaware

Garvin

Kingfisher

Kiowa

McCurtain

Nowata

Pushmataha

Roger Mills

Seminole

Texas

Tillman

Washita

Woods

Woodward

Severe FoodDesert Counties:

Cimarron

Dewey

Ellis

Grant

Greer

Harmon

Harper

Hughes

Jefferson

Percent Change in Number of Food Stores1998-2002

Oklahoma

Non-Food Desert

Food Desert

Severe Food Desert


charge higher prices for the little fresh produce that they do carry. [9]

Like the loss of supermarkets and small grocery stores, this trend ispresent both in urban centers and rural areas, but it is most exagger-ated in the most isolated stretches of the countryside (box, above, andfigure, p. 57).

Making the Desert BloomIn principle, defining food deserts based on how far they are fromsupermarkets and supercenters seems like an approach with a built-inbias, assuming as it does that such stores are the only source of anaffordable, nutritious, quality diet.

After all, farmers’ markets, CSAs, and home and community gardenscan all offer higher quality food, often at a better bargain, than largefood retail outlets. [10]

In practical terms, though, this definition of food deserts still worksfor Oklahoma, because these local alternatives to giant food retailcorporations are just as tightly clustered around the state’s urban cen-ters (see map, p. 60). [8]

Traditional grocery stores’ and supermarkets’ departure has forcedrural residents to make longer drives for affordable, nutritious food –though the drive is long enough that the cost of gas may cancel anysavings on food prices. [9] The alternative is to stay put and contendwith a wave of convenience stores selling poor quality food at inflatedprices (see sidebar).

The irony in this situation – lack of access to food while food is beinggrown all around – is epic and without much mirth. Still, it carries theseeds of its own solution. If community food security initiatives suchas farmers’ markets, community gardens, and farm-to-school programsfind their way from Oklahoma’s urban areas into its countryside, thatcountryside can increasingly come to produce food for the peoplecurrently struggling to get by in today’s food deserts.

Change in Numbers of Food Store Types by Food Desert Status1998 -2002.

Non food desert Food desert Severe

food desert

Grocery stores -64 -80 -4

Supermarkets -6 -44 -1

Convenience stores +63 +163 +8

Supercenters +17 +6 0

Driving a Hard Bargain

In neighboring New Mexico, one study found

that small grocery stores were 70% more

expensive than larger stores. Stores located

20 miles or more from any other grocery store

were 31% more expensive than those in

regional population centers. Both small and

isolated grocery stores were also missing

around 20% of the items surveyed. Thus, as

the report concludes, rural residents “have a

choice of paying a 31% premium for groceries

or traveling at least 40 miles round-trip.” [11]

Nationally, in poorer sections of major cities,

supermarket food prices are higher than in

more affluent suburbs – if a supermarket can

be found at all. More common sources of food

in such neighborhoods are convenience stores

and minimarts, where selections of healthy,

nutritious items are slimmer, and prices higher

yet. [6,12,13,14]

5

59

Farmers’ markets increase public access to high quality freshproduce, and when located accordingly, can also be effectiveat providing better food choices for low-income populations.

Case studies of successful farmers’ markets within food-insecurecommunities across the nation have found these markets greatlyincrease the availability and quality of fresh produce. This is espe-cially so when these markets participate in the USDA’s Farmers’Market Nutrition Program (FMNP). [1]

Since 1992, this national program has helped provide fresh locallygrown fruits and vegetables to women, infants and children eligiblefor WIC benefits. More recently, low-income seniors were addedto the list of recipients.

The FMNP distributes coupons to eligible participants through federalgrants to states and tribal nations. These coupons, often in $2 or$5 denominations, can be redeemed at approved farmers’ markets,roadside farm-stands, and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)programs, in exchange for locally grown fruits and vegetables.

Participating farmers can then simply deposit the government-backedcoupons in their bank account, as they would a personal check.

In Oklahoma, the Osage and the Chickasaw tribal nations havesuccessfully applied for and utilized these federal funds. In fact,85% of the participants in the Chickasaw Nation’s WIC Farmers’Market Program indicated they ate more fresh produce than theydid before they participated (see sidebar). [2]

Because four counties (Carter, Coal, Garvin and Jefferson) withinthe Chickasaw Nation are considered food deserts, anything to helpincrease the availability and consumption of fresh produce could beworth its weight in home-grown tomatoes.

As part of the Chickasaw Nation Farmers’ Market NutritionProgram, a variety of educational activities take place in conjunctionwith farmers’ markets in Ada, Ardmore, Durant and Purcell.

These efforts include on-site cooking demos and samples usingproduce from participating farmers, printed recipes distributed atthe markets, special events around National 5-A-Day Month andNational Farmers’ Market Week, and cooking classes at nutritioncenters in Ada, Ardmore and Purcell. [3]

“All of our nutrition education programs really seem to help peoplebe more comfortable eating fresh fruits and vegetables,” says Jennifer


In Summary:Chickasaw Nation FMNP [5]

• Seven farmers’ markets, 41 farm-stands,

95 farmers

• 4,590 voucher recipients

• Participating seniors receive fifty $2 coupons

for use May through November.

• Participating WIC mothers receive six $5

coupons.

• $163,390 in coupons were redeemed by

Oklahoma farmers in 2004.

• 70% redemption rate

WIC (Women, Infants, and Children program)

recipients surveyed said: [6]

• 85% ate more fresh produce than before.

• 35% had never been to a farmers’ market

before participating in the FMNP.

• 97% indicated produce quality at markets

was as good as or better than at their local

grocery store.

• 45% bought a fruit or vegetable they had

never tried before.

• 46% spent money at the market in addition

to their FMNP coupons.

• 80% will continue to shop at farmers’ markets,

even without coupons.

• 93% plan to eat more fresh produce all

year round.


Hayes, Chickasaw FMNP Coordinator. “A lot ofwhat we do is just showing simple ways to preparethese delicious and nutritious foods.”

Three other farmer’s markets outside the tribalNation (Noble, McAlester and OSU-OklahomaCity) also have farmers who accept the ChickasawNation coupons. Between all seven participatingfarmers’ markets, over $160,000 of produce was soldthrough this program in 2004. “By encouraging ourpeople to eat healthier,” Hayes says, “we’re alsohelping our farmers, too.”

Despite the tremendous success of these programs,Oklahoma itself is not currently one of the 42 statesparticipating in either the WIC or Senior Farmers’Market Nutrition Programs.

In 2005, these 42 states received grants totalingnearly $39 million for distribution as couponsredeemable only for fresh locally grown produce.Some of Oklahoma’s neighboring states who appliedfor and received 2005 FMNP grants include:Arkansas - $331,000; Kansas - $176,000; and Texas -$1,650,000. [3,4]

The Oklahoma Department of Human Services,Aging Services Division tried in 2004, but wasunsuccessful in their first attempt to receive a grantfor starting a statewide Senior Farmers’ MarketNutrition Program.

Percentage of Oklahomans eating five or moredaily servings of fruits and vegetables:

All Adults: 15% [7]

Seniors: 22% [8]

Youth: 14% [9]

Children: 27% [10]

Food Deserts and Farmers’ Market Access

There are some farmers' markets that are not registered

with the Oklahoma Dept. of Agriculture, Food and Forestry;

these have not been included on the maps in this report.

New markets are formed every year; check in your community.

Number value within counties=

number of reported registered Farmers’

Markets within the county boundaries

Oklahoma

Severe Food Desert

Food Desert

Non-Food Desert

61

The 45,000 people who live in the northeastquadrant of Oklahoma City have fewer optionsfor buying fresh meat, fish, and produce than

their counterparts in other parts of the city. Britishsociologists might call the northeast side a “fooddesert” – a rural or urban area where people havepoor access to fresh food. Others might use theterm “grocery gap.”

Grocery stores are plentiful enough in other partsof Oklahoma City that residents who can’t finditems in one store are just a short drive away fromanother. People living near Putnam City NorthHigh School, for example, can choose from Crest,Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market, Aldi’s, and twoAlbertson’s stores, all within an eight minute drive.

In northeast Oklahoma City, though, there are onlytwo grocery stores: Otwell’s Food Store andHometown Market. They are fairly close to eachother; Hometown Market, one of three in the state,is at 23rd and Martin Luther King Avenue. Otwell’s,a family-owned independent store, is at 11th andMartin Luther King Avenue.

People who want to eat a varied, healthful diet havelimited choices in either store, according to surveysconducted in August 2005.

Both stores had gallon containers of pre-sweetenedpunch and iced tea where one might expect to seecartons of national brand (Minute Maid or Dole)fruit juices.

There were no organic products to choose from: noorganic milk or free range or organic eggs. Only asmall portion of the bread choices were whole grain.

These products are not simply status symbols forthe elite. Hormone-free milk or eggs that may alsohave a lower cholesterol profile are health choicesthat northeast residents don’t have an opportunity

to make if they shop within their own community.

Hometown Market sold fish filets and whole fish(heads removed) wrapped in plastic on styrofoamtrays. Neither store carried fresh tuna or freshsalmon – fish which the American Heart Associationrecommends eating twice a week for the beneficialomega-3 fatty acids they contain.

There were no cheese counters, no manned butcheror fish counters. Fresh fruit and vegetable choiceswere limited in both stores.

Both stores carried food products that could beconsidered specialty items— foods that play a signif-icant role in African American culture. (According tothe 2000 Census, the northeast quadrant’s populationis 61% black.)

Collard greens were a significant item in the producesections of both stores. Otwell’s sells meats that maybe hard to find in other area stores – chitterlings,beef kidneys, beef tripe, and hog mauls. Both Otwell’sand Hometown Market sold items such as pig’s feet,pig’s tails, neck bones, turkey necks, and salt pork.

What these two stores sell is just as telling as whatthey don’t sell. On one hand, it seems the choicesare few and limited. On the other hand, the productsare, perhaps, a reflection of the community itself.Even a mom-and-pop store has to compete for dollarsin a fierce business with a tight profit margin, sothere is no room on the shelf for things that don’t sell.

The lack of grocery stores in the northeast quadrantis not just an issue of access to a needed service.Though researchers are still developing methodolo-gies to measure health against access to fresh foods,many advocates believe there is a correlation betweena lack of grocery stores and disease – making “grocerygaps” a public health issue as well.

Northeast Oklahoma City’s “Grocery Gap”

Food journalist Shaun Chavis recently completed a Master of Liberal Arts degree in Gastronomy at Boston University.In this article, she returns to her Oklahoma City stomping grounds for a look at what residents of the city’s northeastquadrant can and cannot find in grocery stores in their own neighborhoods.


Public Policy Priorities: Poor access to fresh fruits and vegetables is a publichealth issue. Make improved access to fresh, locally-grown fruits and vegetables part of the “Five in Fivecampaign (see Chapter 1) with the goal of 75% ofOklahomans eating five or more servings of fruitsand vegetables per day in by 2012 (five years from now).

• Commission a detailed study of food accessthroughout Oklahoma, with particular emphasis onknown food desert counties and urban communities/neighborhoods known to have few supermarkets,to identify areas where food access is most limited.

• Based on this research, create a map of grocerystores, farmers markets, emergency food loca-tions and community gardens in each county.

• Based on this study, identify barriers to estab-lishing local food sales outlets (e.g. farmers'markets, CSA farms, farm stands), barriers toaccessing them and also barriers to farmerparticipation in counties or communities withlimited food access.

• Target interventions to overcome thesebarriers to accessing affordable, nutritionallyadequate, locally produced foods.

• Expand the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program tocommunities statewide as a public health priority.

• Push for the state of Oklahoma's participationin the federal Women, Infants, and Children(WIC) and Senior Farmers' Market NutritionPrograms. Identify barriers (such as lack ofstaffing) to participation, and fund solutions.

• Encourage tribes to participate in the federalWomen, Infants, and Children (WIC) andSenior Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs.

Access to Good FoodGoal: Easy access to fresh fruits and

vegetables, emphasizing locally grown,

for Oklahomans of all income levels.

• Evaluate and adapt the model of Maine's SeniorFarmshare Program, in which Maine's state agri-culture department, in cooperation with otherstate agencies, uses federal Senior Farmers' MarketNutrition Program funds to purchase $100 worthof fresh produce for each of over 7,500 seniors,from 178 Maine farms.

• Provide grants to farmers' markets to enable theirfarmers to accept food stamps.

• Recruit existing farmers' market vendors or farmerswith produce stands to set up "mini" markets nearsites where food program participants get their foodassistance instruments (e.g. Food Stamps, WICcoupons, etc.) and/or near county health departmentsand senior centers.

• Introduce locally grown produce into senior mealprograms (e.g. senior centers that host non-residentsfor the noon meal; Meals on Wheels; etc.).

• Link local food sources (e.g. community gardens,CSA farms, farmers' markets, etc.) with emergencyfood programs - as in the example of the RegionalFood Bank of Oklahoma's community garden network.

• Improve public transportation to grocery stores andfarmers' markets in rural and food desert counties, aswell as in urban areas with limited access to food.

• Institute farmers' market ride programs, such asthose piloted by CNEP in spring 2006.

• Make areas with limited food access a priority forexpansion of the state's Farm-to-School Program.

63

% population change…

County 1940-2000 1990-2000 2000-2005

Cimarron -13.80 -4.60 -10.00

Tillman -55.30 -10.60 -8.30

Beaver -32.30 -2.80 -8.20

Harmon -67.20 -13.40 -7.70

Grant -60.80 -9.60 -7.10

Harper -44.80 -12.30 -7.00

Jackson 25.20 -1.10 -6.80

Alfalfa -56.80 -4.80 -6.20

Woods -39.10 -0.20 -6.00

Jefferson -54.90 -2.70 -5.20

Coal -52.90 4.30 -4.80

Beckham - 10.70 5.20 -4.60

Dewey -60.40 -14.60 -3.70

Kiowa -55.20 -9.90 -3.70

Custer 13.30 -2.80 -3.60

Roger Mills -68.00 -17.10 -3.60

Kay 2.10 0.10 -3.30

Okfuskee -55.00 2.30 -3.20

Ellis -51.90 -9.40 -2.70

Greer -58.30 -7.60 -2.60

Johnston -34.10 4.80 -2.40

Major -36.80 -6.30 -2.40

Hughes -51.50 8.80 -2.30

Noble -23.00 3.30 -1.80

Garfield 27.10 1.90 -1.50

McCurtain -16.70 2.90 -1.20

Ottawa -7.40 8.60 -1.00

Latimer -13.60 3.50 -0.50

Seminole -59.30 -2.00 -0.50

Stephens 38.90 2.10 -0.50

Cotton -48.70 -0.60 -0.40

Choctaw -45.90 0.30 -0.30

Washita -48.30 0.60 -0.30

Texas 103.20 22.50 0.00

Garvin -12.60 2.30 0.10

Pushmataha -40.10 6.10 0.20

Caddo -27.50 2.00 0.30

Washington 60.30 1.90 0.30

Pontotoc -11.70 3.00 0.60

Craig -29.10 6.00 0.90

Payne 89.10 10.90 1.40

Pittsburgh -10.30 7.30 1.60

Muskogee 5.40 2.00 1.70

Murray -8.80 4.80 2.00

McIntosh -19.30 16.00 2.60

Kingfisher -10.80 5.40 2.70

Nowata -33.00 5.80 2.80

Mayes 77.10 15.00 2.90

Carter 5.40 6.30 3.30

Haskell -31.90 7.80 3.30

Love -22.80 13.40 3.30

Woodward 13.60 -2.60 3.30

Bryan -4.20 13.90 3.50

Atoka -25.80 8.60 4.20

Pottawatomie 20.50 11.50 4.20

Adair 33.50 14.20 4.50

Cherokee 102.20 24.90 5.10

Delaware 99.40 32.10 5.60

Blaine -35.40 4.40 7.40

Marshall 6.50 21.70 9.70

Rural Counties, Population Change, and Food Access Counties in bold are food desert counties.


Food Deserts and Farm-To-School Interest per County

Food Desert Counties with Schools

Participating in Farm-to-School Program

School District County

Sayre Beckham

Binger-Oney Caddo

Tupelo Coal

Arnett-Ellis Ellis

Pond Creek - Hunter Grant

Kingfisher Kingfisher

Mooreland Woodward

Interest in farm-to-school is taken from

the 2003 Oklahoma Institutional Food

Service Survey, published in the Kerr

Center's Oklahoma Farm-to-School Report.

See Chapter 3.

Oklahoma

Non-Food Desert

Food Desert

Severe Food Desert

Number value within

Counties = number

of schools interested

in Farm-to-School

65

Ricky and Claudia Crow had had about all theyears of thin profits growing wheat that theycould stand. Then they hit upon the idea of

selling fresh vegetables at the local farmers' marketin Shawnee.

That was nearly two decades ago, and they're stillgoing strong.

“This has been how we make our living, how wepay our bills. We had to find a way to make enoughto stay on the land,” says Claudia Crow.

“We don't have enough land to make it on wheat,”she explains. “And they were starting a farmers'market in Shawnee.”

In that new market, the Crows sensed opportunity.

The first year, they grew five acres of watermelons,and another acre of assorted other vegetables. Thefollowing season, they doubled that area. Withinthree years, they were growing vegetables on all40 acres.

Pott County Cornucopia“We grow everything that can be grown. We'renuts,” Claudia laughs.

“We start everything from seed,” Ricky elaborates.“That's the only way we can grow all the varietieswe want. Our early crops are English peas, beets,turnips, cabbage and broccoli, strawberries. Wegrow four different varieties of sweet corn, tostretch the corn picking out as long as possible.”

“The main things are tomatoes, yellow squash - weput a planting in the ground every so often, andhave it all through the year,” he adds. “Cucumbersare real important.”

“We raise a lot of southern peas, which a lot of peo-ple don't - blackeyes, purple hulls, crowders,”Claudia adds. “We raise fresh pinto beans too, andthose sell pretty good.”

The Crows’ farm belonged to Ricky's grandparents.He was raised there, with cash crops of wheat andalfalfa. As time went by, though, the profits seemedto leak out of wheat farming.

“We weren't getting anywhere. We started gettingfarther behind,” he recalls.

“At least with vegetables, if you get a hailstorm, youcan go back in and replant. You can't do that withwheat.”

A New Row to HoeJust recognizing the problems with growing wheat,though, didn't automatically make the switch tovegetable production smooth, quick, or trouble-free.

“We started with a push tiller and two hoes,”Claudia remembers.

“We didn't go to the bank and borrow a lot of money,”says Ricky. “We borrowed some money along, butnever a huge amount.”

“We kept expanding, learning,” Claudia continues.“We went to any kind of symposium they had. Weworked with OSU Extension. We always tried tostay on top of the changes, because it's a changingindustry.

Chapter Six: Direct Marketing

Direct from the Source:Direct Market Produce from the Crows' Farm


Among the changes: a hoop house to extend theseason, and adding strawberries, blackberries, andasparagus to their mix of crops.

Marketing vegetables also had a steep learningcurve. But the Crows started up that one with onelesson already well learned from wheat - the oneabout low returns from wholesale bulk commodities.

Claudia says they have always tried to sell theircrops retail. “If you get into wholesale, there's nomoney,” Claudia says.

“If you get into wholesaling, you might as well gointo wheat or something,” Ricky agrees. “We stilldo very little wholesaling. Wholesaling to a gro-cery store is not the same as wholesaling to awholesaler. We've sold to Sterling's Produce upthere in the City over the years.”

Changing Times, Changing TacticsAnother marketing lesson learned is that marketsare as ceaselessly changing as production.

“What we've done to stand out,” Claudia explains,“is to put a huge emphasis on quality. If it's notUSDA grade number one, it just won't get sold.”

“The marketing is changing. Twenty years ago, thepeople we marketed to had more of a farm background.Families ate a lot more at home. They canned more,so they'd buy large batches of things like beets.Bushels.”

Nowadays, she says, “They've gotten a little moreeducated. They don't mind paying for quality, butthe quantities have gotten less. You have to givethem recipes, tell them a little about how to eatwhat they're getting.”

“We're not organic, but unless we absolutely haveto, we don't spray,” Claudia says. “As a rule, wedon't spray our corn. In Shawnee, people are usedto worms [and know it is an indication that the cornwas not sprayed with pesticides]. In the City, theywant worm-free and pesticide-free.”

“We're marketing to a different group of people atthe farmers' market,” says Claudia. Catering toGeneration X, she says, requires a more event-drivenapproach. “They want to be entertained, go out, visitwith their friends, sip a little bit of coffee.”

At the Pottawatomie County Farmers' Market inShawnee, where the Crows do most of their selling,she says, “We have a lot of events. We're even addingmusic this year. We have some square dancers com-ing out.”

Growing GrowersThe market needs a draw for vendors as well as cus-tomers. “The downtown Shawnee farmers' markethas had some struggles over the years,” says Ricky.

“There are no young people. I have two sons. Howdo I tell them in good conscience, 'Come back anddo this'?” Claudia says.

“We have no health insurance, no retirement plan.Everything you make has to go back into the farm.We're overtaxed, overinsured. This country's goingto have to depend on a foreign country for its foodsupply.”

Of the Crows’ two sons, one is getting a degree inhorticulture at OSU. But, Claudia says, “I don'tthink either one is coming back. It's a lot of workfor too little money.”

The Crows are brimming with suggestions for howto make direct marketing fruits and vegetables amore attractive career option.

“They need to let the farmers' markets do whatthey're supposed to do, not have the health depart-ment breathing down their necks. You need variety- baked goods, and so on,” says Claudia.

“There are too many restrictions. It's too hard for asmall person to come in and meet the requirements

“People in this country are used to having

cheap food. If they don't make some

changes and get real about keeping

the farm going, they're going to

have to import their food supply.”

– Claudia Crow

for their kitchens.”

Regulations are so restrictive, she says, that man'sbest friend is no longer even welcome where manbuys homegrown tomatoes. “There are no dogsallowed at our farmers' market. It's against healthdepartment rules.”

Following the MoneyIn addition to more reasonable regulations, the Crowscan see ways in which direct marketing efforts couldbenefit from a fairer share of the nation's plentifulfood and farm subsidies.

“One thing that would help the farmers' market isnot to have to charge tax,” says Ricky.

“If you can sell on the farm, why can't you take yourstuff to the farmers' market and sell it without taxing it?”

“Also, the senior nutrition program,” says Claudia.“The Chickasaw Nation has that, but it's mostly in Ada.That would help tremendously.” [1] (See Chap. 5)

67

“Tax, phone, garbage - it's all billed at the businessrate, whether you're Wal-Mart or a small mom-and-pop store,” Claudia says.

“We need a bigger push from the Department of Agto have grants to help us do the advertising we needto do,” she adds. “An ad has to generate a minimumof an extra $200 a week just to justify the cost ofputting it in the paper.”

“Another thing is fuel costs,” she adds. “There'snothing we can do here that doesn't cost money.”

“People in this country are used to having cheapfood. If they don't make some changes and get realabout keeping the farm going, they're going to haveto import their food supply.

• Fifty-six percent of vendors are 55 years of age or younger(compared with the 47% of all Oklahoma farmers who are lessthan 55 years old). [2]

• Thirty-four percent of vendors are female (compared with the11% of all Oklahoma farmers who are female).

• Eighty-eight percent are Caucasian (compared with 92% of allOklahoma farmers).

• Sixty-nine percent said agriculture is their primary occupation(compared with the 55% of all Oklahoma farmers whose primaryoccupation is farming).

• Seventy percent consider their farmers’ market income as part-time or extra income.

• Twenty-five per cent consider their farmers’ market income as aportion of full-time income along with sales through other outlets.

• Seventy-three percent of vendors have an annual householdincome below $60,000.

• Vendors have sold at farmers’ markets for an average of almostfour and a half years.

• Vendors travel an average of 28 miles to their farmers’ market(s).

• Two-thirds said produce was their top selling item at thefarmers’ market.

• Those who farm grow an average of nearly 6 acres of produce.

• Forty-four percent ranked “receiving retail value for products sold”as their number one reason for attending the farmers’ market.

• Over three-quarters are mostly or totally satisfied with theirprofitability from their farmers’ market sales.

• Two-thirds are somewhat or very interested in expandingproduction for sales through their existing farmers’ market.

• Nearly two-thirds are somewhat or very interested in attendinga second farmers’ market.

• Half are somewhat or very interested in expanding productionfor sales through other retail outlets.

• Two-thirds would like to have more customers at their farmers’market.

• Fifty percent want more produce vendors at their farmers’ market.

• Forty-four percent have found it somewhat or very difficult tofind reliable employees.

• Forty percent would like more shade at their market.

Who Sells at Oklahoma’s Farmers’ Markets? Vendors Speak Out [1]

“One thing that would help the farmers'

market is not to have to charge tax.”

– Ricky Crow


Branching OutUnable to do much about such obstacles besidescope, the Crows stay busy making sure their farm-ing situation is as well adapted to them as possible.

“We're lucky because we have water,” Claudia says.Ricky agrees: “If you're going to do vegetables,you'd better be set up to irrigate.”

“We have a wash line; we chlorinate and all that.We have a refrigerated truck, and cold water tanksthat stuff goes straight into, then through the washline, and then into the truck. We need to build anair conditioned room for tomatoes.”

Being able to compensate for drought still doesn'tcover other potential shortages. “We pray everyyear that we'll get enough labor,” says Claudia.

“We've talked to the employment office. We'vebeen down that road too many times,” Ricky elabo-rates. “We could put an ad in the paper for twentydollars an hour to pick. Half of the people whocame out would leave at noon. The other halfwouldn't show up the next day. Even paying aboveminimum wage, you're still not going to get enough.”

“Agriculture depends on immigrants,” Claudia con-cludes.

“We'll probably have to cut back as labor gets moreexpensive. We really want to get some goats andadd that to our cattle.” Already, she says, “We'vetaken 10 acres out of vegetables and put it into hay.”

“We just leased 200 acres for alfalfa,” Ricky adds.“We sell it for horses, and to a lot of goat people.”

The Crows' efforts at labor management and diver-sification took an unusual turn six years ago, whenthey bought a fruit market in town, calling itCrows' Main Fruit Market.

“It's been the 'Main Fruit Market' since back in theforties,” Ricky explains. “It's got a lot of family his-tory in it. People who came in there as kids bringtheir grandkids in now.”

“We sell the stuff we raise; also jams and relishes -stuff you can't get in the grocery store - things fromAmish groups, specialty items. Chocolates, spices,apples, oranges, roast peanuts.”

“The store is self sufficient right now. It pays itsown bills. But we give it a lot of stuff - for example,we grow extra vegetable plants and sell them there.”

What It TakesTo make an approach like the Crows' work, saysClaudia, “You have to be a disciplined person.”

“Variety and consistency,” Ricky concurs. “Be thereevery day all day, from the start to the end of theseason.”

“Truck farming used to be a big thing back in theforties and fifties, and even further back,” heobserves. “Vegetables used to be a lot bigger thingaround here than now. It's kind of interesting howthings have changed over the years.”

“People don't realize how much money you couldmake off just one acre of vegetables - more thanfrom showing a calf. But the school ag programs, allthey push is showing animals.”

At Earlsboro, where Ricky went to high school, theprospects are even worse than that for rearing a newgeneration of vegetable growers. The school isn'teven training kids to show livestock now; its ag pro-gram was cut in the sixties.

Restoring it - and hundreds of others all overOklahoma - could help the state grow a fresh crop ofyoung farmers. Easing the regulatory and financialobstacles for small farms and direct marketers couldhelp them take root.

Until those things happen, people curious abouthow to make a living farming vegetables on a smallacreage will still have examples like Ricky andClaudia Crow, changing with the times, and findinga way.

“People don't realize how much

money you could make off just

one acre of vegetables.”

– Ricky Crow

69

Farmers have been hearing that they have to getbig or get out since the go-go days of the 1970s.By now, many have recognized that line for the

breed of bull that it is. Some have gone further,grabbing that bull by the horns in a direct approach– direct farm sales, to be exact.

To understand what’s behind that approach, it helpsto know exactly what direct sales are. A decent ruleof thumb is that if the farmer and the customer seeone another’s faces, whatever business they transactcan be tallied up in the direct sales column.

CSA (subscription) farms are the new kids on thedirect-sales block. [1] Farmers’ markets and farmproduce stands are classic examples, as are pick-your-own operations.

Agritourism and agritainment are newer names foranother longtime regular in the direct-sales lineup.Selling the farm experience as much or more thanthe crops they grow, these farms encompass every-thing from corn mazes to cow-chip bingo. [2]

More recently, online farm sales have begun to blurthe boundaries of what constitutes “direct.” If atransaction takes place entirely in cyberspace, thefarmer and customer may never lay eyes on oneanother, hear one another’s voices, or seal the dealwith a handshake.

Yet online sales are growing. That’s plain from thesuccess of the Oklahoma Food Co-op (see Chap. 8).USDA direct-sales experts advise that a website is afundamental part of the farm business plan. [2,3]

Direct sales over the Internet may not happenface-to-face, and that highlights another key aspectof what makes direct sales direct: the absence ofintermediaries between farmers and customers.

Pocketing the DifferenceDirect sales’ lack of middlemen is one of their mainattractions from the farmer’s point of view. Nationwide,for every dollar that shoppers spend on food instores and restaurants, only 19 cents makes it backinside the farm gate. (That’s down from 31 centsback in 1980.) [4]

Farmers engaged in direct sales can capture a muchhigher share of customers’ food dollar, up to all 100pennies of it.

Those pennies add up. Nationwide, the averagevalue of direct sales per farm is nearly $7,000. InOklahoma, the same number is considerably lower,just under $2,000 (see figures).

Farm Direct: Direct Sales’ Potential for IncreasingCommunity Food Security

U.S. Direct Sales Farms and Sales,

1982-2002

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1982 1992 1997 2002

Farms (#)

Value ($1,000)

Oklahoma Direct Sales Farms and

Sales, 1982-2002

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1982 1992 1997 2002

Farms (#)

Value ($1,000)

U.S. Direct Sales Farms and Sales, 1982-2002

Oklahoma Direct Sales Farms and Sales, 1982-2002


Just bringing Oklahoma farms’ direct-sales receiptsup to the national average, then, would increase thestate’s farm-level income by $9.6 million. [5]

If Oklahomans put just five percent of what theyalready spend on groceries toward food bought directfrom local farmers, it would work wonders forOklahoma’s agricultural economy, increasing theincome of individual farms by anywhere from severalhundred to tens of thousands of dollars (see table). [5,6]

To reach that five percent, every Oklahoman wouldhave to spend about $67 on farm-direct foods each year.

That would buy about a pound of vine-ripe tomatoeseach week over the entire season at Tulsa’s CherryStreet Farmers’ Market. (A survey showed tomatoesfrom the farmers’ market could be had for a better

price than at Wal-Mart). [7]

At $2.74 each week, that’s less than many peoplespend on soda pop.

Fresh from Your Friendly Local FarmerDirect sales’ appeal to consumers may be harder toquantify, but it’s powerful nevertheless. The freshnessand variety of direct-sale foods undoubtedly con-tribute – think of heirloom tomatoes and bisonsteaks, for example.

It may be that all direct sales contain at least a hintof agritourism, in the brush with farm life that comesfrom receiving a tomato from the hands that grew andpicked it, rather than plucking it from the automaticallymisted racks in the supermarket produce section.

Potential Increase in Average per Farm Income from Direct Farm Sales

Region County Type Grocery Spending 5% of Grocery Spending Average Net …and Potential Increase

in County in County Farm Income… from Direct Farm Sales

CENTRAL

Oklahoma Metro $1,054,057,000 $52,702,850.00 $1,901.00 $41,564

Cleveland* Metro $163,274,000 $8,163,700.00 -$3,683.00 $6,309

Pottawatomie* Micro $40,668,000 $2,033,400.00 -$1,873.00 $1,223

Seminole Rural $23,526,000 $1,176,300.00 $1,864.00 $1,008

Cluster total $1,281,525,000 $64,076,250.00 -$436.82 $11,884

SOUTHWESTERN

Comanche Metro $59,090,000 $2,954,500.00 $3,676.00 $2,487

Stephens Micro $44,333,000 $2,216,650.00 $3,186.00 $1,631

Caddo Rural $23,773,000 $1,188,650.00 $10,590.00 $790

Tillman Rural $6,789,000 $339,450.00 $28,053.00 $573

Cluster total $133,985,000 $6,699,250.00 $1,873.11 $1,443

NORTHWESTERN

Garfield Micro $111,603,000 $5,580,150.00 $19,963.00 $5,152

Major Rural $17,379,000 $868,950.00 $12,336.00 $989

Woods Rural $9,920,000 $496,000.00 $1,841.00 $652

Cluster total $138,902,000 $6,945,100.00 $12,436.38 $2,551

NORTHEASTERN

Tulsa Metro $845,946,000 $42,297,300.00 $1,783.00 $36,909

Washington Micro $46,995,000 $2,349,750.00 1,987.00 $2,774

Nowata* Rural $11,869,000 $593,450.00 -$1,061.00 $669

Cluster total $904,810,000 $45,240,500.00 $967.08 $15,709

SOUTHEASTERN

Leflore Metro $75,344,000 $3,767,200.00 $22,503.00 $1,955

Pittsburg Micro $21,991,000 $1,099,550.00 $2,310.00 $652

Latimer Rural $11,036,000 $551,800.00 $4,421.00 $748

Cluster total $108,371,000 $5,418,550.00 $11,609.13 $1,245

- Assumes 5% increase in direct farm sales.

- Starred (*) counties currently have negative average net farm incomes.

71

There’s nothing wrong with nostalgia for farm ways,but it doesn’t contribute much to community foodsecurity. Still, direct sales make several importantcontributions to CFS.

For one, most forms of direct sales necessarilyinvolve farmers and customers from the same com-munity, strengthening the relationships that makeup the local food system.

Again, that relationship is less clear for online sales –though the Oklahoma Food Co-op is a prime exam-ple of using internet marketing to enhance food saleswithin the state. [3]

Direct sales also meet community food security’smandate to keep more farms on the land, offeringsupplemental income to many part-time farmerswho might drop out of agriculture without it.

Playing Catch-UpWhile direct sales thus offer substantial opportunitiesfor enhancing community food security in Oklahoma,so far the state has not capitalized on them to thesame degree as other areas of the country.

Compared to other states with similar populationsand rural demographics, Oklahoma has lower percapita direct sales – only half the level in neighbor-ing Arkansas (see table). [5]

Nationwide, the number of farms with direct sales,and the total value of those sales, have been growingsteadily since 1982. [5]

In Oklahoma, by contrast, farm numbers and directsales totals have held fairly constant. [5]

The barriers to the development of direct farm salesin Oklahoma are physical, institutional, and cultural.

The state’s extreme and quirky weather make farmproduction challenging and risky, while the lack ofmarket infrastructure creates a different sort ofobstacle. [8]

Likewise, direct sales approaches may require a dif-ferent set of “people” skills than traditional com-modity crops.

Though real, these barriers are not insurmountable.

A determined effort to overcome them could wellput the growth of direct farm sales in Oklahomaback on track with the national trend.

That, in turn, could have an impact on Oklahoma’scommunity food security that is positive, dramatic –and direct.

Direct Sales in Oklahoma and Selected Other States, 2002

Total Value Per Capita ValueState of Direct Sales of Direct Sales

Iowa $11,651,000 $3.97

Kansas $9,001,000 $3.32

Kentucky $10,497,000 $2.57

Arkansas $5,674,000 $2.10

North Carolina $17,245,000 $2.07

Alabama $8,039,000 $1.79

Louisiana $4,897,000 $1.09

Oklahoma $3,735,000 $1.07


Part of community food security’s power is thatit alleviates rural economic doldrums even as itforges the links of a more secure food supply.

That argument runs like this: if Oklahomans startedspending an extra ten percent of their $8 billion annualfood budget on Oklahoma-grown foods, that wouldbe an $800 million boost to the state’s agriculturalincome.

But the economic power of local food goes far beyondsimple addition and subtraction. Every additionaldollar spent on Oklahoma food multiplies its ownvalue many times over.

Both media coverage and scholarly analysis tend tosee such economic benefits in large farms only. Forinstance, some studies of confined hog feeding oper-ations – which have grown explosively in Oklahomain recent decades – portray them as a source of sorelyneeded jobs and earnings in rural communities.

However, 3,000 hogs can be raised as well on twenty-odd small farms as on one large one – and the smallfarms together will provide jobs for 32 people, againstthe large farm’s 21 employees. [1]

In addition to their greater employment capacity,small farms have deeper economic roots in their owncommunities.

Small farms make more of their purchases from localbusinesses, thus increasing the level of local economicactivity more, per dollar of output, than larger ones. [1,2]

Small livestock operations in the U.S. have beenreported to make 80% of their purchases within 20miles of the farm, as opposed to 50% for large farms. [3]

Sharing the WealthEconomists call these effects economic multipliers –the amount by which each additional dollar of out-put increases employment, income, or economicactivity in the local community.

Any enterprise has a multiplier effect, [4] but becausesmall farms are more tightly linked with other localbusinesses, the money they earn stays longer andcirculates more in the local economy.

In other words, smaller farms have larger multipliers.

As one example of economic multipliers in action,consider farm direct marketing. This option appealsto many farmers because of its higher profits. [5]

In addition, direct-sales outlets such as farmers’ markets create similar windfalls for the local com-munities where they sink their economic andphysical roots.

How large a windfall? One study found that every dollar spent at an Iowafarmers’ market generated $1.58 in additional sales,and every dollar earned by vendors translated into$1.47 in income to others.

For every 100 farmers’ market jobs, 145 additionaljobs popped up elsewhere in the state’s economy. [6]

In Georgia, the estimated farmers market incomemultiplier is 1.66. [7]

Because every community develops its own uniquepatterns of linkage between local businesses, thesenumbers cannot be applied directly to Oklahoma. [8]Still, they clearly illustrate the economic returns that

Local-plicity:The Large Economic Multiplier Effects of Small Farms

Three thousand hogs can be raised

as well on twenty-odd small farms

as on one large one – and the small

farms together will provide jobs

for 32 people, against the large

farm’s 21 employees.

73

might reasonably be expected from relocalizing foodsystems.

Relocalizing Rural EconomiesThose returns extend beyond strict dollar terms to thevery social and cultural fabric of rural communities.

In a classic comparison of two California farmtowns, sociologist Walter Goldschmidt observed thatthe one situated in a landscape of small family farmsnot only had higher retail trade and family income, butalso more churches, schools, parks, and playgrounds,than a similarly-sized community surrounded – andisolated – by large corporate farms. [9] The majorityof subsequent studies have backed up this “Goldschmidthypothesis.” [10]

Farms are by no means the only small enterpriseswith a hand on the lever of economic multipliers.In fact, the current structure of Oklahoma’s foodsystem lends a double-barreled potential to ruralrevitalization strategies based on economic multiplierprinciples.

Because small farms are more tightly

linked with other local businesses, the

money they earn stays longer and

circulates more in the local economy.

Since Oklahoma imports so much of its food, one ofthose barrels involves replacing imported food withthe produce of small Oklahoma farms. [11]

The second barrel’s charge would channel some ofthe state’s immense production of grains and live-stock out of raw commodity exports and into small,locally owned, value-added food processing enter-prises. [12]

Community food security is both about making surethat food is affordable, and making sure that enoughsmall local farms stay in business to grow it – twogoals that can seem contradictory.

As small farms and other local enterprises increaseeconomic multipliers, that contradiction vanishes.Economic multipliers increase communities’ materialprosperity, and thus their food-purchasing power.

Multiplied together, these facts make economicmultipliers a powerful concept for completing thecircle of community food security.



• Eliminate sales tax on all direct food sales inOklahoma.

• Increase the advertising for farmers’ markets.Kerr Center market manager surveys suggestthat support for brochures and flyers, direct mailadvertising, and market-day signs and bannerswould be most effective.

• Make farmers’ markets a family-friendlydestination through increased support forspecial events and family-friendly activitieson market days.

• Increase educational outreach and training forfarmers’ market managers, in such areas as budgetmanagement, liability insurance, farm inspections,market expansion, community involvement, WIC/Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program andfood stamps, and market promotions and events.

• Foster coordination between the Oklahoma agri-culture department and local civic institutions toincrease the support that both provide to farmers’markets. Cooperation of municipalities to assist insecuring locations with adequate shade, visibility,and customer traffic are some examples gleanedfrom Kerr Center farmers’ market manager surveys.

See Chapters 7, 10, 11, and 12 for more policypriorities relating to direct sales and small farms.

Direct Marketing

Goal: Increase the total value of direct sales made by Oklahoma farmers to consumersso that farmers and their communities can retain a higher share of their food dollars.

75

When farmers make the evening news, it’soften in the guise of an aging, dwindlingpopulation, on a steadily dropping number

of ever-larger farms, raising commodity crops thatbring prices too low to provide a living. Whilethere are some truths in this portrayal, the overallpicture is more complex – and it’s changing. Here’sa quick glimpse at some of those trends:

How many farms are there in Oklahoma, andhow big are they?• The amount of farm land in Oklahoma has beenfairly steady for most of the time since statehood.However, the number of farms peaked at over200,000 in the 1930s, before falling steadily, throughmost of the rest of the 20th century, by about two-thirds. Over the same period, the average size ofOklahoma farms, in acres, more than doubled. [1]

• Between 1992 and 2002, the trend reversed, withthe number of farms in Oklahoma growing by nearly25%, from 66,937 to 83,300.

• Most of these new farms were less than 180 acresin size, though the number of the largest farms –those with 2,000 or more acres – also increasedslightly (Figure 1).

• With roughly the same amount of farmland in thestate, the addition of all these new, smaller farmsreduced the average farm size, from a historic highof 480 acres to 404 acres.

Who’s been farming in Oklahoma?• Older people: as in the U.S. overall, the averageage of Oklahoma farmers is 56 years.

• Men: 90% of Oklahoma (and U.S.) farmers are male.

• 92% of Oklahoma farmers list their race as “white.”

• An overwhelming majority of Oklahoma farmers– 93% – own at least some of the land they farm. Onthe other hand, 40% of them lease at least some of it.

• About 40% of the acres farmed in Oklahoma arerented.

• In 2002, 55% of Oklahoma farm operators listedfarming as their principal occupation, up from 45%twenty years earlier.

• In 2002, there were 50,134 hired laborers workingon 21% of Oklahoma farms. An individual worker’saverage yearly earnings were $4,730. Of the 17,700Oklahoma farms using hired labor, 88% hiredworkers for fewer than 150 days per year.

Who’s new to farming in Oklahoma?• Older people: the number of farmers hasincreased only among farmers aged 45 and up, withthe largest increase being in the 65-and-over agegroup (Figure 2).

• Minorities (Figure 3):

• Women are the largest minority group inOklahoma farming, and their numbers doubledbetween 1992 and 2002.

• Latinos are the fastest-growing minority groupof Oklahoma farmers. Since 1992, their numbershave increased sevenfold.

Chapter Seven: State of the State’s Farms

Changing with the Times: Oklahoma Farms in Transition

Oklahoma Farm Size, 1992-2002

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

< 10

10 - 49

50 - 179

180 - 499

500 - 999

1,0

00 - 1,9

99

2,0

00 +

Farm Size (acres)

Nu

mb

er o

f fa

rm

s

1992

2002

Figure 1

Oklahoma Farm Size, 1992-2002


• Since 1987, Oklahoma’s numbers of NativeAmerican and Asian American farmers have morethan doubled, and those of African Americanfarmers have grown by a quarter.

What have Oklahoma farms been growing?In 2003, Oklahoma’s top twenty crops(by value of sales) were [2]

1. Cattle and calves $2,374.8 million

2. Wheat $ 443.3 million

3. Hogs $ 441.5 million

4. Broilers $ 379.1 million

5. Dairy products $ 177.8 million

6. Greenhouse/nursery $ 167.4 million

7. Hay $ 155.7 million

8. Chicken eggs $ 72.1 million

9. Cotton $ 62.9 million

10. Soybeans $ 41.0 million

11. Corn $ 35.9 million

12. Sorghum grain $ 23.2 million

13. Peanuts $ 18.7 million

14. Rye $ 5.8 million

15. Watermelons $ 5.6 million

16. Pecans $ 5.3 million

17. Sheep and lambs $ 3.6 million

18. Farm chickens $ 1.9 million

19. Peaches $ 1.7 million

20. Oats $ 0.7 million

What kinds of farming are growing inOklahoma?• Traditional livestock and cash grains account forover 90% of the total market value of Oklahomaagricultural products sold.

• However, the most rapidly growing sales sectors inOklahoma agriculture include several groups of cropsthat are not traditionally as important (Figure 4):

• Between 1992 and 2002, the market value ofvegetable and melon crops sold from Oklahomafarms increased sharply, though the number offarms selling those crops declined slightly.

• Sales of nursery and tree crops grew even more,with the number of farms selling them alsoincreasing by a substantial amount.

Oklahoma Farm Operators by Age, 1982 - 2002

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

< 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 > 65

Age

Nu

mb

er o

f O

perato

rs

1982

2002

Oklahoma Principal Farm Operators by Gender/Ethnicity, 1982 - 2002

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

1982 1987 1992 1997 2002

Nu

mb

er o

f P

rin

cip

al O

perato

rs

Women

Native American

African American

Latino

Asian American

Figure 2

Figure 4

Figure 3

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

Nursery/tree crops Vegetable/melon Fruits/nuts/berries

Percen

t C

han

ge

Sales

Farms

Percent Change in Market Value of Farm

Products Sold and Farm Numbers, Selected

Farm Sectors, 1992 - 2002

Oklahoma Principal Farm Operators

by Gender/Ethnicity, 1982 - 2002

Oklahoma Farm Operators

by Age, 1982 - 2002

77

• The greatest growth in sales for any nontradi-tional crop took place in fruits, nuts, and berries,while the number of farms engaged in producingthose crops grew even more quickly.

• Seventy-two percent of farms growing vegetablesand melons had net gains in 2002. Of farms spe-cializing in fruits, nuts, and berries, 38% had netgains. Among nursery and tree crop operations,73% had net gains.

Are Oklahoma farms making money?• In 2002, the average net farm income for Oklahomawas $8,220, compared to $19,032 for the U.S. overall.

• In that year, 44% of Oklahoma farms made moneyor broke even, with an average net income of $31,559.

• The 56% of farms that lost money had net lossesof $9,878, on average.

• Although farm incomes nationwide were at recordhighs in 2004 and 2005, projections are that they willdecline again in 2006, reflecting the roller-coasternature of income from farming. [3]

What kind of support are Oklahoma farmsreceiving?• Seventy-one percent of Oklahoma farms receiveno federal farm subsidy payments.

• Ten percent of Oklahoma’s federal subsidy dollarsgo to less than one percent of the farms in the state.

• In 2002, Oklahoma’s top five most heavily subsidizedcommodities were, in order, wheat, livestock, peanuts,cotton, and dairy. [4]

• While receiving only one percent of Oklahoma’sgovernment agriculture program payments, farmsspecializing in non-traditional crops (includingvegetables and melons, nursery and tree crops, andfruits, nuts, and berries) contributed about 10% ofthe total growth in Oklahoma farms’ sales and numbersduring 1992 - 2002.

Growth and change go hand in hand. Farmers inOklahoma have become more diverse (in culture,gender and experience) and are meeting the challengesof making a living on the land in diverse ways.

One thing they all have in common is the hard workit takes to survive in agriculture. Another is that, todate, the farmers growing these non-traditionalcrops are bearing almost all the risk of increasingOklahoma’s supply of fresh, home-grown foods ontheir own.

Policies that reward and encourage their effort andinnovation would do much to keep Oklahoma agricul-ture fresh, vital, and competitive in the 21st century.


In the prevailing conditions of Oklahoma’s currentfood system, some goals of community food secu-rity seem all but impossible to achieve.

How can agriculture in the state today transition toa way of farming and eating that provides enoughincome to attract new farmers? How can it offerconsumers the option of fresh, locally grown food?How can it rebuild the connections between the landthat grows that food and the people who eat it?

Unlikely as it may seem, a style of farming thataccomplishes all these things is sprouting from thecracks in Oklahoma’s food system.

Fittingly enough, that style of farming is calledcommunity supported agriculture, or CSA. Someof its proponents and practitioners prefer otherlabels, such as “community sustaining agriculture,”or “community shares agriculture.”

The “shares” version offers a hint as to how thearrangement works. CSA customers pay up-frontfor a share of the farmer’s total produce, which isthen delivered to them in regular, usually weekly,installments over the course of the growing season.

Why Buy?Payment in advance requires customers literally to puttheir money where their mouths are when it comes tosupporting family farms and sustainable agriculture inOklahoma. “It’s a way of really solidifying a farmerfor the season, saying, ‘Hey, we want you to stayaround,’” says James Cooper, who runs NuyakaNatural Farms’ CSA southwest of Tulsa, in CreekCounty, with his wife Jennifer.

Some customers buy into CSA for just that reason.Having the Coopers’ CSA, says one of their mem-bers, is “just such a gift.”

“I think it’s wonderful,” says one customer of EmilyOakley and Mike Appel’s Three Springs Farm Tulsa-area CSA, “and we’ll do all we can to support them.”

Oakley reports that on an end-of-season question-naire, many customers listed their favorite thingabout the CSA experience as “Mike and Emily.”

Many CSA farmers keep those personal ties strongby hosting farm visits and special events. Oakley andAppel invited members for an heirloom tomato tastetest early in the tomato season last year, whettingtheir appetites for the full harvest.

Sharon Miller, who runs a CSA near Norman,throws a yearly barbecue for her members, and plansto put a pumpkin patch in this year. “We’ve tried tomake the farm as family-friendly as possible,” she says.

For other CSA customers, the arrangement’s mainappeal is its pesticide-free produce, which typicallymeets or exceedsUSDA organic stan-dards (see sidebar). “I didn’t think I’d caremore when I had achild,” another Tulsa-area CSA memberexplains, “but all theresearch points to itbeing even moreimportant for kids.”

CSA in Oklahoma:Linking Farms and Communities, City and Country

Mike Appel and Emily Oakley

79

Variety: Fresh, Local – and Affordable?On the more mouthwatering side, CSAfarms’ ever-changing mix of fresh, localproduce is a big draw for customers.Living up to that standard makes diversi-fication a central part of CSAs’ businessmodel. Oakley and Appel use a spread-sheet to avoid repetition in their CSAbaskets’ contents.

The Coopers, by no means atypical, grow75 different crops. In mid-June, for example,they fill their members’ baskets with saladmix, summer squash, beets, arugula, andblueberries. Come August, it’ll be tomatoes,basil, zucchini, okra, and eggplant.

Like many CSAs, the Coopers also throw ina weekly newsletter with recipes and othertips for preparing and storing the currentharvest. Newsletters also let CSA farmskeep their customers up-to-date on what’shappening at the farm – as well as educatingthem about agriculture in general.

When weeds were thick in May, Appeland Oakley let their customers know,through the newsletter, that they werespending their time weeding – and tookthe opportunity to explain the differencebetween weed control using syntheticherbicides as opposed to the kind thattakes good old-fashioned elbow grease.

All these attractions notwithstanding, theup-front cost of CSA can still causewould-be customers to balk. Nationwide,the average price for a CSA share is about$400 for an entire season. In Oklahoma,the figure ranges from $240 to $450. Butat $15 to $20 a week for a half-bushel bas-ket of produce picked the same day it’sdelivered, CSA farmers say that’s not sucha bad bargain.

For the quantities, quality, and freshnessof the produce, they may be right. A sharefrom the Coopers’ CSA, for instance, is

CSAs Bring AffordableFresh Food to Low-Income PeopleDirect marketing operations, such as

farmers’ markets and CSAs, can be

among the most affordable sources

of fresh produce available to many

people. [1]

This fact is not widely recognized,

however, and CSAs in particular have

sometimes been criticized for catering

to more affluent customers, with little

thought for the nutritional needs of

lower income community members.

James and Jennifer Cooper of Nuyaka Natural Farm have worked out a way to meet

part of those needs through their CSA operation. A percentage of the cost of each

paid share in their CSA goes toward a free share for low-income families. [2]

The Coopers are Oklahoma pioneers in such private-sector approaches to improving

access to fresh food. Similarly inspired programs to link local farms with people in

need of fresh produce have sprung up in other locations around the U.S:

In Wisconsin, the Madison Area CSA Coalition (MACSAC) runs a Partnershares

program. MACSAC pays the up-front cost of a share from a lower-income house-

hold’s choice of the coalition’s 16 CSAs, and the customer pays back half that

amount in installments over five to six months. An annual fundraiser and individ-

ual donations, as well as some grants, cover the remainder of the share price. [3]

In Providence, Rhode Island, the Southside Community Land Trust runs a CSA on

a sliding-scale fee system, with wealthier customers funding a portion of the

share price for the less affluent. Share prices run from $200 individual/$350

family for households with incomes under $25,000, to $450 individual/$600

family for those with incomes above $100,000. [4]

Connecticut’s Hartford Food System operates a similar arrangement, as well as

offering “workshares” in which labor, rather than cash, is exchanged for a CSA

share. [5]

Through Maine’s Senior Farmshare Program, 178 Maine farms provided $100

worth of fresh produce to each of more than 7,500 seniors. Maine’s state agricul-

ture department administers the program in cooperation with several other state

agencies; funding comes from the federal Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition

Program. [6]

In northwest Lower Michigan, the Northwest Food Coalition’s Fresh Food Partnership

works with 34 food pantries and kitchens to raise money to buy food from local

farmers. In its second year, the project gathered $21,000, bought 13 tons of food

from 26 local farmers, and served it to 6,500 people in a seven-county area. [7]

James and Jennifer Cooperof Nuyaka Farm


sized to make five vegetable-based meals for twoadults each week. A CSA share, then, could nudgemany Oklahomans’ fresh-vegetable intake closer towhere dieticians say it ought to be – and might evenbe paid for out of what they could save by cuttingback on junk food. [1]

The same amount of produce at the grocery storecould cost much more, and without the same fresh-ness, quality, or returns to local agriculture. [2]

For those unable to afford the up-front cost of a share,CSA farms’ small-scale, personal nature allows themto adapt to find solutions. Some offer pay-as-you-goarrangements. The Coopers offer discounts tomembers who get others to sign up, while Oakleyand Appel have developed a debit-card system.

New BeginningsAs they work to make their bounty as affordable aspossible, CSA farmers have to be careful to preservetheir own returns. “We have to work a little harderfor CSA income than for the farmers’ market,” saysOakley. “The benefits aren’t free.”

The implication is that CSA farmers, like their cus-tomers, are willing to give a little extra for thingsthat don’t necessarily show up in the bottom line. It’sthat commitment that gives CSA much of its promisefor re-growing a more sustainable food system.

The first CSA in the United States began in 1986,modeled after similar arrangements in Europecalled “vegetable box schemes” or “subscriptionfarming.” The idea spread quickly on both east andwest coasts, as small farmers on the fringes of thoseregions’ major cities found a ready urban market forweekly deliveries of fresh, local produce. In 1999, a

nationwide survey counted over one thousand CSAsoperating in the United States – but none inOklahoma. [3]

Three years later, Sharon Miller started her CSA –Oklahoma’s first – on her aptly named NewBeginning Farm.

Since then, upwards of half a dozen other innovativeOklahoma farmers have thrown their hats into theCSA ring – and found a ready market.

Starting small, Oakley and Appel began their CSA’sfirst season with ten members, mostly family andfriends, before expanding to 30 in the second. Like theCoopers, they got an early boost from already havingregular customers at the Tulsa farmers’ market.

Now, Oakley and Appel have a waiting list of cus-tomers in nearby Tulsa; the Coopers expect to dou-ble their membership next season.

Still, they caution that it’s important to be realisticabout the amount of income a CSA will generate,especially at first. Few if any Oklahoma CSAs gen-erate as much as half their farm income through theCSA itself, even after a few years. “It’s a good thingto transition into,” says Oakley, “but not as a soleincome.”

Yet despite the cautions, Oakley hopes that the CSAexample will inspire more Oklahoma youths to returnto their home communities and take up farming as avocation,

“It is possible,” she says. She and Appel, supportingthemselves by selling the produce they grow on acouple of leased acres, are living proof of that.

“I’m really surprised to see youngsters getting intofarming as a career,” says one of Oakley and Appel’scustomers.

These “youngsters” could well be an important partof the future of agriculture (and community foodsecurity) in Oklahoma, but only if their communitiescontinue to see the value of their way of farming andsupport it.

“It’s a lot of labor and a lot of love,” says James Cooper,“but I couldn’t see myself doing anything else.”

Oakley hopes that the CSA example

will inspire more Oklahoma youths

to return to their home communities

and take up farming as a vocation.

81

















Creek County

g

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

< $1

,000

< $2

,499

< $4

,999

< $9

,999

< $1

9,99

9

< $2

4,99

9

< $3

9,99

9

< $4

9,99

9

< $9

9,99

9

< $2

49,9

99

< $4

99,9

99

> $5

00,0

00

68,794 people in 2003 +2% since 2000 [+2%]

1,838 farms in 2002 -6% since 1997 [-1%]:


1,374 with net losses, averaging $6,625



Average farm net income, 2002: -$1,952 [$8,220]

Poverty: 12.9 % [14.5%] Unemployment: 7.49% [5.66%]





groceries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$55.1 million

meals at restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$41.6 million

Value of direct sales, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$81,000

Farmers' markets within 75 miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7


Major crops: cattle, hay, horses

Fruit/vegetable crops (on # of farms): pecans(70), peaches(11), apples(9),

blackberries(8), grapes(6), watermelons(4), and many others


Community Food Security: Snapshot NONMETRO - NON FOOD DESERT


Most successful CSA farms, in Oklahoma andnationwide, thrive in the shadow of majorcities, with easy access to a large pool of rela-

tively affluent and educated customers. In a largeand rural state, though, the CSA concept entersuncharted realms as it attempts to find its feet in thecountryside.

One pioneer on CSA's rural Oklahoma frontier isBarbara Stroud. A teacher in Elgin, about 15 milesnorth of Lawton on I-44, Stroud first heard of CSAat a Kerr Center workshop in the fall of 2004. Earlythe following spring, she sent letters to fellow teachersat the school where she works, seeking subscribersfor her first CSA season.

Stroud and her husband Bill farm outside Indiahoma,20 miles west of Lawton in Comanche County. Shehas a lifetime's gardening skill under her belt, andseveral years' experience selling vegetables to a near-by produce stand. Still, she was uncertain of thequantity of produce she could guarantee.

So she limited herself to ten customers, and woundup with eight. After completing her first season, shewas more confident that she could carry a highernumber of customers, but the time requirements ofharvesting, processing, and distributing her produceled her to cap the 2006 season's list at twelve.

More Food, More Farmers?Stroud has had enough inquiries to more than fill thatself-imposed quota. Some came from as far as 80miles away - farther than she feels able to deliver,particularly with gasoline prices climbing. The level ofinterest, along with her customers' scattered locationsover a wide swath of southwestern Oklahoma, suggestthat CSA farming has a sizeable potential market inrural as well as urban areas of the state.

That market could provide both openings for begin-ning farmers and significant supplemental income

for existing farms, like the Strouds'. On their farm'sseveral hundred acres, the Strouds raise a typicalrange of commodity crops, including wheat, hay, and cattle.

There are also plenty of the pecans common toOklahoma pastures, and show hogs for their fourschool-age kids' 4-H projects. (Stroud's first CSAdelivery of the season included a bag of pecans, andshe's considered adding beef, pork, and eggs asoptional offerings on her CSA menu.) The five acresStroud set aside for her CSA produce generated cashreturns out of proportion to their size in the overallfarm operation.

Accompanying such opportunities, there are alsoplenty of puzzles to be solved in adapting CSA to arural setting. One, already mentioned, is working outthe harmonies between high-value CSA crops and moreextensive commodity crops. Keeping yearling steersout of the lettuce is another improvement Stroudruefully pledges to make, along with separating farmdogs and pullets.

It's Not Quite the Middle of Nowhere:CSA Goes Country

Barbara Stroud and family

83

Selling the ConceptAnother head-scratcher for rural CSA is simply theunfamiliarity of the concept. Several of Stroud'scustomers had never heard of the idea.

Likewise, Stroud can point to large vegetable growersin the area, long-time suppliers of farm stands, whohave watched her first CSA season without quiteseeming to grasp its potential for their own operations.She marvels at the quantity of produce one suchfarmer grows, saying, “He's just selling it bit by bit,for whatever he can get at the time. I'm not sure herealizes I already got paid.”

Advance payment is a key advantage of CSA from thefarmer's standpoint. From the customer's-eye-view,though, it may not look as good. Bountiful harvestscan help to change that perception. Several of Stroud'scustomers noted receiving more produce than they'dexpected during their first season in her CSA.Compared to buying the same quantities at the gro-cery store, says one, “It's much more economical.”

Her fellow teachers agree, though, that the dealmight not seem so sweet in a poor-harvest year. Asone hedge against that possibility - as well as tomaintain variety, and thus customer contentment -CSAs typically grow a diverse mix of crops, so thatsome are likely to produce no matter what thevagaries of the weather. If even that should fail tosecure adequate yields, Stroud points out, “There'salways a fall garden.”

Meeting HalfwayA fall garden might be a tricky feat for Barbara Stroudto pull off. At the end of the summer growing sea-son, she goes back to her job as special educationdirector at Elgin Middle School. But the idea

CSAs: Did You Know?

■ CSA farms in Oklahoma and nationally tend to be smaller

than average in terms of acreage.

The average Oklahoma farm has 404 acres; the average size

of an Oklahoma CSA farm is 75 acres. [1,2]

Oklahoma CSA farms grow on an average of five CSA acres.

Nationwide, nearly 80% of CSA farms operate less than ten

CSA acres, and 80% own no land of their own. [2,3]

■ CSA farmers are younger than average.

In the U.S., the average age of farmers is 56 years; the average

age of CSA farmers nationwide is 43. [1,3]

■ A large percentage of CSA farmers are women.

In Oklahoma, 83% of CSA farmers are female. Women make up

47% of CSA farmers in the U.S., 11% of all farmers in the U.S.,

and ten percent of all farmers in Oklahoma. [1,2,3]

■ Many CSA farms use organic growing methods.

Nationwide, about 40% of CSA farms are certified organic, and

another 40% are organic but not certified. [3]

CSA farms also commonly incorporate “agroecological” practices,

like rotations, cover crops, and livestock, suggested but not man-

dated by USDA organic standards. [4]

There is currently one certified organic CSA farm in Oklahoma, but

nearly all use natural or organic practices, and two out of three of

Oklahoma CSA farms surveyed intend to become certified. [2]

■ Oklahoma CSA share prices are comparable to the national

average.

On average, Oklahoma CSAs offer 23 shares, at a price of $334

for a 17-week season. Nationwide, CSA farms sell an average of

50 shares at $412 each, over a 23-week season. [2,3]

■ CSA farms yield higher incomes.

Nationwide, 60% of CSAs have a gross farm income of $20,000 or

more. For all farms in the U.S., that number is 39%. [1,3]

Compared to buying the same

quantities at the grocery store,

“it's much more economical.”


demonstrates another feature of CSAs, one that, ifanything, is more important as they move into ruralareas. That feature is their flexibility to adapt to theneeds of both farmers and customers.

Like many CSA farmers, Stroud handed question-naires to her customers at the season's end, to gettheir reactions to their first CSA experience and helpchart a course for the next season. Many of her cus-tomers are coworkers, she commutes nearly 40 milesa day, and all the miles are definitely not free.

Hoping to curb the higher fuel cost of deliveries tothat dispersed customer base, Stroud included aquestion about whether customers would be willingto drive to the farm to pick up their weekly shares.Few were.

But, stopping by to visit at the end of the first day ofschool, a couple of them concede that they'd be will-ing to meet her halfway, at a central pickup point inLawton.

Both of these customers froze or canned a goodlyportion of their plentiful CSA produce. They jok-ingly mention how nice it would be if the producecame already preserved. Stroud widens her eyes inmock horror. “No way!” she exclaims. Washing andbagging, she says, are work enough already. One ofthe other teachers offers, half-jokingly, to do thepreserving for a share of the take.

Maybe that idea will come to something, and maybenot. Either way, it's an important illustration of the“community” in CSA. The network of exchange issmall and close enough that changes in the operation- distribution, planting, pricing, and so on - can beworked out to farmers' and customers' mutual satis-

faction over the tailgate or in the break room, ratherthan dictated at a board meeting or pitched in a slickad campaign.

Farmers for a DayIn its earliest incarnations, CSA carried the ideal ofcommunity even farther, with customers providingfarm labor in addition to the price of their shares.Such arrangements have become less common overtime. [1,2] Still, though, Stroud points out that someof her customers' kids do help her harvest from timeto time, thus getting an exposure to agriculturethey'd otherwise miss.

That personal involvement also helps to maintain,and raise, people's awareness of how food is grown -especially among the younger generation. Whenparents come out to pick up their shares and bringtheir kids along, says Sharon Miller, of NewBeginning Farm near Norman, “It gives them awhole different perspective.”

That building of connections between people, land,and food, are values of CSA that apply equally wellin the city and the country. As innovative Oklahomafarmers continue to develop the CSA concept, thosevalues can take root and flourish, growing a networkof more secure local food systems for both urbanand rural communities all over the state.

The five acres Stroud set aside for

her CSA produce generated cash

returns out of proportion to their

size in the overall farm operation.

Barbara Stroud

85



















g

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

< $1

,000

< $2

,499

< $4

,999

< $9

,999

< $1

9,99

9

< $2

4,99

9

< $3

9,99

9

< $4

9,99

9

< $9

9,99

9

< $2

49,9

99

< $4

99,9

99

> $5

00,0

00

Comanche County



113,980 people in 2003 -1% since 2000 [+2%]

1,188 farms in 2002 +2% since 1997 [-1%]:




Per capita personal income, 2003 $23,725 [$25,936]







groceries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $59.1 million

meals at restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $103.0 million

Value of direct sales, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $32,000

Farmers' markets within 75 miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4


Major crops: cattle, grains, milk

Fruit/vegetable crops (on # of farms): pecans(12), watermelons(2),

apples(1), apricots(1), collard greens(1), cucmbers(1), and others


It’s a gray March day on Beaver Creek Farms outsideLawton – blustery, cold, threatening rain – and thecattle, a breed called Murray Grey, are colored to

blend in.

But ranch owner-operators Carole Brown and TomGunn see, in the green grass everywhere underfoot,the color of the stuff they’ll use to measure anothersuccessful season of direct-marketing their grassfedOklahoma beef.

“The market doesn’t really affect the price we’regetting for our beef,” says Gunn. “Cattle prices arehigh now. Our premium is still higher, but not asmuch. But a year from now, the direct marketingprice will still be high – the other prices, maybe not.”

Although – or perhaps because – their eyes never strayfar from the bottom line, Brown and Gunn use anapproach that considers the health of all parts of thesystem: soil, water, plants, animals – and customers.

“A lot of the people who buy our beef buy it for thehealth reasons of grassfed,” says Gunn. “We get alot of interest through grassfed, and a lot throughantibiotic- and hormone-free.”

Not long after they entered the cattle business in1994-5, Gunn says, “We realized we’d get a betterpremium by going a different route. We comparedthe price we were getting for cattle and then theprice of steak in the grocery store. There was norelationship.”

Gunn and Brown eased into the direct marketinggame a few animals at a time. According to Brown,it took three to four years to build up a stable cus-tomer base.

Early on, she says, “We gave away a lot of free one-pound packs of hamburger, because that’s the easiestthing for people to tell the difference between oursand what they get in the store.”

The marketing efforts paid off. “We’ve never had a

complaint about the beef,” says Brown. Today, ifyou want to buy Beaver Creek’s grassfed beef, there’sa place on the waiting list for you.

Even so, says Brown, “We try not to take anythingto the butcher unless it’s already sold.”

Beaver Creek takes a small deposit in July andAugust – “just a commitment,” as Brown puts it –for an animal that will be slaughtered the followingJanuary. “We’d sell a lot more than we do,” sheallows, “but people don’t realize that they have toplan ahead.”

Over the years, Beaver Creek’s customers haveadjusted to that planning process. Brown and Gunnhave shifted to meet their clients’ needs, too – forexample, by moving their sale date closer to the timeof year when people are getting tax refunds.

Brown and Gunn have tried several different proces-sors over the years, finally settling on a small USDAinspected plant 60 miles away.

“We’ve found that it’s worth the drive,” says Gunn,citing the importance for direct marketers of locat-ing a capable, trustworthy processor.

Beaver Creek’s customers are usually local, fromOklahoma City and Norman, with some from Tulsa.When their orders are ready, they pick them up atthe processor themselves.

Green Grass and Murray Greys:Beaver Creek Farms’ Direct

87

Selling by the quarter or the half, Beaver Creekneeds no permits beyond the inspection sticker fromthe processing plant. Says Gunn, “If you can sell itlocal, why bother to ship?”

Like its marketing strategy, Beaver Creek’s signaturebreed is the result of a gradual conversion sparkedby an early realization.

Brown and Gunn began with Limousin bulls in amixed herd of cattle. Their interest in MurrayGreys, an Australian breed currently celebrating itshundredth year of existence, grew out of an articlethe two saw in the Stockman-Grassfarmer magazine.

The article described Murray Greys as gentle, beefy,suited to all climates, with small, lively calves.

The calves gain well on grass and the bulls test wellfor tenderness, say the couple. (They have tail hairor semen tested for genetic markers of tenderness.)

Stewardship of the land that is the basis for theirsuccess is very important to the couple. In 1998,Beaver Creek received an Oklahoma Producer Grantfrom the Kerr Center, which they used to plantbuffer strips around, and fence livestock out of, aperpetually muddy pond draining several hundredacres of continuously cultivated land. As a result,over the years, the water in the pond has cleared up.

Even with such a successful record, Brown andGunn are slow to claim credit. “We only have tenyears’ experience,” says Gunn. “What we don’tknow is amazing.” Still, it’s plain that they’ve founda niche in more than just the marketing sense whenhe says, “We will never give up the beef business.”

Meat and NutritionThe USDA puts meat, poultry, fish, dry beans or peas, eggs, nuts,

and seeds together in one dietary group.

Meat and beans are high in such nutrients as protein,

B vitamins, Vitamin E, and iron.

The USDA dietary guidelines suggest that adults should eat between

five and six ounce equivalents of lean meat and/or (dry) beans per

day. [1,2] Lean cuts of beef and lean ground beef are recommended.

The guidelines recommend that only a limited portion of the rec-

ommended daily allowance come from foods with higher levels

of saturated fats and cholesterol, such as fatty cuts of beef, lamb,

and pork. [1,2]

Grassfed beef has about four times less fat than meat from cattle on

a grain diet, and is twice as lean as chicken thigh. Bison meat also

has low fat content, in the same range as grassfed beef. [3]

In addition, lean beef lowers levels of LDL cholesterol, the so-called

“bad” cholesterol. [4]

Individuals concerned about their dietary intakes of given food groups

or nutrients should consult a physician or dietician.

For further information:

www.mypyramid.gov/pyramid/meat.html#

www.usu.edu/trdhiman/homepage.html

www.wisc.edu/fri/clarefs.htm

www.eatwild.com

Carole Brown with one of her Murray Greys.


Public Policy Priorities:• Comprehensively review all relevant existing regula-

tions for any bias of effects against small producers.Based on the foregoing review, create a distinctregulatory framework for diversified small farmsthat reflects their particular capacities, challenges,and needs.

• Evaluate the kinds and amounts of credit availableto beginning, small, and part-time Oklahomafarmers, and identify ways of increasing theiraccess to farm credit.

State of the State's Farms

Goal: Foster the continued entry of diverse new farmers into Oklahoma agriculture.

89

Inside an Oklahoma City church,pandemonium has broken out.Boxes of frozen beef, buckets of

wheat, and bundles of produce caromup and down hallways and in and outof rooms. Cooler lids bang open andshut; shouting voices contend to beheard.

It seems like a revival gone wrong, butit’s actually a revival going heartwarm-ingly right – a revival of local food inOklahoma. This scene of seemingchaos is the monthly delivery day forthe Oklahoma Food Cooperative.

People hearing about the OklahomaFood Co-op for the first time almostalways need to have it explained acouple or three times before it beginsto make sense. It’s an original, home-grown take on the cooperative con-cept, shaped in such a way as to deliv-er Oklahoma food to Oklahoma con-sumers (or, as the Co-op calls them,“co-producers”).

Chapter Eight: Food Imports and Exports

Eating Cooperatively and Locally: The Oklahoma Food Co-op

“When I see all the chicken in the store

coming from one company, I ask why.

The Co-op idea was interesting to me

because I saw that there was

essentially a monopoly on retail food.”

– Kathy Tibbits, Stilwell

Farmers like peach grower Susan Bergen (end, right) and customers alike pitch inon delivery day.

Each of those co-producers ponies up $50 for the costof a membership in the Co-op. Unlike a traditionalfarm supply cooperative, the Oklahoma Food Co-ophas plenty of room for members who don’t farm fora living. And in contrast to food buyers’ clubs, thereare plenty of farmers among the members.

Partners in Homegrown GoodnessThe Oklahoma Food Co-op counts farmers and“co-producers” alike among its members, as equals.It plays the role of an agent facilitating the ordering,delivery of, and payment for Oklahoma foods.

The Co-op’s connection between its farmer andco-producer members springs into being once eachmonth. In a single day, food travels from its farmsof origin all over the state to a central distribution


point in Oklahoma City. There, it’s sorted intoindividual orders, and routed out to pickup pointsin different cities and towns around the state.

The Co-op’s success has surpassed anyone’s expectations.

When it ran the first order cycle, in November 2003,it had 36 orders, for a total of about $3,200 in sales.

By October 2006, the membership had surpassed800, and monthly sales were between $22,000 and$24,000.

From a cumulative base of over $430,000 in salessince it began operating, those revenues have enabledthe Co-op to be almost entirely self-sustainingfinancially since the beginning.

The Oklahoma Food Co-op grew out of one man’sattempt to buy as much of his food as possible fromlocal sources. That one man – Robert Waldrop, theCo-op’s current president – went a good distancetoward meeting that goal, but it involved a hectic

schedule and not a little driving: an hour in onedirection for bison steaks, two hours the other wayfor organic flour, and so on.

Whether to transform his quest into a form thatmore people would be willing to participate in, orjust to save on gas, Waldrop hatched the idea for theOklahoma Food Co-op.

Originally, he thought of running it as a cooperativegrocery store in Oklahoma City, stocked with all-Oklahoma foods. But as more people joined thebrainstorming, overhead costs made the grocery-store idea seem like a longer-term goal.

In the interim, thought Waldrop and his growingband of local-food conspirators, why not organize amonthly ordering and delivery service for theOklahoma-grown foods they craved? After a seriesof meetings around the state to recruit interestedfarmers – and co-producers – that’s exactly whatdeveloped.

Co-op "founding fathers" (l-r): Robert Waldrop, Walter Kelley, and John Herndon.

91

The Nuts and Bolts of Eating LocalThe Co-op’s order cycle opens on or about the lastThursday of each month, when producer memberspost their inventory of available products on theCo-op’s website.

Customers, or co-producers, have two weeks toplace their orders. (Most do so via the website,though some prefer e-mail, telephone, or the goodold-fashioned post office.)

On the third Thursday, trucks and cars roll from allover the state into a central distribution point inOklahoma City, carrying Oklahoma-grown foodsfrom far-flung origins like Waynoka and Westville.

Within hours, a corps of volunteers has hustled theorders off the inbound trucks, sorted them into indi-vidual orders, and placed them in other vehicles –including some of the same trucks that brought thefood in – destined for delivery points around the state.

During its first two years of operation, the Co-ophad nearly 2,000 different Oklahoma-grown or -processed products in its inventory at one time oranother. These included staple foods like meat, vegetables, and eggs, prepared or processed foodslike cake and coffee, and non-food items such assoaps and music CDs. In October 2006, therewere about 1,300 different products for sale.

That variety, and the freshness of the products, bringin customer members. “I always order eggs,” saysone satisfied co-producer. “Once you’ve had a farm-fresh egg, grocery store eggs aren’t even palatable.”

Other customers are drawn to the Co-op as a source

of food security for themselves and their communities.“When I see all the chicken in the store coming fromone company, I ask why,” says longtime co-producerKathy Tibbits, of Stilwell. “The Co-op idea wasinteresting to me because I saw that there was essen-tially a monopoly on retail food.”

“I think we’re losing something if we put all of ourhopes in the industrial food system. What if thecomplex, transportation-dependent national way ofdoing things were disrupted?” she asks.

Standard of QualityFor many, other appealing aspects of the Co-op arethe health and environmental benefits of local, sus-tainably grown foods.

The Oklahoma Food Co-op does not permit productsraised in confined-animal feeding operations, nor thoseincluding material from genetically modified crops.

While farmers’ share of the food dollar

averages 19 cents nationwide, every

dollar spent with the Co-op sends

95 cents straight into the pocket

of an Oklahoma farmer.

In a single day, food travels from its farms of origin all over thestate to a central distribution point in Oklahoma City. There, it’ssorted into individual orders, and routed out to pickup pointsin different cities and towns around the state.


Some producer members are certified organic, oth-ers grow organically without certification, and othersdo not comply with organic standards. Most, though,are at least a notch or two above average on the sus-tainability scale, and Waldrop says he’s noted thatmost new producers tend to move in that direction.

One reason for that may be that, since each producermember has his or her individual product page onthe Co-op website, customers can pick and chooseamongst products to select those produced in a waythat most suits their own personal preferences.

While the Co-op doesn’t officially recognize anyproduct categories other than organic/nonorganic,the producers’ online descriptions of their products,backed by visits from the Co-op’s Producer Relationscommittee, help to maintain customer confidence.

“I like to have certified organic food, but that doesn’tmean I won’t eat non-certified organic,” says oneOklahoma-City area Co-op co-producer. “It’sincumbent upon the producers to maintain a highstandard of quality.”

Cooperating to Feed the CommunityThere are many benefits for community food securi-ty to be anticipated from a business model built onlocal foods, and the Oklahoma Food Co-op doesn’tdisappoint. It’s a boon to farm and rural economies,opening statewide markets to individual farms.

Moreover, while farmers’ share of the food dollaraverages 19 cents nationwide, every dollar spentwith the Co-op sends 95 cents straight into thepocket of an Oklahoma farmer. [1]

The Co-op has also tried to qualify to accept foodstamps, as a means of making its selections ofOklahoma-grown bounty more accessible to personsof limited means. So far, that effort has yet to bearfruit.

In the meantime, the Co-op is making strides in thesame direction by “selling,” alongside its food mer-chandise, donations to subsidize memberships forlower-income people.

About ten percent of the membership has joined the

Co-op though a “payment plan” - $5 down, then $5a month until the $50 price is paid up – while theCo-op has provided free memberships to a dozen orso of its members.

While sustaining farms and increasing access to localfood within Oklahoma, the Co-op has also stimulatedsimilar developments in neighboring states. TheOklahoma Food Co-op has hosted visitors fromArkansas, Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas, and receivedinquiries from Missouri, New Mexico, and evenWashington.

Such a record of success may seem surprising tothose who pooh-pooh the economic potential oflocally grown food, but Robert Waldrop takes it instride. His enthusiastic monthly emails describingCo-op products always end with his trademark,“Y’all bon appetit, you hear!”

“Once you’ve had a farm-fresh egg,

grocery store eggs aren’t even palatable.”

93

Most of the Oklahoma Food Cooperative’scustomer base may live in Oklahoma City andTulsa, but the Co-op’s benefits are mutually

shared between urban and rural areas of Oklahoma.

Just ask Kim Barker, who direct-markets grassfedbeef and lamb through the Co-op from his ranchnear Waynoka, in Woods County, just east of thePanhandle in the far northwestern corner of the state.

A native of the area, Barker ranches on land as nearas a mile from his great-grandfather’s homestead.“I’ve been farming since I got out of college, about30 years,” he says.

During that time, Barker has taken several stepstoward improving his operation’s economic and eco-logical sustainability. His sales of processed grass-fedbeef and lamb cuts through the Co-op are the latestof those.

Unlike some others in Oklahoma, he’s close enoughto a USDA-inspected meat plant – just over the bor-der in Kansas, about 50 miles away – that processingis not a major obstacle.

Of the co-op, “I think it’s going really well,” hereflects. “We’ve taken over $400,000 out of metroareas and back to the farmers at retail prices.”

Every month, Barker makes the three-hour trip toOklahoma City with his Co-op orders, usually pickingup orders from two or three other producers alongthe way.

Returning home in the evening, he’ll have three orfour orders to distribute to customers along his route.

“We’re making it up as we go along. We’re alllearning. It’s a lot of fun,” Barker says. “We’re justtrying to figure out how to produce good food andhow to sell it. The more people we can get doingthat, the better.”

To explain the benefits he sees in involving morepeople in raising and eating local food, Barker looksback on last fall’s unpredictable weather – not inWoods County, but along the Gulf coast.

“With Hurricane Katrina we’ve seen the future –what our government and our food system is like,and how vulnerable it is. A hurricane’s not going tohit northwest Oklahoma, but other things can –things that would keep the food truck from showingup for a week or more,” he says. “We need to begetting back to local food systems.”

Town and Country: Kim Barker’s Grassfed Beef and Lamb

“We’re just trying to figure out how to

produce good food and how to sell it.

The more people we can get

doing that, the better.”

– Kim Barker

Kim Barker


For all their rapid growth, Oklahoma’s home-grown local food networks may still seem likethe tiniest of blips on the radar of agricultural

economics. Despite their small size, though, thesebudding efforts contain a powerful potential for farmand rural economic revitalization, against a backdropof increasing community food security.

Oklahoma’s reputation as an agricultural powerhouseis well earned. Agriculture’s $7 billion annual boostto the Oklahoma economy accounts for ten percentof the state’s gross product, and nearly 17% of itsemployment. [1]

Despite this economic momentum, however,Oklahoma agriculture leaves the state’s residentslooking outside the state for much of their food,while providing only a break-even income formany of its farmers. Such imbalances carry ties toOklahoma’s poor nutritional record, and they arealso an impediment to the state’s economic health.

Ins and OutsThis situation is rich with paradox. After all, Oklahomagrows several times more of its top-grossing crops andlivestock than its residents eat, leading to boomingexports of these commodities from the state (seetable, p.96). [2]

However, Oklahomans also eat many other foods,and in quantities that far surpass the state’s own out-put – even though some of those same crops rankfairly high in the state’s agricultural sales receipts(see table, p.96). (Many of these are precisely thefoods – fruits and vegetables – that Oklahomans’diets need most.) [3]

That contrast funnels much of the money thatOklahomans spend on food each year – an estimated$8 billion – right out of the state. [4]

So, while Oklahoma agriculture makes money onlarge crops of a few commodities, it forgoes a muchlarger potential income – as well as a public healthdividend – by failing to meet its own consumers’demand for many other food items.

On average, Oklahoma farms turn a slim profit, butthe food sector as a whole is importing its wares –and exporting the state’s own economic wealth topay for them.

Oklahoma farmers spend $4.1 billion to raise thestate’s current array of crops and livestock. That’snot much less than the $4.5 billion they earn by sell-ing them, leaving them a slim margin – about $8,200per farm – for income and expansion. [5] (In condi-tions like that, it’s no wonder that one of the state’smajor exports from rural areas is its youth. [6])

However, farmers' spending on some inputs circu-lates within the state's economy.

One of Oklahoma agriculture's largest productioncosts is for livestock, and much of the money spenton the production cost of livestock stays in the state.That's because Oklahoma produces more farm animals- primarily cattle - than it buys in, and so Oklahomafarmers are likely to buy the livestock they need tobuild or replenish their herds from other producerswithin the state. [7]

Similarly, Oklahoma produces almost four times

Balancing Trade for a Balanced Diet: Oklahoma’s FarmExports and Food Imports

While Oklahoma agriculture makes money

on large crops of a few commodities, it

forgoes a much larger potential income –

as well as a public health dividend – by

failing to meet its own consumers’

demand for many other food items.

95

more fertilizer – another substantial farm productioncost – than it consumes. [8]

But the dollars spent in Oklahoma’s food stores don’t fuel the state’s economy in the same way,because so much of what’s on the shelves is grownoutside the state.

When Oklahomans hit the grocery aisles hankeringfor a juicy, ripe homegrown tomato in July, at theheight of tomato season, why are their options limitedto hard Canadian-grown tomatoes? [9]

Home-Grown SolutionsCommunity economic development strategists havelong offered a solution for such excess imports:replace them with locally produced alternatives.

Though it sounds like a no-brainer, that idea bucksrecent trends toward consolidation in virtually allsectors of agriculture. But, as Jane Jacobs asserts inThe Nature of Economies, “economies of locationoften override and outdo economies of scale.” [10]

In other words, the economic efficiency of large-scale,long-range operations can be more than canceledout by their high (and, lately, rising) transportationcosts, their resistance to trying new techniques, andtheir inability to differentiate their products to matchthe idiosyncratic demands – such as freshness andflavor – of local markets.

One obvious strategy for such locally-based importreplacement would be for Oklahoma farms to startgrowing more of the crops – like asparagus, spinach,and tomatoes – that the state isn’t currently producingenough of to meet its own residents’ demand.

Oklahoma farmers could adopt these crops as part ofa general strategy of diversification, with all the asso-ciated benefits. [11] Indeed, many already are. [12]

Revitalizing Oklahoma’s immense agricultural sectorand rural economy one farmers’ market and CSAsubscription at a time may seem farfetched. Thenagain, the state has yet to fully catch the nationalwave of growth in direct farm sales. [13]

Nor are direct sales the only way for Oklahomafarmers to put more of their own bounty on tableswithin the state. Other possibilities include increasingand diversifying other local sales outlets. [14] Stillothers flow forth when Oklahoma food processingenterprises add value to raw food materials grownwithin the state. [15]

The more food that is grown, processed, and consumedall within Oklahoma, the larger the economic benefitsto the state as a whole. [16] Who wouldn’t trade ahard tomato for a juicy deal like that?

When Oklahomans hit the grocery aisles

hankering for a juicy, ripe homegrown

tomato in July, at the height of tomato

season, why are their options limited to

hard Canadian-grown tomatoes?

The more food that is grown, processed,

and consumed all within Oklahoma, the

larger the economic benefits to the state

as a whole. Who wouldn’t trade a hard

tomato for a juicy deal like that?


Growing What We Eat?

As the side table illustrates, Oklahoma agriculturedoes not currently meet the in-state demand formany foods (in particular, many fruits and vegetables).

This is despite the fact that demand is relatively lowbecause many Oklahomans of all ages are not eatingenough fruits and vegetables to maintain good health.

That many produce items grow well here is evidentat farmers’ markets around the state.

Community food activists propose that if moreOklahomans had the opportunity to taste and buylocally-grown fruits and vegetables, demand for thesefoods would increase. And if Oklahoma farmers couldmeet this “demand for healthy food,” they would reapthe benefits at the cash register.[2]

Crops listed are those for which USDA keeps production records in Oklahoma, and the list is not all inclusive.

The number in parentheses after the name of the crop is the sales rank of that crop in Oklahoma for 2002. For example, Oklahoma sold 17 times

more wheat than it ate in 2002, and wheat had the second highest sales of any crop grown in the state. Similarly, Oklahoma imports 98% of the milk

it consumes, even though milk is the state’s fifth-ranking crop in terms of sales.

It’s important to bear in mind that these estimates of the amount of different foods that Oklahoma imports are the lowest possible. It’s possible that

Oklahoma could be importing even more of certain foods than these numbers suggest.

For example, we know how much milk Oklahoma produces, and we know how much milk Oklahomans drink. Together, those two numbers tell us

that Oklahoma must import at least 98% of the milk that’s drunk within the state.

However, if Oklahoma exports all the milk it produces, it would have to import all the milk that Oklahomans drink. The data sources used for this

report don’t permit us to know when that’s the case.

Percentage of Oklahomans'

Consumption Imported

Food/Crop from Out-of-State

Broccoli 100.0

Lettuce 100.0

Cherries, tart 99.9

Figs 99.3

Asparagus 99.2

Garlic 99.2

Apricots 99.0

Onions 99.0

Eggplant 98.8

Tomatoes 98.2

Grapes 98.1

Milk (5) 98.0

Plums and prunes 97.5

Beets 97.2

Raspberries 96.9

Honey (21) 95.8

Apples 95.5

Cucumbers 92.7

Strawberries 92.2

Blueberries 86.2

Chile peppers 81.7

Peaches (19) 81.2

Cabbage 81.1

Squash 77.6

Pears 67.8

Cantaloupe 56.3

Sweet corn 53.2

Snap beans 34.5

Lamb/Sheep (17) 30.6

Pumpkins 11.5

More Than Enough: Top Crops for Export

Food /Crop Percentage of Oklahomans’ Consumption

Exported Out-of-State

Rye (14) 4706.1

Wheat (2) 1738.4

Corn (11) 1210.5

Peanuts (13) 586.3

Beef (1) 443.9

Pork (3) 393.5

Watermelon (15) 392.8

Chicken (18) 302.0

Blackberries 214.2

Mustard greens 203.7

Spinach 107.3

Turnip greens 78.9

Southern peas 43.7

Okra 17.0

Eggs (8) 5.0

Not Growing Enough: Food Imports

97

Importing Oklahoma’s State Meal

Most Oklahoma schoolchildren can probablyname the state song (“Oklahoma!”), the stateanimal (bison), and perhaps even the state

tree (redbud).

On the other hand, it probably takes either a trueSooner patriot or trivia buff to know that Oklahomahas an official reptile, soil, and crystal – much lesswhat they are (collared lizard, Port Silt Loam, andhourglass selenite, respectively). [1]

Even if you could make a perfect score on that quiz,did you know that Oklahoma also has a state meal?Could you name its ingredients? And – trickiest ofall – could you find Oklahoma-grown versions ofthem all?

In 1988, Oklahoma’s state legislature gave legal statusto the state’s official meal. Its menu includes friedokra, squash, cornbread, barbecue pork, biscuits,sausage and gravy, grits, corn, strawberries, chickenfried steak, pecan pie, and black-eyed peas. [2]

Sure enough, Oklahoma grows or raises every item inthat eye- and button-popping spread. The questionis, does it grow enough of them to feed the officialstate meal to each and every Oklahoman?

In the meat department, the answer is a qualified“yes.” Oklahoma raises many times more cattle andhogs than its residents eat – and in the case of hogs(as well as chickens), those numbers have beenincreasing rapidly of late. [3,4]

However, Oklahoma doesn’t turn enough of thoseanimals into meat to meet its own consumers’demand. Instead, it has to send live animals out ofstate and bring processed cuts back in. [5]

The situation is much the same for grains. Oklahomais a major producer of corn and wheat, but again,though it grows more of those raw materials thanOklahomans eat, by and large it relies on out-of-stateprocessors to mill them into enough flour and mealfor biscuits, grits, and cornbread. [5,6]

In contrast, Oklahoma only grows half the sweet cornneeded to match what its residents eat in a year. Moreoften than not, the same holds true for the otherfresh fruits and vegetables on the state meal’s menu.

Oklahoma does grow many more pecans than itspeople eat, and also exports surpluses of okra andblack-eyed peas. But Oklahoma has to import over75% of its squash, and more than 90% of its straw-berries, from other states or countries.

The legislature meant the official state meal to reflectOklahoma’s “cultural backgrounds and the state’shistorical and contemporary agriculture,” a laudablegoal. [2] But, having enlightened Oklahomans as totheir culturally and historically appropriate fooditems, perhaps it is time to redouble support forOklahoma farmers and processors and make theofficial meal a truly “made in Oklahoma” affair.

What if Oklahoma farms grew half…

50%

… of all sweet corn eaten in Oklahoma

(instead of the current 47%)?

Thirty-eight more acres would need to be

planted to sweet corn, and the value of sweet

corn sales would increase by $64,000

… of all squash eaten in Oklahoma


Another 442 acres would have to be used to

grow squash, and the value of squash would

increase by $1.1 million.

… of all the strawberries eaten in Oklahoma

(instead of the current eight percent)?

An additional 227 acres would be needed for

growing strawberries, and the value of straw-

berry sales would increase by $7.2 million. [7]


Public Policy Priorities:• Survey stakeholders to find out what sort of

infrastructure would be needed to grow, processand distribute more Oklahoma produce throughestablished and new retail markets.

• Create and promote a new agricultural identityfor the state of Oklahoma that reflects thecurrent and potential diversity of crops andlivestock produced here.

• Expand the Made in Oklahoma program forfoods processed within the state.

• Expand the Oklahoma Grown farmers’ marketprogram for fresh produce and other farmers’market items raised within the state.

• Emphasize the good taste and healthiness ofOklahoma-grown.

• Institute a “Celebration of Oklahoma Farms”high-profile event, featuring Oklahoma cheese,wine, and locally grown foods prepared byprominent Oklahoma chefs and restaurateurs.This event could include silent auctions, art,music, and celebrity speakers, with funds raisedto be dedicated to further enhancement ofOklahoma’s new agricultural identity.

• Sponsor tasting events at county fairs, city-sponsored celebrations and other local gatherings.

• Study the success of community-based marketingprograms, such as “Buy Fresh, Buy Local” in Iowa,and institute such creative campaigns in cities andtowns across Oklahoma.

• Create a new holiday centered around local produce.

• Develop a community currency for use in localproduce purchases.

Food Imports and Exports

Goal: Increase the amount and diversity of foods that are grown, processed, andconsumed all within Oklahoma. This should be pursued with self-reliance, rather thancomplete self-sufficiency, in mind:

• Grow more of the foods that Oklahomans eat • Process more of what Oklahoma farmers grow

Every farm in Oklahoma used to have a pear tree. Today thestate imports almost 70% of the pears eaten.

99

While an increasingly diverse group ofOklahomans is getting involved in agricul-ture, [1] the diversity of crops and livestock

grown and raised on the state’s farms has declinedprecipitously. Reversing that trend would be a giantstep in the journey toward community food security.

There were 83,300 farms in Oklahoma in 2002, downfrom more than double that number at the beginningof the second World War. As the farms got fewerand larger, the meaning of efficiency in agricultureshifted from the skillful integration of numerous cropand livestock systems, to maximizing the productionof one or a few main crops or animals. [2]

History records the result. In 1945, farms in the U.S.produced an average of 4.6 different kinds of com-modities. By 2002, that number had dropped to 1.2. [3]

Likewise, in 1940, there were 20 kinds of crops andlivestock produced on at least ten percent ofOklahoma farms.

By 1959, the number of different kinds of crops andlivestock on at least ten percent of Oklahoma farmshad dropped to 14.

In 2002, it reached an all-time low of four: cattle,hay, horses or ponies and wheat (Table 1).

Including crops and livestock appearing on just 1%or more of Oklahoma farms doesn’t do much to

improve the modern era’s showing. In 1959, therewere 48 kinds of crops and livestock on at least 1%of all farms in Oklahoma. In 2002, that numberwas down to 27, 11 of which only barely made thecutoff (Table 1). [4]

Even commodities that are still common todaynevertheless turn up on far fewer farms and acresthan at their historical peak.

For example, between 1982 and 2002, although thenumber of hogs in Oklahoma increased tenfold, thenumber of farms raising hogs decreased by the samefactor (to 3% of all farms).

The number of farms producing broilers has nearlydoubled (now at 5% of all farms; Table 2), but thenumber of broilers has increased more than fourfold.

Hogs and chickens are cases where production hasincreased greatly while concentrating onto far fewerfarms than was the norm earlier in the 20th century.

Chapter Nine: Farm Diversification

From Horn of Plenty to Plenty of Horns:Crop and Livestock Diversity on Oklahoma Farms

Continued on page 102

Oklahoma’s farms can grow a much

more diverse array of crops and

livestock than they currently do,

and they can do it in smaller amounts,

from a much larger number of farms.

Rare Pineywoods cattle are makinga comeback on an Oklahoma ranch.


1930 % 1940 % 1959 %

Chickens 88% Chickens 92% Cattle & calves 86%

Horses and/or mules 86% Cattle & calves 89% Chickens 63%

Cattle & calves 81% Milk Cows 86% Milk Cows 43%

Milk Cows 75% Horses and/or mules 75% Wheat 38%

Corn 70% Hogs/Pigs 65% Horses and/or mules 36%

Cotton 61% Corn 61% Hogs/Pigs 36%

Hogs/Pigs 54% Cotton 48% Sorghum 28%

Irish potatoes 42% Sorghum 48% Cotton 18%

Sorghum 41% Irish potatoes 40% Oats 16%

Peaches 28% Wheat 29% Barley 15%

Apples 21% Peaches 26% Irish potatoes 15%

Wheat 18% Oats 25% Corn 13%

Turkeys 17% Pecans 22% Alfalfa hay 12%

Oats 16% Cowpeas 18% Wild hay 10%

Plums and prunes 15% Turkeys 17% Pecans 8%

Pears 14% Apples 16% Small grains cut for hay 7%

Cherries 12% Pears 13% Sheep & lambs 5%

Sweet potatoes 11% Barley 13% Wool 5%

Grapes 11% Plums and prunes 13% Peanuts 5%

Wild hay 9% Cherries 10% Lespedeza hay 4%

Alfalfa hay 8% Peanuts 8% Sweet potatoes 4%

Peanuts 7% Grapes 8% Apples 4%

Pecans 6% Wild hay 8% Peaches 4%

Blackberries and dewberries 5% Alfalfa hay 8% Turkeys 3%

Cowpeas 4% Sweet potatoes 7% Rye 3%

Apricots 4% Apricots 6% Cowpeas 3%

Tomatoes 3% Sheep & lambs 4% Pears 3%

Watermelons 3% Blackberries & dewberries 4% Goats 2%

Sheep & lambs 2% Wool 3% Soybeans 2%

Goats 2% Goats 3% Alfalfa seed 2%

Barley 2% Watermelons 2% Grapes 2%

Broomcorn 2% Rye 2% Plums and prunes 2%

Strawberries 2% Alfalfa seed 2% Cherries 2%

Wool 1% Broomcorn 1% Apricots 2%

Soybeans 1% Soybeans 1% Tomatoes 1%

Alfalfa seed 1% Tomatoes 1% Watermelons 1%

Sweet corn 1% Lespedeza hay 1% Ducks 1%

Snap beans 1% Cantaloupe & Muskmelon 1% Geese 1%

Cantaloupe & Muskmelon 1% Guineas 1%

Cabbage 1% 179,687 farms Clover & timothy 1%

Cucumbers and pickles 1% 38 crops Vetch seed 1%

Onions, dry 1% Broomcorn 1%

Beans, snap 1%

203, 866 farms Sweet corn 1%

42 crops Cantaloupe 1%

Blackeyed & cowpeas 1%

Strawberries 1%

Blackberries 1%

94,678 farms

48 crops

Table 1. Percentages of Oklahoma Farms Producing Selected Crops and Livestock, 1930 -- 2002

Shading indicates crops and livestock produced by 10% or more of all

Oklahoma farms during a given year. Non-shaded areas include crops and

livestock produced by 1% or more of all farms in the state.

101

1974 % 1987 % 2002 %

Cattle & calves 84% Cattle & calves 76% Cattle & calves 71%

Hay, all 42% Horses & ponies 28% Hay, all hay 44%

Wheat 38% Other tame hay 28% Horses & ponies 31%

Horses & ponies 20% Wheat 27% Wheat 12%

Hens & Pullets 13% Wild hay 10% Chickens-Layers 5%

Other hay 13% Alfalfa hay 9% Goats, all 4%

Sorghum 12% Small grain hay 9% Pecans 4%

Alfalfa hay 11% Chickens 8% Hogs/Pigs 3%

Milk cows 10% Hogs & pigs 5% Sheep & lambs 3%

Cotton 9% Milk cows 4% Milk Cows 2%

Hogs & Pigs 8% Cotton 4% Chickens- Broilers 2%

Wild hay 8% Sheep & lambs 3% Sorghum 2%

Chickens - 3 months or older 4% Pecans 3% Mules, burros, & donkeys 2%

Oats 4% Wool 2% Wool 1%

Small Grain Hay 4% Goats 2% Corn 1%

Bermuda hay 3% Oats 2% Soybeans 1%

Peanuts 3% Soybeans 2% Ducks 1%

Soybeans 3% Peanuts 2% Rye 1%

Barley 2% Broilers 1% Cotton 1%

Clover, Timothy & mixtures 2% Turkeys 1% Peanuts 1%

Corn 2% Mules, burros & donkeys 1% Llamas 1%

Sheep & lambs 2% Rabbits 1% Turkeys 1%

Broilers 1% Apples 1% Geese 1%

Irish potatoes 1% Peaches 1%

Lespedeza hay 1%

Pecans 1% 70,228 farms 83,300 farms

Rye 1% 24 crops 23 crops

69,719 farms

27 crops

Data are from the United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture.

Percentages were determined by dividing the number of farms reporting a given crop or livestock species by the total number of

farms in a given census year. Broilers and layers were separated for the year 2002. Wool was determined by number of farms report-

ing sheared sheep.


In other cases, such as peaches, pecans, watermelonsand many vegetable crops, both production and thenumber of farms raising the crops have plungedfrom historical levels (Tables 2, 3).

Percentage-wise, there are as many farms raisingducks today as there are growing soybeans – onepercent in both cases.

That may seem like an absurd comparison, but –together with the historical evidence – it makes thispoint: Oklahoma’s farms can grow a much morediverse array of crops and livestock than they cur-rently do. This production could come from smallerindividual herds and harvests and from a larger num-ber of farms.

Why should farms diversify? The USDA puts oneimportant reason in simple terms: “Diversificationdecreases risk.” [5]

Put another way, diversity equals security, both for farm-ers and the people who depend on the food they raise.

As the old saying goes, “Don't put all your eggs inone basket.”

A diversity of crops and livestock means a more stablefood supply – if one crop or variety is wiped out bydisease or pestilence, all is not lost.

By the same token, greater diversity also means asteadier income for farmers. [6] Moreover, integratedfarms with diversified crop rotations can net anincome from 300 acres that a less diverse farm(stripped of its commodity subsidies) would need3,000 acres to match. [7]

This better return could improve the bottom line ofOklahoma farms, 56% of which lost money in 2002.Getting the same income from one-tenth the acreagecould also enable Oklahoma to support many morefarmers, turning crop diversification into a lever fordiversifying the farmers themselves.

More farmers growing a more diverse array of cropswithin the state would also reduce the distance thatfood travels to feed Oklahomans. That, too, worksout to greater security – as when rising fuel costs orunforeseen disasters disrupt out-of-state supply lines.

Finally, Oklahoma farms do not produce enough ofthe fruits and vegetables Oklahomans need to eat forgood health. [8] If more farms grew these importantcrops and this healthy, farm-fresh food were availablein more communities across the state, it could be animportant step towards improving the food securityand health of Oklahomans.

Far from being a historical relic, farm diversity is onekey to greater community food security in Oklahoma.

Continued from page 99

Table 2. Percentage of Oklahoma Farms ProducingSelected Crops and Livestock, 1940 and 2002

Percentage of Oklahoma In…

farms producing… 1940 2002

Chickens 92% 5%

Cattle & calves 89% 71%

Milk cows 86% 2%

Horses/mules/ponies 75% 31%

Hogs/pigs 65% 3%

Corn 61% 1%

Cotton 48% 1%

Sorghum 48% 2%

Irish potatoes 40% 0

Wheat 29% 12%

Peaches 26% 0

Oats 25% 0

Pecans 22% 3%

Cowpeas 18% 0

Turkeys 17% 1%

Apples 16% 0

Pears 13% 0

Barley 13% 0

Plums/prunes 13% 0

Cherries 10% 0

Hay1 - 44%1 Hay was not reported in the 1940 Census of Agriculture.

Table 3. Number of Oklahoma Farms Producing SelectedFruit and Vegetable Crops Over Time

1930 1959 2002

Pears 29,231 2,975 152

Tomatoes 5,435 966 271

Watermelons 5,284 1,092 311

103

When Steve Upson thinks about growingfruits, nuts, and vegetables in Oklahoma, histhoughts head straight to California. To the

Noble Foundation horticulturist, that’s not as odd asit may seem.

California, he points out, is a net exporter of horti-cultural food crops. Oklahoma, on the other hand,imports many of its fruits and vegetables, both inand out of season. [1] Much of that gap onOklahoma grocery shelves is probably filled by pro-duce from the Golden State.

There may appear to be good reasons why the SoonerState gets so much of its produce from half a continentaway. California seems to have all the natural advan-tages on its side: rich soils, abundant farm labor,large and ready markets both within the state andnationwide.

Indeed, Oklahoma’s fresh fruit and vegetable pro-duction numbers have been on the wane for decades.Since the 1950s, for example, the acreage devoted towatermelons has dropped by 36%, and that in mixedvegetables by 24%. [2]

Historically, Oklahoma has seen a significant decreasein the number and percentage of farms raising fruitand vegetable crops. In the years preceding WorldWar II, fruits such as plums, pears, apples and peacheswere being grown for sale on over 20,000 Oklahomafarms, while other fruits such as cherries, grapes, andapricots were grown on at least 10,000 farms. In 1940,potatoes were grown on more Oklahoma farms thanwheat. [3]

The mix of crops found on Oklahoma farms becameless diverse as many farmers lost access to wholesaleand other markets through the effects of globalization.Inexpensive fuel, water, and labor, among other cli-matic and geographic factors, allowed the productionof many horticultural crops to become concentratedwithin certain regions of the U.S. and the world. [4]

Subsequent concentration within food processing,marketing, and retail sectors have left most remain-ing farmers with a short list of crops and a share ofthe U.S. food dollar that has diminished from nearfifty cents to less than twenty.

Turning AroundYet in Upson’s view, Oklahoma’s current spot at thebottom of the vegetable heap is far from inevitable.“There are hundreds of different crops grown inCalifornia,” he says. “Why can’t we grow them inOklahoma?”

When Upson directs that question to Oklahomans,he gets a wide range of responses.

Is it that California has better soil? Upson shakeshis head. “Oklahoma has excellent soils,” he says,with a quarter of a million acres of rich bottomlandsoils along its rivers, and thousands more in irrigableuplands.

Then could the difference be that Oklahoma has lesswater? Wrong again: “There’s abundant high-quali-ty water in Oklahoma to produce high-value crops.”

Nor, he says, does Oklahoma lack labor for planting,harvesting, or packing.

Land of Opportunity:Steve Upson’s Vision for Oklahoma Farms

Steve Upson


Upson admits that California has some advantagesthat Oklahoma just can’t match – like the vast reserveof gravity-fed irrigation water perched in the snow-caps of the nearby Sierras.

There’s nothing Oklahomans can do about that –“not unless we can raise the Arbuckles about tenthousand feet,” he jokes.

But Upson lays the blame for Oklahoma’s laggingfruit and vegetable production elsewhere – specifi-cally, on the state’s extreme growing environment.

In California, growers are blessed with a mild cli-mate and reliable rains. In Oklahoma, the weather ismuch more unpredictable.

The amount and timing of rainfall vary widely fromone year to the next. Unseasonal freezes are com-mon, and occasionally even severe enough to wipeout pecan harvests along with less hardy fruit crops.

High winds, hailstorms, and even tornadoes areother incarnations of meteorological caprice that canplay havoc with Oklahoma fruit and vegetable crops.

“Because of extreme weather, Oklahoma cannot be aconsistent producer of fruits and vegetables usingexisting production techniques,” writes Upson.“Without consistency, markets cannot be sustained.” [2]

Turning Over New LeavesUpson emphasizes that the limit to consistent har-vests comes from existing production techniques.Unlike the height of the Arbuckles, those techniquescan be changed.

“The technology is available to overcome the thingsthat keep us from being a state that is more sustain-able in fresh fruit and vegetable production,” hesays. “We have the potential to grow our own food,but we have to demonstrate it in a powerful way.”

Demonstrating that potential, and the techniques forrealizing it, is Upson’s stock-in-trade at the NobleFoundation, and he has plenty of ideas to show.

For example, pulse microsprinklers in fruit orchardscan be used to control frost damage, coating treeswith an insulating layer of ice to protect against latefrosts.

Later in the season, hail netting can help to mini-mize the devastation that might otherwise resultfrom even a single freak storm.

For water management, the Noble Foundation hasconducted extensive research on raised beds and dripirrigation systems. Plasticulture is another tool formanaging moisture. In addition, by warming thesoil earlier in the year, plasticulture offers one routeto season extension.

Hoop houses and high tunnels are another majorfocus of Upson’s research and demonstration projects.Covered with plastic early in the spring, and shadefabric later in the summer, they permit extension ofboth ends of the growing season. Those materialscan also offer limited physical protection against hailand high winds.

“You take peaches shipped

green from California. They’re

just not good. That’s a fact.”

– Steve Upson, Noble Foundation horticulturist

Hoop houses and high tunnels are another major focus ofUpson’s research and demonstration projects. Covered withplastic early in the spring, and shade fabric later in the summer,they permit extension of both ends of the growing season.

105

Innovative approaches such as these all work toensure consistency of harvests even in Oklahoma’sextreme growing conditions. According to Upson,that goes a long way toward leveling the playingfield between Oklahoma and the major fruit-and-vegetable producing states.

Growing New MarketsThat brings him to the second big obstacle he seesblocking the growth of fresh fruit and vegetablefarming in Oklahoma: marketing.

While he acknowledges that Oklahoma already hasa big produce market in metropolitan areas likeDallas/Fort Worth and Oklahoma City, Upson seesplenty of room for improving the state’s marketinginfrastructure.

Starting from the ground up, growers can focus oncrops that deteriorate quickly after harvest. “Youtake peaches shipped green from California,” saysUpson. “They’re just not good. That’s a fact.”

Such differences in freshness and flavor, he says, leadconsumers to favor local vine- or tree-ripened pro-duce. That translates into a marketing advantagefor local growers offering fresh perishable produce

Many such crops, including melons, tomatoes, black-berries, strawberries, and peaches, are the focus ofUpson’s crop protection and season extension proj-ects at the Noble Foundation.

He refers to this as a “systems approach” to sustain-ability, whereby production and marketing effortssupport each other.

Above the level of the individual farm, Upson saysOklahoma needs marketing outlets that are moreconvenient for growers, and a coordinated effort to

What if Oklahoma farms grew half…

50%

… of all the cantaloupes eaten in Oklahoma


An additional 61 Oklahoma acres would have

to be planted to cantaloupes, and the value of

cantaloupe sales would increase by $430,000.

… of all the peaches eaten in Oklahoma


An additional 2,053 acres would have to go into

peach orchards, and the value of peach sales

would increase by $2.9 million.

… of all the tomatoes eaten in Oklahoma


Over 6,000 new acres would have to be used to

grow tomatoes, and the value of tomato sales

would increase by $56 million. [8]

“We have the potential to grow

our own food, but we have to

demonstrate it in a powerful way.”

– Steve Upson,Noble Foundation horticulturist

educate the public in terms of supporting Oklahomafarmers.

Most small growers, he says, find it difficult to marketin an efficient way. For instance, farmers wishing tosell their produce to local outlets of major retail gro-cery chains must usually secure expensive liabilitycoverage, and may not receive payment until severalweeks after delivery.

Such hurdles lead most small growers to sell theirproduce through direct marketing outlets, such asfarmers markets and farm stands. Those come withtheir own set of obstacles, such as the difficulty ofmoving enough volume to make a living.

According to Upson, the vast majority of fruit andvegetable growers in Oklahoma fall into this group,selling their produce to supplement income fromother employment.

“Seldom do you see someone who’ll quit a job withbenefits to farm full-time,” he says.

For small growers looking to expand, the gap in vol-ume between farm stand and retail grocery chain is


dauntingly large. As another element of marketing infrastructurethat Oklahoma could develop to ease that transition, Upson pointsto the fresh-produce auctions in states like Missouri and Iowa,where grocery stores, restaurants, and large farm stands buy truck-size lots from local farmers.

As agricultural historians have pointed out, California’s fresh-fruit-and-vegetable empire didn’t just happen – it was actively built withaggressive marketing programs. [5] Upson’s prescription wouldadopt similar strategies for increasing Oklahoma’s share of thehorticultural food crop market.

However, he disputes the notion that such a shift must necessarilyforce small and part-time farmers off the land.

“Industrial technologies developed for larger, commercial farmingoperations are inappropriate for small farms,” Upson writes.

“Successful small farms must be management intensive and mustearn more returns per acre, dollar invested, and dollar value ofproduction.” (See sidebar.)

“The higher returns to management from intensively managedfarms come from the efficiency with which the various methodsand enterprises on the farm are integrated, not necessarily from theefficiency of each method or enterprise.” [6,7]

Upson’s vision of the future of farming in Oklahoma contrastsstarkly with the Dust Bowl days that drove so many farmers out ofthe state to California.

“My dream is that one day, history will reverse itself,” he writes.

“I can see a time when people choose to come to Oklahoma for thesame reason they left in the 1930s — opportunity.” [2]

Small Acreages,Large Returns

When it comes to the conventional ag wisdom

of “get big or get out,” Pennsylvania small

farmer George DeVault isn’t having any of it.

His motto is exactly the opposite: “Get small,

and get in!”

From their 3-acre farm in the suburbs, DeVault

and his family in one year grossed over $40,000

in sales of certified organic vegetables, berries,

herbs, and flowers.

DeVault calculated how many acres it would have

taken to make the same amount on commodity

crops in his region: 200 acres for corn, 261 for

soybeans, and a whopping 424 acres for wheat

(Oklahoma’s top-grossing crop). [1]

Over the past decade (and more), per-acre net

returns for wheat and cow-calf operations have

never been as high as $100; at times, they’ve

dipped far lower (see figure). [2]

For management-intensive horticultural operations,

on the other hand, net returns of thousands of

dollars per acre can be common:

Mid-Range Net Return per Acre from…

Peaches [3] $ 581

Sweet Corn [4] $ 810

Tomatoes [5] $ 900

Cantaloupe [4] $ 1,335

Blackberries [6] $ 1,500

When poor production and low prices coincide,

however, such crops can also result in net per-acre

losses. [7] That in itself is a strong argument in

favor of diversification on small-acreage operations:

in a year when returns from one crop are low,

those from others can level out income.

Moreover, the figures given above are based on

wholesale prices. By marketing direct to consumers,

farmers can charge retail prices for high-value

crops, increasing profitability further still. [7]

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Do

llars p

er a

cre

Wheat

Cow-Calf

Per-acre Net Returns for TopOklahoma Commodities, 1996 - 2004

107

















Carter County

46,396 people in 2003 +2% since 2000 [+2%]

1,353 farms in 2002 -2% since 1997 [-1%]:


936 with net losses, averaging $ 8,235









groceries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $117.8 million

meals at restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $65.2 million

Value of direct sales, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $49,000



Major crops: cattle, hay, horses

Fruit/vegetable crops (on # of farms): pecans(159), peaches(7),

grapes(3), pears(3), apples(1), okra(1), onions(1), and others

NONMETRO - FOOD DESERT

g

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

< $1

,000

< $2

,499

< $4

,999

< $9

,999

< $1

9,99

9

< $2

4,99

9

< $3

9,99

9

< $4

9,99

9

< $9

9,99

9

< $2

49,9

99

< $4

99,9

99

> $5

00,0

00




When the withdrawal of the federal peanutallotment was announced in 2001, Sam andWilla Mae McClure became farmers in

search of a crop.

They weren’t alone. Between 2001 and 2003,Oklahoma’s peanut acreage declined by more thanhalf. [1] In Hughes County, the change was evenmore drastic, with 1997’s forty-odd farms, threethousand acres, and 7 million pound peanut harvestall dropping to virtually zero by 2002 (see figure). [2]

What set the McClures apart from the crowd,though, was their willingness and ability to change.Like Goldilocks in the fairy tale, they searched andadapted until they found just the right mix of diversecrops and markets to keep their farm profitable.

At a family reunion, around the time the peanut sub-sidy dried up, Sam McClure ran into a distant cousinwho worked as an executive for Pace Picante Sauce.

“What can I grow that you’d buy every bit of it?”McClure asked the cousin.

“You grow me some onions,” was the reply.

And that set the stage for the next chapter of theMcClures’ farm, in the (South) Canadian RiverValley outside Calvin.

Getting It All Just RightAs it turns out, eastern Oklahoma doesn’t do well atgrowing the kinds of hot onions that perk up picantesauce. Those are long-day varieties, unsuited for thestate’s shorter summer days. And Oklahoma is at thefringe of short-day onions’ more southerly growingzone.

However, the Sooner State is just right for interme-diate-day varieties of onions – sweet-tasting ones likeCandy and Cimarron, that have markets of their own.

“Here in Hughes County we can grow the same

type of onion on any peanut ground, provided it’sgot water next to it,” says Sam McClure.

“Sam has always been an innovator,” says Willa Mae.“He’s not afraid to pick up the phone and call people.”

In the switch to onions, some of the most helpfulpeople on the other end of the phone line were atthe Lane Agriculture Center, jointly operated byOklahoma State University and the USDA’sAgricultural Research Service. [3] With some fund-ing from Kerr Center producer grants in 2001 and2005, the McClures received invaluable consultationon their onion experiments from Jim Shrefler, anExtension horticulture specialist, and agriculturaleconomist Merrit Taylor, among others.

“If we didn’t have them to help us, we’d just bestumbling around in the dark,” says Willa Mae.

Now in their fifth season of onions, the McClureshave 25 acres – about one million plants. It took asolid month to get them all transplanted, with asmany as fifteen workers in the field at one time.

Just Right in the Middle:Sam’s Sweet Onions As a Model for Diversification

Sam and Willa Mae McClure

109

From Small Potatoes – or Onions –to the Big Leagues “The growing conditions here are excellent for onions,”says Sam McClure. “The only problem is marketingthem. It’s not like cattle, where you can take themto the local sale barn, get a check, and go home.”

“Vegetable growers need some kind of guarantee thatthey’re going to be able to sell what they’re going togrow,” he continues. “I haven’t had that luxury.”

“Wholesalers want great big colossals. Last year,Mother Nature wanted to give us small ones.”

But the McClures found a way to turn “too small”into “just right.”

“We took a package to Save-A-Lot, as ‘Sweet CandyBabies,’” Willa Mae chimes in. “They just sold andsold and sold.”

That story illustrates that finding the right scales ofproduction and marketing are as essential for suc-cessful farm diversification as the right mix of crops.

The number of customers at the Oklahoma Cityretail farmer’s market can’t absorb the volume ofonions that the McClures produce. “I won’t driveup there for a bag at a time. I want to find somebodywho’ll buy a truckload of ‘em,” says Sam.

Their major market is the wholesale night market inDallas, where, between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m., the brokerswho service fruit stands pick up product for distribu-tion. “So far, I’m the only sweet onion grower there.Mine come in after South Texas quits, and beforeNew Mexico and Colorado start.”

The McClures bag their own onions for grocerychains like Nichols’ and Save-A-Lot. “Nichols’ hasbeen real good. I just wish I had more of ‘em,”says Sam McClure.

Here again, not being afraid of the phone has been akey factor in the McClures’ marketing success, justas it was in learning the ropes of production.

“You’ve got to get out there and hustle,” Sam advises.

In addition to the smaller grocery chains, that hustlehas gotten the McClures’ sweet onions into large

farm stands in Bixby, as well as Associated WholesaleGrocers, who supply Safeway and Homeland.

Size MattersWhile sales to smaller grocery chains require dealingwith individual store managers, Sam says, “AWG isdoing me a favor because I can just take ‘em (theonions) to the warehouse, and individual storesorder from the warehouse.”

The McClures have tried several times to get theironions into regional Wal-Mart stores, but so far theyhaven’t struck a deal. Though the corporation’s $2million dollar liability requirement is standard withthe McClures’ other large buyers, Wal-Mart isunique in resisting Sam’s stipulation of paymentupon delivery.

Without that guarantee of timely payment, theMcClures seem to be encountering the other end oftheir size range – too big for retail farmers markets,but not quite big enough to take terms from thelargest retail food corporations.

“It’s just like you’ve got two cultures,” says WillaMae McClure. In one, her husband explains, “somebig playboy like Wal-Mart is driving this all,” shap-ing customer preferences through the choice ofproducts that it makes available.

In the other culture, a product that large retailersdeem undesirable – like sweet onions that are “toosmall” – can sell and sell and sell.

Buy-local campaigns are one technique the

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1987 1992 1997 2002

Farms

Acres (100s)

Pounds (millions)

Peanuts in Hughes County, 1987-2002


McClures feel could help create marketing opportunities for suchcrops, stimulating more Oklahoma fruit and vegetable production.“If we had a catchy slogan that would catch the housewife’s eye: ‘Oh,this must be good; it’s locally grown,’” Sam says.

“It’s the same with organic and non-modified crops,” he continues,“but Oklahoma will have to help raise awareness. Maybe somedayOklahoma will come around to that.”

The More Things Change…Considering the McClures’ history, it’s only natural that Sam serveson ODAFF’s Farm Diversification Grant board, helping to overseethe distribution of funds that the state uses to encourage exactly thekind of diversified approach to farm profitability that works for theMcClures (see sidebar). [4]

He views the grants as an important source of seed money for tryingout new ideas. “You can’t go to a banker for that,” he points out.

History tells its own tales about diversification. Hughes Countywasn’t always peanut country. The Calvin Peanut Company, a localfixture for years, was once the Calvin Pickle Company, thanks to theabundance of cucumbers raised in the area at the time.

Even earlier than that, Calvin’s specialty was watermelons, while itwas Indiahoma that was known for onions.

Similarly, the McClures’ own farming ventures have changed over theyears. They’ve always grown a number of different crops in any givenyear. “We’ve got cows, we’ve got hay – we’re not just vegetables,”explains Sam.

“We’ve always kept a truck patch – sweet corn, blackeyed peas if wecould find the labor to pick ‘em. We’ve sold watermelons out of atrailer in Calvin.”

At one point, they grew a large cucumber crop. Later on, they had200 acres of watermelons, shipping them all over the United Statesat the rate of one to three semi-loads each day.

Making It HappenSuch shifts in an area’s mainstay crops may seem in hindsight to havehappened all by themselves, but at the time, there was likely someonestarting and pushing them, as in the case of the seemingly impregnablepresent-day produce empires in Florida, California, and south Texas. [5]

That someone needs both vision, and the determination and ingenu-ity to make it real. The McClures have demonstrated those qualitiesin their own farming. While they don’t seem eager to play the partof boosters, they do have some thoughts about what it would take to

Oklahoma AgricultureEnhancement andDiversification Program

The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food,

and Forestry (ODAFF) makes grants and loans

available for projects involving farm diversifica-

tion or the expansion of value added processing

within Oklahoma.

The Oklahoma Agriculture Enhancement and

Diversification Program distributes these funds.

They are available in four categories:

Farm Diversification Grant: for family farms that

want to diversify to non-traditional crops or on-

farm value-added processing. Proposed projects

should have the potential to create additional

farm income, and have an action plan based on

market research and income projections.

Cooperative Marketing Loan: for groups of

individuals who want to organize cooperatively

to market a product, or to make or implement a

marketing plan if a cooperative has already been

formed. The product should not have been nor-

mally marketed through an existing cooperative,

and the individuals applying for the loan must

show evidence of a cooperative agreement

between themselves.

Marketing and Utilization Loan: for product

development and/or marketing plan implementation

of an existing product. The product to be developed/

marketed must be a product or byproduct of

Oklahoma agriculture, and should either be new

to the area where it will be marketed, or expand

the use of existing products.

Basic and Applied Research Loan/Grant:

for research on the use and processing of products

and byproducts of Oklahoma agriculture. The

research should have a reasonable expectation of

creating a marketable product with the potential

for business expansion and the creation of jobs in

rural areas.

For more information on funds available through

the Oklahoma Agriculture Enhancement and

Diversification Program, see www.oda.state.ok.us/

mktdev-loanshome.htm.

111

make onions the next growth crop in the CanadianRiver bottoms.

“Our little deal here, you get bogged down prettyquick doing all this in the barn, or the field,” Sambegins.

“A local co-op would make it easier to sell on a largescale. Two or three people go in on a processingplant for grading, bagging, and then ship out inquantity lots.”

That’s only the beginning of the McClures’ ideas.

“If you really want to increase vegetable productionin Oklahoma, you need to get people like Nichols’,Albertson’s – some chain with more than two or threestores – to set up a farmers’ market inside.” says Sam.

“Draw up a set of standards – washed, sizing, nofibrous carrots, that sort of thing. You don’t bring itfrom the Dallas farmers’ market – it’s got to belocally grown.”

Then, he continues, farmers could put their producein the store, either on a commission or at a set price,and let the store pay them as it sold. “That wouldget the farmers’ market on the inside,” he explains,“where everybody’s going.”

“I’d do that in a second.”

Otherwise, he goes on, “It would take the vegetablepeople committing to buy a certain commodity, toopen up a market in a given region. It could besatellite marketing – for instance, if the New Mexicoand Colorado onion processors could get earlyonions from Oklahoma.”

McClure estimates that it would take 500 acres inhis vicinity to get such an arrangement off theground – twenty times more land than the McClurescurrently have in onions.

In Oklahoma and nationwide, the largest declines infarm numbers in recent years have been among mid-sized “farming-occupation” or “large family” farmslike the McClures’. Strategies like these offer a solidplan for revitalizing these farms, “operating betweenthe vertically integrated commodity markets and thedirect markets,” in what has been called the “agricul-

ture of the middle.” [2,7]

Fresh AlternativesHowever, the McClures don’t anticipate thatOklahoma’s former peanut growers will make a massconversion to sweet onion production.

“Farmers who farmed peanuts aren’t ready to makethis big a shift,” says Willa Mae. “They’re not atthe right age. It’s very physically demanding.”

Other farmers interested in growing onions, herhusband notes, “cool off pretty quick when theycome out here and see how much work it is.”

“We won’t be able to replicate what we’re doing, unlesswe get some young people. You get tired of doingall this stoop labor on your own,” says Willa Mae.

“It has to be someone who doesn’t mind the hoursand the low wages, the hard work,” she continues,adding, “None of our children are farming.”

If onions aren’t meant to be the next big thing inCalvin, the McClures have their eyes on some otheralternative crops that would do well in their area,ones without such intensive labor requirements.

“I’ve talked some about old peanut farmers gettinginto sweet potato production,” says Sam. In fact,the McClures will be planting a few sweet potatoesof their own as they harvest this year’s onions, justto help the idea along.

Sam also notes that, with a major pickling plantlocated near Dallas, cucumbers could be ripe for aCanadian River comeback. Though the plant cur-rently sources its cucumbers elsewhere, he suspectsthat rising fuel costs may make southeasternOklahoma a more attractive location.

“We could do the same thing right here in this riverbottom,” he says.

More Oklahoma farmers following the McClures’example, diversifying and hustling to expand thelocal food system, would certainly go a long waytoward making Oklahoma’s farms and food marketsjust the right fit for one another.


Public Policy Priorities:• Continue and expand ODAFF’s Diversification

Grant program.

• Increase farmer participation in theDiversification Grant program.

• Ensure adequate public funding for existing publicagricultural research, extension, and educationalinstitutions.

• Establish and maintain adequate, diverse stake-holder representation in setting public universityresearch agendas.

• Improve Oklahoma’s marketing infrastructure forfresh fruits and vegetables by developing channelsthat facilitate larger volume sales of perishableproduce, such as fresh produce auctions.

Farm Diversification

Goal: Increase the diversity of crops and livestock grown on Oklahoma farms.

113

Oklahomans spend an enormous amount of moneyon food each year – about $8 billion, to beexact. [1] The sheer volume of that food spend-

ing means that Oklahoma agriculture has a potentialmarketing bonanza right in its own backyard.

Some pioneering Oklahoma farmers are beginningto channel a tiny portion of that wealth back towardOklahoma-grown foods. But their numbers, andtheir share of the state’s total food spending, are stillonly crumbs fallen from the state’s rich table.

As more farmers follow their lead, expanding existinglocal food marketing outlets and developing newones, local food sales’ tremendous potential forincreasing community food security in Oklahomacomes closer and closer to being fully realized.

While direct sales are defined by face-to-face contactbetween farmers and customers cutting out themiddleman, local sales have a more strictly geographicdefinition. [2] The scale of that definition can vary.

In some cases, like the Oklahoma Food Co-op, and“Oklahoma Grown” farmers’ markets, the boundariesof the entire state define the “local” area. Somedirect-marketing farmers, on the other hand, landthe majority of their sales within an hour’s drive orless – a tighter definition of “local.”

Local MotionWherever the line around “local” falls, many kinds offarm sales can be found inside it. One is direct farmmarketing, in all its various incarnations (farmers’markets, farm stands, CSA, and so on). [1]

Another takes the shape of the state’s two-year-oldfarm-to-school program, putting fresh Oklahoma-grown produce on students’ lunchroom trays in agrowing number of school districts around the state. [3]

In some places around the country, the farm-to-schoolconcept has been broadened to “farm-to-institution,”

with university, hospital, and business food-serviceestablishments seeking to source more of their foodproducts locally. [4]

Some restaurants and hotels make a point of buyingas much locally grown food as they can, with a fewmaking a niche for themselves by building theirentire menus around local food. [3]

Some Oklahoma food processing establishments arealso investing in the local-sales market, adding valueto Oklahoma-grown products as diverse as wheatand wine grapes. [5]

Finally, the places most people think of when it’stime to find food can also get into the local-sales act.Grocery stores, supermarkets, and supercenters, aswell as the wholesalers and distributors who supply

Chapter Ten: Local Marketing

Local Food, Local Prosperity: Local Farm Salesand Community Food Security

Money spent near home recirculates in

the local economy, providing a lever out

of the poverty and food insecurity that are

a dual blight on rural areas of Oklahoma.


them can, and sometimes do, source some of theirfood offerings from local farms. [6]

Securing a Local Food SupplyAll these diverse forms of local farm sales are linkedby their strong relationship with community foodsecurity. The higher the sales volume of locally-grown farm products, the more farms – includingthose run by new and part-time farmers – a givenarea can support.

Making sure that there are enough farms and farmlandto feed the local population is one of the fundamentalgoals of community food security.

Sourcing more food locally reduces the amount thathas to be freighted over long distances (1,500 mileson average in the U.S.), and thus lessens the envi-ronmental impact of such transport. [7] By crimpingthe amount of greenhouse gases released by trucksburning fossil fuels, climate change may be slowed,allowing farmers to adjust to changing conditions,thus stabilizing farm yields.

A larger proportion of a community's food grownlocally means more security in the event of risingfuel costs, natural disasters, or national emergencies.Another advantage of locally-grown produce is thatit is relatively simple to trace it back to the farmthat grew it. This has become a selling point givennew concerns about the safety of fresh produce.

Lifting Local Economies - by the Numbers,and by the BootstrapsIt may seem crass to talk about money in relation toa program for making sure that everyone has enoughto eat, but the economic benefits of local food salesdon’t accrue to farmers alone.

Rather, money spent near home recirculates in thelocal economy, providing a lever out of the povertyand food insecurity that are a dual blight on ruralareas of Oklahoma. [8,9]

Just how great is that potential for sales of local foodin Oklahoma?

As a whole, Oklahomans spend an estimated $8 billionon food each year, about half of it on groceries andthe other half eating out. The Oklahoma City metroarea alone accounts for $3 billion, and Tulsa for another$2 billion, enough to support several times the currentnumber of farms in those cities’ immediate areas. [1]

But even in relatively sparsely peopled rural counties,the amount spent on food is substantial.

Farmers in rural Caddo County are next door toComanche County’s hungry Lawton population – butthey also have their own $32 million dollar marketto tap without ever crossing the county line. Innorthwest Oklahoma, Garfield County’s residentsspend $168 million on food each year; even in sparselypopulated Woods County (pop. 9,000), the figure is$14 million. [1,10]

Sourcing more food locally reduces the amount that has to be freighted over long distances (1,500 miles on average in the U.S.), andthus lessens the environmental impact of such transport.

115

Today, for every dollar that a customer pays in arestaurant or grocery store, the farmer gets 19 cents.[11] According to one estimate, if local sales tookjust five percent of Oklahoma’s food spending, thefarmers’ share of that “food dollar” would increaseto 30 cents. [12]

That may sound like small change, but the economicbenefits of such a shift would add up in a hurry.[1,10,12]

In some places, these shifts would even mean thatfarms that are currently losing money would turn aprofit. For example, in Cleveland County, where theaverage farm loses over $3,500, the increase wouldput the average farm income into the plus category,with about $4,500 in income.

In Garfield County, local sales’ five percent wouldadd $2,340 to the county’s $19,963 average net farmincome.

These numbers illustrate the potential consumerdollars available for local purchases and how thosedollars might affect local agriculture. The income ofexisting farms could go up or the number of farmscould increase. Or, farms could become both moreprofitable and more numerous.

None of this would cost food shoppers a single redcent – it would simply up the portion of their cur-rent food purchases that comes from local farmers.

Bumps in the Road to Local Food SystemsOf course, increasing local farm sales in Oklahomaisn’t quite so simple; there are still some practicalobstacles in need of solving. In the farm-to-schoolprogram, for instance, arranging the logistics ofshipment has been a continuing challenge. [2]

Seasonal gaps in the availability of certain productsneed to be addressed, and for sales of local food tolarger buyers, liability insurance costs and delayedpayment schedules may create obstacles for somefarmers. [13]

Some enhancements to Oklahoma’s marketing infra-structure could also do a great deal to facilitate localmarket development. For instance, if Oklahoma

developed wholesale farmers’ markets, of the sortsupported by other state governments, they wouldbe a valuable outlet for mid-size growers.

A vegetable growers’ cooperative, allowing smallerproducers to pool their production to meet largerorders sized for institutional purchases, is anotherpiece of the infrastructural puzzle that’s currentlymissing. For the state’s beef and pork producers, anew, certified organic meat processing plant slatedto begin operation in 2006 will help to fill anothermarketing gap.

Today, for every dollar that a customer

pays in a restaurant or grocery store,

the farmer gets 19 cents. According to

one estimate, if local sales took just five

percent of Oklahoma’s food spending

the farmers’ share of that “food dollar”

would increase to 30 cents.

If You Build It…Many of the obstacles to developing such local marketinfrastructure are at least partially offset by Oklahomashoppers’ strong demand for Oklahoma-grown food.Consumers in one survey showed a two-to-one pref-erence for Made In Oklahoma products, with that sen-timent strongest in rural counties. [14]

Shoppers at Oklahoma farmers markets rank supportfor local farmers second only to the quality andfreshness of food as their most important reason forpatronizing the market. [15] Other surveys haveillustrated consumers’ willingness to pay more forfood grown locally. [16]

That demand is just waiting to be tapped. Consideringthe vast sums that Oklahomans already spend onfood, increasing local sales is a solid economic strate-gy for fostering community food security in theSooner State.


If the phrase “Stratford peaches” rings a bell, it’sfor good reasons – both past and present.

“There used to be 1,000 acres in orchards aroundthe Stratford area,” says Susan Bergen. “Now, thereare only four growers.” The 100-acre orchard ather Peach Crest Farm makes Bergen by far thelargest of those four.

“There are 25 growers in the state of California forthe entire United States,” she says. “We need tobe frightened. Our food supply is in jeopardy.”

But instead of getting scared, Bergen and PeachCrest Farm got busy – putting Stratford back on themap for peaches, and Oklahoma back in the freshproduce business.

Getting to MarketPeach Crest Farm started out when Bergen tookover marketing the crop from the family’s existingpeach orchard three years ago.

“Growing is not the issue. It's, 'How do I get it tomarket?'" she says.

Peach Crest’s marketing began with a farm stand andfarmers’ markets. But at 300 cases of peaches a day,the volume was quickly outstripping those outlets’capacity.

Bergen took a box of peaches to Associated WholesaleGrocers. Some might have expected to be laughedoff the premises. On the contrary, she says, “Theylove me. They make money on me.”

That was three years ago. Now, Peach Crest Farmis selling at nine farmers’ markets and 55 grocerystores, and negotiating a deal to supply Wal-Mart.

Bergen is far from being daunted at a business dealwith the world’s largest retail corporation: “I main-tain that my stuff is so good they can’t afford not tohave me.”

A Cool Hand at HandlingMaking sure her stuff is that good involves anotherstage of production, between growing and market-ing: handling. “Knowing how to handle it onceyou’ve got it grown – that’s an essential element tofarming,” says Bergen.

Peaches have to be trimmed, thinned, and picked byhand. Once they’re harvested, even if placed in acool storage location, they’ll hold the heat of anOklahoma summer, causing their quality to deterioraterapidly. The more quickly they can be cooled beforegoing into storage, the longer their marketable lifewill be.

To get a handle on handling, Peach Crest Farmcontacted Oklahoma State University, and consultedwith Dr. Niels Maness, a specialist in postharvesthandling technology for fruit and vegetable crops.

The state of the art for getting the heat out of just-harvested crops in a hurry is a technology called“hydrocooling” or “hydrochilling,” which basicallyinvolves spraying or dunking the crop in cold water. [1]

There are commercially available, automated machinesfor hydrocooling, with costs ranging into the hundredsof thousands of dollars. Rather than make that out-

A Cool Peach of an Idea:Regrowing a Local Specialty at Peach Crest Farm

“I’m attached to farming – for profit.”

– Susan Bergen

117

The Buyer’s-Eye View

Much of this report’s coverage of expanding local food sales is from the farmer’s point of view:

what it takes to break into different kinds of markets, and so forth.

Equally important, though, is the other side of the coin – what matters for the wholesalers,

distributors, supermarkets, chefs, and food service personnel who together are the largest

potential buyers of the local food that Oklahoma farmers have to sell.

Oklahoma consumers may prefer food grown in their own home state by a 2-to1 margin, but

those foods must meet certain conditions before retailers are willing to carry them. [1]

In 1989, OSU’s Cooperative Extension Service surveyed 2,000 such large produce buyers in

Oklahoma for their perspective on those conditions for sourcing local foods. [2] The survey’s

findings are every bit as relevant for local food systems today.

For two-thirds of buyers surveyed, consistency of quality was the single most important factor

in their decision about whether to buy local produce. Price ran a distant second, with just over

ten percent of buyers listing it as the most important factor (Table 1).

At the time of the survey, over 80% of the buyers surveyed sourced their produce from some type of wholesale vendor. Only five per cent bought

directly from local farmers, and fewer than one per cent of buyers bought from farmer cooperatives (Table 2).

If quality, price, and availability were all equal, nearly three quarters of buyers in the survey said that they would give preference to Oklahoma-

grown products. One quarter of buyers had special promotions for produce grown in Oklahoma.

TABLE 1. The most important factor thatbuyers consider when purchasing fruitsand vegetables.

Consistency of Quality Year-round 43.7%

Consistency of QualityOver Long Period 23.5%

Price 11.5%

Year-round Availability 7.7%

Promotion Appeal 3.3%

Dependable Deliveries 2.7%

Shelf Life 2.7%

Dependable Volume of Supply 1.1%

Size Uniformity 1.1%

Convenience 0.5%

Organically Grown 0.5%

Service 0.0%

Packaging 0.0%

Other 1.7%

TABLE 2. Suppliers of fruits andvegetables to buyers.

Wholesale Produce Vendor 52.8%

Chain Store Wholesaler 17.4%

Wholesale Broker 13.0%

Supermarket 5.3%

Local Farmer/Producer 4.7%

Farmers’ Cooperative 0.6%

Other 6.1%

TABLE 3. Types of post-harvest servicesOklahoma buyers would expect localproducers or their cooperatives to provide.

Bulk or Standard Pack 18.9%

Direct Delivery 14.6%

Grading 12.9%

Refrigerated Truck 11.4%

Controlled Atmosphere Storage 8.5%

Cold Storage 7.2%

Pre-cooling 4.6%

Conventional Truck 4.0%

Vacuum Cooling 2.9%

Pre-Washing and Slicing 2.7%

Consumer Pack 2.6%

Icing 2.5%

Frozen Pack 2.2%

Pre-Processing 1.8%

Palletization 1.6%

Other 1.6 %


lay up front, Bergen went with a lower-tech, buteffective, approach.

Each load of peaches that comes in from the orchardgoes into a tub of ice water, supplied by a hotel-styleice machine, for washing and cooling, includingtreatment with an organic biocide, before it movesinside the sorting building.

It’s not that Bergen shies away from large invest-ments. Rather, she keeps a careful eye out for whichexpenses are unavoidable, and which ones she canreduce with a little ingenuity, as with the home-grown hydrochilling system.

For a better place to put the peaches once they’recooled, Peach Crest Farm currently has a $120,000cold storage facility under construction. Trucks willbe able drive straight into the building from theorchard and fields, to offload crops into one of threeseparate refrigerated rooms. To supplement thehydrochilling system, the facility includes a coolerthat can quickly take 20,000 pounds of produce from70 degrees to 30.

Waste Not… Sell MoreAlong with minimizing costs, Peach Crest’s approachto profitability also includes turning waste into high-value products. Peaches that are blemished, small,or otherwise unsuitable for marketing as fresh pro-duce (graded number three) go into a line of eightprocessed peach products.

The farm makes traditional favorites like peach jamand peach butter, and more original items like peachsalsa, peach mustard and peach barbecue sauce.

“I was throwing number threes in the trash – no onewould take them,” Bergen explains. “OSU put mein touch with the available copackers in the state.”

From OSU’s list of copackers, Bergen struck a dealwith Backwoods Foods in Tahlequah. Now, she sends45,000 pounds of peaches unfit for fresh produce shelvesto Backwoods’ commercial kitchen each year, andgets back 45,000 jars of value-added peach products.

The processed goods line turns a former wastestream into additional income. It turns a seasonalcrop into a product that can be sold all year long. Inaddition, Bergen points out, the canned peach linecan make the difference between a profitable day atthe farmers’ market, and a day when produce salesalone don’t cover the fuel costs of going to the mar-ket in the first place.

“It’s been huge in leveling out my cash flow,” she says.

Growing Crops, Growing MarketsThough Bergen’s processed product line stretches thelimits of what can be done to market Peach Crest’snamesake crop, peaches are only the beginning.

After the first year’s initial success with peaches,Bergen went to the Noble Foundation for adviceabout what other horticultural crops could be mon-eymakers. The next year, Peach Crest grew toma-toes and okra as well as peaches.

Now, Peach Crest is looking to ship 200 cases oftomatoes a day, though the okra has fallen by thewayside. Bergen is unfazed. “We’re failing forward,”she laughs.

This year, she’s added five acres of spring gardens“so that our presence could be seen earlier at thefarmers’ market, instead of just showing up withpeaches in June.” Crops include onions, beets,spinach – “my number one seller” – and more.

Riding the crest of the current farm-to-school wavein Oklahoma agriculture, Peach Crest Farm will beselling cantaloupe to the Noble school district,where Bergen’s children attend school. [2] “I justcalled and asked if they wanted local cantaloupe, andthey said, ‘We’d love some,’” Bergen recalls. “So I

119

said, ‘I’ll call you when it’s ready.’”

Farm-to-school is only one of Peach Crest’s additionalmarkets; the company’s range of sales outlets isdiversifying as quickly as the number of crops it grows.Peach Crest sells its value-added peach productsthrough the Oklahoma Food Co-op. [3] There areeven raised beds outside the office building north ofStratford, for pick-your-own customers stopping by.

Though the majority of Peach Crest’s sales are withinthe state of Oklahoma, Bergen is also working withthe state agriculture department on the possibility ofshipping some of the early crop to Canada.

Reclaiming – and Branding – the Home GroundThough Peach Crest is focused on Oklahoma markets,Bergen doesn’t see her farm exhausting the potentialfor home-grown produce sold within the state. On thecontrary, she maintains that there’s plenty of roomfor all.

In negotiating her deal with Wal-Mart, she’s gottena feel for how much produce the corporation sources,and from where – “and it doesn’t come from Oklahoma,”she says.

Taking the cantaloupe as an example, supplyingNoble school district’s cafeteria will only take a tinyfraction of the 2 million pounds that Bergen expectsto harvest this year at Peach Crest. Her total antici-pated harvest is about 12% of the 2002 cantaloupeharvest for the entire state. [4]

But the 2002 harvest only made up a little over halfthe amount of cantaloupe that Oklahomans ate thatyear. [4] So there should easily be room for anotherhalf dozen or so growers the size of Peach Crest, ormany more smaller ones, before the market withinOklahoma comes close to being saturated.

That’s just for cantaloupe – and Oklahoma imports amuch higher share of many other horticultural crops. [5]

And as Bergen points out, “Consumers in Oklahomawant Oklahoma grown.” She wants to make surethat they know they’re getting it when they buyPeach Crest.

That’s why every Peach Crest peach carries a sticker

reading “Oklahoma Grown,” and every shipping boxis printed with the words “Stratford Peaches.”

Bergen also wants her customers to recognize thePeach Crest logo as a sign of quality as well as localorigin.

“You’re wearing Levi’s jeans,” she says. “Why?You’re willing to pay $10 more per pair for thatname, for the tradition and the quality that it repre-sents. We want to be the Levi-Strauss of fruits andvegetables.”

“I’m not reinventing the wheel,” she explains. “I justbelieve people want better food.”

Dreaming BigThough Bergen has had little trouble breaking openOklahoma markets for her crops, that’s not to sayher enterprise has been problem-free.

“We lost 60% of our peach crop this year due to fivehours at 27 degrees. We burned hay all night tryingto keep the trees warm – $1,800 worth.” At a timewhen drought had made hay scarce throughout thearea, she says, “my husband’s ranch managers werenot happy.”

To help smooth out such rough spots, Bergen holds aweekly staff meeting, every Friday morning at 8 a.m.“Farming is discouraging, so we need to talk aboutwhat’s going well. We need to give as many ‘attaboys’as possible.”

That attitude may be catching. Asked about hisvision for Peach Crest five years from now, farmmanager Chris Kidd says, “I’d like to see it be likeone of the big farms in South Texas.”

Given the major role such farms play in supplyingproduce to the nation and the world, that’s no smalldream. But Peach Crest itself demonstrates the fea-sibility of feeding Oklahomans more fresh fruits andvegetables grown right in their own home state.

For that vision, Bergen does have one eye towardthe past, on what the Stratford area used to be. Butit’s plain that there’s no sentimentality in her strategyfor recapturing that position, when she says, “I’mattached to farming – for profit.”


Public Policy Priorities:• Develop school and government procurement

policies that favor healthy, local food.(See “Melons Carry Seeds of Change,” p. 32.)

• Improve Oklahoma’s marketing infrastructure forfresh fruits and vegetables by developing channelsthat facilitate larger volume sales of perishableproduce, such as fresh produce auctions and/orwholesale farmers’ markets.

• Create incentives for the use of locally producedand processed food.

• Allow sales of farm products through marketingcooperatives to be treated as sales directly fromthe farm gate.

Local Marketing

Goal: Increase the total value of local sales made by Oklahoma farmers to consumersso that farmers and their communities can retain a higher share of their food dollars.

121

Oklahoma’s agricultural sector is a little like theold woman who lived in a shoe: it grows suchlarge quantities of its top crops and livestock

that it has trouble figuring out what to do with themall. Currently, it sells much of this commodity surplusin out-of-state markets. [1]

That brings money into the state – but not as much asadding value to the same products within Oklahomawould. A community food security approach wouldprocess more of the state’s agricultural bounty intohigher-value food products right here within thestate, shortening supply lines, replacing out-of-stateimports, and growing wealth inside Oklahoma. [2]

Oklahoma exports cattle and wheat, but importsbeef and flour. Processing surpluses of such rawfood goods locally would add value to them beforethey leave the state, developing economies andimproving community food security in both ruraland urban areas.

As reported by one major study, the single mostimportant obstacle to sustainable agriculture in thesouthern United States is the lack of marketingalternatives. The best way to overcome that obstacleis to create “locally owned, value added” enterprises– a mouthful that condenses down to the acronym,“LOVA.” [3,4]

Abundant Produce, Scarce ProfitsDespite its burgeoning commodity crop production,Oklahoma is more supply region than agriculturalpowerhouse, “more a producer of raw materials thanof manufactured goods. Most crops and refinedminerals are shipped to other states to be made intofinished products.” [5]

In other words, Oklahoma may raise five percent ofthe nation’s calf crop and three percent of its feeder

cattle, but it slaughters less than one percent of thenational total. The number of meat processing plantsin the state dropped from 225 in 1983 to 157 in2000. [6,7,8]

As a result, Oklahoma earns money selling cattle toprocessors in other states, but then spends it tobring processed cuts of beef back in. [8]

Similarly, Oklahoma’s six flour milling establishmentsground a total of 20 million bushels of wheat forflour in 2002 – only one-fifth the amount of wheatharvested in the state that year. [9,10]

Most commercial bakers in Oklahoma use flourimported from other states, like neighboring Kansas,which produces almost ten percent of the nation’sdomestically milled flour. [11]

Not only does Oklahoma grow far fewer fresh fruitsand vegetables than its residents eat; [1] the statecounts only eight businesses that can, freeze, or drythose crops into value-added products like pickles,frozen peas, and fruit leather. [9]

Chapter Eleven:Making Something New: Adding Value to Oklahoma’s Crops

LOVAs for LIFE:Value Added Food Processing and Community Food Security


Making the Most of What You HaveThe silver lining in this gloomy cloud over Oklahoma’svalue-added food sector is the vast amount of fertileground waiting for LOVA to take root.

If even a fractionally larger amount of Oklahoma’sbeef and wheat were processed within the state,thousands of new jobs could be created – and theseare among the more developed sectors of Oklahomafood processing.

In 2002, Oklahoma had 275 food manufacturingestablishments, with about a third of those beingengaged in animal slaughter and processing, andanother third being bakeries and tortilla makers. [11]

Value Added Products, Inc. (VAP), of Alva, a produc-er cooperative specializing in making frozen doughproducts from Oklahoma wheat, is one successfulexample of this strategy.

Founded in 2000, the 700-member cooperative used$9.5 million in initial equity to turn the shell of aderelict Wal-Mart into a dough processing facilitythat now turns 642,000 bushels of its 850 producermembers’ wheat into $20 million worth of frozen,self-rising pizza crusts, along with a variety of otherbread products, each year. [12]

VAP has 80 full-time employees, and is the largestproducer of frozen pizza dough in the U.S., supply-ing East Coast pizza manufacturers. Its shippingneeds supported the creation of a separate truckingcompany, with 12 trucks, 20 trailers, and 15 full-timedrivers. [12]

But beef and wheat are only the tip of the iceberg.Christian Cheese, in Kingfisher, northwest of OklahomaCity, taps its own contribution to Oklahoma’s milkproduction for an additional increment of valueadded income. [13,14]

On the other side of the city, Lexington’s RedlandJuice Company is expanding a similar niche on theback of the state’s growing wine-grape industry. [14]

Such enterprises are classic examples of the inspiredimprovisation that converts locally available resourcesinto new channels of economic development. [15]

A LIFE-Line to Mutual ProsperityFor many such improvisers, the Food and AgriculturalProducts Center (FAPC) at Oklahoma State Universityhas provided the expertise to back up the inspiration(see sidebar, p. 130). The FAPC is an invaluableresource for Oklahoma agricultural entrepreneurs,offering classes and individualized consultation ontopics ranging from marketing to food safety tofinancial management. [16]

The benefits of such startup enterprises extendbeyond the proprietors, forming a springboard foreconomic development within the larger community.This relationship is encapsulated in the concept oflocally integrated food economies – “LIFE,” forshort. [17]

From the perspective of LIFE, processing foodlocally is as important for economic prosperity andcommunity food security as growing and distributingit. All three enterprises – production, processing, anddistribution – are mutually reinforcing componentsof the local food system (see sidebar, p. 123).

Manufacturing replacements for out-of-state importsis a job for cities. As such, LOVA’s implications fordevelopment and community food security in ruralareas may seem hard to make out.

However, since Oklahoma’s existing food processingcapacity is smaller than its current agricultural pro-duction, even urban-based food manufacturingenterprises will provide new markets for farm goods,and new jobs for cities large and small.

Or, if based in the country, food processing startupscan revitalize vanishing farm towns, and perhapseven give life to new ones: “Historically,” according toJane Jacobs’ book Cities and the Wealth of Nations,“many supply regions have been cradles of import-replacing cities.” [15]

Small Beginnings, Large RewardsWhile such entrepreneurial startups may seem toosmall to compete, their size may actually work intheir favor, increasing efficiency as it “cuts downadministrative and other overhead costs both in indi-vidual enterprises and in the aggregate, in comparison

123

with the overhead costs of large operations,” writesJacobs. [15]

Sixty to 80% of all new jobs created each year are insmall businesses. Such firms pay more than 40% ofthe entire private-sector payroll of the United States.They employ half of all workers in the private sector,and make up over 99% of employers. [18]

Oklahoma-based enterprises can gain a furthercompetitive edge from consumers’ support for localproducts. [19] Moreover, economic multiplier effectsmean that an array of small local firms return moreto the community than a few large out-of-statecompanies would. [20]

With so many factors in their favor, locally owned value-added food enterprises and community food se curi-ty are such a natural fit as to be “LOVAs for LIFE.”

LocalProduction

LocalProcessing

LocalDistribution

LocalConsumption

RawFinishedWaste

Modified from Wilkinson, F., and VanSeten, D. 1997. Adding Values to OurFood System: An Economic Analysis ofSustainable Community Food Systems.Integrity Systems Cooperative Co.

If even a fractionally larger amount ofOklahoma’s beef and wheat could be

processed within the state, thousandsof new jobs could be created.

LIFE does not automatically equal community

food security, but it’s a giant step closer – and

it’s hard to imagine having community food

security without LIFE.

Getting a LIFE for Community Food Security

This report identifies many “disconnects” in

Oklahoma’s food economy: farms raising

many times more of some commodity crops

than the state has the capacity to process;

Oklahomans eating out-of-state foods that

their home state could grow but doesn’t;

lower-income people literally going hungry

in the midst of plenty.

But just pointing out those places where the

state’s food economy fails to connect can

leave one at a loss for how it might look if its

different sectors were re-connected, integrated

to support each other.

One concept that helps to conjure that vision

is summed up in the phrase, “locally inte-

grated food economies,” or “LIFE.”

What is a locally integrated food economy,

exactly? Here’s one technical definition: a

system in which “ food production, processing,

distribution, and consumption are integrated

to enhance the environmental, economic,

social, and nutritional health of a particular

geographic location.” [1]

Farmer and essayist Wendell Berry casts the

idea of LIFE in plainer terms: “A viable com-

munity, like a viable farm, protects its own

production capacities. It does not import

products that it can produce for itself. And it

does not export local products until local

needs have been met.” [2]

As a food system becomes more LIFE-like,

more of the money spent on food recirculates

in the local economy, increasing local wealth

through multiplier effects. The economic

and environmental costs of transporting food

over long distances diminish. People’s

understanding of and involvement with the

growing of their food increases. [3]

As a concept, LIFE summons a mental picture

of the entire food system that makes the

connections between its parts easier to grasp

and remember.

It sounds like what it is: a sustainable way

of keeping everyone fed and healthy.

It paints a picture of community food securi-

ty’s destination, and offers pointers toward

the next steps to take in reaching it.


While the manufacturing impulse of economicdevelopment is commonly associated withurban areas, rural locations’ lower operating

costs and proximity to raw food goods often makethem the initial centers of new waves of development. [1]

Oklahoma as a whole exports unfinished agriculturalgoods and imports higher-value finished food prod-ucts. [2] Nevertheless, many new, rurally based foodprocessing enterprises are carving their own nichesin the value added foods sector in the heart of theOklahoma countryside. [3]

Redland Juice Company, Lexington

(Cleveland County)Her company’s rural location has its inconveniences,says Jill Stichler. Power, sewage, and waste disposalare all more complicated to come by than they wouldbe at an urban site.

But other factors trump those hurdles. “We’re here,”she says, “because we couldn’t afford $3,000 a monthin rent” in town.

The “we” to whom Stichler refers are herself and herpartners, co-owners of the Redland Juice Company.Stichler grew up on a Creek County ranch, but her familymoved to Norman when she was in her early teens.

Like her partners Kathy Bates and Jim and RindaSkaggs, she planted a few acres of wine grapes a fewyears back to get in on Oklahoma’s booming wineindustry. “I saw a winery at the corner, and I thought,‘I want to do that.’”

(In Oklahoma, Cleveland County is second only toLincoln in grape production. Oklahoma’s wineriesare a value added success story in their own right, somuch so that they’ve spawned a viticulture programat Redlands Community College in El Reno.)

All of Redland Juice’s partners have less than fiveacres each of grapevines – enough to generate an

appreciable income, if perhaps not a livelihood.

Before long, the partners had their heads togetherover the idea of turning Oklahoma grapes not intowine, but into juice, as a product for children andnon-drinking adults.

In 2002, they received a diversification grant fromthe Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food,and Forestry (ODAFF) to look at the feasibility ofsuch a project. [4]

Groundwork and LegworkEven with such grant programs, Stichler says, “Thefood business is very hard to break into. A lot ofpeople have helped us.”

Among those sources of aid, she names ODAFF, theMade In Oklahoma coalition, the state healthdepartment’s Consumer Protection Division, andOklahoma State University’s Food and AgriculturalProduct Center (FAPC). [5]

The assistance ranged from “understanding grocerystore lingo,” to pointers on tax breaks for starting amanufacturing facility, to a diversification grant for

Adding Value to the Country:Oklahoma’s Rural Food Processors

125


















Cleveland County

219,966 people in 2003 +6% since 2000 [+2%]

1,353 farms in 2002 -6% since 1997 [-1%]:












meals at restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $223.9 million




Major crops: cattle, hay, nursery/greenhouse

Fruit/vegetable crops (on # of farms): pecans(26), apples(17),

tomatoes(16), grapes(15), okra(12) beans(10), and many others

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

< $1

,000

< $2

,499

< $4

,999

< $9

,999

< $1

9,99

9

< $2

4,99

9

< $3

9,99

9

< $4

9,99

9

< $9

9,99

9

< $2

49,9

99

< $4

99,9

99

> $5

00,0

00




retrofitting an old barn as a bottling plant.

Apart from the expense of UPC bar codes, Stichlerobserves that the regulatory costs and paperwork ofstarting Redland Juice’s facility presented few diffi-culties. But, she notes, she and her partners madethe wise move of contacting the relevant agenciesbefore they ever began to build.

“People who wait until they’re ready to start operatingbefore calling, usually are very disappointed with theresults,” she says. “You need to work with FAPC ifyou want to start a food processing facility.”

Even though no one at the FAPC had had any previousexperience with bottling juice, the Center learnedalongside the Redland Juice partners as they workedtogether to assemble the necessary technology.

“The business isn’t like it used to be,” Stichler says.“People used to just get an apple press, put the juicein a jar, keep it cool, and sell it to people.”

Redland juice, by contrast, is cooled, flash-pasteurized,cold-stabilized, and ultrafiltered, in a 30-day process.

Quality: Distinctive and Local“Our philosophy is to have a quality product,”Stichler explains.

“Most grocery store juices are 100% reconstitutedwith water. Ninety-nine point five percent have high-fructose corn syrup added. That’s not what we do.”

Redland juice has no water or sweeteners added,“just straight single-strength juice,” she says.

“They’re vintage juices,” Stichler adds. “It soundslike an oxymoron, but they’re different every year.When people taste what real grape juice tastes like,they can’t believe it.”

Apart from the muscadine variety, which growsbetter in more southerly climes, all of Redland’sjuice comes from Oklahoma grapes.

“I think people are interested in where their foodcomes from,” Stichler says. “I am.”

Since grapes with too little sugar for winemakingcan still yield good juice, Redland’s enterprise createsa market for a low-value byproduct, helping grapegrowers’ incomes. “It doesn’t just benefit us,”Stichler says. “The people who work for us are fromhere. It benefits the community.”

Currently, shoppers can find Redland juices at almostall Oklahoma wineries, most of the state’s travel centersand high-end grocery stores, and several farmers’markets.

In 2004, the first year of operation for the new facility,Redland Juice processed 25 tons of grapes. That figurewas 30 tons the following year, and Stichler hopes tosee it hit 50 tons in the next three to four years.

“No one would purposely build a processing facilitythis small,” she says, with a gesture toward the con-verted barn. “But you have to start small and workyour way up. We’re trying to finance as we go.”

Springhill Farms, Roosevelt (Kiowa County)Financing as you go is a familiar concept to NickCallen. In his view, credit has been one of the moredaunting obstacles to establishing his family’s value-added operation.

“My dad made this place farming dryland cotton, notthe easiest thing in the world,” he says. “Dad wouldn’tbuy anything on credit – I wish I could say the same.”

After forty or fifty years, the boll weevil and bollwormput an end to the Callen family’s cotton farming.Since then, Nick and his wife Karen have devotedtheir 2,000 acres to a cow-calf beef operation, withwheat as an adjunct.

“We’ve looked for a long time for a crop that didn’tdepend on the weather.” (One such “crop” was theranch’s abundant endowment of boulders, which hesold for a time by the trailerload to landscapers.)

“I’d advise people in any kind of agricultural

commodity to look at ways of adding

value to their product within the state.”

Jill Stichler,Redland Juice Company

127



















Kiowa County

9,977 people in 2003 -2% since 2000 [+2%]

662 farms in 2002 -14% since 1997 [-1%]:






Poverty: 19.9% [14.5 %] Unemployment: 4.64% [5.66%]





groceries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $17.3 million





Major crops: cattle, grains, hay

Fruit/vegetable crops (on # of farms): canteloupes(2), okra(2),

tomatoes(2), grapes(1), onions(1), peas(1), squash(1), watermelons(1)

NON METRO- FOOD DESERT

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

< $1

,000

< $2

,499

< $4

,999

< $9

,999

< $1

9,99

9

< $2

4,99

9

< $3

9,99

9

< $4

9,99

9

< $9

9,99

9

< $2

49,9

99

< $4

99,9

99

> $5

00,0

00


In 1995, the couple’s entrepreneurial drive meshedwith Karen’s skill as a baker to give rise to the ideafor an on-farm commercial bakery.

With the aid of the Small Business DevelopmentCenter in Lawton, Karen turned that idea into a20-page business plan, and used the plan in turn tosecure a zero-interest development loan from theCaddo County Electrical Co-op for startup capital.

Diversifying NetworksFrom those beginnings, Springhill Farms’ value-added enterprise has diversified and grown. TheCallens acquired a flour mill early on to support thebakery, and began the process of certifying some oftheir own wheat land as organic.

When herbicides drifting in from others’ pasturesderailed that effort, they instead sourced wheat, aswell as corn, from other Oklahoma organic growers.

From these and other ingredients, Springhill Farmsturns out a wide variety of products, includingcookies, crackers, bread mixes, granola, flour, corn-meal, and salsas. They sell them at health foodstores all over the state, at some farmers’ markets,and through the Oklahoma Food Co-op.

In addition, Springhill has a mutual co-processingarrangement with Pepper Creek Farms, a commercial

kitchen in Lawton. Pepper Creek buys bread mixes,which it previously sourced from Indiana, fromSpringhill to use in its own products; it also manu-factures the salsas that Springhill sells.

Springhill Farms also mills a large monthly order offlour for an organic bakery located elsewhere in the state.

With all these products and sales outlets, Nick Callenasks, “Are we making any money?” His joking answerto his own question is, “That’s what Karen wants toknow!”

The Callens use specialized computer software tokeep track of finances. “We try to build a profit intoeverything we sell: time, propane, and so on.”

“Right now, we have too many different products.We may be at the point of needing a larger mill.”

“We’d like to see the bakery grow to be a real com-plement to the cow-calf operation; it would reallyfinally remove us from being vulnerable to thevagaries of the weather.”

“We’ll probably outgrow this facility and need tobuild a new one.” But, with the initial co-op loanrecently paid off, says Callen, “We don’t want toborrow any more money.”

Christian Cheese, Kingfisher (Kingfisher County)Springhill Farms had to go hunting for their rawmaterials when herbicide drift prevented them fromcertifying their own as organic. Redland Juice founda way to create a use and a market for an existingbyproduct.

George and LaWanna Christian got into processingwhen a new resource – their own bulk fluid milk –was suddenly thrust upon them.

The Christians have been milking Holsteins for 48years. Their contract with a large national buyerspecified that they couldn’t use their milk for any-thing else, or sell it to any other buyers.

Still, if they made a little cheese on the side and soldit locally, the company was willing enough to let itgo with a wink and a nod.

Nine years ago, when another national dairy firm

Nick Callen(r) and an employee at Springhill Farms

129


















Kingfisher County

14,072 people in 2003 +1% since 2000 [+2%]

1,063 farms in 2002 -3% since 1997 [-1%]:











groceries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.9 million


Value of direct sales, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,000



Major crops: cattle, grains, horses

Fruit/vegetable crops (on # of farms):watermelons(3), beans(1), grapes(1),

pecans(1), sweet corn(1), tomatoes(1)

NONMETRO- FOOD DESERT

g

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

< $1

,000

< $2

,499

< $4

,999

< $9

,999

< $1

9,99

9

< $2

4,99

9

< $3

9,99

9

< $4

9,99

9

< $9

9,99

9

< $2

49,9

99

< $4

99,9

99

> $5

00,0

00


Food and Agricultural Products Center The Food and Agricultural Products Center (FAPC) “stimulates and supports the

growth of value-added food and agricultural processing products in Oklahoma.”

Its goal is to help value-added enterprises develop in order “to bring the prod-

ucts, the jobs, and the dollars back home” to Oklahoma.

The FAPC accomplishes that goal by creating links between academic

researchers at its Oklahoma State University location in Stillwater, and private

entrepreneurs throughout the state.

It offers individualized consultation, backed up by a faculty with a wide range of

business and scientific expertise, and a number of processing facilities and

research laboratories.

The FAPC also provides a series of educational programs for Oklahoma’s value-

added producers. One of the most popular of these is “Basic Training.”

Offered once a month on the third Thursday, the FAPC’s Basic Training workshop

is designed to give prospective entrepreneurs an overview of the many factors to

consider in introducing a new food product.

For a $100 fee, participants spend the day learning about topics like business

planning, health regulations, product evaluation and marketing, liability, and

further assistance available to business startups.

The workshop helps potential entrepreneurs determine when their business

idea could begin to make money, how much investment it will require, what

regulations will affect it, and how to identify and reach customers.

Well over 500 people have participated in FAPC’s Basic Training workshop, and

over 40 of them have gone on to succeed in marketing value-added Oklahoma

food products.

Many others have also benefited from FAPC assistance in developing processing

techniques for products as varied as wine, bison jerky, and cheese.


bought out the first company, the Christianscarried on with business as usual. Then oneday, a notice showed up in the mail sayingthat their contract was cancelled.

Apparently the new company wasn’t as tol-erant as the old one, after all. Suddenly, theChristians were swimming in a Holsteinherd’s worth of milk, with no buyer.

“So,” says George Christian, “We got a littlebigger on making cheese.”

Like Stichler and her partners, the Christianssought the aid of the FAPC to develop themarketing aspects of their value-addedcheese operation. FAPC specialists helpedthe Christians identify markets, scheduleproduct demonstrations, and connect withboth buyers and suppliers. [6]

In addition, a Langston University goatcheese researcher helped the Christiansdevelop their cheesemaking techniques.

The Christians start with Grade A milk,produced without any synthetic hormones,antibiotics, or preservatives.

Going from pasteurized milk to finishedcheese takes from 9 to 12 hours, plusanother one to eight weeks for aging in acold room, depending on the type ofcheese.

The finished products – 3,000 pounds permonth – include a variety of cheddar cheeseblocks, horns, and curds, some with addedseasonings like jalapeños, black pepper,sage, and garlic.

Christian Cheese markets its cheeses online,to all 50 U.S. states as well as internationally,and through the Oklahoma Food Co-op.

Forty-odd Oklahoma stores, from Enid toStillwater to Kingfisher, also sell ChristianCheese. The Christians’ fame is spreading;the Food Network recently featured theircheese on their “Food Finds” program.

Chuck Willoughby, FAPC Marketing Specialist

131

Valuable Lessons from Added ValueOne of the key insights from these three examples ofrural value-added development is the ways in whichtheir own financial expansion provides levers for fur-ther economic development within their communi-ties and the state as a whole.

Redland Juice expands the Oklahoma market forlow-sugar grapes unsuitable for winemaking.Similarly, when the granite burrs on SpringhillFarms’ mill needed replacing, a local stonemasonand monument carver turned out to have the neces-sary expertise and equipment.

Springhill’s economic ties with both farmers andother value-added businesses in Oklahoma are aprime illustration of how small firms in supplyregions can literally lift their own regionaleconomies by the bootstraps. [7]

By replacing Oklahoma’s imports of the goods theymanufacture, small value-added enterprises alsogenerate a demand for other goods and services thatlocal suppliers may be able to step up and fill,spurring continued development.

Despite these benefits, both personal and community,many would-be proprietors of value-added enterprisesperceive the requisite health and safety inspections,regulatory paperwork, and licensing fees as beingsimply more trouble than any returns are worth.

However, none of the operators profiled here feltthat these created undue or insurmountable obstacles.

Rather, all seemed to have minimized the problempotential of these factors by proactively engaging theappropriate regulatory agencies and developmentorganizations early in the planning process.

Financing is perhaps a more substantial hurdle fornew value-added food processing businesses, thoughagain, the examples profiled here demonstrate thatcareful research and planning can overcome it.

There is some evidence that economies of scaleoperate for both small and large processors, with theimplication that the credit crunch is most severe forestablished small firms seeking to expand into themiddle size range. [8]

In and of itself, however, that is no argument againstthe entry of many more small operations intoOklahoma’s value added foods sector. In fact, themore small firms take root in the state’s agriculturaleconomy, the greater the positive economic impactsmay be. [9]

As Jill Stichler says, “I’d advise people in any kind ofagricultural commodity to look at ways of addingvalue to their product within the state.”

By replacing Oklahoma’s imports

of the goods they manufacture,

small value-added enterprises

also generate a demand for other

goods and services that local suppliers

may be able to step up and fill,

spurring continued development.


Making Something New: Adding Value to Oklahoma's Crops

Goal: Stimulate the creation of locally owned, value added enterprises for processing rawOklahoma grown commodities.

Public Policy Priorities:• Maintain and enhance the funding and focus of

existing value-added product development programs,such as the FAPC.

• Develop state-operated and -inspected mobileprocessing plants for all types of livestock.

• Ensure sufficient low-cost financing for small-scalestartup food processing ventures.

• Enact legislation to create an alternative certificationstandards for small-scale food processingenterprises, including:

• A program for home-based food processingfor retail, using as a model the law passed inKentucky in 2003.

• Create rural economic development zones –officially designated areas in which small locallyowned food processing businesses would beoffered particular advantages or incentives. Suchincentives might include those commonly used toattract retail chain stores to communities, such as:

• Exemption of sales tax

• Exemption of ad valorem (property) taxes

• Community development block grant

• Enterprise zone—investment tax credit

• Training for industry program in Oklahomavocational-technical schools

• New job income tax credit

• Sales tax exemption for all supplies purchasedin Oklahoma

• Temporary initial tax exemption on land,buildings, improvements, machinery, fixturesand equipment

133

Grass-fed beef. Pastured poultry. Organic produce.As people become increasingly concerned aboutthe health, nutritional, and ecological impacts

of their diets, foods like these are at the crest of awave of consumer demand.

As that wave swells, it generates opportunities forfarmers willing to ride it to command higher pricesfor their crops and livestock.

This cycle of demand for greener, healthier foodscreates a more vital network of local farms andmore community food security. [1]

Of the many factors influencing community foodsecurity, perhaps none is more critical for sustainingagriculture than changing marketing systems in waysthat allow farms to add value to their products. [2]

Raising food in healthier and more sustainable waysis one way to add value. The signposts to profitabil-ity in this approach are the labels that advertisefoods’ health and sustainability qualities to con-sumers. At one end of the spectrum, these labelsmay be hand-lettered signs at a farmers’ market stallreading, “no synthetic chemicals,” or “grass-fed.”

At the other extreme, the labels are official sealsvouching for farmers’ adherence to specific produc-tion standards, as verified by third-party certifiers –as in the case of the USDA organic standards.

Up Close and PersonalIn general, the smaller and closer that farms are totheir customers, the greater the role of personaltrust in backing up the labels.

For instance, the state’s array of direct-market meatsboast a plethora of labels like “natural,” “grass-fed,”“chemical-free,” “pastured,” and so on. There is nolegally defined meaning for these terms.

Rather, their meaning is user-defined, negotiatedbetween growers and customers.

One consumer survey, in Iowa, found that the labelwith the most appeal to consumers was “locallygrown by family farmers.” [1]

For a variety of reasons, locally grown is acquiringthe cachet of organic. One outcome of that trend isa kind of place-based labeling, with “certification”growing out of trust in relationships between farmersand customers.

Recognition of that trust underlies regional labelingcampaigns, such as Community Involved inSustaining Agriculture’s (CISA) “Be a Local Hero”logo in western Massachusetts.

Other examples include Iowa’s “Taste of Iowa”certification mark, and the “Buy Fresh, Buy Local”advertising toolkit developed by FoodRoutes, nowin use from California’s central coast, to KansasCity, to western Pennsylvania. [3]

This affinity for the local creates the appeal of the

Chapter Twelve: Something Different: Food Labels

Demand for Health: Community Food Security SurfsÍthe Wave of Value Added Food Labeling


Made In OklahomaCoalitionThe Made In Oklahoma (MIO) Coalition

seeks to increase the sales of businesses

that produce, process, or distribute some

portion of their food products in Oklahoma,

and market processed food products to

Oklahoma grocery stores and restaurants.

Founded in 2000, the MIO Coalition launched

a cooperative marketing campaign intended

to “promote food brand awareness, trade

and consumer loyalty for Oklahoma food

products.” This “Made In Oklahoma” adver-

tising reaches customers via television and

radio commercials, print advertisements,

and in-store promotions.

The MIO Coaliton works to increase the

market for Oklahoma farm products, assist

producers, processors, and distributors with

marketing those products to retailers and

food service establishments, and increase

the retention of businesses in Oklahoma as

well as the expansion of such businesses.

As of 2004, MIO Coalition members employed

more than 28,000 Oklahomans, with a

combined payroll of over $900 million. Their

total sales were above $2.3 billion, about

half of which came from outside the state.

For more information on the Made In

Oklahoma Coaltion, see

www.miocoalition.com.

“Made In Oklahoma” (MIO) label, found on the products of the mem-bers of a coalition of food manufacturers who process, produce, or dis-tribute at least some of their wares in Oklahoma (see sidebar). [4]

It explains the wide and growing support for the “Oklahoma Grown”designation that the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food andForestry (ODAFF) gives to farmers’ markets that only sell producegrown within the state. [5]

It’s a major selling point for the Oklahoma Food Co-op, and a funda-mental feature of CSA farms. [6]

Apparently, such labels help sales. “Made In Oklahoma” member busi-nesses racked up $2.3 billion in sales in 2004. [4]

Scaling Up, Trading OffKerr Center surveys have found that over half of Oklahoma City shop-pers purchase natural or organic foods “occasionally,” “frequently,” or“always.”

In their purchasing decisions, these consumers rate health and safety astheir primary concern, with price mattering less than any other factorexcept convenience. [7] These shoppers eat beef three or more timesper week on average. Surprisingly, their personal income is not stronglyrelated to their willingness to pay more for natural beef. [8]

Still, the same factors that make personal trust and local origin workableas criteria for “certification” may limit the potential volume of goodsmoved.

Many processors and retailers – including both the growing number ofconventional grocery stores now handling organic foods, as well as “natu-ral food” stores [8] – are unable to afford the financial and logistical over-head of verifying farmers’ claims of sustainability for themselves and theirshoppers.

Instead, they rely on third-party certifiers’ labels.

The sustainable-food market supports many such certification protocols.Criteria may include animal welfare, labor conditions, and other aspects offarming. [9]

The Southern Plains Agricultural Resources Coalition, or SPARC, agroup of wheat growers in western Oklahoma, has contracted with FoodAlliance, a certifier whose criteria permit the limited use of syntheticpesticides, so long as farm management improves soil quality. [10]

Probably the most familiar certification is the USDA’s national organicprogram (NOP).

The NOP standards, which gained the force of federal law in 2002, codify

135

a set of practices agricultural producers, processors,and retailers must follow to legally display the USDA“organic” seal. [11]

Certified organic farms may not use synthetic pesticidesor fertilizers on a list of prohibited substances. Theyare banned from using antibiotics and geneticallymodified crops. [9]

These guarantees, like food with a local origin, havea strong attraction for health- and environmentally-conscious shoppers. Nationwide, 65% of consumerswho choose certified organic foods do so preciselyfor their certified freedom from pesticides andantibiotics. [12]

This is not just about perceptions: a 2005 studyfound lower pesticide levels in organic produce ascompared to conventionally grown foods. [13]

A Double-Edged SealFrom its beginnings as a fringe movement, organicfood has grown into an industry – and it meansbusiness. [14] Though only about two percent ofU.S. retail food sales are organic, [15] organic saleshave been growing at 20% annually since 1990. [16,17]

Since 2000, over half of those sales have been in

supermarkets, as many corporate giants of traditionalfood retailing have either bought or launched majororganic brands. [17,18,19]

With demand outstripping supply, more organicfoods are now imported than exported. Between tenand 15% of the organic foods sold in the U.S. comefrom other countries. [17,20,21]

That rapid and massive growth means that consumers’association of the certified organic label with smallfamily farms and U.S.-grown foods does not alwaysmatch the reality on the ground.

The more environmentally benign mode of agricul-ture mandated by the organic regulations fostersecological sustainability, a key component of com-munity food security.

However, as organic farming outgrows the local scale,its other ties to community food security, in social

The label with the most appeal

to consumers was “locally grown

by family farmers.”


and economic dimensions, are becoming moreambiguous.

Between 1992 and 2003, the number of certifiedorganic farms and acres in the U.S. both more thandoubled, to over 8,000 farms and more than 2 millionacres. [22] So far, Oklahoma farmers have been rela-tively slow to poke a toe in the roiling waters of theorganic industry, but here, too, organic is growing.

In 2002, Oklahoma had six certified organic farms,with a total of $12,000 in sales. (Among similar statesin the same year, Arkansas had 19 farms with $136,000in sales; Kansas, 227 farms and $2.3 million; andIowa, 402 farms and $13.3 million.)

The following year, the Made in Oklahoma Coalitionlisted 17 certified organic farms in the state, whilethe USDA counted 22. [4,22,23] According to ChadGoss, Oklahoma Organic Coordinator, in early 2006the state was home to 27 certified organic crop andvegetable producers, four livestock raisers, and fiveprocessors handling a mixture of meat and grain.

Charting the WavesGoss looks for the sedate pace of growth inOklahoma certified organic production to pick up,with the anticipated opening of a new certifiedorganic meat processing plant.

While he’s quick to point out that ODAFF’s fee forcertification – up to 300 acres for $100 – is more rea-sonable than those charged by private certifiers, Gossadmits that the sheer amount of paperwork requiredmay be an additional barrier for some producers.

Still, he expects nothing but continued growth inOklahoma’s slowly budding organic food sector. For once, that slowness may be a blessing in disguise,offering time to find ways to maintain organic farming’s

benefits for community food security within the state.

“I was at a farmers’ market recently,” Goss relates,“on a cold Saturday morning, and the turnout wasunbelievable. A lot of people would rather buy localOklahoma organic than from California.”

At many Oklahoma farmers’ markets, organic foodsconstitute a sizeable portion of the produce offeredfor sale. Roughly a third of farmers’ market shoppersconsider it “very important” that organically grownproduce be available at the market; a quarter of themfeel the same way about that produce being certified.

But the most important reason why they shop at themarket, overall, is “product quality and freshness,”followed closely by “supporting local farmers.” [24]

Such a combination of local and organic is the idealblend for community food security. [25] The verypresence of labels advertising these qualities is areflection of the rising groundswell of demand forhealthy, sustainably grown food.

How Oklahomans choose to satisfy that wave ofdemand – from a numerous and diverse array ofsmall local organic farms, or from a handful ofgigantic ones over the horizon – will determinewhether it carries them toward or away from com-munity food security.

This cycle of demand for greener,

healthier foods creates a more vital

network of local farms and more

community food security.

137

“We’re farmers, we’re not marketers,” saysJohn Gosney. Maybe he’s just beingmodest.

Or perhaps he’s thinking that his family’s twodecades of certified organic wheat farming, alongwith more recent starts on natural beef marketingand on-farm flour milling, seem short compared tothe years and generations that have passed since hisgreat-great-grandfather staked claim to the family’sCentennial Farm in 1893.

Still, even if Gosney feels surest in his farmingexpertise, the marketing skills that he and his wifeKris have developed are what’s keeping them infarming, and he admits as much.

“You add more value, you retain more money,” hesays. “That’s what keeps us alive.”

One of the Gosneys’ main means of adding value isthrough labeling. They sell certified organic wheatunder a “GO Organic” logo, and natural beef – raisedwithout hormone implants or antibiotics – with a“Cattle Tracks” label.

These labels vouch for the health and nutritionalqualities of the foods that bear them, attractingpremium prices from consumers willing to paymore for the difference.

Healthy from Root to TipFor the Gosneys, those healthy qualities start fromthe ground up.

“It’s all in correlation, from the soil, to the plant, tothe animal, to the human body,” says Gosney. “TheBible says we’re made from the dust of the earth.We’re just a different form of dust, with a livingspirit in us.”

Having raised wheat and cattle all his life, Gosneygot started farming organically eighteen years ago,when he leased land from an organic neighbor.

“I liked what organic was, and what it was doing,”he says. “It’s just a natural way of doing things, andI believe that it’s the way the good Lord intends usto do things.”

The Gosneys’ 5,000-acre operation in Major County isnow almost all organic, with the exception of some landleased from owners who prefer that it not be certified.

A couple of years ago, the Gosneys opened anotherfront in their campaign to add value – this time byprocessing in addition to labeling, with the installationof a flour mill on the farm. Now, they direct-marketcertified organic whole-grain wheat flour. [1]

But the vast majority of their wheat still leaves thefarm intact, for processing at organic mills elsewhere.

“This little dab we grind is just a drop in the bucket,”says Gosney. “Someday, I’d like it to be the other wayaround.”

More Money – If You Can Keep ItUntil that day comes, or until the marketing infra-structure for organic commodity grains matures,

Spirit in the Dust: Organic Wheat and Natural Beefat John’s Farm

John Gosney and family raise organic wheat in western Oklahoma.


anyone wanting to share in the increased profits of raising organic grainwill face hurdles at all stages of marketing it.

The Gosneys get a premium price for their certified organic wheat. Inrecent years, nationwide, certified organic wheat has sold for roughly50% more than conventional. [2]

In fact, even without that premium, organic grains’ lower input costs,and their tendency toward greater drought resistance, make them moreprofitable than conventional about half the time. [3]

However, ongoing growing pains in the organic commodity grains sec-tor mitigate that advantage to some extent. “Organic marketing istough,” says Gosney. “I mean, it is a struggle.”

While conventional wheat seems to have an elevator waiting for it inevery town in the western Plains, organic wheat buyers often have so lit-tle storage capacity that growers may have little choice but to invest intheir own storage facilities. [2]

Even when the crop is delivered, the lack of spot markets for organicwheat, and the shaky financial footing of many buyers, can mean thatfarmers may have to wait months or even a year for payment – if itcomes at all. [2]

“There’s probably plenty of organic wheat in the country. Organicmills are developing just like the organic farmer, and I think their cashflow is probably just as tough as mine,” Gosney says.

In addition to cash flow problems, organic mills are few and far between,and the cost of shipping grain to out-of-state mills is increasingly expen-sive. The Gosneys ship their wheat to mills in Texas, Kansas, NorthDakota, and North Carolina. In the past, they sent the grain by truck,but more recently, faced with rising fuel costs, they’ve switched to rail.

“I wish we had an organic mill right here in Oklahoma,” says Gosney.

On the meat side, the labeling and processing components of theGosneys’ value-added strategies are on a more even footing with oneanother.

“We’ve kind of redefined the term ‘retained ownership,’” Gosneyexplains. “We raise all our own feed. We raise, process, and market

“Organic mills are developing just like the organic farmer,

and I think their cash flow is probably just as tough as mine.

I wish we had an organic mill right here in Oklahoma.”

– John Gosney, John’s Farm

e

Whole Grain NutritionIn Oklahoma, 44.6% of individuals meet

the dietary requirements for grains, versus

43.7% in the U.S. [1]

Grains are high in dietary fiber, as well as

such nutrients as protein, B vitamins,

Vitamin E, and iron. The USDA dietary

guidelines suggest that adults should eat

between 5 and 8 ounce equivalents of

grains per day. [2,3]

The guidelines recommend that at least

half the grains eaten be whole grains. [2,3]

Whole grains are higher in many key

nutrients than refined flour. These include

calcium, magnesium, and potassium, as

well as dietary fiber. [2,3]

This is because, in the process of refining

flour, the bran and endosperm are removed

from the grain kernel, leaving only the

germ (see figure). [2,3,4]

However, enriched flour is high in certain

other nutrients. These include folic acid,

thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, and iron. This is

because these nutrients are usually added

back to enriched flour after refining. [2,3]

Individuals concerned about their dietary

intakes of given food groups or nutrients

should consult a physician or dietician.

An acre of wheat can be turned

into bread that will feed one

Oklahoma family for ten years. [6]

139

our meat, and sell it direct.”

About half the calf crop from the Gosneys’ 75-cowherd currently ends up as custom-processed cuts fordirect sales. For the moment, though some of theirbeef cattle are already certified organic, they arewaiting until the entire herd attains that status beforemarketing the meat as such, in order to simplifyhandling.

The Fine PrintFor both wheat and meat, Gosney paints the processof qualifying for certification as perhaps the leastproblematic aspect of marketing under a certifiedorganic label.

With the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture’sorganic division conducting certification for feesconsiderably lower than those charged by privatecertifiers, cost need not be a major concern, either.

However, a substantial amount of recordkeeping isnecessary. And even without organic certification,the challenge of getting the ingredient and nutri-tional labels’ text and arrangement into line withregulations can be daunting. [4]

“We’re just getting the packaging, the labeling, allfigured out,” says Gosney. “It’s just a process. Ittakes years – it doesn’t all just happen overnight.”

Sales, too, take time to build. In the beginning, saysGosney, “You give a lot away.”

In addition to supplying mills with certified organicwheat, the Gosneys sell their home-ground flour tobakeries, and have outlets for both flour and meatthrough a food store in their home town of Fairview,through their own website, and via the OklahomaFood Co-op. They also plan to open a booth at theOSU Oklahoma City Farmers’ Market.

In certification as well as sales development, though,patience literally pays off. The Gosneys get customercalls from as far away as California and Maine.

“We’ve sold more meat the past two months than inthe previous two years,” Gosney says. “If it contin-ues to grow like it has been, we won’t have enoughbeef – which will be a good problem to have.”

In plotting their operation’s response to that surgingdemand, the Gosneys are proceeding cautiously.

“If we get much bigger, we’ll need a little help. JustKris and I can’t do much more.”

“Will it be profitable? I don’t know. There aren’tmany people who do what we’re trying to do, Iknow that. It’s lots of work.”

Fresh StartsThere may be lots of work, but Gosney relishes it.

“Organic farming makes you more creative,” he says.“It makes you think. You’ve got to plan more. Youcan’t just go out there and do the same thing everyyear. You’ve got to rotate crops, be thinking two tothree years ahead all the time. I enjoy that challenge.”

What are some of Gosney’s responses to the chal-

“I’d like to see everybody get

into organic. We need a million

local farmers doing this.”



lenges of farming five thousand acres organically?

At any given time, he keeps as much as 50-60% ofhis acreage in green manure crops.

For additional fertility, he uses composted chickenmanure, and wants to try feedlot compost.

Organic gardening enthusiasts may picture five-gallonbuckets when they hear the phrase “compost tea;” theGosneys brew it up in a pair of thousand-gallon tanks.

With all this large-scale organic innovation, Gosneysays, “I think I can raise just as good wheat as myneighbor. I’m not consistent at it yet – I’m hopingto get to that point.”

Gosney’s upbeat attitude on organic farming clearlyoverwhelms his reservations about the hurdles to becleared in marketing the resulting produce undervalue-added labels, and colors his hopes for the future.

“Organic farming has given me a new outlook on life,”he says. “I just feel like this is how I should do it.”

“If a young person wants to start farming, I believehe can make it by doing it organically. Starting fromscratch, you’re not going to make it conventionally –but you could do a small organic farm and grow. You’dsell out right away if you had an organic garden.”

John Gosney’s farm is one of only eight Oklahomafarms growing certified organic small grains – com-pared to nearly ten thousand wheat farms in thestate. [5] But that doesn’t dampen his enthusiasmone bit.

“I’d like to see everybody get into organic,” he says.“We need a million local farmers doing this.”

“We’ve kind of redefined the term

‘retained ownership’. We raise all our

own feed. We raise, process, and

market our meat, and sell it direct.”


Something Different:Food Labels

Goal: Help Oklahoma farmers to meetlocal shoppers’ growing demand forhealthy, organic, and sustainablyproduced foods.

Public Policy Priorities:• Raise the profile of existing Oklahoma-origin

labeling programs such as the Made inOklahoma Coalition, Oklahoma Grownfarmers' markets, etc.

• Provide further technical assistance withproduct packaging, labeling and otherregulations to producers developing valueadded food products.

• Conduct studies on the Oklahoma marketpotential for organic and reduced pesticide-use produce.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

< $1

,000

< $2

,499

< $4

,999

< $9

,999

< $1

9,99

9

< $2

4,99

9

< $3

9,99

9

< $4

9,99

9

< $9

9,99

9

< $2

49,9

99

< $4

99,9

99

> $5

00,0

00

141



















Major County

NON METRO - NON FOOD DESERT

7,422 people in 2003 -2% since 2000 [+2%]

879 farms in 2002 -10% since 1997 [-1%]:













Value of direct sales, 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15,000



Major crops: cattle, grains, hay

Fruit/vegetable crops (on # of farms): grapes(6), peaches(4),

watermelon(4), apples(1), apricots(1), beans(1), canteloupes(1), and others


Seventy-odd giant windmills slowly churn the skyfrom the ridges around Weatherford, turningthe sun-baked air of the southern Plains into a

clean, renewable source of electrical power.

However, more than just hot air is driving other cur-rents of rural sustainability in western Oklahoma.

Larry Wright, the Resource Conservation andDevelopment Coordinator for southwestern Oklahoma’sGreat Plains Area, is helping wheat growers chart acourse through some of those currents.

With a group of farmers, university staff, and otheragency personnel, Wright in 2004 formed theSouthern Plains Agricultural Resources Coalition, orSPARC.

The group’s aim, he says, is to “spark” sustainablechange in the region’s agriculture.

Wright began formulating the idea of SPARC as akind of self-test as he completed a five-year area planfor the Great Plains RC&D.

To really make a difference, he thought, any conser-vation plan would have to affect a large portion ofthe land area. In western Oklahoma, that line ofthought leads straight to wheat (see map). [1]

“So,” Wright asked himself, “What can I do to addvalue to wheat?”

The Value of IdeasOriginally from Hinton, Wright is a career NaturalResources Conservation Service (NRCS, formerlythe Soil Conservation Service) employee with 22years under his belt as district conservationist forWeatherford. So he naturally thought of answers tothat question in terms of conservation.

“This is catching the wave of the ConservationSecurity Program,” he says, “The idea of rewardingfarmers for stewardship.”

SPARC’s idea, he says,is to take wheat into themarket not as a com-modity, but as a finishedproduct, produced in anenvironmentally friendlyway.

“It’s a new way of think-ing,” says Wright. “Weneed that in agriculturein order to be economi-cally sustainable.”

According to Wright,SPARC’s economicrationale is similar to the one that planted windmillsoutside Weatherford. “We all want to do our part,”he says. “People are willing to pay more for sustain-ability.”

“Wind-generated electricity costs $5 more amonth,” Wright says. “Within the first 6 months,they had 8,000 people sign up.”

To generate the same “green” consumer appeal forwheat, SPARC proposes to create a certified labelfor products made from wheat produced in accor-dance with its standards of sustainability.

To qualify for the label, producers must be certifiedby an independent third-party inspector. SPARChas negotiated an arrangement with the Portland,Oregon-based Food Alliance to conduct the inspec-tions and certification. [2]

In winter 2005-6, SPARC elected its board of directorsand officers. It also drew 277 participants to a SPARC-sponsored no-till seminar in Hollis, and has moreworkshops slated for January and February 2007.

As of November 2006, according to Wright, tenOklahoma wheat farmers had signed up and paidtheir SPARC membership fees.

SPARC-ing Change on the Plains:Soil, Health, and Sustainable Wheat

143

Making the GradeThe SPARC label tells the consumer that the wheatin certified products was grown in a way thatimproves soil health and water quality, two ofSPARC’s priority resource concerns.

Criteria for certification are based on growers’ use ofpractices that improve the soil conditioning index,such as minimal tillage, and maintaining soil surfacecover in the form of crop residues or cover crops. [2]

The Food Alliance certification criteria include fourfixed standards that must be met by all certifyingfarms. These are: no genetically modified organ-isms, no use of synthetic hormones or feed additiveantibiotics, no use of a prohibited list of highly toxicpesticides, and continual improvement in productionand management practices.

In addition to these fixed criteria, there are other“scored standards,” for which farmers receive pointson a sliding scale, with a set minimum number ofpoints required for certification. These includewhole farm standards, such as soil and water conser-

vation, reducing pesticides, safe and fair workingconditions, and animal welfare.

Finally, there is a set of product-specific standardsthat must also be met to complete the certificationprocess. For wheat, these include detailed evalua-tions of cover crop usage, seedbed preparation, grainstorage, and several other practices.

The Dough in WheatAs consumers opt for SPARC’s certified, labeledwheat products, they will help the coalition realizeits third priority research concern – that of improv-ing local rural economies.

“We ask only the cost of production, plus a reason-able rate of return,” Wright explains.

As part of that rate of return, the consumer pays apremium for the ecosystem services, such as soil andwater conservation, provided by environmentallyfriendly wheat farming.

Here, too, Wright uses wind power as an analogy.“The payment from one of those windmills to the

Oklahoma’s Wheat Belt

Oklahoma

1 Dot = 2,000 acres harvested

Wheat


landowner is about $4,000 a year,” he says.

While there are just seventy windmills in the area,SPARC envisions much higher participation, andthus more broadly distributed economic returns,from its sustainable wheat marketing strategy.

SPARC’s scenario runs like this: Imagine that a regu-lar loaf of bread costs $1.00, of which the wheatgrower receives 3 cents. Now, say that a loaf ofbread bearing the SPARC label retails for $1.05.

“If we can get the producer another 3 cents our of thatextra nickel,” Wright says, “We’ve doubled his income.”

“Then,” Wright continues, “what if a third – or half– or even all, of the wheat growers sign up? Whathas that done for the economy?”

SPARC is focusing first on wheat, Wright says,because the crop is such a major part of westernOklahoma’s farm economy.

But once the system is in place, he points out, it canbe expanded to other crops – cotton, beef, fruits andvegetables – as well as to other areas, both in Oklahomaand in neighboring states.

Wright emphasizes the market-oriented nature ofSPARC’s strategy, providing a product to satisfy con-sumers’ expressed demand while using a price pre-mium to persuade farmers to change their practices.

Shades of GreenVoters’ desire for a greener agriculture, Wright says,is evident in the fact that conservation programsmoved up to Title II in the most recent farm bill,though their level of funding has lagged behind.

“As taxpayers, we give up our dollar before the finalsay,” he says, “And the money doesn’t always showup where we wanted it.”

But as consumers, Wright says, “We keep the powerright up until we lay that dollar down.”

When farmers can perceive – and benefit from – thatconsumer desire, Wright believes, it creates a powerfulincentive for change. While traditional federal farm con-servation payments could in effect penalize farmers whowere already practicing good stewardship, green price

premiums reward both new and existing practitioners.

“You reward the best, and motivate the rest,” Wrightsays.

While the price premiums sound appealing, much ofthe interest SPARC has generated among wheatfarmers has stemmed instead from what conservationtillage might save them in fuel costs.

By shifting to chemical rather than mechanical controlof weeds, Wright explains, farmers are “not burningall that diesel, not pulling all that iron through the fields.”

No-till has drawn criticism from some environmen-talists for that same, more chemical-intensiveapproach to crop production.

However, Wright points to one wheat grower who hasbeen using no-till techniques for 12 years, and nowuses smaller quantities of herbicides than neighboringconventional farmers because the crop residue in hisfields is so effective as a weed-controlling mulch.

Wright also points out that SPARC’s producer standardwill not have to be no-till in all cases, so long as growersmaintain a positive soil conditioning index. [3]

Too, he points out, organic farming’s reputation foravoidance of synthetic pesticides can sometimesconceal other negative environmental effects, suchas soil erosion from intensive mechanical tillage.

“It’s possible to raise wheat organically and not producethe benefits that we will produce,” he says.

SPARC’s emphasis on soil condition stems in partfrom evidence suggesting that crops grown on high-quality soils have higher nutritional value.

In the case of the twelve-year no-till system mentionedearlier, Wright says the farmer’s wheat crops consis-tently yield higher, and have higher protein content,than the area’s average, despite lower-than averagefertilizer application rates.

“When you shift to production efficiency – boom!All the vitamins and nutrients drop out of the soil,”says Wright.

“We, as American farmers, have done great at feedingthe world. We need to shift to quality.”

145

Throughout the United States, farmers and ranchershave been waging an uphill battle against theincreasing size of cities and suburbs. This growth

and expansion is eating away at some of America’smost valuable agricultural land, while driving landprices and taxes beyond the reach of most farmers andranchers. [1,2]

Oklahoma is not immune to this phenomenon (Seesidebar, p. 150). While the Sooner State is rankedlower in the amount of agricultural land lost to devel-opment than some surrounding states, Oklahoma stillranks in the top half of states losing their farming andranching capabilities to unfettered development. [2]

The map of Oklahoma agricultural land loss showswhere high quality (also known as prime) farmlandis being lost to urban development. Farmland in or

near the Oklahoma City and Tulsa metropolitanareas is in particular danger. [3]

For community food security, the most direct benefitof protecting farmland is in maintaining the necessaryland base for producing a local food supply. However,farmland preservation also has many other positiveimpacts for local communities, including lower costsof public services, increased tax revenues, improvedflood control, and higher water and air quality. (Seep. 152.)

Land Legacy, a nonprofit land trust that works topreserve Oklahoma farmland, has put over 3,000acres under conservation easements in 21 completedprojects in nine Oklahoma counties during its threeyears of existence. [4,5] (See sidebar, p. 146.)

A conservation easement is a voluntary legal agreement

Chapter Thirteen:Saving Farmland: Urban Sprawl and Family Farms

Farmland Preservation in Oklahoma

What is high quality farmland? The American Farmland Trust (AFT) combines

two definitions:

1) land most suitable for producing food,

feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops

(USDA definition of prime farmland);

2) land used to grow vegetables, grapes and

horticultural crops, including fruits, nuts

and berries, that have unique soil and

climatic requirements (AFT definition of

unique farmland).High & Low Quality Farmland/Low Develpment

High-Quality Farmland/High Development

OklahomaFarming on the Edge


by which landowners can donate, or sell, the rights todevelop their land. Land placed under an easementis protected from development in perpetuity. Sucharrangements allow landowners to receive economicbenefits from the rising value of their land, whilepreserving open space and agricultural productivity.(See sidebar, above, for more on easements andother tools used to protect farmland.)

The areas that Land Legacy has protected includeworking farm and ranch lands, former rail lines nowbeing converted to trails, greenbelts at urban edges,and parks and other open spaces in the hearts of thestate’s largest cities.

In the early going, Land Legacy acquired most ofthese easement acres as donations from landownersseeking a way to keep farming their land while pro-tecting it from development.

As development continues to drive up land prices,this approach has become less feasible. To adapt,Land Legacy has shifted its focus to purchasing moreeasements, and initiating contacts with landowners.It has also devised a new strategic plan. [5,6]

Land LegacyLand Legacy began as the Oklahoma state office of the Trust

for Public Land, a national, nonprofit land conservation

organization. [16] In January, 2003, in partnership with the

Kerr Center, Land Legacy was incorporated as a separate

nonprofit land conservation organization for Oklahoma,

with Kerr Center President Jim Horne serving on the board

of directors. [17,18]

Headquartered in Tulsa, Land Legacy is the only statewide

land trust in Oklahoma. Its mission is “to conserve and enhance

rural and urban landscapes,” preserving open space while

allowing agricultural production to continue in areas under

high development pressure. The organization serves both

Oklahoma and other areas of the south central United States.

Land Legacy works cooperatively with public agencies, other

conservation organizations, and landowners to establish

long-term conservation goals and programs, to identify

specific parcels of land whose conservation is consistent with

those goals, and to determine which specific tools are best

suited to each individual project.

■ Agricultural District Programs

– special farmer-organized areas

where commercial agriculture is

encouraged and protected.

■ Agricultural Conservation

Easements – preserve landowners’

right to use their land for farming,

ranching and other purposes

that do not interfere with or

reduce agricultural viability

(see p. 148 for more).

■ Purchase of Agricultural

Conservation Easement (PACE)

Programs – pay property owners

to protect their land from devel-

opment. Known also as purchase

of development rights (PDR).

■ Executive Orders – document

the importance of agriculture

and farmland to their states’

economies, environment, and

culture.

■ Growth Management Laws –

control the timing and phasing

of urban growth and the types

of land use that will be permitted.

■ Right-to-Farm Laws – protect

farmers and ranchers from

nuisance lawsuits.

■ Agricultural Protection Zoning

– designates land use; a tool of

local government.

More information and ways to

protect farmland can be gathered

through the American Farmland

Trust (AFT), the nation’s largest

private, nonprofit conservation

organization dedicated to

protecting agricultural resources.

AFT has developed numerous

act sheets, as well as the

Farmland Information Center, a

clearinghouse for information

about farmland protection and

stewardship. The Farmland

Information Center was produced

in partnership with the USDA’s

Natural Resources Conservation

Service. [19]

Tools for Protecting Agricultural Land

147

“We had to prioritize areas where we could reallymake a difference, not only where there was a con-servation need,” says Land Legacy ExecutiveDirector Robert Gregory. “Now we are focusingour resources by identifying properties that areimportant to conserve and then knocking on land-owners’ doors. We have fewer projects and acres,but we have more meaningful results.” [6]

The new plan’s priority areas include preserving primeagricultural land near urban areas, and protectingthe Spavinaw Creek watershed, which providesdrinking water for Tulsa.

One of the most active fronts in the first priorityarea – preserving prime farmland near cities – lies inthe flat and fertile flood plains of the Arkansas Riversouth of Tulsa, where the town of Bixby is located.The town, once miles away from the larger city, hasnow become an adjacent suburb.

Bixby is known for its abundant farm stands sellingfresh vegetables and fruits. In fact, the city’s slogan,‘Garden Spot of Oklahoma,’ reinforces agriculture’simportance to the surrounding communities. [7]

However, “the land surrounding Bixby is also desirablefor urban uses because it tends to be flat, and naturallywell drained. As a result, land there is becoming moreaffordable to developers than farmers,” says LandLegacy in a study on farmland conservation in theBixby Bottomlands. [8] The high cost of this landmakes purchasing conservation easements moredifficult, Gregory says.

Another important place in Land Legacy’s intensifiedefforts to keep farm and urban lands in balance is theLawton/Fort Sill area. As urban growth expandstoward formerly isolated military bases, trainingexercises can create nuisances in nearby neighborhoods.

Joining forces with the Department of Defense, LandLegacy is actively working to protect a 20,000-acrebuffer zone around Fort Sill. Cache rancher A.J.Ryder sold the first 300-acre easement in July of2006. [9]

Another 15 landowners, representing some 4,000 acresall together, have signed commitments to includetheir land in the Fort Sill Army Compatible UseBuffer Program. Funding for the Fort Sill projectcomes from the Department of Defense, the U.S.Department of Agriculture, the State of Oklahoma,and the Comanche County Industrial DevelopmentAuthority. [10]

That long list of partners is mirrored in Land Legacy’scurrent work in the other priority areas of its strategicplan. In its efforts to protect the Spavinaw Creekwatershed, for example, the organization is partneringwith the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to preservestrips of buffer vegetation along sensitive creeksidesto reduce erosion and agricultural runoff. This willimprove water quality for human consumption whilepreserving habitat for endangered species. [11]

The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’sFarm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)is another key Land Legacy partner, providing up to50% matching funds for the purchase of conservationeasements. FRPP allocated over $700,000 to Oklahomain the 2006 fiscal year. [12]

For preservation efforts, especially in high cost areassuch as Bixby, Gregory says that more private donationsare needed to match USDA funds.

Although Land Legacy is the only statewide land trustoperating in Oklahoma, other local trusts are alsotaking up the work of farmland preservation.Examples include the Edmond Land Conservancyand the Norman Area Land Conservancy. [13]

Conservationist Aldo Leopold once noted that “tokeep every wheel and cog is the first rule of intelligenttinkering.” [14] Oklahoma’s remaining farms andfarmers are essential parts of a healthy state foodsystem. Oklahoma would do well to preserve its farm-land as it tinkers with new approaches to communityfood security.

Conservation easements allow landowners

to receive economic benefits from the

rising value of their land while preserving

open space and agricultural productivity.


■ Just as mineral rights and water rights have longbeen severed, bought, and sold, a willing landownercan sell or donate the development rights to a pub-lic agency or a qualified conservation entity througha deed of conservation easement. The landownerretains full possession and use of the property forpurposes other than those restricted by the easement.

■ Conservation easements are voluntary, compensa-tory tools to protect land from development pressureat prices that are more affordable for public agenciesand conservation organizations than outright pur-chases. A conservation easement is an economicalway to protect scenic views and other open spacesthat are important to the community.

■ Conservation easements may be perpetual orterm (set to expire after a predetermined number ofyears). Donations of easements are only taxdeductible, however, if they are perpetual.

■ Just as importantly, easements leave private landsin private ownership, and keep the land productive,providing essential landowner stewardship and con-tributing to the local tax base.

■ Easements provide an economically viable alterna-tive to subdivision and development, by compensat-ing landowners for the development rights theywould forego by keeping the bulk of their propertyas open space, rather than converting it, for exam-ple, to a strip mall or a housing subdivision.

■ Conservation easements are flexible documents;they can be tailored to meet the needs of individuallandowners. They can also be tailored to suit uniqueproperties. The specific development rights that alandowner will forgo or restrict are fully negotiablebetween the landowner and the qualified conserva-tion entity. For example, while restricting a subdivi-sion, landowners may want to reserve the right todevelop a limited number of home sites.

■ Many open space uses are generally permissibleincluding farming, ranching, hunting, fishing, andother activities that do not damage the property'sconservation values.

■ Like other property rights, development rightscan be appraised and assessed a value. Dependingon proximity to urban areas and other factors, thedevelopment rights can comprise over 80% of aproperty's appraised fair market value.

■ Donations of conservation easements to eligibleentities are normally tax-deductible at their appraisedfair market value.

■ Voluntary conservation easements can be valuableestate planning tools for landowners. By reducingestate taxes, conservation easements can helplandowners pass on their land to their children andgrandchildren.

Excerpted from Protecting Farm and Ranch Landsthrough Conservation EasementsRobert Gregory and Terence BidwellOSU Cooperative Extension Service FactSheet F-2879

Facts about Conservation Easements

149

During the eighties, Conrad Farms was like manyfarms in the United States.

The Conrads had slowly expanded the acreage theycultivated along the Arkansas River in the Bixbybottomlands. They were wholesaling the vegetablesgrown on their farm to over 20 states and Canada.Sales were good, but the profit margins they wereoperating under were razor thin.

They were slowly but surely going into debt, despitegood soils and solid farming practices.

“We had to turn the farm around or get out of thefarming business,” says Eugene, one of the threebrothers who run Conrad Farms. A choice had tobe made: borrow more capital to become larger inorder to compete with the truck farms out west, orfocus on the local customers in the Tulsa metro-politan area.

The latter option was appealing because ConradFarms had been selling produce to local consumersfrom their farm market in Bixby, just south of Tulsa,for quite some time. The original farm business beganin 1939 and moved to its present location in 1942.In 1974, business was so good at the market that thefamily could afford to keep it open year round.

In 1986, the decision was finally made to scrap thewholesaling business and focus on the farm market.It was hard decision to make, when most in the gov-ernment and education institutions were toutingeconomies of scale.

But the choice to stay local has turned out to be agood one.

The family went from farming around 1300 acres to330 acres today. “During each season, 70 percent ofthe items that pass through the checkout line at themarket are grown by Conrad Farms, ourselves,”says Eugene Conrad.

The three brothers, Eugene, Melvin and Vernon, focuson growing 60 to 70 varieties of vegetables on site.

Most of the fruit that Conrad’s sells is boughtdirectly from other farmers in the region. At anygiven time, the market sells 15-20 different itemsbought from other farmers.

They have learned over the years that if you cut outthe middleman, you can sell at a lower price andearn a greater profit share. That is why they dealdirectly with farmers during the buying process asmuch as they can.

In order to compete with the large grocery stores,Conrad’s keeps prices competitive. However, if inputcosts go up, so does the price.

In light of rising prices, the brothers believe thatwhat brings back customers is service. They saythat they provide a quality product – ripe and fresh-picked – that can be counted on to be ready to eatwhen customers get it home. Another selling point:customers know just who grew the corn they areserving to their families.

With their customers also being their neighbors,the Conrad Brothers take the quality and safety oftheir product to heart. “We have really reduced theamount of chemicals we use to farm with. We arenot organic, but we do care about our land and ourcustomers’ health,” Eugene says.

Farming the Family Way: Conrad Farms


Farmland Loss in Oklahoma,1992-1997 [2, 20]

■ 187, 900: Total acres of rural land

converted to development uses

■ 37,560: Average annual rate of all

agricultural land converted to other uses

■ 120%: Increase in rate of loss of all

agricultural acres over previous five

years (1987-1992)

■ 63,300: Number of prime agricultural

acres lost

■ 12, 660: Average annual rate of prime

agricultural acres lost

Farmland Preservationin Oklahoma [21]

■ 0: Number of state-funded PACE

programs to combat loss of farmland

■ 2,323: Total acres enrolled in the

NRCS FRPP

(See p. 146 for definitions)

Over time the help needed to run the market has increased. Threegenerations of the Conrad family work on the farm or in the marketyear round, but during the busiest growing/selling season, Conrad’semploys close to fifty workers.

Most of the workers are Mexican farm crews that migrate in for theseason, but the brothers still employ teenagers in need of some extracash for the summer months.

With success has come new technology. “Three years ago we made asubstantial investment into our computer system and checkou regis-ters,” says Eugene. “It has really helped us keep track of everything.”

With the new system, Conrad’s can quickly and easily tell what isselling well and what is not. Sometimes, all it takes is moving a productto the front bin of the market to pick up sales.

As it turns out, choosing to buy and sell locally has been the rightchoice for the Conrads. It has also been good for the community.People in Tulsa and surrounding towns can buy fresh produce whilesupporting local farms.

Both farmer and customer are lucky; nationally and in Oklahoma thiskind of bargain is getting harder to come by as prime farmland suchas that in the Arkansas River Valley is turned into suburbs. Slowingthat trend is key to community food security.

g

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

< $1

,000

< $2

,499

< $4

,999

< $9

,999

< $1

9,99

9

< $2

4,99

9

< $3

9,99

9

< $4

9,99

9

< $9

9,99

9

< $2

49,9

99

< $4

99,9

99

> $5

00,0

00

151



















Tulsa County

570,313 people in 2003 +1% since 2000 [+2%]

1,146 farms in 2002 -2% since 1997 [-1%]:












meals at restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $938.6 million


Farmers’ markets within 75 miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11


Major crops: nursery/greenhouse, hay, horses

Fruit/vegetable crops (on # of farms): pecans(108), tomatoes(17),

watermelons(12), apples(10), beans(9), okra(8), and many others



Benefits of Farmland Preservation

Saving Farmland: Urban Sprawl and Family Farms

Goal: Pursue a program of vigorous local economic development of the food system,combined with carefully crafted land-use policies, to ensure that agricultural land bothis protected and continues to be farmed.

Public Policy Priorities:• Develop a land transfer program that will connect

prospective farmers who need land with retiringfarmers who would like to see their farms remainin agricultural use. Similar existing programs,such as Nebraska’s Land Link, can serve as models.

• Develop and promote land lease/purchasearrangements.

• Foster the establishment of land trusts, andexpand the use of conservation easements andpurchase of development rights.

• Continue to advocate for state and federalprograms funding conservation easements.

In his study of the Bixby Bottomlands, Land Legacy’s

Jeff Crosby highlights the numerous benefits that

come from protecting farmland:

■ For every dollar collected in property taxes,

farms require only 33 cents in city services.

Commercial and industrial uses require 41 cents,

and residential development costs an average of

$1.12, for every dollar of tax revenue generated.

■ Open space and farmland produce a tax revenue

surplus that can be used to subsidize other

land uses.

■ Property adjacent to farms and nearby open

spaces increases in value, resulting in higher

property tax revenues.

■ Preserving farmland protects local water bodies.

■ Undeveloped land surrounding water bodies is the

most useful for filtering pollution from the water.

■ Water is allowed to infiltrate into soils, lessening

erosion and flash flood potential, while recharging

aquifers and base flows of streams.

■ Farmland soils and vegetation act as a storage

sink for carbon dioxide and ozone, improving

local air quality.

■ Native species are protected. Altering the landscape

allows invasive species, such as red cedar, honey-

suckle, or zebra mussels, all which are found in

the Arkansas River bottomlands, to displace native

species. [7]

153

Some folks’ first reaction to all this talk about localfood systems may simply be a shrug.

After all, as long as the food is on the grocery storeshelves, restaurant menus, and dinner tables, whatdifference does it really make where it comes from,or how far it has to travel to get from there to here?

“Quite a bit,” is one answer to that question. For anidea of how much “quite a bit” is, check the odometer– the “food odometer,” that is.

On average, any given piece of food on a plate inthe U.S. has traveled 1,500 miles from the farmwhere it was grown. [1]

That shouldn’t be surprising, considering how muchof the food eaten in the U.S. comes from outsidethe country.

According to USDA figures, 12% of the vegetables,40% of the fruit, and nearly 80% of the seafoodeaten in the U.S. come from other countries. [1]

Those numbers don’t square well with the commonperception of the U.S. as breadbasket to the world.Still more unsettling is the thought that the U.S. isdependent on other countries for something so fun-damental to security as food.

Even more disturbingly, the widespread, long-rangetransport of food can undermine the very ecosystemservices on which agriculture relies for its productivity:clean water, fertile soils, and a predictable climate.

Counting the Costs of Food MilesResearchers in the U.K. recently attempted to com-pare, in monetary terms, the environmental costs ofgrowing and shipping food. They estimated mone-tary values for different environmental impacts –from pesticides in water, to soil erosion, to green-house gas emissions, to biodiversity losses – andthen totaled those costs for each segment of the

food system.

The results were as surprising as they are full ofimplications for efforts to grow a more local foodsystem.

Proponents of organic farming often cite theirmethods’ more benign environmental impacts, andthe U.K. study backed up those claims.

Conventional farming methods are responsible for29% of the total external environmental costs of thefood system (see figure, p. 154). A full nationwideconversion to organic farming would eliminatethree quarters of those costs. [2]

Chapter Fourteen: Keeping It Closer to Home:Food Miles and Regional Markets

Food Miles: The Long Road to Community Food Security

On average, any given piece of food on aplate in the U.S. has traveled 1,500 miles

from the farm where it was grown.


However, consumers driving their cars to and fromthe stores and restaurants where they buy food donearly as much environmental damage as the farmersdo growing it – about 25% of the food system’stotal environmental costs. [2]

Moreover, the single most costly item in this environ-mental accounting of the U.K.’s food system – worsethan farmers’ tractors and pesticides, and consumers’car trips to the grocery store – is shipping food fromfarms to retail outlets.

Such shipments rack up 46% of the total environmentalhavoc wrought by the food system as a whole. [2]

That may seem surprising, but perhaps it shouldn’t.One Iowa study found that shipping food from thatstate’s current suppliers, located all over the country,uses four times as much fuel as it would take to movethe same amount of food from farms right there inIowa.

Sourcing just ten percent more of Iowa’s producefrom within the state would save enough fuel – over300,000 gallons – to run more than 100 Iowa farmsfor a year. [3]

From an environmental perspective, then, the biggestpotential gains in improving the food system comefrom making it more local – reducing the food miles.

A shift to organic farming comes in at second place –though the ideal would be a food system that’s bothlocal and organic.

How local is a local food system? According to oneIowa study, food might come from farms within aradius of 56 miles of where it’s ultimately eaten –a far cry from today’s 1,500. [1]

Another definition of ‘local’ can be found in the100-Mile Diet, a campaign that challenges people totry eating food grown within 100 miles of theirhomes as a way of understanding just how global thefood system has become. [4]

Perhaps one way to think of local food systems is asa vehicle for increasing homeland security andhometown security – along with community foodsecurity – all at the same time. [5]

Production -

Conventional

29%

Transportation -

Store to Home

25%

Transportation -

Farm to Store

46%

Environmental Costs of Food System,Farm to Table

From an environmental perspective,

the biggest potential gains in improving

the food system come from making it

more local – reducing the food miles.

The ideal would be a food system

that’s both local and organic.

12% of the vegetables, 40% of the fruit,

and nearly 80% of the seafood eaten in

the U.S. come from other countries.

155

To travelers on Oklahoma highways, Braum’scombination ice cream parlor/restaurant/grocerystores are as much a part of the interstate-

offramp scene as a pair of gilded arches.

Although Braum’s holds its own against the usual castof globalized fast-food suspects, the regional chain,based in Grady County, has its roots deep in Oklahoma.

More interesting still, its explicit policy for nurturingthose roots could have been smuggled out of themost secret councils of sustainable-food advocacy.

On the Big Side of SmallThat policy can be read from the odometers ofBraum’s delivery trucks, which never log much morethan 300 miles one-way on their trips from the com-pany’s Tuttle, Oklahoma, dairy plant to its storesthroughout the state, and in neighboring Arkansas,Kansas, Missouri, and Texas. [1]

That’s about five times less than the average distancethat food travels in the U.S. So as far as food milescan measure, Braum’s’ tally puts it well ahead ofother fast-food and grocery chains in the communityfood security sweepstakes. [2]

The market that Braum’s reaches through its 300-odd stores in those five states is small relative tothose captured by larger retail food chains. Still, itsscale of operations is large enough to boggle morethan a few minds.

Its 10,000-cow dairy herd gives birth to 40 calvesper day on a 39 square mile ranch near Shattuck,where over 100 center-pivot irrigation systems keepbermudagrass pastures lush.

The cattle come in for milking at another farm slightlyless than half that size between Tuttle and Minco –the largest number of cattle milked at a single loca-tion anywhere in the world. (The company runs anadditional 10,000 beef cattle at four different ranches.)

Braum’s could cheat on its favorable food-milesscore by only counting the distance from the pro-cessing plant to the retail counter – but if it did, thenumber wouldn’t change.

That’s because the dairy farm and the processingplant are both located on the same acreage outsideTuttle. The plant, like the herd, seems like a giant:260,000 square feet, bottling 6,000 gallon jugs ofmilk (and 3,600 half-gallons) in an hour.

Many Roads to SustainabilityDespite its size, Braum’s self-imposed food-mile radiusis only one of several elements in the company’ssustainability profile.

Unlike most other feedlot operations, it uses no antibi-otics or meat or bone meal in its feed, nor does itadminister synthetic hormones to its cattle to increasemilk production. It accepts no federal farm subsidies,and is privately owned by the Braum family.

How Far Can Food Miles Carry Community Food Security?The Case of Braum’s Dairy


Moreover, Braum’s makes many of its own inputs, processes much of itsown raw output, and even reuses some of the byproducts. Leachate andcomposted manure from the feedlot waste lagoons help to fertilize thefields that grow the alfalfa and silage corn that make up part of the dairyherd’s ration.

A company-owned bakery in Oklahoma City makes all the bread productsfor Braum’s restaurant-stores, from cinnamon rolls to hamburger buns,spitting out 12,000 ice cream cones an hour. Braum’s even manufacturesthe cartons for its own ice cream.

However, Braum’s production practices still fall short of a perfect scoreon the sustainability report card – and its self-contained business model,from growing feed up through milking cattle and retailing processeddairy products to consumers, is part of the reason.

Such practices exemplify what some see as a particularly damaging trendin industrial agriculture. That trend is called vertical integration – the situ-ation that results when a single company owns more than one stage inthe manufacturing process for a given product.

Contract livestock production (rather than Braum's retained ownershipmodel), is a common approach to vertical integration among the trans-national giants of the food industry. This approach shuts down open marketsand squeezes out independent, smaller-scale producers. [3]

Size MattersParadoxically, the ideas behind vertical integration are the same principlesthat sustainable agriculture advocates have been preaching for years. In thelatter context, the concept goes by the name “value-added.”

Value-added marketing – retained ownership, on-farm processing, oreco-labeling, to name a few examples – can be a small farm’s stoutestfinancial lifeline. [4]

The point at which the terms “vertical integration” and “value added”diverge is within spitting distance of the place where size begins to matterfor sustainability. But where exactly does that line lie?

If community food security prescribes a landscape dotted with small,diversified family farmsteads overlapping with value-added food manu-facturers and retailers, is Braum’s the biggest of the good, or the smallestof the bad?

Put another way, is a statewide scale of production and distributioncompatible with sustainable food systems?

Could Braum’s still supply its current retail network if it converted itsfeedlot system to pure pasture?

Or could a cooperative of, say, 200 small Oklahoma graziers supply an

Dairy NutritionThe USDA dietary guidelines recommend

an average intake of foods from the milk

group of 2 to 3 cups per day, depending

on age and activity level. [7]

The milk group includes all milks, yogurts,

frozen yogurts, dairy desserts, and

cheeses (except cream cheese), including

lactose-free and lactose-reduced prod-

ucts. [7]

The guidelines suggest that most food

choices from this group should be fat-free

or low-fat, to maintain calorie and satu-

rated fat intakes within recommended

allowances. [7,8]

The guidelines’ recommendations for the

milk group are based on dairy products’

content of calcium and potassium, as well

as other nutrients. [9]

In Oklahoma, 36% of individuals meet

the dietary requirement for dairy, 23%

meet the calcium requirement, and only

seven percent meet that for potassium.

In the U.S., the figures are 37% for dairy,

and 27% for calcium. [10]

Dairy products have the highest concen-

tration of absorbable calcium of any food,

and also contain high levels of potassium

and Vitamin D. [7,8]

Many plant foods are also high in calcium

(examples: collard greens, spinach) and

potassium (examples: white and sweet

potatoes, winter squash). However, some

plant sources do not contain calcium in as

readily absorbable forms. [8]

Individuals concerned about their dietary

intakes of given food groups or nutrients

should consult a physician or dietician.

157

equivalent number of independent restaurants, at aprice profitable for all parties? [5]

Is it really desirable to have as many small farmers as possi-ble on the land – or just many, many more than there aretoday? And, if the latter, then how many more, exactly?

Too Big, Too Small, or Just Right?Such questions are central to the challenge of identifyingthe proper sizes of the pieces in a viable communityfood network. Currently, the number of small farmsmarketing direct to consumers is too small for them tostart feeding the state’s entire population tomorrow, orperhaps even in a decade.

In the gap between such farms and transnational foodretail corporations, though, a wide range of food enter-prises, in many different sizes and combinations, couldconceivably fit. Which ones will work, and work best?Braum’s relatively unusual situation raises the question ofwhether large size alone is reason enough for exclusionfrom a community food system.

On the other hand, giving the impetus toward bignessfree rein can leave farmers in the position of having tochoose whether “you want your neighbor, or your neighbor’sfarm,” says Dick Thompson of Practical Farmers ofIowa [6], a sustainable agriculture group.

Too often, economic pressures leave little role for choicein that decision, and as a consequence, food consumershave correspondingly fewer choices as well. Competitionis a process that tends to eliminate itself – at least unlessindividual firms are subject to some brake on their owngrowth.

Braum’s 300-mile delivery radius is one such brake, andthat observation brings the circuitous discussion of sizeand sustainability back to its starting point at the themeof food mileage.

The purpose of Braum’s voluntary geographic size limitis to maintain freshness, but it also has the fortuitousside effect of leaving room on the field for other players.

How much room, and how many other players, remainquestions to be answered. Food miles provide one wayto find some of those answers, making them a valuabletool for improving community food security.

Keeping It Closer toHome: Food Milesand Regional Markets

Goal: Address the environmentalimpacts and vulnerabilities of cross-continental food shipment byreducing the food miles of itemsconsumed by Oklahomans.

Public Policy Priorities:• Examine Oklahoma’s capacity to provide

locally produced food, from the standpointof emergency preparedness.

For more policy priorities that would help reducefood miles, see Chapters 6, 8, 9, 10, 11.



As the means of producing and

distributing food become concen-

trated in fewer and fewer hands,

competition diminishes, and the food

system becomes increasingly fragile.

The danger of such concentration in the

food system grows larger still when a

few companies control a large share of

the market in not just one sector, but

several. Concentration’s risks are also

increased when a single company controls

more than one stage of production

within a single sector – for example,

manufacturing the fertilizer and growing

the seed necessary to produce grain,

and also owning and operating the

mills used to process grain into flour.

This is called “vertical integration.”

Economists measure this concentration of market power in a given industry with a number called the four-firm con-

centration ratio, or CR-4. The CR-4 is the percentage of the market for a given commodity that is controlled by the

largest four companies in that sector. A CR-4 of 40% or more is considered as a sign that competition is reduced, or,

in other words, that the largest companies are beginning to acquire monopoly power. [1] In some food industry

sectors, concentration has been at or above this "monopoly threshhold" for twenty years or more. [2]

The top four firms in certain sectors important to Oklahoma agriculture are shown below. Companies whose

names are in bold type are among the top four largest firms in more than one sector. [2]

BEEF PACKERS (2003 CR-4 = 83.5%) BROILERS (2003 CR-4 = 56%)

1. Tyson Foods (formerly IBP Inc.) 1. Tyson Foods

2. Cargill (Excel) 2. Pilgrim’s Pride

3. Swift & Co. 3. Gold Kist

4. National Beef Packing Co. 4. Perdue

PORK PACKERS (2003 CR-4 = 64%) FLOUR MILLING (2004 CR-4 = 63%)

1. Smithfield Foods 1. Cargill/CHS (Horizon Milling)

2. Tyson Foods (formerly IBP Inc.) 2. ADM

3. Swift & Co. 3. ConAgra

4. Hormel Foods 4. Cereal Food Processors

Concentration in Selected FoodIndustry Sectors, 1982 - 2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

% M

ark

et

Sh

are

of

To

p 4

Fir

ms

Beef packersPork packersBroilersFlour milling

159


















Grady County

47,439 people in 2003 +4% since 2000 [+2%]

1,804 farms in 2002 -1% since 1997 [-1%]:












meals at restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $49.7 million




Major crops: cattle, milk, grains

Fruit/vegetable crops (on # of farms): watermelons(20), pecans(11),

tomatoes(10), peaches(8), pumpkins(6), sweet corn(6), and many others

NONMETRO - NON FOOD DESERT

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

< $1

,000

< $2

,499

< $4

,999

< $9

,999

< $1

9,99

9

< $2

4,99

9

< $3

9,99

9

< $4

9,99

9

< $9

9,99

9

< $2

49,9

99

< $4

99,9

99

> $5

00,0

00



Oklahoma is often accused of being light yearsbehind the two coasts in adopting new attitudes.Whether or not that is true (or bad, for that

matter), citizens of all stripes in the Sooner Statehave not fallen behind when it comes to environ-mental protection, working hard to preserve thestate's natural resources for future generations toappreciate and enjoy.

As part of that preservation effort, Oklahoma grassroots environmental groups such as the OklahomaSustainability Network (OSN) and the OklahomaSierra Club have been strong supporters of inde-pendent family farms and local food distributionsystems in Oklahoma.

OSN has chapters in Oklahoma City, Norman,Tulsa, Stillwater, Shawnee and “Green Country”-northeastern Oklahoma. At their annual conferencethe group has featured locally grown food and sessionson sustainable agriculture. Some chapters have alsosponsored “Oklahoma-grown” dinners, somethingnew in the Sooner state.

In 2006 the Tulsa chapter published the city's first“Green Directory” with 700 listings of environmen-tally-friendly businesses and groups. A large section

is devoted to sources of locally grown food.

In the brochure “How Your Food is Produced…Matters” the Oklahoma chapter of the Sierra Clublists reasons to buy locally grown food and supportfamily farmers. Benefits include: conserving energyand reducing carbon emissions to help combat globalwarming, preserving farmland and open space, andenhancing genetic diversity. Furthermore, “buyingfood locally helps reduce the vulnerability of ourfood supply to contamination or disruption.”

In addition, the group asserts that local farmers aremore connected to their communities, and hence“more likely to preserve the quality of the environment”than farms owned by out-of-state corporations. [1]

Farmers and environmentalists often disagree aboutwhat is good and what is bad for Oklahoma. Perhapsthey can agree on the value of a locally grown peach,a bowl of blackberries or an ear of sweet corn. Afterall, the way to a man's (or a woman's) heart, isthrough his (or her) stomach.

Farming and the Environment: The Local Food Connection

Sustainability: Maintaining the present

without compromising the future.

161

Day by day, it is becoming easier to find Oklahoma-grown and Made in Oklahoma foods onOklahoma tables.

Since 2004, the Kerr Center has been serving deliciousOklahoma-grown foods at conferences and meetings.Grassroots organizations, such as the Oklahoma FoodCooperative and the Oklahoma SustainabilityNetwork, have also featured Oklahoma-grown at theirevents. The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture,Food and Forestry continues to promote foods “madein Oklahoma.” Chefs such as Kurt Fleischfresser atOklahoma City’s Coach House restaurant are creat-ing a distinctly Oklahoma cuisine.

There are many reasons to “go local.” Serving locallygrown drastically reduces “food miles” (see luncheon

menu for just how much) and minimizes damage tothe natural environment. Serving foods grownand/or processed in Oklahoma supports family farms,businesses and rural communities in the state.Making farm-fresh, locally-grown foods available inall communities in Oklahoma supports the efforts ofpublic agencies, food banks, churches and ordinarycitizens working to end hunger and food insecurityin the state. Eating nutritious, delicious, farm-freshfruits and vegetables makes Oklahomans healthier.

Last, but not least, as younger Oklahomans discoverthe bounty of the state's farms and ranches, they willreconnect to the land that their families once belongedto – Oklahoma, a land that is grand, a land worthsinging about.

On the Menu: A Taste of Oklahoma

KERR CENTER – BOARD OF TRUSTEESOKLAHOMA GROWN LUNCHEON

Poteau, OK - May 24, 2005Food Miles [1]

Meats - Natural Farms, Chris and Jeff Emerson, Tulsa, OK

Rump Roasts, Brisket, Beef Italian Sausage, Sliced Beef, Salami Cold Cuts * 368

Cheeses - Christian Cheese, George Christian, Kingfisher, OK 241

Elderberry Wine, White New York Cheddar, Yellow Jalapeno Cheddar*

Lettuces - Ron and Maura’s Garden, Checotah, OK 80

Radishes **– Davis Farms, Charlie and Mary Davis, Webbers Falls, OK 11

Snow peas and green onions ** – JPS Shimack Farm, John and Perla Shimack, Okay, OK 91

Garlic Dill Pickles, Cookies ** – Nettie Ann’s Bakery, Nettie Yoder, Chouteau, OK 115

Pecan Tassies - Baked by Barbara Chester.

Pecans from trees on the campus of Southwestern State University, Weatherford, OK 260

Blueberry Delight – Baked by Barbara Chester.

Blueberries from Kerr Center Horticulture Farm, Poteau, OK 0

Strawberries – Doyle’s Country Gardens, Burl and Margie Doyle, Stilwell, OK 65

Ice Cream – Braum’s 213

Total Food Miles 1,544

Average Food Miles per item 154

Average Food Mile per item through conventional sources [2] 1,494

Good for You, Good for Oklahoma

* Purchased through the Oklahoma Food Cooperative; delivered by way of Oklahoma City to Poteau.

**Purchased at the Muskogee Farmers’ Market.


SPRING Wal-Mart Albertsons Wild Oats Farmers’ Market

Crop Weight Price/ Weight Price/ Weight Price/ Weight Sales Pre-tax Price/(oz) Price Pound (oz) Price Pound (oz) Price Pound (oz) Price Tax Price Pound

Lettuce - Green Leaf 8 1.38 2.76 16 1.99 1.99 11 1.99 2.89 32 2.50 0.21 2.29 1.14

Lettuce - Red Lead 12 1.38 1.84 8 1.99 3.98 7 1.99 4.55 32 2.50 0.21 2.29 1.14

Lettuce - Butterhead 4 1.28 5.12 8 2.69 5.38 5 1.99 6.37 19 2.50 0.21 2.29 1.92

Lettuce - Romaine 16 1.38 1.38 12 1.99 2.65 7 1.99 4.55 48 2.50 0.21 2.29 0.76

Salad Mix 5 2.74 8.77 5 3.49 11.17 16 8.99 8.99 8 4.00 0.34 3.66 7.31

Collards 8 0.94 1.88 14 0.99 1.13 12 1.99 2.65 14 2.00 0.17 1.83 2.09

Chard NA NA NA NA NA NA 12 1.99 2.65 19 2.00 0.17 1.83 1.54

Kale 7 0.94 2.15 12 0.99 1.32 8 1.99 3.98 14 2.00 0.17 1.83 2.09

Lacinato Kale NA NA NA NA NA NA 12 1.99 2.65 12 2.00 0.17 1.83 2.44

Turnips 16 1.46 1.46 16 0.99 0.99 16 1.99 1.99 16 1.00 0.09 0.91 0.91

Radishes 6 0.78 2.08 11 0.99 1.44 18 1.49 1.32 11 1.50 0.13 1.37 1.99

Arugula NA NA NA 1 1.99 48.24 10 1.49 2.38 7 2.00 0.17 1.83 4.18

Green Garlic NA NA NA NA NA NA 16 4.99 4.99 12 1.75 0.15 1.60 2.13

Carrots 8 0.88 1.76 NA NA NA 14 1.99 2.27 16 2.00 0.17 1.83 1.83

Beets 20 1.94 1.55 20 1.99 1.59 24 1.99 1.33 26 2.00 0.17 1.83 1.13

Cauliflower 28 1.50 0.86 32 2.99 1.50 16 1.99 1.99 16 3.00 0.26 2.74 2.74

Cabbage 16 0.48 0.48 19 0.50 0.42 16 0.99 0.99 16 1.00 0.09 0.91 0.91

Broccoli 16 1.44 1.44 16 1.99 1.99 16 2.49 2.49 16 3.00 0.26 2.74 2.74

Green Onions 5.5 1.12 3.26 3 0.79 4.21 4 1.49 5.96 18 2.00 0.17 1.83 1.63

Parsley 3 0.77 4.11 2 0.69 5.52 7 0.99 2.26 6 2.00 0.17 1.83 4.88

Leeks 16 2.23 2.23 16 1.99 1.99 16 2.99 2.99 20 3.00 0.26 2.74 2.19

Bok Choy 16 0.84 0.84 16 1.39 1.39 16 1.29 1.29 28 2.00 0.17 1.83 1.04

SUMMER Wal-Mart Albertsons Wild Oats Farmers’ Market

Crop Weight Price/ Weight Price/ Weight Price/ Weight Sales Pre-tax Price/(oz) Price Pound (oz) Price Pound (oz) Price Pound (oz) Price Tax Price Pound

Cherry Tomatoes 16 2.62 2.62 16 3.49 3.49 16 3.99 3.99 16 4.00 0.34 3.66 3.66

Heirloom Tomatoes NA NA NA NA NA NA 16 7.99 7.99 16 3.60 0.31 3.29 3.29

Vine Ripe Tomatoes 16 2.84 2.84 16 2.99 2.99 16 2.99 2.99 16 3.00 0.26 2.74 2.74

Sweet Onions 16 0.93 0.93 16 1.49 1.49 16 1.99 1.99 16 1.60 0.14 1.46 1.46

Green Peppers 4 0.68 2.72 4 0.79 3.16 16 2.49 2.49 16 3.00 0.26 2.74 2.74

Eggplant 16 1.54 1.54 16 1.99 1.99 16 2.29 2.29 16 2.00 0.17 1.83 1.83

Cucumbers 16 0.50 0.50 16 1.99 1.99 16 0.89 0.89 18 1.00 0.09 0.91 0.81

Red Bell Peppers 6 1.68 4.48 6 1.99 5.31 16 7.99 7.99 16 3.00 0.26 2.74 2.74

Yellow Bell Peppers NA NA NA 6 2.50 6.67 16 7.99 7.99 16 3.00 0.26 2.74 2.74

Green Beans 16 1.59 1.59 16 1.00 1.00 16 3.99 3.99 16 3.00 0.26 2.74 2.74

Basil 0.75 2.48 52.91 1 1.99 48.24 1 2.49 60.36 8 2.00 0.17 1.83 3.66

Zucchini 16 1.53 1.53 16 1.69 1.69 16 1.99 1.99 16 2.00 0.17 1.83 1.83

Yellow Squash NA NA NA 16 1.69 1.69 16 1.99 1.99 16 2.00 0.17 1.83 1.83

Patty Pan Squash NA NA NA NA NA NA 16 2.99 2.99 16 2.00 0.17 1.83 1.83

Poblano Peppers 16 2.63 2.63 16 2.99 2.99 16 2.99 2.99 16 3.00 0.26 2.74 2.74

Cantaloupe 68 1.54 0.36 68 3.99 0.94 16 1.29 1.29 16 1.00 0.09 0.91 0.91

Specialty Melon NA NA NA 16 0.99 0.99 16 1.99 1.99 16 1.00 0.09 0.91 0.91

Watermelon 224 4.96 0.35 248 4.99 0.32 16 0.69 0.69 16 0.79 0.07 0.72 0.72

Okra NA NA NA 16 2.99 2.99 NA NA NA 16 4.00 0.34 3.66 3.66

Sunflowers NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 2.49 2.49 1 1.25 0.11 1.14 1.14

NOTES:

1. When weighing, we selected several averaged-sized items to get an average weight

2. None of Albertson’s produce was organic; only cauliflower was organic at Walmart; everything from Wild Oats was organic except for green peppers;

all of Three Springs Farmers’ Market produce was organically grown, but not certified.

Appendix APrice Comparisons: Tulsa Cherry St. Farmers' Market and Tulsa Grocery Stores 2005

PREFACE - THE LAND WE BELONG TO IS GRAND

Oklahoma Centennial Commission

(405) 228-2007 or 2008

www.oklahomacentennial.com

INTRODUCTION - FROM FIELD TO FORK:COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY IN OKLAHOMA

Community Food Security Coalition

www.foodsecurity.org

(310) 822-5410

Food Security Learning Center

World Hunger Year

www.worldhungeryear.org/fslc

(212) 629-8850

CHAPTER 1 - NUTRITION AND HEALTHGood Food for Good Health: Combating Poor Nutritionand Obesity with Fresh, Locally-Grown Foods

Oklahoma State Department of Health

www.health.state.ok.us/board/state

(405) 271-5600

Local and Regional Food Systems

Food Security Learning Center

World Hunger Year

www.worldhungeryear.org/fslc/faqs/ria_053.asp

Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S.

Department of Agriculture

www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/

document/

Nutrition.gov

National Agriculture Library

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

www.nutrition.gov

Food Pyramids

Nutrition Source

Harvard School of Public Health

www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html

A Strong and Healthy Oklahoma: State and Private

Employee Health and Wellness InitiativesOklahoma Employees Benefit Council

(405) 232-1190 and toll free (800) 219-8115

www.ebc.state.ok.us/en/Wellness/

GovernorHealthInitiative

Oklahoma Turning Point Council

Certified Healthy Business Program

www.okturningpoint.org/

A Going and Growing Market in MuskogeeOklahoma Farmers' Market Alliance

www.okfarmersmarket.org

Oklahoma Grown Program

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, & Forestry

www.madeinoklahoma.net

Contact: Mike Schulte

(405) 522-5509

[email protected]

Farmers' Markets - Direct to Consumer Program

Marketing Services Branch

USDA - Agricultural Marketing Service

www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets

CHAPTER 2 - FOOD INSECURITY

Feeling Hungry: Food Insecurity in OklahomaAmerica's Second Harvest - The Nation's Food Bank

Network

www.hungerinamerica.org

Obesity and Food Insecurity

Food Research and Action Center (FRAC)

(202) 986-2200

www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/

hunger&obesity.htm

Hands Together for Community Food Security:

Community GardensUrban Harvest Program

Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma

www.regionalfoodbank.org/urbanharvest.php

(405) 972-1111 ext. 108

Contact: Bruce Edwards

[email protected]

American Community Gardening Association

www.communitygarden.org

(877) 275-2242

Oklahoma Food Banks: Feeding the HungryRegional Food Bank of Oklahoma

www.regionalfoodbank.org

(405) 972-1111

163

Resource List - Closer to Home


Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma

www.cfbeo.org

(918) 585-2800

Contact: Cindy Stevens

[email protected]

Plant a Row for the Hungry

Garden Writers Association

www.gardenwriters.org

CHAPTER 3 - CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND FOOD EDUCATION

A Garden to Grow On: Leach School GardenBarbara Denney, Extension Educator

www.delawarecountyext.com

(918) 253-4332

A Planning Guide for Edible School Gardens

Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality

Susie Shields

[email protected]

Oklahoma Ag in the Classroom

Oklahoma 4-H Programs

www.agclassroom.org/ok

(405) 744-8885

Contact: Pat Thompson

[email protected]

Kids Gardening

www.kidsgardening.com

(800) 538-7476

Cooking with Kids

www.cookingwithkids.net

The Food Studies Institute

www.foodstudies.org/index.htm

Curing our Kids:

Better Food for Better HealthOklahoma Food Policy Council

www.kerrcenter.com/ofpc

(918) 647-9123

Overweight and Obesity Pages

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/index.htm

Action for Healthy Kids

www.actionforhealthykids.org

(800) 416-5136

Melons Carry Seeds of Change:

Oklahoma's Farm-to-School ProgramOklahoma Farm to School Program

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture,

Food and Forestry

Contact: Chris Kirby

(405) 522-2106

[email protected]

National Farm to School Program

Center for Food and Justice

www.farmtoschool.org

(323) 341-5095

Rethinking School Lunch

Center for Ecoliteracy

www.ecoliteracy.org/programs/rsl.html

[email protected]

Growing Minds: Farm to School

Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project

www.growing-minds.org

Contact: Emily Jackson

[email protected]

828-236-1282

Vermont FEED (Food Education Every Day)

www.vtfeed.org

Contact: Dana Hudson

[email protected]

(802) 985-8686 ext. 25

Stop the Supersizing of Oklahoma's Student Body:

Integris Health CEO and the Fit Kids Coalition Lead

the Way to Healthier Choices for KidsOklahoma Fit Kids Coalition

www.integrislifespan.com/fitkids.html

(405) 236-5437

Contact: Anne Roberts

[email protected]

Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy

www.oica.org/index.html

CHAPTER 4 - THE COST OF GOOD FOOD

The Teacher Only Sets the Table:

The Community Nutrition Education ProgramCommunity Nutrition Education Program

Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service

Family and Consumer Sciences

www.fcs.okstate.edu/cnep

(405) 744-7186

Contact: Debra Garrard

[email protected]

Meeting the Food Stamp Challenge with Local Foods:

Slow Food for Low and Moderate Income PeopleBetter Times Almanac of Useful Information

www.bettertimesinfo.org

Contact: Robert Waldrop

[email protected]

Oklahoma Food Cooperative

www.oklahomafood.coop

(405) 613-4688

Fresh and Affordable: A Comparison of Farmers' Market

and Grocery Store PricesThree Springs Farm

Emily Oakley and Mike Appel

www.oklahomafood.coop/shop/producers/thrsf.php

(918) 712-9571

[email protected]

CHAPTER 5 - ACCESS TO GOOD FOOD

You Can't Get There from Here: Community Food Security

in Oklahoma's Food DesertsSouthern Rural Development Center

Mississippi State University

http://srdc.msstate.edu/publications/food_specialrpts.htm

(662) 325-3207

Food Deserts

www.fooddeserts.org

Coupons Worth ClippingFarmers' Market Nutrition Program

Chickasaw Nation -Nutrition Services

www.chickasaw.net/services/258_776.htm

(888) 436-7255

Contact: Jennifer Hayes

[email protected]

Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs

Food and Nutrition Service - USDA

www.fns.usda.gov/wic/FMNP/default.htm

(703) 305-2746

National Association of Farmers' Market Nutrition

Programs

www.nafmnp.org/index.aspx

(703) 837-0451

CHAPTER 6 - DIRECT MARKETING

Direct from the Source:

Direct Market Produce from the Crow's FarmNorth American Farmers' Direct Marketing Association

www.nafdma.com

(888) 884-9270

CHAPTER 7 - STATE OF THE STATE'S FARMS

CSA in Oklahoma: Linking Farms and Communities

City and CountryNuyaka Natural Farm

James and Jennifer Cooper

www.localharvest.org/farms/M10002

[email protected]

(918) 752-0628

New Beginning Farm

Sharon Miller

www.newbeginningfarm.com

(405)598-0586

Three Springs Farm

Emily Oakley and Mike Appel

www.oklahomafood.coop/shop/producers/thrsf.php

[email protected]

(918) 712-9571

LocalHarvest

www.localharvest.org

(831) 475-8150

It's Not Quite the Middle of Nowhere: CSA Goes CountryStroud Family Farm

Bill and Barbara Stroud

www.localharvest.org/farms/M9623

(580) 246-3080

Green Grass and Murray Greys: Beaver Creek Farms' DirectBeaver Creek Farms

www.murraygrey.net

(580) 353-5482 (Office)

CHAPTER 8 - FOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

Eating Cooperatively and Locally:

The Oklahoma Food Co-opOklahoma Food Cooperative

www.oklahomafood.coop

Contact: Robert Waldrop

[email protected]

(405) 613-4688

165


Town and Country:

Kim Barker's Grassfed Beef and LambWalnut Creek Farms

www.oklahomafood.coop/shop/producers/kimba.php

[email protected]

(580) 824-9011 (home)

CHAPTER 9 - FARM DIVERSIFICATION

Land of Opportunity:

Steve Upson's Vision for Oklahoma Farms Steve Upson

Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation

www.noble.org

[email protected]

(580) 224-6433

Small Acreages, Large ReturnsPheasant Hill Farm

Melanie and George DeVault

www.phforganics.com/about-phf.html

[email protected]

(610) 965-6871

Just Right in the Middle:

Sam's Sweet Onions as a Model for DiversificationAgriculture of the Middle

www.agofthemiddle.org

CHAPTER 10: LOCAL MARKETING

Local Food, Local Prosperity:

Local Farm Sales and Community Food SecurityBuy Local

FoodRoutes Network

www.foodroutes.org/buylocal.jsp

(814) 349-6000

A Cool Peach of an Idea:

Regrowing a Local Specialty at Peachcrest FarmsPeachCrest Farm

Susan Bergen

www.peachcrestfarm.com

(405) 650-0804

CHAPTER 11 - MAKING SOMETHING NEW: ADDING VALUE

TO OKLAHOMA'S CROPS

LOVAs for Life: Value Added Food Processing and

Community Food SecurityOklahoma Food and Agricultural Products Research and

Technology Center

www.fapc.okstate.edu

(405) 744-6071

[email protected]

Adding Value to the Country:

Oklahoma's Rural Food ProcessorsRedland Juice Company

www.redlandjuice.com

(405) 527-9181

Springhill Farms

Nick and Karen Callen

www.oklahomafood.coop/shop/producers/calle.php

(580) 639-2797 (home)

Christian Cheese

George and LeWanna Christian

www.christiancheese.com

(405) 375-6711, 1-888-437-0018

CHAPTER 12 - SOMETHING DIFFERENT: FOOD LABELS

Demand for Health: Community Food Security Surfs the

Wave of Value Added Food LabelingOrganic Food Section

www.oda.state.ok.us/food-organichome.htm

Contact: Chad Goss

[email protected]

(405) 522-5898

National Organic Program

USDA - Agricultural Marketing Service

www.ams.usda.gov/nop/indexIE.htm

(202) 720-3252

Made in Oklahoma CoalitionMade in Oklahoma Coalition

www.miocoalition.com

Spirit in the Dust:

Organic Wheat and Natural Beef at John's FarmJohn's Farm

John and Kris Gosney

www.johnsfarm.com

(580) 227-3452

SPARC-ing Change on the Plains:

Soil, Health, and Sustainable WheatSPARC

Great Plains RC&D

www.greatplainsrcd.org/sparc.php

Contact: Larry Wright

(580) 832-3661

The Food Alliance

www.foodalliance.org

(503) 493-1066

CHAPTER 13 - SAVING FARMLAND:

URBAN SPRAWL AND FAMILY FARMS

Farmland Preservation in OklahomaLand Legacy

www.landlegacy.com

Contact: Lorre Troyer

[email protected]

(918) 587-2190

American Farmland Trust

www.farmland.org

(202) 331-7300

Tools for Protecting Agricultural LandFarmland Information Center

www.farmlandinfo.org

(800) 370-4879

Farming the Family Way: Conrad FarmsConrad Farms

www.conradfarmsmarket.com

[email protected]

(918) 366-8942

CHAPTER 14 - KEEPING IT CLOSER TO HOME:

FOOD MILES AND REGIONAL MARKETS

How Far Can Food Miles Carry Community Food Security:

The Case of Braum's DairyBraum's Ice Cream and Dairy Stores

www.braums.com

(405) 478-1656


Consolidation in the Food System - Food Circles

Networking Project

Department of Rural Sociology

University of Missouri-Columbia

www.foodcircles.missouri.edu/consol.htm

(573) 882-3776

Farming and the Environment:

The Local Food ConnectionOklahoma Sustainability Network

www.oksustainability.org

The Tulsa Area Green Directory

Sustainable Tulsa

www.sustainabletulsa.org/greendirectory.php

Sustainable Agriculture

Oklahoma Chapter - Sierra Club

www.oklahoma.sierraclub.org/chapter/

sustainable_agriculture.htm

167


What is the Kerr Center for SustainableAgriculture? The Kerr Center is a 501c(3) non-profit educational foundation established in 1985.The home office, farm, and ranch are located nearPoteau in southeastern Oklahoma. The Kerr Centeralso operates the Overstreet-Kerr Historical Farmand Museum near Sallisaw, Oklahoma.

How was the Kerr Center created? The KerrFoundation was established in 1965 from the estateof Senator Robert S. Kerr. The foundation’s agri-cultural division served farmers and ranchers insoutheastern Oklahoma with information and edu-cational activities until 1985.

In that year, the Kerr Foundation was separatedinto four new foundations. The “ag division”became the Kerr Center for SustainableAgriculture, continuing its primary work of educa-tional outreach, but with a new focus on helpingfamily farms statewide become more sustainable—more environmentally sound as well as economical-ly viable. Dr. James E. Horne has been presidentsince 1985.

How is the Kerr Center supported? The KerrCenter operates on the earnings from its ownendowment, as well as grants and donations.Individuals and organizations may donate throughthe Friends of the Kerr Center program.

What are the Kerr Center programs? Core pro-grams are: Education/Communications, OklahomaProducer Grants, Public Policy, the StewardshipFarm and Ranch, and the Overstreet-KerrHistorical Farm.

The Kerr Center administers the ProfessionalDevelopment Program of the USDA SustainableAgriculture Research and Education (SARE) pro-gram, Southern region, the first non-governmentalgroup to do so.

The Oklahoma Food Policy Council is a joint proj-ect of the Kerr Center and the OklahomaDepartment of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry.

In recent years, the center has created a CommunityFoods Program with support from USDA grants.

Who is on staff? Professional staff members haveexpertise in agricultural economics, horticulture,biology/ecology, animal science, public policy, law,communications, and business.

What are the Kerr Center’s educational offer-ings? The center sponsors a variety of educationalevents for farmers and ranchers and those interestedin sustainable food and farming systems. The quarterlynewsletter Field Notes is free. The Next Green Revolution:Essential Steps to a Healthy, Sustainable Agriculture, bythe Kerr Center’s president Jim Horne and commu-nications director Maura McDermott, is used world-wide. The Kerr Center website (www.kerrcenter.com)has complete information on programs and events aswell as many educational publications.

What are the values by which the Kerr Center isgoverned? The Kerr Center believes that a sustain-able agriculture must be socially equitable, profitablefor producers and ecologically sound. The KerrCenter values and supports the family farm structureof agriculture, a fair playing field for independentfarmers and ranchers, public research for the publicdomain, the enhancement and protection of naturalresources, respect for nature, and local/regional foodsystems that enhance local economies.

What is its mission statement? The mission of theKerr Center is to assist in developing sustainablefood and farming systems by:

Supporting farms that provide a perpetual streamof economic goods and ecological/environmentalbenefits, and which enhance the quality of life offarm families, rural residents and society as a whole;

Promoting markets made up of independently ownedand operated farms and firms of a scale appropriateto offer a wide variety of product choices for con-sumers and economic opportunities for existing andbeginning farmers;

Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture: FAQs

What is the Oklahoma Food Policy Council?The council is a joint project of the KerrCenter for Sustainable Agriculture and the

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, andForestry (ODAFF).

What is a food policy?It is any decision made (or not made) by a govern-ment or institution, which shapes the type and costof foods used or available, influences the opportuni-ties for farmers and employees, or affects the foodchoices available to consumers.

Who are the members of the Oklahoma FoodPolicy Council?A dozen Oklahomans representing diverse groupsmake up the council. About the same number of adhoc members contribute their expertise.

When was it established?The council was established on October 16, 2001, atthe Kerr Center’s Bringing in the Sheaves symposium.

Why was it established?

• To broaden the discussion of issues beyondagricultural production to a more comprehensive,food system-wide examination.

• To provide an opportunity for a focused examinationof how state and local government actions shape thefood system.

• To create a forum in which people involved in all

different parts of the food system and governmentcan meet to learn more about what each one doesand to consider how their actions impact otherparts of the system.

• To improve nutrition and the provision of nutri-tional information throughout Oklahoma.

• To create an infrastructure within the food systemwhich will better connect stakeholders such as foodproducers, consumers, communities, food processors,marketers, and government agencies, includingthose agencies which may also be consumers.

• To improve the economic status of Oklahomansinvolved in the food system by creating new opportu-nities, increasing profitability, and ensuring that fooddollars stay close to home through local processing,enhanced distribution, direct marketing, diversifica-tion of products, and distribution of informationregarding presently underutilized opportunities.

What can a food policy council do that is notalready being done elsewhere in government?

• A food policy council can bring to the table abroader array of interests and voices, many ofwhom are not typically asked to be involved whenfarm and agriculture policy is discussed.

• A food policy council can examine issues– such ashunger in the state, the nutritional well being ofcitizens, and how to increase purchases of locallygrown food– with fresh eyes.

169

Encouraging communities to protect the land frommisuse, exploitation, and unfettered urban development;to ensure inclusion and equality of opportunity forall; to promote community food security; and sup-port economic development from within;

Proclaiming the need for a culture that respects theearth and all of its diversity of life, and recognizesthe physical, social and spiritual connectionsbetween people within a higher order of things.

Kerr Center for Sustainable AgriculturePO Box 588Hwy 271 SouthPoteau, OK 74953918.647.9123Fax: 918.647.8712Web site: www.kerrcenter.comEmail: [email protected]

The Oklahoma Food Policy Council: FAQs


• An food policy council can employ a more com-prehensive approach to analyzing issues, whichrecognizes the interrelation between differentparts of the food system and the need to coordi-nate and integrate action if policy goals are to beachieved.

What has the Oklahoma food policy councilaccomplished so far?For its first project, the council examined the poten-tial for increasing the amount of Oklahoma-grownand/or processed foods purchased by public institu-tions in the state. A survey of institutional food serv-ice directors was devised and mailed to 638 publicinstitutions, 85% of which were public schools.

The response to the survey was overwhelming, withalmost 67% completing and mailing back the survey.The council published The Oklahoma Farm-to-SchoolReport, containing an analysis of the survey answersas well as an examination of the importance ofincreasing local consumption of locally producedfoods.

The main finding of the survey was that a high per-centage of schools were interested in buying locallygrown foods, but did not know what was availableand how to connect with farmers.

In response to this need, the council compiled adirectory of Oklahoma food producers and whatthey grow along with schools interested in buyinglocally. The Oklahoma Food Connection was publishedin 2003 and updated in 2006.

Armed with the results of the survey and with thehelp of partners in the Oklahoma Departments ofHuman Services and Education, the council organ-ized a successful farm-to-school pilot project in fourschool districts in 2004, which was expanded to sixin 2005. In 2006, 40 school districts served Oklahoma-grown watermelons and honeydew melons.

Children’s advocacy groups such as the Fit KidsCoalition and the Institute for Child Advocacyrecognized the potential that the program has toimprove the eating habits, and health, of Oklahoma’sschoolchildren. Through the efforts of these groupsand others, the Oklahoma legislature created andfunded a state farm-to-school program in spring2006. The coordinator of the program will workwith schools and with farmers to expand the pro-gram further.

Oklahoma Food Policy CouncilContact the Kerr Center for more informationat 918.647.9123 • www.kerrcenter.com/ofpc

In 2004, the Kerr Center received a three-yeargrant (# 2004-33800-15141) from the USDA’sCommunity Foods Grant Program. The funded

project entitled “Building a Foundation for FoodSecurity in Oklahoma” has enabled the Kerr Centerand the Oklahoma Food Policy Council to work withdiverse groups to craft comprehensive responses topressing food, farm and nutrition issues in the state.

The overarching goal of the project is to helpOklahomans understand and establish sustainablelocal food systems that are mutually beneficial toboth consumers and producers.

Through these food systems, it is hoped that peopleof all ages and income levels will be able to accessand regularly eat nutritious, locally-grown food pro-duced profitably and sustainably by small and medium-sized family farms.

Closer to Home—an Analysis of Oklahoma’sFood System, from Field to ForkThe research and writing of this report, Closer toHome: Healthier Food, Farms and Families inOklahoma, was funded by this grant.

The purpose of this report is to increase the knowl-edge base of the Oklahoma Food Policy Council andother policy makers, as well as to present food issuesto the public in an understandable way.

This report identifies the greatest threats to healthand food security in the state. It identifies the coun-ties in Oklahoma with high poverty rates and pooraccess to food where community food projects suchas farm-to-school might be established.

The report proposes that Oklahomans, both youngand old, could be healthier if they ate more foodsgrown “closer to home,” i.e., on Oklahoma farms,and it explores the possible economic benefits toOklahoma farmers of expanding production of thefoods Oklahomans need to eat to be healthy.

Closer to Home also suggests actions and policies foraddressing the specific problems and opportunitiesidentified in each chapter.

Educational Activities In addition to this report, other grant-fundedactivities are:

• An educational campaign about community foodsecurity and community food projects such asfarm-to-school (using the Kerr Center newsletter,newspaper articles, educational brochures, and webpages).

• Outreach to low income families (providinginformation about healthy farm-fresh food and localsources such as farmers’ markets).

• Curriculum/activities on locally grown food andlocal farms for schoolchildren and teachers (such asfarm and garden tours, farmers’ speaker bureau, andAg in the Classroom curriculum).

• Expanding farm-to-school programs (informationguides and workshops for farmers and food service,and information transfer to policy makers).

The project has brought together groups from sectors(agriculture, health and education) that have notpreviously worked closely together, creating a criticalmass of energy, expertise and enthusiasm that isbuilding a foundation for community food securityin Oklahoma.

171

Building a Foundation for Community Food Security in Oklahoma

A food system encompasses

agricultural production,

food processing and distribution,

and consumption and nutrition.


The Community Food Projects CompetitiveGrant Program (CFPCGP) has existed since1996 as a program to fight food insecurity

through developing community food projects thathelp promote the self-sufficiency of low-incomecommunities.

Community Food Projects are designed to increasefood security in communities by bringing the wholefood system together to assess strengths, establishlinkages, and create systems that improve the self-reliance of community members over their foodneeds.

The 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement andReform Act (FAIR) established new authority forfederal grants to support the development ofCommunity Food Projects, and the Farm Securityand Rural Investment Act of 2002 re-authorized theprogram. The program is designed to:

• Meet the needs of low-income people byincreasing their access to fresher, more nutri-tious food supplies.

• Increase the self-reliance of communities inproviding for their own food needs.

• Promote comprehensive responses to localfood, farm, and nutrition issues.

Additionally, projects should:

• Meet specific state, local, or neighborhoodfood and agricultural needs for infrastructureimprovement and development.

• Plan for long-term solutions.

• Create innovative marketing activities thatmutually benefit agricultural producers andlow-income consumers.

Preferred projects also develop linkages betweentwo or more sectors of the food system, supportthe development of entrepreneurial projects, developinnovative linkages between the for-profit and non-profit food sectors, encourage long-term planningactivities, and build the long-term capacity of commu-nities to address the food and agricultural problems ofcommunities, such as food policy councils and foodplanning associations.

These grants are intended to help eligible privatenonprofit entities that need a one-time infusion offederal assistance to establish and carry out multi-purpose community food projects. Projects arefunded from $10,000-$300,000 and from 1 to 3years. They are one-time grants that require adollar-for-dollar match in resources. Approximately18 percent of the submitted proposals have receivedawards during the history of this program. Fundshave been authorized through the year 2007 at$5 million per year.

USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service:Community Food Projects

173

Introduction

From Field to Fork: Community Food Security in Oklahoma

1. Cohen, B. 2002. Community Food Security Assessment Toolkit. United States Department of Agriculture, EconomicResearch Service. E-FAN No. (02-013). http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/efan02013/

2. Kantor, L.S. 2001. Community Food Security Programs Improve Food Access, Food Review 24(1):20-26.

3. Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group. 2005. Food Security Begins at Home: Creating Community FoodCoalitions in the South. http://www.ssawg.org/cfs-handbook.html

4. State Board of Health. 2005. State of the State's Health: Investing in Prevention. Oklahoma State Department ofHealth, Center for Health Statistics.

5. Barta, S., Trzebiatowski, S., Williams, J.E., Doekson, G., and Woods, M.D. 2004. Economic Conditions and Trends inRural Oklahoma, 9th ed. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University.

6. Burton, B. and Woods, M. 2003. Oklahoma Community Listening Sessions: State Summary. Oklahoma CooperativeExtension Service. Oklahoma State University.

7. Stofferahn, C., and Goreham, G. 2002. Sustainable Community Food Systems: Case Studies. Center for Rural Studies,University of North Dakota.www.und.edu/misc/ndrural/Case%20Studies.pdf

8. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2004. Briefing Room: Food Security in theUnited States: Community Food Security.http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/community.htm

9. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2005. 2003 County-Level Poverty Rates for OK.http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/PovertyRates/PovListpct.asp?ST=OK&view=Percent

How to Read This Report's "County Snapshots"

1. Cohen, B. 2002. Community Food Security Assessment Toolkit. USDA Economic Research Service. ElectronicPublications from the Food Assistance & Nutrition Research Program. E-FAN-02-013.http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan02013/

2. Barta, S., Trzebiatowski, S., Williams, J.E., Doekson, G., and Woods, M.D. 2004. Economic Conditions and Trends inRural Oklahoma (9th edition). Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.http://www.rd.okstate.edu/pdf/2004%20Economic%20Trends%20Report.pdf

3. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2004.2002 Census of Agriculture.

4. USDA Economic Research Service. 2005. 2003 County-Level Poverty Rates for Oklahoma.http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/povertyrates/PovListpct.asp?st=OK&view=Percent&longname=Oklahoma

5. Oklahoma Department of Education. 2005. Low-Income Report 2004-2005.

6. Oklahoma State Department of Health. 2005. Planning for Healthy Communities: 2005 County Health Report.http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/planning/hsip/2003profile.pdf

7. Claritas, Inc. 2004. Survey of Buying Power.

8. Schulte, M. 2005. Oklahoma Certified Farmers’ Market List 2005. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, andForestry. http://www.madeinoklahoma.net/Okgrown/farmmkt.asp

9. Campbell, S. 2003. The Oklahoma Food Connection 2003: A Directory of Agricultural Producers, Crops, andInstitutional Buyers. Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Poteau, OK.

Endnotes


Chapter 1: Nutrition and Health

Good Food for Good Health: Combating Poor Nutrition and Obesity with Fresh Locally Grown Foods

1. United Health Foundation. 2005. America's Health Rankings, '05 Edition.http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/shr2005/states/Oklahoma.html

2. Oklahoma State Board of Health. 2006. A Strong and Healthy Oklahoma: 2006 State of the State's Health.http://www.health.state.ok.us/board/state/index.html

3. Centers for Disease Control. 2002. Trends Data - Overweight and Obesity in OK. Behavioral Risk FactorSurveillance System. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/Trends/trendchart.asp?qkey=10010&state=OK

4. See “Curing Our Kids,” p.28.

5. National Institutes of Health. 1998. Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight andObesity in Adults. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ob_gdlns.pdf

6. National Institutes of Health. 2001. Diet and Exercise Dramatically Delay Type 2 Diabetes. National Institute ofDiabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases. News Briefs.http://www.niddk.nih.gov/welcome/releases/8_8_01.htm

7. Centers for Disease Control. 2005. State Data and Trends. National Diabetes Surveillance System.http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/prev/state/tPrevalenceTotal.htm

8. American Cancer Society. 2006. Cancer Facts and Figures 2006.http://www.cancer.org/docroot/stt/stt_0.asp

9. Oklahoma State Department of Health. 2004. Behavioral Risk Factors among American Indians in Oklahoma. ChronicDisease Service. http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/cds/nativeamericanpdfweb.pdf

10. Oklahoma State Department of Health. 2003. Oklahoma Vital Record Statistics. Heart Disease Deaths by SelectedDemographics. http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/phs/ohs/Ok2002.pdf

11. Centers for Disease Control. 2004. The Burden of Chronic Diseases and their Risk Factors. United StatesDepartment of Health and Human Services. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/burdenbook2004/pdf/burden_book2004.pdf

12. Finkelstein, E., Fiebelkorn, I., and Wang, G. 2004. State level estimates of annual medical expenditures attributableto obesity. Obesity Research 12: 18-24. http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/content/full/12/1/18

13. State Board of Health. 2005. State of the State's Health: Investing in Prevention. Oklahoma State Department ofHealth, Center for Health Statistics.

14. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2005. Food Consumption (per capita) DataSystem. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/spreadsheets/foodloss/sugar.xls

15. Putnam, J., Allhouse, J., and Kantor, L.S. 2002. U.S. Per Capita Food Supply Trends: More Calories, RefinedCarbohydrates and Fats. Food Review 25(3):2-15.http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/FoodReview/DEC2002/frvol25i3a.pdf

16. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americanshttp://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/

17. Merck Institute of Aging and Health. 2004. The State of Aging and Health in America 2004.http://www.miahonline.org/press/content/11.22.04_SOA_Report.pdf

18. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. State and County Quickfacts.http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/oklahoma_map.html

19. See “A Strong and Healthy Oklahoma,” p.7.

20. Glanz, K., Basil, M., Maibach, E., Goldberg, J., and Snyder, D. 1998. Why Americans eat what they do: taste, nutrition,cost, convenience and weight control concerns as influences on food consumption. Journal of the American DieteticAssociation 98(10):1118-1126.

21. See “From Horn of Plenty to Plenty of Horns,” p. 99.

175

22. Centers for Disease Control. 2002. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Trends Data - Oklahoma.http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/Trends/trendchart.asp?qkey=10020&state=OK

A Strong and Healthy Oklahoma

1. Office of the Governor. 2005. Governor Henry announces Strong and Healthy Oklahoma Initiative.http://www.governor.state.ok.us/display_article.php?article_id=475&article_type=1

2. Oklahoma Employee Benefits Council. 2005. Oklahoma Health Frequently Asked Questions.http://www.ebc.state.ok.us/en/OkHealth/Faqs

3. Associated Press. 2005. Governor wants Oklahoma to be healthiest state in nation.http://www.ebc.state.ok.us/en/PressRoom/PressReleases/2005/Governor_Health_Initiative.htm

4. Oklahoma Turning Point Council. 2006. http://www.okturningpoint.org

5. Hann, N. 2005. Transforming Public Health Through Community Partnerships.Preventing Chronic Disease 2(Special Issue):1-5. http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2005/nov/05_0072.htm

A Going and Growing Market in Muskogee

1. Schulte, M. 2006. Personal communication.

2. Oklahoma State University. 2002. Farmers' Market Surveys. Strengthening Direct Market Channels: Programs toDevelop and Enhance Farmers' Markets. http://www.kerrcenter.com/farmers_market/index.html

3. Appel, M., and Oakley, E. 2005. The Cost of Local Produce. Growing for Market. September.http://www.growingformarket.com/

4. Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture. 2005. Price Comparisons at Two Oklahoma Farmers' Markets and Nearby Grocers.Unpublished research.

5. See “Fresh and Affordable,” p. 52.

6. USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service. 2004. State listing of farmers' markets. http://www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/map.htm


Chapter 2: Food Insecurity

Feeling Hungry

1. Nord, M, Andrews, M., and Carlson, S. 2005. Household Food Security in the United States, 2004. United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Economic Research Report No. 11.http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err11/

2. Community Action Project. Hunger and the Holidays: Oklahoma's Performance in Food Assistance Programs aMixed Bag. Press release, nov. 24, 2004

3. Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). 2005. Hunger in the U.S.http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html

4. Cohen, B. 2002. Community Food Security Assessment Toolkit. United States Department of Agriculture, EconomicResearch Service. Electronic Publications from the Food Assistance & Nutrition Research Program. E-FAN-02-013.http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan02013/

5. Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). Federal Food Programs: Food Stamp Participation Access Rates State-by-State. http://www.frac.org/html/federal_food_programs/FSP/rates03_bystate.html


6. Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma. http://regionalfoodbank.org/; Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma.http://cfbeo.org.

7. Senate Bill No. S 1120. Sec. 2. 109th Congress. 1st Session. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s1120:

8. USDA Economic Research Service. 2003 County-Level Poverty Rates for Oklahoma. United States Department ofAgriculture, Economic Research Service. 2005. 2003 County-Level Poverty Rates for OK.http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/PovertyRates/PovListpct.asp?ST=OK&view=Percent

9. DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B.D., and Mills, R.J. 2004. Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the UnitedStates: 2003. United States Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, United States CensusBureau. Current Population Reports. Consumer Income. P60-226. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

10. State Board of Health. 2006. State of the State's Health : A Strong and Healthy Oklahoma.Oklahoma State Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics.

11. Drewnoski, A., and Specter, S.E. 2004. Poverty and Obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs.American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 79:6-16.

12. Wellever, A., Reichard, A., and Velasco, M. 2004. Obesity and Public Policy: Legislation Passed by States, 1999 to 2003.Kansas Health Institute, Topeka.

13. Joliffe, D. 2004. Rural Poverty at a Glance. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.Rural Development Research Report No. 100. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rdrr100

14. Kantor, L.S. 2001. Community Food Security Programs Improve Food Access. Food Review 24(1):20-26.

15. Center on Hunger and Poverty and Food Research and Action Center. 2003. The Paradox of Hunger and Obesity inAmerica. http://www.frac.org/pdf/hungerandobesity.pdf

Hands Together for Community Food Security

1. Been, V., and Voicu, I. 2006. The Effect of Community Gardens on Neighboring Property Values. New YorkUniversity, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 06-09 http://ssrn.com/abstract=889113; Gateway Greening. 2006.Whitmire Study: Gateway Greening Community Garden Areas, Reversing Urban Decline.http://stlouis.missouri.org/gatewaygreening/WhitmireStudy.htm

2. Ohri-Vachaspati, P. and Warrix, M. 1999. Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Among Urban Gardeners. Ohio StateUniversity Extension. Proceedings, SNE Annual Meeting.

3. Sullivan, A.F. 1999. Community Gardening in Rural Regions: Enhancing Food Security and Nutrition. Center onHunger and Poverty, School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University.

Oklahoma Food Banks

1. Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma. Food Bank Facts.http://www.regionalfoodbank.org/fbfacts.php

2. Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma.http://www.cfbeo.org/

Chapter 3: Children's Health and Food Education

A Garden to Grow on

1. Hermann, J. 2005. After-school health education incorporating gardening improves youth health behaviors. OklahomaState University, Cooperative Extension Service. http://www.cyfernet.org/cyfar05/posterFiles/Hermann-AfterschoolHealth.ppt

2. Demas, A. 1994. Most creative implementation of the Dietary Guidelines. Society for Nutrition Education,Excellence in Nutrition Education. http://www.foodstudies.org/researchsummaries/

177

Curing Our Kids

1. Centers for Disease Control. 2004. Prevalence of Overweight among Children and Adolescents: United States 1999-2002.http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/overwght99.htm

2. Centers for Disease Control. 2003. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System - Oklahoma.http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/yrbss/SelHealthTopic.asp?Loc=OK

3. Statewide Obesity Task Force. 2003. Strategic Plan for the Prevention of Obesity in Texas.http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/phn/pdf/obesity-plan.pdf

4. Freedman, D., Dietz, W., Srinivasan, S., and Berenson, G. 1999. The relation of overweight to cardiovascular risk factorsamong children and adolescents: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Pediatrics 103(6):1175-1182.http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/6/1175#T5

5. Oklahoma State Department of Health, 2003. Update on Type 2 Diabetes Among Oklahoma Children and Adolescents: 2003.Chronic Disease Service 4(1). http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/cds/Diabetes%20in%20children%202003.pdf

6. National Institutes of Health. 1998. Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight andObesity in Adults. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ob_gdlns.pdf

7. Schwimmer, J.B., Burwinkle, T.M., and Varni, J.W. 2003. Health-related quality of life of severely obese children andadolescents. Journal of the American Medical Association 289(14):1813-1819.

8. DeSimone, J., and Schumacher, E.J. 2004. Body weight and academic performance in high school. Working papers.Departments of Health Care Administration and Economics, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX.http://www.trinity.edu/eschumac/Bodyweight%20November%2004.pdf

9. Hedley, A.A., Ogden, C.L., Johnson, C.L., Carroll, M.D., Curtin, L.R., and Flegal, K.M. 2004. Overweight and obesityamong US children, adolescents, and adults, 1999-2002. Journal of the American Medical Association 291(23):2847-2850. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/23/2847

10. Olshansky, S.J., Passaro, D.J., Hershow, R.C., Layden, J., Carnes, B.A., Brody, J., Hayflick, L., Butler, R.N., Allison,D.B., and Ludwig, D.S. 2005. A potential decline in life expectancy in the United States in the 21st century. The NewEngland Journal of Medicine 352(11):1138-1145. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/352/11/1138

11. St-Onge, M.P., Keller, K.L. and Heymsfield, S.B. 2003. Changes in childhood food consumption patterns: a causefor concern in light of increasing body weights. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 78(6):1068-1073.http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/6/1068

12. Bowman, S.A., Gortmaker, S.L., Ebbeling, C.B., Pereira, M.A., and Ludwig, D.S. 2004. Effects of fast-food consumptionon energy intake and diet quality among children in a national household survey. Pediatrics 113(1):112-118.http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/1/112

13. United States Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Preventand Decrease Overweight and Obesity.

14. Buzby, J., Guthrie, J., and Ralston, K. 2003. Food Assistance Research Brief - A Healthy School Meal Environment. UnitedStates Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. 34-5.http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr34/fanrr34-5/

15. Schmitz, Paul J. 2002. Memo: Purchases of Locally Produced Foods in the School Nutrition Programs. United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Southwest Region.

16. See “Melons Carry Seeds of Change,” p.32.

17. Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture. 2005. How Farm to School Programs Help Kids Eat Healthy.http://kerrcenter.com/farm_to_school/healthy_kids.htm

18. Buzby, J. and Guthrie, J. 2003. Food Assistance Research Brief - The USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot ProgramEvaluation. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Food Assistance and NutritionResearch Report No. 34-14. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr34/fanrr34-14/

19. Oklahoma Fit Kids Coalition. 2005. Teen Survey. http://69.20.59.165/324.html

20. Slusser, W. and Neumann, C. 2001. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the salad bar program in the Los Angeles School District.Los Angeles: School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles. Cited in: Farm to school: strategies for urban health,combating sprawl and establishing a community food systems approach. Journal of Planning Education and Research 23:414-423.


21. See “A Garden to Grow On,” p. 25.

22. National Gardening Association. 2002. School Garden Research.http://www.kidsgardening.com/Dig/digbrowse.taf?_Start=1&Type=Art&Cat=40

23. Community Food Security Coalition. 2005. Feeding Young Minds: Hands-On Farm to School Education Programs.http://www.foodsecurity.org/pubs.html#feeding

24. United States Department of Health and Human Services and National Institutes of Health. 2006.Statistics Related to Overweight and Obesity. http://win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/index.htm

25. American Obesity Association. 2005. Obesity in Youth. AOA Fact Sheets.http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/obesity_youth.shtml

26. United States Department of Agriculture. 2001. Nutrition and Learning Resource List for Professionals.National Agricultural Library, Food and Nutrition Information Center. Beltsville, MD.http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/service/learnpub.htm

27. Nord, M., Andrews, M., and Carlson, S. 2005. Household Food Security in the United States, 2004. United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. ERS Report ERR11.http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err11/err11.pdf

28. United Health Foundation. 2005. America's Health Rankings, 2005 Edition. United States Department ofAgriculture, Economic Research Service. 2005. 2003 County-Level Poverty Rates for OK.http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/PovertyRates/PovListpct.asp?ST=OK&view=Percent

29. Oklahoma State Department of Education. 2005. Low Income Report for 2004-2005.http://cnp.sde.state.ok.us/documents/statelowincome.pdf

30. Oklahoma State Department of Health. 2004. Healthy Transitions for Oklahoma's Youth. State of the State's HealthInterim Report. http://www.health.state.ok.us/board/ir04/index.html

31. Center for Science in the Public Interest. 2003. Pestering Parents: How Food Companies Market Obesity to Children.http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/pages_from_pestering_parents_final_pt_1.pdf

Melons Carry Seeds of Change

1. Oklahoma Food Policy Council. 2003. The Oklahoma Farm to School Report.http://www.kerrcenter.com/ofpc/farmtoschool.htm

2. Oklahoma Food Policy Council. 2003. The Oklahoma Food Connection. http://www.kerrcenter.com/ofpc/foodconnection.htm

3. See "Curing Our Kids," p. 28.

4. Pirog, R., and Benjamin, A. 2003. Checking the food odometer: Comparing food miles for local versus conventional producesales to Iowa institutions. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University; see "Food Miles," p. 153.

5. Sanders, L.D., and Ancev, T. 2003. 2002 Institutional Food Service Survey: A Summary and Review. In: OklahomaFood Policy Council. 2003. The Oklahoma Farm to School Report.

Chapter 4: The Cost of Good Food

Getting What You Pay for

1. See "Feeling Hungry," p. 31, and "Good Food for Good Health," p. 1.

2. National Food and Agricultural Policy Project. 2001. Fruit Consumption: Dietary Health and Policy Implications. NFAPP#01-03. http://nfapp.east.asu.edu/policy/2001/03-Pb01-03.htm

3. Andrews, M., Kantor, L.S., Lino, M., and Ripplinger, R. 2001. Using USDA's Thrifty Food Plan to Assess FoodAvailability and Affordability. Food Review 24(2):45-53.

4. Schoonover, H., and Muller, M. 2006. Food Without Thought: How U.S. Farm Policy Contributes to Obesity. Institute forAgriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, MN. http://www.iatp.org/iatp/publications.cfm?accountID=421&refID=80627

179

5. Sisson, A. 2002. Fruit and Vegetable Consumption by Low-Income Americans. Nutrition Noteworthy 5(1): Article 7.http://repositories.cdlib.org/uclabiolchem/nutritionnoteworthy/vol5/iss1/art7

6. Putnam, J.J., and Allshouse, J.E. 1999. Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1970-97. United States Department ofAgriculture, Economic Research Service. Statistical Bulletin No. 965.

7. Drewnowski, A., and Specter, S.E. 2004. Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 79(1):6-16.

8. Glanz, K., Basil, M., Maibach, E., Goldberg, J., and Snyder, D. 1998. Why Americans eat what they do: taste, nutrition,cost, convenience and weight control concerns as influences on food consumption. Journal of the American DieteticAssociation 98(10):1118-1126.

9. Reed, J., Frazão, E., and Itskowitz, R. 2004. How Much Do Americans Pay for Fruits and Vegetables? USDA ERSAgriculture Information Bulletin No. 790. Based on 1999 purchase data. The authors estimate today's prices would beabout ten percent higher on average. (See note #17.)

10. See "Local Produce Is Affordable," p.52.

11. Kantor, L.S. 2001. Community Food Security Programs Improve Food Access. Food Review 24(1):20-26.

12. Sisson, A. 2002. Fruit and Vegetable Consumption by Low-Income Americans. Nutrition Noteworthy 5(1): Article 7.http://repositories.cdlib.org/uclabiolchem/nutritionnoteworthy/vol5/iss1/art7

13. See "The Teacher Only Sets the Table,” p.45.

14. See "The Food Stamp Challenge." The Better Times Almanac of Useful Information is available athttp://www.bettertimesinfo.org/2004index.htm, while the website of the Oscar Romero Catholic Worker House ishttp://www.justpeace.org

15. See "Hands Together for Community Food Security," p. 36.

16. Blisard, N., Stewart, H., and Jolliffe, D. 2004. Low-Income Households' Expenditures on Fruits and Vegetables.United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Agricultural Economic Report No. AER833.www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AER833/

17. Reed, J., and Frazão, E. 2004. How Expensive Are Fruits and Vegetables Anyway? Amber Waves 2(5). Web Update.http://www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/September04/Findings/fruitveg.htm

18. Current production acres from United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service.2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture. Per-acre yields from USDA Vegetable Survey (for Oklahoma and neighboring states),http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pvg-bban/vgan0105.pdf; and from Dainello, F. 1996. TexasCommercial Vegetable Production Guide. Texas Cooperative Extension Service. Prices from USDA Economic ResearchService Briefing Rooms: Fruit and Tree Nuts (http://ers.usda.gov/briefing/fruitandtreenuts/), and Vegetables and Melons(http://ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Vegetables/). Per-capita consumption figures from USDA Economic Research Service FoodConsumption Data System (http://ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/).

The Teacher Only Sets the Table

1. Blisard, N., Stewart, H., and Jolliffe, D. 2004. Low-Income Households' Expenditures on Fruits and Vegetables. USDAEconomic Research Service Research Brief. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer833/

2. Sturm, R., and Datar, A. 2005. Metropolitan Area Food Prices and Children's Weight Gain. USDA Contractor andCooperator Report No. 14. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/CCR14/

Fresh and Affordable

1. Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture. 2002. Strengthening Direct Market Channels: Programs to Develop and EnhanceFarmers' Markets. http://www.kerrcenter.com/farmers_market/index.html


Chapter 5: Access to Food

You Can't Get There from Here

1. United States Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. 1997 Economic Census: Comparative Statistics forOklahoma, 1987 SIC Basis: Retail Trade. http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97sic/E97SOKG.HTM#G54

2. United States Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005. Oklahoma 2002 Economic Census. Retail TradeGeographic Area Series.

3. Blanchard, T., and Lyson, T. 2003. Access to Low Cost Groceries in Nonmetropolitan Counties: Large Retailers and theCreation of Food Deserts. http://srdc.msstate.edu/measuring/blanchard.pdf

4. Blanchard, T.C., and Lyson, T.A. 2002. Retail Concentration, Food Deserts, and Food Disadvantaged Communities in RuralAmerica. http://srdc.msstate.edu/focusareas/health/fa/blanchard02_final.pdf

5. Kaufman, P.R. 1999. Rural Poor Have Less Access to Supermarkets, Large Grocery Stores. Rural DevelopmentPerspectives 13(3):19-26.

6. See “Northeast Oklahoma City's 'Grocery Gap,'” p. 61.

7. USDA Economic Research Service. 2005. Rural America at a Glance. Electronic Information Bulletin No. 4.http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB4/

8. Miller, K. Demographic and Economic Profile - Oklahoma. Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI).

9. U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. County Business Patterns. http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html

10. See "Fresh and Affordable," p. 52.

11. Farm to Table and the New Mexico Food and Agriculture Policy Council. 2006. Closing New Mexico's Rural Food Gap.http://www.farmtotable.info

12. Kaufman, P.R., MacDonald, J.M., Lutz, S.M., and Smallwood, D.M. 1997. Do the Poor Pay More for Food? ItemSelection and Price Differences Affect Low-Income Household Food Costs. USDA Agricultural Economic Report No. 759.

13. Reed, J., Frazão, E., and Itskowitz, R. 2004. How Much Do Americans Pay for Fruits and Vegetables? USDA ERSAgriculture Information Bulletin No. 790.

14. Andrews, M., Kantor, L.S., Lino, M., and Ripplinger, R. 2001. Using USDA's Thrifty Food Plan to Assess FoodAvailability and Affordability. Food Review 24(2):45-53.

15. Kaufman, P.R. 2002. Food Retailing. p. 21-33 in Harris, M., Kaufman, P.R., Martinez, S.W., and Price, C. The U.S. Food Marketing System, 2002. USDA Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 811.http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer811/


1. Project for Public Spaces. 2003. Public Markets and Community-Based Food Systems: Making Them Work in Lower-IncomeNeighborhoods. Public Markets Research and Grants Programs.http://www.pps.org/PublicMarkets/info/regranting/kellogg_market_research

2. National Association of Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs. 2003. Program Impact Report for the 2002 WIC Farmers'Market Nutrition Program. http://www.nafmnp.org/ImpactReports/2002%20Impact%20Report.pdf

3. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2005. USDA Awards $15 Million to States and Tribal Organizations for the SeniorFarmers' Market Nutrition Program. Food and Nutrition Service. FNS PR 0003-05.http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/PressReleases/2005/FNS-0003.htm

4. USDA. 2005. Grant levels by state as of August 2005. Food and Nutrition Service, WIC Farmers' Market NutritionProgram. http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/FMNP/FMNPgrantlevels.htm

5. Hayes, J. 2005. Personal communication.

6. National Association of Farmers' Market Nutrition Programs. 2003. Program Impact Report for the 2002 WICFarmers' Market Nutrition Program.

181

7. Oklahoma State Board of Health. 2005. Investing in Prevention: 2005 State of the State's Health.http://www.health.state.ok.us/board/state/index.html

8. Merck Institute of Aging and Health. 2004. The State of Aging and Health in America 2004.http://www.miahonline.org/press/content/11.22.04_SOA_Report.pdf

9. Centers for Disease Control. 2003. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System - OK.http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/yrbss/SelHealthTopic.asp?Loc=OK

10. Oklahoma State Department of Health, Maternal and Child Health Service. 2005. Oklahoma First and Fifth GradeHealth Surveys.

Chapter 6: Direct Marketing

Direct from the Source

1. See “Coupons Worth Clipping,” p. 59.

Who Sells at Oklahoma Farmers' Markets?

1. Oklahoma State University. 2002. Farmers' Market Surveys. Strengthening Direct Market Channels: Programs to Developand Enhance Farmers' Markets. http://www.kerrcenter.com/farmers_market/index.html

2. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture.Age categories within farmers' market surveys are not identical to those used within U.S. Census of Agriculture.

Farm Direct

1. See “CSA in Oklahoma,” p. 78.

2. Harris, W. 2005. A DARE You Can Take… to the Bank. Field Notes, Winter 2005, p. 7.http://www.kerrcenter.com/nwsltr/2005/winter2005/dare_youcan_take.htm

3. See “Eating Cooperatively and Locally,” p.89.

4. Elitzak, H. 2001. Food Marketing Costs at a Glance. Food Review 24(1):47-48.

5. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture;United States Census Bureau. 2002. Population Estimates.



8. See “Land of Opportunity,” p. 103

Local-plicity

1. Krinke, M. 2002. Comparative Regional Economic Impacts from Agriculture: A Literature Review. Land StewardshipProject; Flora, C.B. 1999. Bringing Home the Bacon: The myth of the role of corporate hog farming in rural revitalization. KerrCenter for Sustainable Agriculture; Ikerd, J. 1999. An Alternative to CAFOs for Rural Oklahoma - Locally Owned, ValueAdded Agricultural Enterprises.

2. USDA Economic Research Service, Briefing Room: Farm Structure - Glossary.www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmStructure/glossary.htm#smlfarm

3. Mayfield, L.H. 1996. The local economic impact of small farms: A spatial analysis. Tijdschrift voor Economische enSociale Geografie 87(5):387-398; Lazarus, W.F., Platas, D., and Morse, G. 2001. Evaluating Economic and Fiscal Impactsof an Evolving Swine Industry. CURA Reporter 31(1):16-22; Lazarus, W.F. (project leader) 2001. Final Technical WorkingPaper on Topics D, E, and F: Economic Structures, Profitablity, and External Costs. Minnesota Environmental Quality Board.


4. Helmuth, J. Buyer concentration in livestock markets: trends, impacts, and implications. 1995. Dakota Rural Action:Brookings, S.D. Cited in Welsh, R. 1996. The Industrial Reorganization of U.S. Agriculture: An Overview and BackgroundReport. Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture.

5. However, as in the case of large confined feeding operations' establishment in rural communities, the associated economic multiplier will not account for losses from other businesses that they displace.

6. See “Farm Direct,” p. 69.

7. Otto, D. and Varner, T. 2005. Consumers, Vendors, and the Economic Importance of Iowa Farmers' Markets: An EconomicImpact Survey Analysis. Iowa Farmers' Market Association.

8. Myles, A.E. and Wise, S. 2003. The Economic Benefits of Farmers' Markets. Agricultural Economic and PolicyPerspectives 2(5):1-5. Mississippi State University Department of Agricultural Economics.

9. Lev, L., Brewer, L., and Stevenson, G. 2003. Research Brief: How do Farmers' Markets Affect Neighboring Businesses?Oregon Small Farms Technical Report Number 16, Oregon State University Extension Service.

10. Goldschmidt, W.J. 1947/1978. As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of Agribusiness. Montclair, NJ:Allanheld, Osmund & Co.

11. Welsh, R. and Lyson, T.A. 2001. Anti-Corporate Farming Laws, the “Goldschmidt Hypothesis,” and Rural CommunityWelfare. Annual Meeting, Rural Sociological Society, Albuquerque NM.

12. See “Balancing Trade for a Balanced Diet,” p. 94.

13. Rural Conditions and Trends 8(3), February 1998; See “LOVAs for LIFE,” p. 121.

Chapter 7: State of the State's Farms

Changing with the Times

1. Unless otherwise noted, all data are from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture.

2. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2004. Oklahoma: Leading Commodities forCash Receipts, 2003.

3. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2006. Briefing Room: Farm Income and Costs:2006 Farm Sector Income Forecast. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmIncome/nationalestimates.htm

4. Environmental Working Group, Farm Subsidy Database.http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/region.php?fips=40000&progcode=total&yr=2002

CSA in Oklahoma

1. See “Curing Our Kids,” p. 28.


3. Lass, D. et al. 2003. CSA Across the Nation: Findings from the 1999 Survey. Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems,Madison, WI.

CSAs Bring Affordable Fresh Food to Low-Income People



3. Madison Area CSA Coalition website. http://macsac.org/

4. Southside Community Land Trust website. http://www.southsideclt.org/urban/agproj.php

5. Holcomb Farm CSA Newsletter, 08 October 2005. http://holcombfarmcsa.org/newsletter.html

183

6. Maine Senior Farmshare Program website. http://www.getrealmaine.com/connect/farmshare.html

7. Conners, D. 2004. Fresh Food Brainstorm Feeds The Hungry, Supports Local Farmers. Great Lakes News Service,24 Dec. http://www.mlui.org/growthmanagement/fullarticle.asp?fileid=16779

It's Not Quite the Middle of Nowhere

1. Delind, L. 2003. A Lot More Than Vegetables, Considerably Less Than Community: The Dilemma of CommunitySupported Agriculture. p. 192-206 in Fighting for the Farm: Rural America Transformed, J. Adams, ed., University ofPennsylvania Press.

2. Cone, C.A. and Myrhe, A. 2000. Community Supported Agriculture: A Sustainable Alternative to IndustrialAgriculture? Human Organization 59:187-197.

CSAs: Did You Know?

1. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002 Census of Agriculture.

2. Kerr Center research.

3. Lass, D. et al. 2003. CSA Across the Nation: Findings from the 1999 Survey.

4. Guthman, J. 2004. Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California. University of California Press,Berkeley.

Meat and Nutrition

1. United States Department of Health and Human Service. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005.www.healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines

2. United States Department of Agriculture. MyPyramid.gov. Inside the Pyramid: Health Benefits and Nutrients.www.mypyramid.gov/pyramid/meat_why.html

3. Rule, D. C., Broughton, K.S., Shellito, S.M., and Maiorano, G. 2002. Comparison of Muscle Fatty Acid Profiles andCholesterol Concentrations of Bison, Beef Cattle, Elk, and Chicken. Journal of Animal Science 80(5):1202-1211.

4. Davidson, M. H., Hunninghake, D., Maki, K.C., Kwiterovich, P.O., and Kafonek, S. 1999. Comparison of the effects oflean red meat vs lean white meat on serum lipid levels among free-living persons with hypercholesterolemia: a long-term,randomized clinical trial. Archives of Internal Medicine 159(12):1331-1338.

Chapter 8: Food Imports and Exports

Eating Cooperatively and Locally


Balancing Trade for a Balanced Diet

1. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, & Forestry. 2005. http://www.oda.state.ok.us/about-home.htm

2. Current production acres from United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service.2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture. Per-acre yields from USDA Vegetable Survey (for Oklahoma and neighboring states),http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pvg-bban/vgan0105.pdf; and from Dainello, F. 1996. TexasCommercial Vegetable Production Guide. Texas Cooperative Extension Service. Per-capita consumption figures fromUSDA Economic Research Service Food Consumption Data System (http://ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/).


3. See “Good Food for Good Health,” p. 1.


5. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture.

6. See “Changing with the Times,” p. 75.

7. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2003. Interstate Livestock Movements.http://ers.usda.gov/Data/InterstateLivestockMovements/

8. United States Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1999. Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing. 1997 EconomicCensus Manufacturing Industry Series. EC97M-3253A; see “LOVAs for LIFE,” p. 121.

9. Kerr Center. 2005. Informal survey: Wal-Mart, Muskogee, Del Monte Canada-grown tomatoes, $1.81 per lb;Muskogee Farmers' Market, Oklahoma-grown tomatoes, $0.90/lb.

10. Jacobs, J. 2000. The Nature of Economies. The Modern Library, New York.

1. See “From Horn of Plenty to Plenty of Horns,” p. 99.


3. See “Farm Direct,” p. 69.

4. See “Local Food, Local Prosperity,” p. 113, “Eating Cooperatively and Locally,” p. 89, and “Melons Carry Seeds ofChange,” p. 32.

5. See “LOVAs for LIFE,” p. 121.

6. See “Local-plicity,” p. 72.

Importing Oklahoma's State Meal

1. Oklahoma State Emblems, Symbols, Flag, and Seal. http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/ok_symb.htm

2. Everett, D. State Meal. Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Oklahoma Historical Society. http://www.ok-history.mus.ok.us/enc/stmeal.htm


4. Flora, C.B. 1999. Bringing Home the Bacon? The myth of the role of corporate hog farming in rural revitalization. KerrCenter for Sustainable Agriculture. http://www.kerrcenter.com/publications/hog_report1.pdf; Ikerd, J. 1999. AnAlternative to CAFOs for Rural Oklahoma - Locally Owned, Value Added Agricultural Enterprises; Britton, J. and Berry, J.G.1994. 1994 Oklahoma Broiler Survey. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Current Report CR-8212.http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2112/CR-8212web.pdf

5. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2003. Interstate Livestock Movements.http://ers.usda.gov/Data/InterstateLivestockMovements/; See "Good Food for Good Health," "Balancing Trade for aBalanced Diet," p. 94, and "LOVAs for LIFE." p. 121.

6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005. Oklahoma Manufacturing Geographic Area Series. 2002Economic Census. EC02-31A-OK; United States Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Flour MillingProducts: 2003. Summary. Current Industrial Reports MQ311A(03)-5; United States Department of Commerce, CensusBureau. 2005. Oklahoma 2002 Economic Census Manufacturing Geographic Area Series.

7. Current production acres from United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service.2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture. Per-acre yields from USDA Vegetable Survey (for Oklahoma and neighboring states),http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pvg-bban/vgan0105.pdf; and from Dainello, F. 1996. TexasCommercial Vegetable Production Guide. Texas Cooperative Extension Service. Prices from USDA Economic ResearchService Briefing Rooms: Fruit and Tree Nuts (http://ers.usda.gov/briefing/fruitandtreenuts/), and Vegetables and Melons(http://ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Vegetables/). Per-capita consumption figures from USDA Economic Research Service FoodConsumption Data System (http://ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/).

185

Chapter 9: Farm Diversification

From Horn of Plenty to Plenty of Horns

1. See "Changing with the Times," p. 75.

2. See "Land of Opportunity," p. 103.

3. Dimitri, C. and Effland, A. 2005. Milestones in U.S. Farming and Farm Policy. Amber Waves 3(3):10-11.


5. Banker, D. E., and J. M. MacDonald. 2005. Structural and Financial Characteristics of U.S. Family Farms. UnitedStates Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 797.http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib797/

6. Thompson, Dick, and Thompson, S. 1994. Farming Systems and the Viability of Rural Communities. Ch. 9 inAlternatives in Agriculture. Wallace Institute On-Farm Research Report.http://www.pfi.iastate.edu/ofr/Thompson_OFR/TOC_Thompson.htm

7. Krinke, M. 2002. Comparative Regional Economic Impacts from Agriculture: A Literature Review. Land StewardshipProject. http://www.foodroutes.org/doclib/15/FOH_LSP_Review_Jan01_Final.pdf

8. See "Balancing Trade for a Balanced Diet," p. 94.

Land of Opportunity


2. Upson, S. 2003. The future of fresh market fruit, vegetable production in Oklahoma. Ag News & Views, Dec.http://www.noble.org/Ag/Horticulture/FreshFruitOkla/index.html

3. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1940. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture.

4. Purdue University. 2001. Farmers' food dollar share remains even. Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Supplement #17.

5. Guthman, J. 2004. Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California. University of California Press,Berkeley; Stoll, S. 1998. The Fruits of Natural Advantage: Making the Industrial Countryside in California. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley.

6. Upson, S. 2000. Small Farms: Perceptions vs. Realities. Ag News & Views, Dec.http://www.noble.org/Ag/Horticulture/SmallFarms/Index.htm

7. See "Small Acreages, Large Returns," p. 106.

8. Current production acres from United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service.2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture. Per-acre yields from USDA Vegetable Survey (for Oklahoma and neighboring states),http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pvg-bban/vgan0105.pdf; and from Dainello, F. 1996. Texas CommercialVegetable Production Guide. Texas Cooperative Extension Service. Prices from USDA Economic Research ServiceBriefing Rooms: Fruit and Tree Nuts (http://ers.usda.gov/briefing/fruitandtreenuts/), and Vegetables and Melons(http://ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Vegetables/). Per-capita consumption figures from USDA Economic Research Service FoodConsumption Data System (http://ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/).

Small Acreages, Large Returns

1. Devault, G. 2003. Get Small and Get In.http://www.foodandsocietyfellows.org/library/uploadedFiles/showfile.cfm?FileName=ISSUE_BRIEF_Get_Small_and_Get_In.doc

2. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2006. Commodity Costs and Returns. U.S.and Regional Cost and Return Data. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns/testpick.htm; United StatesDepartmeant of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture.


3. Popp, J.S., and Westberry, G. 2004. Conducting a Cost Analysis. In: Southeastern Peach Growers' Handbook.Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Bulletin 1171.http://www.ent.uga.edu/Peach/peach_handbook/cost_analysis.htm

4. Isaacs, S., Goode, S., Trimble, R., Woods, T., Ernst, M., Strang, J., Rowell, B., Jones, T., Spalding, D., and Dunwell,W. 2004. Vegetable and Melon Enterprise Budgets for Kentucky. Department of Agricultural Economics, University ofKentucky. http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgriculturalEconomics/pubs/software/budgets_veg_melon.html

5. McCraw, D., Motes, J., and Schatzer, R.J. Commercial Production of Fresh Market Tomatoes. Oklahoma CooperativeExtension Service Fact Sheet F-6019. http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-1112/F-6019web.pdf

6. O'Dell, C., Snodgrass, H., Conner, C., and Groover, G. 2001. Selected Costs and Returns Budgets for Horticultural FoodCrops Production/Marketing. Virginia Cooperative Extenion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,Publication Number 438-898. http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/vegetables/438-898/438-898.html

7. Bubl, C., and Stephenson, G. 2003. What Can I Do with My Small Farm? Oregon State University Extension Service.Oregon Small Farms Publication Series EC1529.http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/html/EC/EC1529/EC1529.html

Just Right in the Middle

1. Dohlman, E., Hoffman, L., Young, E., and McBride, W. 2004. Peanut Policy Change and Adjustment Under the 2002Farm Act. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service Electronic Outlook Report OCS-04G-01. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/OCS/jul04/OCS04G01/


3. Lane Agriculture Center. http://www.lane-ag.org/

4. See "Oklahoma Agriculture Enhancement and Diversification Program."

5. Stoll, S. 1998. The Fruits of Natural Advantage: Making the Industrial Countryside in California. University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.

6. See "Changing With the Times," p. 75.

7. Kirschenmann, F., Stevenson, S., Buttel, F., Lyson, T., and Duffy, M. 2005. Why Worry About the Agriculture of theMiddle? http://www.agofthemiddle.org/archives/2005/08/why_worry_about.html

Chapter 10: Local Marketing

Local Food, Local Prosperity


2. See "Farm Direct," p. 69.

3. See "Melons Carry Seeds of Change," p. 32.

4. Halweil, B. 2004. Eat Here: Reclaiming Homegrown Pleasures in a Global Supermarket. Worldwatch Institute.

5. See "Adding Value to the Country," p. 124.

6. See "The Buyer's-Eye View," p. 117.

7. Pretty, J.N., Ball, A.S., Lang, T., and Morison, J.I.L. 2005. Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost ofthe U.K. weekly food basket. Food Policy 30(1):1-19; Tegtmeier, E.M. and Duffy, M.D. 2004. External costs of agricultur-al production in the United States. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2(1):1-20; see "Food Miles," p. 153.

8. See "Local-plicity," p. 72.

9. Nord, M., Jemison, K., and Bickel, G. 1999. Prevalence of Food Insecurity and Hunger, by State, 1996-1998. USDA ERSFood and Rural Economics Division, Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. 2.

187

10. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2004. Census of Agriculture 2002.


12. Wilkinson, F., and Van Seters, D. 1997. Adding Value to Our Food System: An Economic Analysis of Sustainable CommunityFood Systems. Integrity Systems Cooperative, for USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program.

13. See "Land of Opportunity," p. 103.

14. Consumer Perceptions of MIO Initiative. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Agricultural Newsletter, 2003.

15. Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture. 2002. Farmer's Market Survey.http://www.kerrcenter.com/farmers_market/index.html

16. The Globalization of Food and How Americans Feel about It. Southern Perspectives 6(2):1-3. Southern RuralDevelopment Center.

A Cool Peach of an Idea

1. Kader, A.A., ed. 2002. Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops, 3rd ed. University of California CooperativeExtension. Special Publication 3311.

2. See "Melons Carry Seeds of Change," p. 32.

3. See "Eating Cooperatively - And Locally," p. 89.

4. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture;Dainello, F. 1996. Texas Commercial Vegetable Growers' Guide. Texas Cooperative Extension Service; United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2005. Food Availability Database.http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/FoodAvailIndex.htm


The Buyer's-Eye View

1. Consumer Perceptions of MIO Initiative. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Agricultural Newsletter, 2003.

2. Barron, C., and Henneberry, S.R. 1989. Marketing Challenge in Oklahoma's Produce Industry: Buyer Perspective.Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet F-514.http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-279/F-513_pod.pdf

Chapter 11: Making Something New

LOVAs for LIFE


2. Holcomb, R.B. 2005. Adding Value Can Improve Your Bottom Line. Conference Proceedings, Future Farms 2000.Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Poteau, OK.http://www.kerrcenter.com/publications/futurefarms_2000/conf_2000_5.pdf

3. Worstell, J.V. Southern Futures: Opportunities for Sustainable Agricultural Systems. A Report of the State of the SouthProject.

4. Ikerd, J. 1999. An Alternative to CAFOs for Rural Oklahoma - Locally Owned, Value Added Agricultural Enterprises;Regmi, A., Gehlhar, M., Wainio, J., Vollrath, T., Johnston, P., and Kathuria, N. 2005. Market Access for High-Value Foods.USDA Agricultural Economic Report Number 840.

5. "Oklahoma," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia. 2005.http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578896_4/Oklahoma.html


6. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture.

7. Shields, D.A. and Matthews, K.H. 2003. Interstate Livestock Movements. USDA ERS Electronic Outlook ReportLDP-M-108-01.

8. Holcomb, R.B., and Ward, C.E. 2003. Operational Changes and Management Issues for Oklahoma Meat Processors.http://www.kerrcenter.com/publications/beef_survey/analysis_of_surveys.htm

9. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005. Oklahoma Manufacturing Geographic Area Series. 2002Economic Census. EC02-31A-OK.

10. United States Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2004. Flour Milling Products: 2003. Summary. CurrentIndustrial Reports MQ311A(03)-5; United States Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2005. Oklahoma 2002Economic Census Manufacturing Geographic Area Series.

11. Holcomb, R.B. 2000. More Than Just Wheat: Adding Value to Your Crop. Future Farms Workshop Proceedings.Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Poteau, OK.

12. Vielma, S. 2003. Sweet Smell of Success. Rural Cooperatives 70(6):20,32.http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/nov03/value.html; Campbell, D. 2003. Congressional Hearing Focuses on PossibleNeed for More Flexible Co-op Business Model. Rural Cooperatives 70(6):9-13.http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/nov03/hearing.html; FAPC Helps Cooperative "Roll In the Dough." 2000.Cowboy Journal 2(2). http://cowboyjournal.okstate.edu/cjfall00/00cjp28.html

13. Say Christian Cheese, Please. FAPC Flash. 14 September 2004.http://www.fapc.okstate.edu/fapcflash/christiancheese.pdf

14. See "Adding Value to the Country," p. 124.

15. Jacobs, J. 1985. Cities and the Wealth of Nations: Principles of Economic Life. Vintage.

16. http://www.fapc.okstate.edu; See "Food and Agricultural Products Center." p. 130.

17. Plath, P., and Blobaum, R. 2003. Bringing Kentucky's Food and Farm Economy Home. Community Farm Alliance.

18. Food and Agricultural Products Center. 2005. Helping Small Business Owners Succeed. FLASH, 05 Jan.(A "small" business is defined as "one that is independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its fieldof operation," with specific standards in terms of sales or employee numbers depending on the particular industry. U.S.Small Business Administration, "What Is Small Business," http://www.sba.gov/businessop/standards/smallbus.html).

19. See "Demand for Health," p. 133.

20. Rural Conditions and Trends 8(3), February 1998; See "Local-plicity," p. 72.

Getting a LIFE for Community Food Security

1. Wilkins, J. 2003. Cited in Bringing Kentucky's Food and Farm Economy Home, Community Farm Alliance.

2. Berry, W. 2002. "The Idea of a Local Economy." Orion Online.http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/archive_om/Berry/Local_Economy.html

3. Community Farm Alliance. 2003. "What Is L.I.F.E?" http://www.communityfarmalliance.org/life.htm

Adding Value to the Country

1. Jacobs, J. 1985. Cities and the Wealth of Nations: Principles of Economic Life. Vintage.


3. See "LOVAs for LIFE," p. 121.

4. See "Oklahoma Agriculture Enhancement and Diversification Program," p. 110.

5. See "Food and Agricultural Products Center," p. 130.

6. Food and Agricultural Products Center. 2004. Say Christian Cheese, Please. FLASH, 14 September.

7. Rural Conditions and Trends 8(3), February 1998.

189

8. Wilkinson, F., and Van Seten, D. 1997. Adding Values to Our Food System: An Economic Analysis of Sustainable CommunityFood Systems. Integrity Systems Cooperative Co.

9. See "Local-plicity," p. 72.

Chapter 12: Something Different

Demand for Health1. Pirog, R. (ed.) 2003. Ecolabel Value Assessment: Consumer and Food Business Perceptions of Local Foods. Leopold Center forSustainable Agriculture/Business Analysis Laboratory, Iowa State University.

2. Worstell, J.V. Southern Futures: Opportunities for Sustainable Agricultural Systems. A Report of the State of the SouthProject.

3. http://www.buylocalfood.com/, http://www.foodroutes.org/toolsforaction.jsp,http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/pubs/staff/taste/taste.htm

4. Made In Oklahoma. http://www.madeinoklahoma.net/.

5. See “A Going and Growing Market in Muskogee,” p. 9.

6. See “Eating Cooperatively and Locally,” p.89; “CSA in Oklahoma,” p. 78.

7. Diel & Associates. 2001. Study of Consumer Perceptions of All Natural Meat Products.Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture.

8. Campiche, J., Holcomb, R., and Ward, C.E. 2004. Impacts of Consumer Characteristics and Perceptions on Willingness toPay for Natural Beef in the Southern Plains. Food and Agricultural Products Research and Technology Center, FoodTechnology Research Report P-1006.

9. The Consumers Union Guide to Eco-Labels. http://www.eco-labels.org/home.cfm

10. See “SPARC-ing Change on the Plains,” p. 142.

11. McLaughlin, K. 2005. Is Your Tofu Biodynamic? Making Sense of the Latest Organic Food Terminology.Wall Street Journal, 19 April, p. D1.

12. National Marketing Institute. 2005. “Go Organic!” for Earth Day Survey. 12 April.

13. Lu, C., Toepel, K., Irish, R., Fenske, R.A., Barr, D.B., and Bravo, R. 2005. Organic Diets Significantly LowerChildren’s Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus Pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives. doi:10.1289/ehp.8418(available at http://dx.doi.org/)

14. Guru, M.V. and Horne, J.E. 2000. Food Labeling. Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Poteau, OK.

15. Dimitri, C., and Oberholtzer, L. 2005. Market-led Versus Government-Facilitated Growth: Development of the U.S. andEU Organic Agricultural Sectors. USDA ERS Electronic Outlook Report WRS-05-05.

16. Dimitri, C., and Greene, C. 2002. Recent Growth Patterns in the U.S. Organic Food Market. USDA ERS AgricultureInformation Bulletin Number 777.

17. Oberholtzer, L., Dimitri, C., and Greene, C. 2005. Price Premiums Hold on as U.S. Organic Produce Market Expands.USDA ERS Electronic Outlook Report VGS-308-01.

18. Howard, P. 2005. Corporate Ownership of Organic Food Companies. http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/rcbtoa/serv-ices/corporate-ownership.html

19. Ruiz-Marrero, C. 2004. Clouds on the Organic Horizon. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11712

20. Brasher, P. 2005. Organic Food Producers Lose Ground to Imports. Des Moines Register, 08 October.

21. Organic Monitor. 2005. USA: Market Growth Stifled by Undersupply. http://www.organicmonitor.com/r1512.htm

22. USDA ERS Data. 2005. Organic Production, 1992-2003. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/index.htm


23. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service. 2004.2002 Census of Agriculture.

24. Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture. 2002. Farmer’s Market Survey.http://www.kerrcenter.com/farmers_market/index.html

25. NewFarm.org. 2004. Looking for a bargain? Local, organic food: A real deal!http://www.newfarm.org/features/0904/bargain_wkst.shtml

Spirit in the Dust1. See “Whole Grain Nutrition,” p. 138.

2. Born, H. 2005. Marketing Organic Grains: Marketing, Business, and Risk Management. ATTRA-NCAT, Fayetteville,AR. http://www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/marketingorganicgrains.html; Greene, C., and Dobbs, T. 2001. Organic WheatProduction in the United States: Expanding Markets and Supplies. USDA Economic Research Service Wheat Yearbook31-37. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/field/whs-bby/whs2001.pdf ; data in figure are from Streff, N., andDobbs, T.L. 2004. ‘Organic’ and ‘Conventional Grain and Soybean Prices in the Northern Great Plains and Upper Midwest:1995 through 2003. Econ Pamphlet 2004-1, Economics Department, Agricultural Experiment Station, South Dakota StateUniversity.

3. Welsh, R. 1999. The Economics of Organic Grain and Soybean Production in the Midwestern United States. Henry A.Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture.

4. Scott, D., Bowser, T.J., and McGlynn, W.G. Food Product Labeling Basics. Food and Agricultural Products Researchand Technology Center Food Technology Fact Sheet FAPC-140. http://www.fapc.okstate.edu/factsheets/fapc140.pdf;Xanthus, N., Stone, C., Brooks, J., and Willoughby, C. Food Labeling Made Simple. Food and Agricultural ProductsResearch and Technology Center Food Technology Fact Sheet FAPC-119. http://www.fapc.okstate.edu/FactSheets/foodla-beling.pdf

5. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry. 2005. Certified Organic Producers and Processors.http://www.oda.state.ok.us/forms/food/ogl.pdf; United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural StatisticalService. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture.

6. Oklahoma Ag in the Classroom. 2005. Ag in the Classroom Calendar. www.agclassroom.org/ok

Whole Grain Nutrition1. U.S. Department of Agriculture. CNMap State Profile: Oklahoma.http://www.ba.ars.usda.gov/cnrg/services/state40.html

2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005.http://www.healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines

3. U.S. Department of Agriculture. MyPyramid.gov. Inside the Pyramid: Health Benefits and Nutrients.http://www.mypyramid.gov/pyramid/grains_why.html

4. Whole Grains Council. 2005. Reaping the Benefits of Whole Grains: A Consumer Guide. http://www.wholegrain-scouncil.org/Consumer%20Guide.html

SPARC-ing Change on the Plains1. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Service. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture.

2. Food Alliance Standards. http://www.foodalliance.org/certification/standards.htm

3. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Conditioning Indexhttp://soils.usda.gov/sqi/assessment/sci.html

191

Chapter 13: Saving Farmland

Farmland Preservation in Oklahoma1. American Farmland Trust. 2002. Farming on the Edge Report. http://www.farmland.org/resources/fote/default.asp

2. American Farmland Trust. 2002. Farming on the Edge: Listing of Loss by State.http://www.farmland.org/resources/fote/states/allStates.asp

3. American Farmland Trust. 2002. Farming on the Edge: Oklahoma State Map.http://www.farmland.org/resources/fote/states/map_oklahoma.asp

4. Land Legacy. Completed Projects as of August 2006.http://www.landlegacy.com/index.asp?page=news&issue=20040001

5. Dobberstein, J. 2006. Land Legacy alters strategy as values rise. Tulsa World, 06 July.

6. Cleaves, R. 2006. Strategic planning a boon for land trust. Land Trust Alliance Success Stories: Southwestern Region.05 September. http://www.lta.org/regionallta/s_sw.htm

7. See “Farming the Family Way,” p. 149.

8. Crosby, J. 2006. Farmland Conservation in the Bixby Bottomlands. Land Legacy.

9. Meador, M. 2006. Fort Sill buffs up. Lawton Constitution, 11 July.

10. Jackson, R. 2006. Fort’s buffer zone begins to take shape. Daily Oklahoman, 11 July.

11. Land Legacy. Projects Underway. http://www.landlegacy.com/index.asp?page=news&issue=20040002

12. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Farm and Ranch LandsProtection Program. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/frpp/

13. Edmond Land Conservancy. http://www.elc-ok.com/; Norman Area Land Conservancy.http://www.oknorman.org/nalc/about.htm

15. Leopold, A. 1953. Round River. Oxford University Press, New York.

16. The Trust for Public Land. http://www.tpl.org/

17. Land Legacy. http://www.landlegacy.com/

18. Land Legacy. Field Notes 29(2):7. Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture. Fall 2003.

19. Farmland Information Center. 2002. The Farmland Protection Toolbox. Fact Sheet. American Farmland Trust.http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/27761/FS_Toolbox_10-02.pdf

20. United States Department of Agriculture. 2000. Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory. NaturalResources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, and Statistical Laboratory, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/TECHNICAL/NRI/1997/summary_report/

21. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Farm and Ranch LandsProtection Program. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/PROGRAMS/frpp/

Chapter 14: Keeping It Closer to Home

Food Miles1. Pirog, R., and Benjamin, A. 2003. Checking the food odometer: Comparing food miles for local versus conventional producesales to Iowa institutions. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University.

2. Pretty, J.N., Ball, A.S., Lang, T., and Morison, J.I.L. 2005. Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full costof the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30:1-19.

3. Pirog, R., Van Pelt, T., Enshayan, K., and Cook, E. 2001. Food, Fuel, and Freeways: An Iowa Perspective on How Far FoodTravels, Fuel Usage, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University.


4. 100 Mile Diet. http://100milediet.org/

5. Smith, M.B. 2002. Letter from the Countryside: Real Homeland Security. Chronicles 26(2). February.

How Far Can Food Miles Carry Community Food Security?1. All statistics on Braum’s are from the company’s website, http://braums.com.

2. Pirog, R., and Benjamin, A. 2003. Checking the food odometer: Comparing food miles for local versus conventional producesales to Iowa institutions. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University.

3. Flora, C.B. 1999. Bringing Home the Bacon? The myth of the role of corporate hog farming in rural revitalization. KerrCenter For Sustainable Agriculture. http://www.kerrcenter.com/publications/hog_report1.pdf; McEowen, E.A. 2003.Setting the Stage: Contracting Law and the Courts Response to Conflicts Between Contracting Parties. Conference Proceedings,Truth or Consequences: The Future of Contracts in Agriculture. Kansas City, MO. http://www.farmfoundation.org/projects/03-30ContractsinAgpresentations.htm; Welsh, R. 1997. Reorganizing U.S. Agriculture: The Rise of Industrial Agriculture andDirect Marketing. Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture.

4. See “LOVAs for LIFE,” p. 121, and “Demand for Health,” p. 133.

5. The USDA Census of Agriculture gives the 2002 average size of dairy herds in Oklahoma as 47 head. Thus, it wouldtake about 213 “average” dairy farmers – about 12% of the state’s total – to equal Braum’s milk production.

6. Bell, M.M. 2004. Farming for Us All: Practical Agriculture and the Cultivation of Sustainability. Penn State Press.

7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Service. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005.http://www.healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines

8. Harvard School of Public Health. Calcium and Milk. www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium.html

9. U.S. Department of Agriculture. MyPyramid.gov. Inside the Pyramid: Health Benefits and Nutrients.www.mypyramid.gov/pyramid/milk_why.html

10. U.S. Department of Agriculture. CNMap State Profile: Oklahoma. www.ba.ars.usda.gov/cnrg/services/state40.html

Concentration in the Food System1. Mattera, P. 2004. USDA, Inc. How Agribusiness Has Hijacked Regulatory Policy at the U.S. Department ofAgriculture. Good Jobs First Corporate Research Project, presented at the Food and Agriculture Conference of theOrganization for Competitive Markets, 23 July. http://www.agribusinessaccountability.org/pdfs//289_USDA%20Inc.pdf

2. Hendrickson, M. and Heffernan, W. 2005. Concentration of Agricultural Markets.http://www.nfu.org/documents/legislative/Concentration_Tables_2004.pdf

Farming and the Environment: The Local Food Connection1. Sierra Club, Oklahoma Chapter, Agriculture Committee. How Your Food is Produced…Matters.http://www.oklahoma.sierraclub.org. Adapted from a brochure previously published by the Alabama Chapter of the SierraClub and from Growing for Market (www.growingformarket.com).

Kerr Center Board of Trustees Oklahoma Grown Luncheon1. Sum of distance traveled by primary ingredients from farm to table.

2. Pirog, R., and Benjamin, A. 2003. Checking the food odometer: Comparing food miles for local versus conventional producesales to Iowa institutions. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University.

Layout 1 (Page v)

Documents