Introduction
Alternative food networks (AFNs) have emerged in opposition to the global, industrial and standardized conventional agriculture and food (agrifood) system, with the aim of reconnecting consumers with the people who produce their food, and emphasizing quality, a sense of place and small-scale. AFNs promote a range of alternative practices such as organic and local food production, direct-to-consumer marketing schemes and Fair Trade certification programs (Goodman and Goodman, Reference Goodman, Goodman, Kitchen and Thrift2009; Maye and Kirwan, Reference Maye and Kirwan2010). Scholars have argued that AFNs have the potential to produce safe, nutritious, affordable and accessible food in ways that protect the environment, provide a decent living for farmers and enhance the vitality of local communities (Allen, Reference Allen2004; Constance, Reference Constance2008; Alkon and Agyeman, Reference Alkon and Agyeman2011; NSAC, 2015). Because of the potential benefits of AFNs, there has been growing interest in expanding participation in these efforts. Thus, scholars have focused on the barriers that may prevent AFNs from broadening their impact. Much of the literature on the barriers to increasing engagement in AFNs has focused on the need to expand processing and distribution opportunities for alternative agrifood products (Johnston and Baker, Reference Johnston and Baker2005; Friedmann, Reference Friedmann2007; Day-Farnsworth et al., Reference Day-Farnsworth, McCown, Miller and Pfeiffer2009; Tropp, Reference Tropp2010) or the difficulty of engaging more producers in sustainable agriculture practices (Darnhofer et al., Reference Darnhofer, Schneeberger and Freyer2005; Van Mele, Reference Van Mele2006; Cranfield et al., Reference Cranfield, Henson and Holliday2010). Scholars have also focused on the ways in which AFNs promote practices that maintain racial and class privilege (Hinrichs and Kremer, Reference Hinrichs and Kremer2002; Guthman, Reference Guthman2008), limiting participation by those who are not white and who are not middle or upper-middle class (Allen, Reference Allen2008, 2010; DeLind, Reference Delind2010). However, little attention has been paid to labor issues in both the spheres of production and the sphere of consumption. This is an important area of scholarship given that participation in AFNs is more labor intensive for both consumers and producers, relative to industrial agrifood systems (Jansen, Reference Jansen2000; Gomiero et al., Reference Gomiero, Pimentel and Paoletti2011; Som Castellano, Reference Som Castellano2015; Reissig et al., Reference Reissig, Kohler and Rossier2015).
In the sphere of production, the expansion of AFNs has encouraged the creation of new programs and policies to better support beginning and experienced farmers who want to practice ecological or organic agriculture (Greene et al., Reference Greene, Dimitri, Lin, McBride, Oberholtzer and Smith2009; Constance and Choi, Reference Constance and Choi2010; NSAC, 2015). Despite these programs, consumer demand for organically grown foods has still outpaced supply by a large margin (Dimitri and Oberholtzer, Reference Dimitri and Oberholtzer2009; Greene, Reference Greene2015). There is a need for research on the everyday challenges facing farmers who use alternative production practices. For instance, the added labor requirements of ecological production practices pose a significant long-term challenge to the viability and sustainability of alternative farms, and may pose a barrier to experienced farmers’ adoption of these practices. Likewise, recent scholarship demonstrates that engaging in AFNs as consumers is also more physically, mentally and emotionally labor intensive (Som Castellano, Reference Som Castellano2015). Given the cross-cutting nature of labor-related challenges, this paper is focused broadly to include systems of alternative food production and food provisioning. Thus, we bring together two separate studies that were designed and conducted independently, to examine how labor issues may limit engagement in AFNs for both producers and consumers.
In the remainder of this paper, we review literature about labor and AFN engagement in the spheres of production and consumption. Next, we present our research questions and describe the data and methods for both studies. We then present the findings from both studies, and conclude with a discussion on the connections between the studies and implications and recommendations from the research.
Literature review
AFN engagement and labor in the sphere of production
The Green Revolution brought technological innovations that significantly reduced the labor required for agriculture, while simultaneously increasing yields. These accomplishments are primarily achieved with the replacement of human or draft animal labor with fossil fuels and synthetic inputs (Conkin, Reference Conkin2008). They also shift food production from a diversity-based system to monoculture, and from small to large scale (Lobao and Meyer, Reference Lobao and Meyer2001). In contrast, small-scale alternative farming systems are more labor intensive than industrial practices because they are relying on management-intensive farming systems rather than petroleum-based inputs. Farmers engaged in small-scale, ecological or alternative food production are investing significantly more time in maintaining the health of their soils by practicing crop rotation, growing a greater diversity of crops and building organic matter with cover crops and compost. They emphasize growing a diversity of crops and animals to create closed nutrient cycles and enhance natural pest control. In general, they model traditional small-scale farmers around the world who produce more efficiently on less land, using human labor instead of nonrenewable resources by relying on intensive cultivation and vigilant care of complex, ecologically adaptive systems (Netting, Reference Netting1993; Altieri, Reference Altieri2008). All of this is accomplished with a great deal of labor, and requires more intensive management. Labor requirements vary by specific type of operation and crop, but in general labor inputs are around 15% higher (ranging from 7 to 75% higher) for organic systems compared with conventional systems (Pimentel et al., Reference Pimentel, Hepperly, Hanson, Douds and Seidel2005).
In a farm economy organized on exploited labor, economies of scale and subsidized commodity crops, this poses tough challenges (Guthman, Reference Guthman2004a; USDA, 2007; Gray, Reference Gray2013; Holmes, Reference Holmes2013). Moreover, small-scale alternative farmers who practice a more holistic, ‘deep’ form of organic farming (that is more labor intensive), must compete with highly capitalized industrial scale producers, which drive down the premium in organic prices through ‘organic lite’ practices (Guthman, Reference Guthman2004b). ‘Organic lite’ farmers define organic narrowly as the substitution of certified organic inputs, often used on just a small percentage of their farm, and allows for the continued exploitation of farmworkers, large-scale energy-intensive mechanization and minimal investment in soil health (Guthman, Reference Guthman2004a, Reference Guthmanb). Organic and direct sale price premiums are not high enough to compensate for these differences, so alternative agriculture is a precarious enterprise (Constance and Choi, Reference Constance and Choi2010; Bradbury et al., Reference Bradbury, Von Tscharner Fleming and Manalo2012; Galt, Reference Galt2013).
Jansen (Reference Jansen2000) argues that much of the literature on organic labor practices relies on too narrow a definition of labor because so much of the work sustainable farmers do is not rewarded in the marketplace. Her perspective builds on the scholarship of feminist theorists Jochimsen and Knobloch, who define maintenance or care activities as those carried out without the exchange of money, such as the provision of ecological services or the maintenance of home and family. These activities are oriented to the long-term and are measured qualitatively, in contrast to the activities of the monetary economy that are typically oriented to the short-term, aimed at accumulation, and measured quantitatively. This type of care-work is crucial for human existence and the functioning of the economy, but because it cannot be priced, it is excluded from market transactions (Jochimsen and Knobloch, Reference Jochimsen and Knobloch1997). Alternative farmers are often not earning a living wage for the products they sell because much of the work they do in building healthy soil, healthy animals, or reducing reliance on fossil fuels has no exchange value in the marketplace.
Consequences of labor issue
The labor intensity of alternative farming has a number of consequences that may limit the use of ecological practices. Studies of farmers engaged in AFNs describe the challenges they experience coping with the high labor demands of small-scale alternative farming (Pilgeram, Reference Pilgeram2011; Galt, Reference Galt2013; Ekers and Levkoe, Reference Ekers and Levkoe2016). Many such farmers work very long hours for which they do not pay themselves a wage, often working off-farm jobs to support themselves and maintaining their farms after dark (Janke, Reference Janke2008; Pilgeram, Reference Pilgeram2011; Galt, Reference Galt2013). In order to stay in business, many rely on self-exploitation, non-farm income and wealth, and low-wage or unpaid labor (Pilgeram, Reference Pilgeram2011; Galt, Reference Galt2013; Biewener, Reference Biewener2016; Ekers and Levkoe, Reference Ekers and Levkoe2016). This situation may limit participation to those who can afford to work such long hours with no pay. For instance, Jacob's (Reference Jacob1997) ethnography of small-scale homesteaders identified a common problem among his informants that he terms the ‘time-money dilemma’. The dilemma is that farming sustainably requires a lot of work, but because this work is unpaid, it leaves farmers without sufficient income to support their efforts (Jacob, Reference Jacob1997). Farmers either lack adequate time to develop sustainable systems because they are working off-farm to support their operations, or they lack the capital to invest in them (Jacob, Reference Jacob1997). Consequently, it is easier for relatively privileged people with substantial off-farm income, inherited land, or other non-farm revenue streams to operate ecological farms (Pilgeram, Reference Pilgeram2011).
The higher labor requirement has also been identified in survey research as an important barrier to conventional farmers’ adoption of organic or ecological practices (Darnhofer et al., Reference Darnhofer, Schneeberger and Freyer2005; Cranfield et al., Reference Cranfield, Henson and Holliday2010). Experienced farmers are a very important group from a policy perspective because their access to farmland, farming experience and knowledge of agricultural systems makes them most able to adopt more environmentally sustainable practices on a larger scale. In studies focused on the characteristics, motives and constraints of experienced farmers who are considering or who have adopted organic practices, researchers found that the increased labor requirements are an important challenge and constraint farmers are concerned about (Fairweather, Reference Fairweather1999; Constance and Choi, Reference Constance and Choi2010; Farmer et al., Reference Farmer, Epstein, Watkins and Mincey2014).
In sum, existing research suggests that the expanded labor of alternative production practices may limit the participation of beginning farmers who are engaged in AFNs because the added labor requirements threaten their financial viability and the sustainability of their farms. Previous research also provides evidence that the added labor requirements are a barrier to experienced farmers’ adoption of ecological practices. However, there is a need for qualitative research that provides a more in depth understanding of why and how the labor intensity of alternative production practices are a barrier for alternative farmers.
AFN engagement and labor in the sphere of consumption
AFN engagement in the sphere of consumption also involves care-work via the labor of food provisioning, and this labor could also limit the growth of AFNs. Food provisioning refers to the labor involved in providing food for a household, and includes planning meals, acquiring food, preparing meals and cleaning up after meals. Similar to agricultural production, food provisioning is also essential for the maintenance of households, society more broadly and AFNs, but often goes unnoticed and is left unacknowledged, particularly given that food provisioning is not rewarded monetarily (DeVault, Reference DeVault1991).
Previous research has demonstrated that women remain responsible for the care-work of food provisioning in AFNs (Little et al., Reference Little, Ilbery and Watts2009; Cairns et al., Reference Cairns, Johnston and MacKendrick2013; Som Castellano, Reference Som Castellano2015). Furthermore, the gendered labor of food provisioning can be more labor intensive for women engaged in AFNs (Cairns et al., Reference Cairns, Johnston and Baumann2010, Reference Cairns, Johnston and MacKendrick2013; Som Castellano Reference Som Castellano2016). This is predicated on the fact that AFN engagement involves an expanded array of activities in the sphere of consumption (Feenstra, Reference Feenstra1997; Allen, Reference Allen2004; Click and Ridberg, Reference Click and Ridberg2010; Conner et al., Reference Conner, Colasanti, Ross and Smalley2010; Bendfeldt et al., Reference Bendfeldt, Walker, Bunn, Martin and Barrow2011; Pole and Gray, Reference Pole and Gray2013). For example, AFN participation may involve procuring foods from a variety of outlets, including farmers’ markets, CSA shares, roadside stands, u-pick operations, home gardens, food cooperatives, natural grocery stores, as well as conventional grocery stores (Allen, Reference Allen2004; Conner et al., Reference Conner, Colasanti, Ross and Smalley2010; Bendfeldt et al., Reference Bendfeldt, Walker, Bunn, Martin and Barrow2011; Pole and Gray, Reference Pole and Gray2013; Schupp et al., Reference Schupp, Som Castellano, Sharp and Bean2016). AFNs may also promote practices such as provisioning in-season, utilizing fresh and unprocessed foods, preserving local foods, getting to know your local farmers, volunteering at local farms and more (Feenstra, Reference Feenstra1997; Kloppenburg et al., Reference Kloppenburg, Lezberg, De Master, Stevenson and Hendrickson2000; Click and Ridberg, Reference Click and Ridberg2010).
All of these activities can add to the physical, mental and emotional labor of food provisioning. Research has found that the physical labor of care-work via food provisioning is greater for women engaged in AFNs, particularly those who prioritize local food systems (Som Castellano, Reference Som Castellano2016). The emotional labor of food provisioning can also be expanded with AFN engagement. AFNs can put increased pressure on women to engage in ‘good’ food provisioning practices; this involves extending heightened care to family members via food work, and also involves extending care to the environment, laborers, smallholders and more (Little et al., Reference Little, Ilbery and Watts2009; Cairns et al., Reference Cairns, Johnston and Baumann2010, Reference Cairns, Johnston and MacKendrick2013; McIntyre and Rondeau, Reference McIntyre and Rondeau2011; Bowen et al., Reference Bowen, Elliott and Brenton2014; Som Castellano, Reference Som Castellano2016). Taken together, AFN engagement can involve heightened emotional labor (Som Castellano, Reference Som Castellano2016). The mental labor can also be expanded: planning what to cook is more work when you are taking local growing conditions into account, when you must plan multiple trips to multiple places to procure foods, or when you are cooking from scratch (Som Castellano, Reference Som Castellano2013). Thus, while the overall trends in the USA involve utilizing technology and convenience foods to ‘save time, provide ‘ease of preparation,’ minimize the stresses and demands of busy lives and reduce the required physical and mental effort’ (Bava et al., Reference Bava, Jaeger and Park2008, 487), AFN participants appear to be exerting themselves more in order to achieve the goals of greater sustainability in the agrifood system. However, this additional labor could limit the participation of some who are either unable or unwilling to engage in heightened mental, emotional and/or physical labor in food provisioning.
Other factors could further limit women's ability to engage in AFNs, including socio-economic factors, race and ethnicity, employment status, partnership status and having children. Scholars have previously noted that the experience of engaging in care-work may be influenced by a number of factors (Conlon et al., Reference Conlon, Timonen, Carney and Scharf2014). Take socio-economic status, for example. Work and family scholars have documented that social class is an important dynamic in understanding how women experience labor in the household or private sphere (Hochschild, Reference Hochschild1989), including food provisioning (DeVault, Reference DeVault1991). For one, individuals in households with lower incomes likely work multiple jobs or engage in shift work, which can disrupt the ability of individuals to engage in desired food provisioning practices (Devine, et al., Reference Devine, Jastran, Jabs, Wethington, Farell and Bisogni2006), and working on the weekends may limit the ability of food provisioners to shop at farmers’ markets. Furthermore, because of time and money constraints, women with lower incomes are more likely to take the preferences of family members and the cost of food into account, compared with middle-class women (Hupkens et al., Reference Hupkens, Knibbe, Van Otterloo and Drop1998), which potentially influences their ability to engage in AFNs. In addition, AFNs can exclude individuals with lower incomes based on cultural preferences and socio-economic status can influence the ability of individuals to engage in AFNs based on geographic availability (Guthman, Reference Guthman, Alkon and Agyeman2011). On the other hand, people with higher incomes and education are more likely to have skills and resources necessary to access ‘healthful foods’ or engage in tasks that help meet family role demands (Devine et al., Reference Devine, Jastran, Jabs, Wethington, Farell and Bisogni2006). For example, higher income households may have greater access to the skills, information or household help needed to meet desired food choices (Moen and Wethington, Reference Moen and Wethington1992), as well as space to engage in activities like gardening (Schupp et al., 2015).
The preferences of partners can also influence the labor of food provisioning and limit scaling up AFNs in the sphere of consumption (DeVault, Reference DeVault1991; Counihan, Reference Counihan and Counihan1999; Avakian and Haber, Reference Avakian and Haber2005). Women's housework increases when they get married (Andersen, Reference Andersen2011), and the presence of a spouse can influence time and financial demands (Devine et al., Reference Devine, Jastran, Jabs, Wethington, Farell and Bisogni2006). Further, partners can make their own demands about or aim to control food provisioning (McIntosh and Zey, Reference McIntosh, Zey, Counihan and Kaplan1998). This suggests that having a partner could make the labor of food provisioning more intensive for those aiming to engage in AFNs, and again could potentially limit some women from being able to scale up their participation in AFNs in the sphere of consumption. Having children could also limit women's ability to increase their participation in AFNs as consumers. Scholars have noted that having children increases household labor (Sayer, Reference Sayer2005). Having additional bodies to nourish influences the time and financial demands associated with food provisioning, and children often have specific food needs and preferences, which can further add to the labor of food provisioning (DeVault, Reference DeVault1991; Counihan, Reference Counihan and Counihan1999; Avakian and Haber, Reference Avakian and Haber2005; Devine et al., Reference Devine, Jastran, Jabs, Wethington, Farell and Bisogni2006; Wedge, 2008). This suggests that having children might be a barrier to increasing AFN engagement in the sphere of consumption given the ways in which they can add to the labor of food provisioning.
Women who are engaged in AFNs and who are employed in the public sphere, or formal paid employment outside the household, might have different experiences with food provisioning compared with women who are single or who do not work outside of the home. Employment adds a significant time constraint to women's lives (Andersen, Reference Andersen2011), which might limit the amount of time women have available to them to engage AFNs. Thus, employment could be a barrier to scaling up engagement in AFNs in the sphere of consumption.
In all, this literature suggests that the expanded labor of AFN engagement in the sphere of consumption could limit women from initiating involvement or expanding involvement in AFNs, and that other factors could further act as barriers to engaging in or expanding engagement in AFNs in the sphere of consumption. However, we know little about whether this expanded labor in fact prevents households from participating in AFNs, or from expanding participation in AFNs.
Research questions
Based on the literature reviewed above, we examine the following research questions: (1) How does the labor intensity of alternative food production limit farmers’ participation in AFNs? (2) How does the labor intensity of food provisioning limit women's AFN engagement? Knowing the answer to these questions can help in designing policies and practices that enable a greater number of people to engage in AFNs, both in the sphere of production and in the sphere of consumption.
Methods, data and analysis
This paper draws from two separate research studies that were conducted independently, without knowledge about the other's work. One study focused on labor in the sphere of production and the other focused on labor in the sphere of consumption. The methods for these two studies are detailed below.
The sphere of production
The portion of this paper about the labor of alternative food production is drawn from a study of beginning and experienced farmers who adopted organic or ecological practices within the last 10 years in Ohio. The study is based on a diverse sample of farms in southern Ohio that produce a combination of specialty crops (mostly vegetables, flowers and fruits), livestock, organic grains (200–1500 acres) and pasture-based organic dairy (25–70 cows). The farmers were selected based on their status as actively operating an organically managed farm (certified or not) and selling the products via farmers’ markets, CSA, restaurants, or the Organic Valley farmers’ cooperative in the case of the dairy farmers. All of the marketing channels used by farmers selected for the study are representative of AFNs, as they each make explicit commitments to ecological and economic sustainability. Participation in these markets was used as a proxy for assessing environmental sustainability, as there is currently no consensus on what that means (Pilgeram, Reference Pilgeram2013) and certification is not a reliable indicator of the farming practices used by small-scale farmers who market directly to their customers. The author selected farmers engaged in specialty crop production, livestock, grain and dairy, to represent the range of alternative farming practiced in southern Ohio, and understand the range of experiences with labor demands that each of these production systems entails.
The data are drawn from semi-structured in person and phone interviews with 31 beginning and experienced farmers conducted from 2014 to 2015. The majority of interviews (18) were conducted with male and female co-owner operators or the representative (either female or male) of a jointly managed farm. Two interviewees were sole female owner-operators, and 11 were male who were either co-owner/primary operators with a spouse who worked off the farm, or were sole owner operators. Compared with agricultural census data, the farmers interviewed were younger, more educated and operated smaller farms. In the interviews, issues related to the excessive demands on farmers’ time and the challenges this added labor requirement poses for them came up without prompting in almost every interview. The farmers completed a survey of their demographic information and land ownership, non-farm sources of income and percentage of household income drawn from their farm. Responses to the following survey question were used to measure the importance of the labor issue for farmers in this study:
‘How many hours a week do you usually work on this farm?
-
• Less than 35
-
• Between 36–45
-
• Between 46–55
-
• Between 56–65
-
• More than 65 h per week’
The sphere of consumption
Data for the portion of this paper examining the labor issues related to the sphere of consumption came from semi-structured in person interviews with 43 women respondents across the state of Ohio throughout 2012 and 2013. While all of the women interviewed expressed agrifood system concern and interest in AFNs, they had different levels of engagement in AFNs. This enabled evaluation of potential barriers to scaling up engagement in the sphere of consumption. Respondents were also chosen based on representation of diversity in regards to socio-economic status, race/ethnicity, age, partnership status, presence of children, geography and employment status, in order to allow for further evaluation of how socio-demographic characteristics interact with engagement in AFNs to influence the labor of food provisioning. The women interviewed ranged in age from 22 to 76, with an average age of 40 years. Demographically, compared with state-wide data, the women interviewed were more educated, had higher incomes and were more likely to be white.
Findings
Food production and AFN engagement: how does the labor intensity of alternative food production limit participation in AFNs?
The study provides insights into several ways that the labor intensity of alternative food production may limit farmers’ engagement in AFNs. A majority of the farmers who were surveyed struggle with the high labor requirements of alternative or ecological production, with 21 out of 31 of them working more than 65 h a week on their farms. All of them described working exceptionally hard, typically from sunrise to sunset almost every day. While they described this labor burden in both positive and negative terms, it was a consequential factor for the viability of their farms. Ultimately, the added labor burden poses a barrier to the long-term economic sustainability of alternative production practices if the existing policy structure does not change. Specifically, the added labor requirement limits the ability of alternative farmers to scale up or maintain their production at a level that is financially viable. It also undermines the social sustainability of alternative farming practices because of the physical, emotional and mental burden of working so many unpaid hours. Since so much of the added labor is not factored into the price of their products, practicing alternative farming often requires that farmers subsidize their farms in some way, either by volunteering their time, relying on nonfarm sources of income, or depending on unpaid interns. Consequently, ecological farming practices may be limited to those with reliable nonfarm sources of income or wealth. Finally, it may pose a barrier to farm viability, farm succession, or deter farmers from adopting alternative practices.
Barrier to increasing production
In order to avoid synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, small-scale alternative farmers work hard to enhance natural pest controls, using extended crop rotation systems, cover cropping to build organic matter in the soil, providing habitat for beneficial insects and increased cultivation depending on the scale of their operation and their crops. For instance, the grain farmers who were interviewed use a 5–7 year crop rotation system that includes less profitable crops to enhance soil fertility and limit weeds, rather than the subsidized soy/corn rotation that relies heavily on synthetic and chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Pasture-based livestock operations use management intensive rotational grazing systems to avoid over-grazing and disease problems. Intensively managed rotational grazing systems reduce the number of acres required for pastureland, which is often a necessity given the high price of farmland. This level of management places limits on the size of operation that farmers can reasonably manage.
Small-scale operations are not mechanized to the same extent as large-scale farms, because most laborsaving machinery is designed to facilitate very large operations, and small farmers usually cannot afford or choose not to take on the financial risk of large farm equipment. The farmers in this study relied on older equipment and machinery that is better suited to alternative production systems and their smaller scale. For example, growing organic grains or vegetables on a smaller scale is best done with older machinery designed for small-scale operations, and that can be purchased at lower costs. One farmer said: ‘To harvest 148 acres or 146 acres, it takes us roughly the same amount of time it takes our neighbor to do 3500 acres, which shows how old our equipment is.’ A couple who added a livestock feed business to their pasture-based livestock farm to add an additional source of revenue and provide a source of non-GMO feed that is in high demand in southern Ohio, said:
The livestock feed has been a really good thing for us to do. That made up more than half of our revenue last year and is somewhat profitable, where everything else is break even, but it's labor intensive. It takes 2 h to do a ton of feed because of our small scale and the systems that we have.
Another labor related barrier to increasing production is that many farmers engaged in AFNs market their products directly to consumers. Direct marketing is essential for them to obtain a higher price for their products, although in many cases direct market prices are still too low to pay themselves a living wage, or pay themselves at all. The challenge with selling their products via AFNs is that direct marketing is very time-consuming and logistically challenging to manage. Moreover, AFNs such as farmers’ markets, Community Supported Agriculture or CSA and farm-to-table restaurants are often not a sufficient marketing outlet, so many farmers must combine several marketing schemes in order to be viable. For example, one respondent described a day at the farmers’ market to explain why she decided to seek a wholesale contract with Whole Foods Market for her products:
And then you go there, you've spent five or six hours preparing, getting your linens together, baskets and harvesting and packing and getting the coolers, the trailer and all that crap.
You get there. You stand around for five or six hours. You listen to people come up “Oh, yeah I have tomatoes. I have blah blah blah.” And they comparison shop. So these guys that are buying at the auction are undercutting you. Then you come home, and you have to unpack all this stuff. And it's not worth it.
Most farmers in this study relied on multiple marketing outlets to sell their products, for instance combining farmers’ markets, CSA and direct sales via social media. The logistics and time required to manage multiple marketing schemes successfully was a major challenge and unexpected time sink. Consequently, small-scale farmers who market their products via AFNs are often limited from increasing production because they lack a sufficient market to sell a higher volume of product, or they are unable to increase the volume of their production because so much of their time is spent managing the logistics of direct marketing.
Finding reliable labor
In general, small-scale farmers who participate in AFNs benefit from the steady stream of interns generated by the food movement who are willing to work for low wages or volunteer their time in exchange for training and perhaps room and board (Pilgeram, Reference Pilgeram2011; Ekers and Levkoe, Reference Ekers and Levkoe2016; MacAuley and Niewolny, Reference MacAuley and Niewolny2016). Essentially, this source of cheap labor subsidizes their operations, allowing them to maintain their farms even if they do not generate enough income to be self-sustaining. The beginning farmers in this study rely on low-wage workers, volunteer interns, or they do all the work themselves. Food movement-generated labor is an asset that small farms traditionally have not had. However, while volunteer labor is certainly helpful, it cannot compete with the family labor small-scale farms have historically relied on. Family members possess years of experience and knowledge of a farm's unique ecological attributes and they are invested in its long-term success (Netting, Reference Netting1993). In contrast, most interns do not commit for even one full growing season, and there is no guarantee that they will be available when farmers most need them. Interns require significant management and training, and may not always be mentally or physically prepared for the hard work expected of them. Interns who connect with farms via programs like World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farmers, or WWOOF, often use the program to enhance their travel experience in a new country, perhaps committing a few months, or even less, on one farm. Many farmers made comments such as: ‘Labor is a huge problem. I'm sure you've heard this from other people. It's just very hard to find people with the work ethic who are willing to work for what I can afford to pay them.’
Finding reliable labor was also a big problem for the experienced farmers in the study. They were less likely to work with internship programs, and typically relied on low-wage workers, family members, or did all the work themselves. Some of them pieced together their labor needs with barter or exchange systems, for example giving their friends half a pig in exchange for their help. They made comments such as: ‘I would say my biggest challenge is labor, as far as finding good people.’
Mental, emotional and physical barriers to sustainability
The interviews underscored the survey research showing that the higher labor requirements are a significant barrier for experienced farmers who adopt organic or ecological practices. When asked what their greatest challenges were, most of the experienced farmers responded with something related to weed or pest management, the higher labor requirements of cover cropping, or the complexity of managing extended multi-year crop rotation systems. While all of them were financially viable and successful at managing the technical risks of organic or ecological production, they all reported working extremely hard and taking little to no time off. An organic grain farmer explained why his friends and neighbors, who had been watching him closely as he successfully converted his farm to organic production, have not followed him:
The labor. The conventional farmer, he works 2 weeks in the spring, and 2 weeks in the fall, and he do not want to work anymore than that. They want to ride up and down the road in a pickup truck and judge everybody else.
The farmers who participated in this study are very energetic people who are driven to work hard and deeply passionate about sustainable farming. Many of them described their grueling schedule in more positive terms: ‘Fourteen hours every day (seven days a week), but I love it and I'm able to do that. You can only do that for so long.’ Another farmer said:
Farmer: Most of the time for me, it's daylight till dark, and then some. I've got a neighbor over here that keeps teasing me about, I just need to get some cows and start a dairy. I told him, I said, “Well, when I do, if I ever mention that at home, my wife, she wouldn't say a word. She'd walk out the door, and never come back, because she'd never see me at all.”
Interviewer: So she's tired of you working so hard?
Farmer: Well, she thinks I'm working too hard for not enough, but it's what I love doing. What I enjoy. I know some people don't like to work, but I do. I grew up that way, and I just do. Makes me happy.
The beginning farmers in the study reported that the labor intensity was more than they had anticipated. For example, one farmer described:
Well, it's way more hard work than you could ever imagine. Bob and I were just talking about that the other night and I was even crying about it. I was reading an article in Farming Magazine and this couple had just moved back to the land. It was a young couple and they had young children, and they were all idealistic. They had bought a cow that they were going to milk and had chickens. I was happy for them but it made me cry because I thought, they have no idea of what's coming.
Many of the farmers in the study who are approaching or had passed retirement age are now confronting difficult decisions about how to continue.
Then everything that happens as you get older and you can't work as hard as you used to, you can't sustain the energy level, you just can't … You slow down and it takes a lot of … You can't. You have to be able to sustain sustainable agriculture, and it also has to be able to sustain you, mentally, spiritually, and physically. What happens is you give everything to the land and to your livestock and then you, yourself, physically, wear out and, mentally, you wear down and, spiritually, you start to question.
Barriers to economic viability
There is a direct connection between the long hours required for organics and the financial challenges small-scale alternative farmers face, because so many of the hours they work are not earning them an income. For example, a farmer described how all the income they generated from their business went to paying their employees, leaving them nothing to pay themselves. However, she laughed that it didn't matter because they worked such a grueling schedule they really had no time to spend their money anyways. Another beginning farmer explains the connection:
At first, you're very idealistic but then, the reality of it hits pretty quickly. Just the long hours … Again, most people that want to do it are hard workers and are willing to put in the time and are willing to sacrifice vacations to Florida or wherever but it gets overwhelming and, again, you have to be able to pay the bills. Money is the biggest thing.
A beginning farmer who inherited land and left his more profitable career in the city to convert the land to a pasture-based diverse livestock and dairy farm, explains why the burden of so much unpaid labor can limit participation to those with significant financial and social capital:
There's two components. There's the soil. Getting that right, it takes time. There's the marketing, it takes time. It's another kind of soil that takes time. So, it's a lot of time a lot of persistence and enough financial capacity to withstand both. Enough support, emotional support from some critical people to persist. It's not easy, the vegetable farming you can get going quickly on a small amount of land, and generate some decent revenues. It is so labor intensive, and there is a lot of competition. Livestock farming is more of a challenge, because it takes more land, more capital. I think coupling with people like ourselves is a good model.
For instance, he is developing coupled systems of the kind Salatin (Reference Salatin2011) advocates for, in which a landowner supports an aspiring farmer as they develop a complementary business on their land that they will eventually assume full ownership of and take with them once they can afford to buy land. Those who do not inherit farmland or have significant amounts of capital to buy land and establish their own farm usually depend on non-farm income to support their efforts. As Pilgeram (Reference Pilgeram2011) found, alternative farmers are often highly educated individuals who have well-paid and flexible jobs that they rely on to subsidize their farms. A beginning livestock farmer describes this reality:
Having an engineering career, that's honestly the only thing that's made this possible, starting from scratch. The amount of money it took to invest into getting this place started up from nothing, it's amazing when you look at the numbers. With no end in sight available … we can't see where we'd ever be able to make the farm pay that back, ever, that initial investment. Seven years and this last year is the first year we broke even. Financially, my engineering job is supporting our hobby, essentially.
Some of the respondents were able to make their farms self-sustaining after years of very hard work and investment. Despite this, many were able to make payroll for the employees they needed to maintain the farm business, but still unable to pay themselves a wage, despite working more than full time on their farms. As one farmer says: “I would say my biggest consideration, or issue, is income. Trying to figure out how to be able to work up plans that can bring enough income to make it work.”
Barrier to farm succession
The author did not directly ask about farm succession in the interviews, but it often came up in subsequent interactions or side conversations on tours of the farm. It was very painful for many farmers in the study that their children had pursued non-farm careers and they were struggling to identify a successor. The labor intensity of operating their farms was the reason most often given for why their kids had chosen non-farm professions. For instance, the grain and dairy farmers described how their adult children who they had hoped would take over the farms had chosen careers that allowed them to limit their working hours. Beginning farmers described how their children were choosing nonfarm careers because of the hard work and low pay in farming.
Food consumption and AFN engagement: how does the labor intensity of food provisioning limit participation in AFNs?
Similar to the sphere of production, interviews revealed that the extra labor of food provisioning associated with AFN participation influenced engagement in AFNs in the sphere of consumption. As noted above, AFN engagement, particularly engagement in local food systems, can be more laborious than procuring food through large retail chains (Som Castellano, Reference Som Castellano2016). During interviews, women frequently discussed how much time and effort was involved in their food provisioning. This was particularly true for women highly engaged in AFNs, particularly those actively engaged in local food systems. As one woman stated ‘I know I definitely spend a ton more effort and a ton more time compared to the majority of Americans in order to find what I want, where I want.’
For some women, this additional labor was fulfilling and enjoyable, and did not limit their AFN participation. However, for many women, the additional labor requirements did limit AFN participation. Many women spoke about how their ideal level of engagement was beyond their capacity. As one woman stated, ‘I'm trying to make everything from scratch, and then grow it and preserve it and then make it from scratch. I feel like if I didn't sleep, it would all work out.’ Another woman stated that ‘If it wasn't so much work, I would definitely be able to do more.’ The interviews overwhelmingly demonstrated, however, that it was not the labor of AFN engagement alone that impacted the level of participation that women were able to engage in, but that it was AFN participation in addition to other factors that often impacted the degree to which women were able to engage in AFNs. This is described in greater detail below.
Socio-economic status
Many women, both in low and middle-income brackets, reported that money acted as a constraint for them in their food provisioning. For some women, this acted as a significant barrier, and minimized their engagement in AFNs. For example, they were less likely to shop at farmers’ markets or participate in a CSA because of the cost involved. One respondent with lower socio-economic status stated that, ‘We were part of a CSA, which we're not part of currently, but that's mostly a money situation. […] We're on food stamps and the [local farmers’ market] they don't, you know, take EBT [laughs].’ Another woman stated that, ‘I don't participate in CSA. CSA is too inaccessible to people with lower socio-economic income that don't have $500 at the beginning of the season to put down on a season's worth of food.’ Regarding the farmers’ market, a woman stated that, ‘I get a little frustrated with farmers’ markets, too, because they're so expensive, and I feel like this isn't fair, only a certain number of people can afford that, and in a perfect world I would, everybody should have access to healthy food. So, sometimes I just, I lost my enthusiasm for farmers’ markets. I don't go anymore.’ Natural food cooperatives were also viewed as inaccessible because of the expense. One respondent stated that, ‘I like the idea of the co-op. I think it's great because they are targeting local food sources and stuff like that for their fresh produce. But it's so expensive.’ Women with higher incomes, on the other hand, reported that money was not a problem, and that while they spent a lot of money on food, they felt that it was money well spent. As one woman asserted, ‘Um yes. If I was concerned about money, I would definitely have more constraints.’ These findings confirm previous research that has asserted that AFNs involve class privilege, and that social class is a significant barrier preventing individuals from engaging in AFNs (Hinrichs and Kremer, Reference Hinrichs and Kremer2002; DuPuis and Goodman, Reference DuPuis and Goodman2005; Guthman, Reference Guthman, Alkon and Agyeman2011).
Some women viewed money as a constraint, but rather than limit their engagement in AFNs they would increase their labor in food provisioning or make sacrifices. For example, some women would go without food items they or family members enjoyed in order to match their agrifood concerns and values within their budget constraints. For example, one woman stated that ‘Well, there are times when I'll look at the price of something and decide that I don't need that.’ This at times increased the mental and emotional labor of food provisioning, particularly when it involved not purchasing favorite foods for family members. Women would also use physical labor to offset the financial costs of engaging in AFNs. For example, one woman with lower socio-economic status with three small children volunteered at a farm once per week in exchange for food. Another woman worked one day a week at a local CSA to subsidize the cost of their weekly share. Women would also use less processed foods as a way to deal with the constraint of money, which again involved a trade-off of time for cost savings. However, some women were unable to take on this additional labor. This was most often women who worked and those who had children. These were more often younger women. And many of the women who were engaging in this heightened labor were burdened by and stressed in their food work. These findings align with previous scholarship discussing the emotional burden and pressure of AFN engagement (e.g., Cairns et al., Reference Cairns, Johnston and MacKendrick2013; Bowen et al., Reference Bowen, Elliott and Brenton2014), and affirm that we must consider how many women can take on this additional labor and how this additional labor contributes to women's well-being, or lack thereof, when considering expanding participation in AFNs.
Limited physical access also acted as a barrier to AFN participation for women with lower SES. Physical access to direct markets, grocery stores that offered foods meeting respondent's values as well as space to garden constrained women in food provisioning, and limited their ability to participate in AFNs to a greater degree. As one woman stated about shopping at the farmers’ market, ’ [when I take the bus] it turns into a 2-and-a-half-hour trip which is one of the reasons I sometimes don't do it.’ Another woman stated: ‘I would definitely say that accessibility of the food [is a constraint]. So I don't have a Whole Foods around the corner. There isn't a farmers’ market down the street from me every week.’ This was particularly true for women with lower socio-economic status who were racial or ethnic minorities. One low income Black woman stated: ‘Even with the options that are in the stores that are available, they're not necessarily options that I want to feed to my family.’
Employment status
Respondents who had previously worked but were not currently working in the public sphere reported that food provisioning was more difficult when they had been employed outside the household. As one woman stated, ‘When I was working full time and still had the kids, it was a lot harder, for sure. And at that time we were definitely not as active in the food movement as we are now.’ Another woman stated that ‘Oh, if I had, like, a sixty hour a week job, I don't think I, there's no way I could do it.’
Women who did work in the public sphere stated that their employment constrained their food provisioning. One woman stated that she was ‘half in and half out’ of AFNs, and that ‘Yea, you just can't keep up with everything.’ She said she could do more if ‘my husband was working and I wasn't.’ Another woman stated that ‘I think some of what [AFNs] propose, too, is just really, really impractical for someone who works.’
Other women also spoke about how their work schedules limited their ability to participate in AFNs. For example, women spoke about how their work schedules limited their ability to shop at farmers’ markets. One woman described her complicated work schedule and pointed out that by the time she was done with work and picked up her daughter ‘everything is usually closed. Farmers’ markets? [They] are usually closed by then.’ Another woman who worked as a lawyer asserted that ‘[her] job has been demanding […] I'm working late and not taking lunches and working weekends and nights. And that makes it hard [to participate in AFNs].’ Women who did not work in the public sphere, or who worked from home, were often able to procure foods and gradually prepare meals throughout the day. Employed women who worked outside of the home, on the other hand, often had to try to do this labor at the end of long work days. A woman who worked long hours stated that ‘I would love to spend more time and be able to really prepare foods and find interesting foods locally and utilizing them, but you know when I get home sometimes it is 6:30 in the evening and I'm exhausted.’ Employed women who were actively engaged in AFNs would often get up early, stay up late or spend time on the weekends provisioning food.
Women used a number of other strategies to deal with the heightened labor of food provisioning associated with AFNs, but many of these strategies were more accessible for higher income women. For example, one woman hired someone solely to help her with food provisioning. Other higher income women were able to purchase convenience foods that met their ideals, or eat out at restaurants that aligned with their food values.
Partnership status
Women discussed how having a partner could add to the labor of food provisioning, particularly when they did not help out with this labor. Some women also reported that having a partner limited their engagement in AFNs because of their preferences. For example, one woman stated that she did not purchase meat at the farmers’ market because her boyfriend did not like frozen meat. She stated: ‘I would love to just go to the farmers’ market and buy like all the meat we want there because then I know it is directly from this farm and I can talk to the people you know who raised the animals, and then I can have the direct access that is awesome, but yea, I don't know, he just has this thing.’
Presence of children
All women with children stated that having children heightened the labor of food provisioning, and for many this limited their engagement in AFNs. This was in part because children added to the time and money spent in and on food provisioning. One woman with a toddler said: ‘I mean, I guess based on our values we should be shopping [at the local food cooperative] pretty consistently and the farmers’ market but we don't and that is based on money and also convenience I would say.’ She continued by talking about how it was too difficult to procure foods at a variety of locations because she had to deal with her child at the same time.
Children also heightened the labor of food provisioning, and at times limited women's engagement in AFNs, because of children's food preferences. Women discussed making multiple meals or having conflict because their children did not want to eat what they wanted to serve. Teenagers in particular were difficult to please, and mothers with older children were more likely to report compromising their values, and decreasing their AFN engagement, because of children's preferences.
In all, these qualitative findings confirm that the labor of food provisioning can constrain women as they engage as consumers in AFNs. Importantly, however, it was the combination of socio-demographic factors and the expanded labor of food provisioning with AFN ideals that at times limited participation in AFNs as consumers. For example, women with lower incomes can experience financial and physical constraints in accomplishing their food provisioning in a way that met their ideals, and this at times limits their engagement in AFNs. Women who worked in the public sphere and those with children found time to be a significant constraint in meeting their food provisioning ideals, and because of these constraints many women engaged less in AFNs. The preferences of family members and the demands of daycare can also limit women in engaging in AFNs.
Discussion and Conclusion
The findings presented here have implications for theory, policy and practice. Agri-food systems scholars and policymakers have recognized the value of looking across sectors to consider the implications of policy measures that span multiple constituencies and competing demands across the agri-food system (Ericksen, Reference Ericksen2008; Clancy, Reference Clancy2016). We make a contribution to this literature by bringing together two studies in order to consider the ways that labor issues pose challenges that cut across systems of food production and food provisioning. Specifically, this study draws connections between a variety of labor-related challenges, to understand the problem that participation in AFNs is often limited to more privileged people, whether producers or consumers (Allen, Reference Allen2008; Alkon and Agyeman, Reference Alkon and Agyeman2011). We illustrate how in part, this stems from the fact that AFNs involve care work that is not accounted for in the market economy, and thus poses a challenge for producers and consumers to overcome.
Regarding theoretical implications, this project builds on previous scholarship examining the limitations to expanding participation in AFNs. In previous research little attention has been paid to the social barriers to increasing participation in AFNs, and when social limitations have been examined, issues of labor have been largely overlooked (Allen, Reference Allen2016). This paper suggests that labor-related challenges in both the sphere of production and in the sphere of food provisioning can limit engagement in AFNs. For instance, efforts to increase participation in AFNs are often focused on technical production issues or increasing market access. However, the findings presented in this paper suggest that more attention to the added labor of food production and sourcing via AFNs is needed. The challenges posed by labor-related issues suggest that social and political changes to account for and value this labor may be as important as technical improvements in crop production or increasing market access for consumers.
Our paper contributes to the existing literature by drawing connections between a broad range of labor-related issues to address the need for increased food production for AFNs, either by increasing adoption of ecological practices or increasing production on alternative farms (Guthman, Reference Guthman2004a; Constance and Choi, Reference Constance and Choi2010; Gomiero et al., Reference Gomiero, Pimentel and Paoletti2011; Galt, Reference Galt2013; Gray, Reference Gray2013; Biewener, Reference Biewener2016). First, it draws attention to the fact that rebuilding soils and preserving biodiversity is very labor intensive. Given the policy structure of the existing agrifood system, the higher labor requirements mean that this food is more expensive than the food produced in the industrial system, because it does not externalize the environmental and labor costs of producing food in a sustainable manner. Alternative farmers are competing against large industrial farms that rely on the exploitation of farmworkers, externalize the costs of water pollution and soil degradation and depend on commodity payment and insurance programs that subsidize large-scale commodity crop farms (USDA, 2007; Holmes, Reference Holmes2013; Rodman et al., Reference Rodman, Barry, Clayton, Frattaroli, Neff and Rutkow2016). In practice, this means that alternative farmers must subsidize their operations in some way, either by volunteering their time, supporting their farms with non-farm wealth or income, or relying on non-waged labor. Consequently, those with privileged access to land, capital and supplemental revenue streams may be more likely to practice alternative farming methods. This imperative to have supplemental income or the financial capacity to volunteer one's time provides an explanation for why those who participate in alternative agriculture are more likely to have higher levels of education and nonfarm income.
The findings presented here contribute a greater understanding of the policy changes that might help broaden participation in alternative agriculture. While the industrialization of agriculture has reduced labor costs, these savings come at the price of environmental problems, negative public health impacts and unemployment in farming communities. An alternative policy perspective to the current value and emphasis on saving labor is that the labor intensity of production in AFNs can create new jobs in the farm sector, thereby strengthening rural economies. A variety of structural and institutional barriers to organic adoption in the USA have been identified, including lack of institutional support for organic production in the form of technical assistance, research support for production and marketing, market development and insurance coverage (Greene et al., Reference Greene, Dimitri, Lin, McBride, Oberholtzer and Smith2009; Constance and Choi, Reference Constance and Choi2010). A more level playing field for small-scale alternative or organic farmers could enable them to hire the labor they need and contribute to job creation. Indirectly, the labor problems identified here are connected with the exploitation of farmworkers who are currently excluded from standard US labor protections via agricultural exception laws (Holmes, Reference Holmes2013; Rodman et al., Reference Rodman, Barry, Clayton, Frattaroli, Neff and Rutkow2016). Gray's (Reference Gray2013) book demonstrates that as small ecological or alternative farms are subject to the same regulatory norms and market pressures, labor relations and conditions are not necessarily better than on large industrial farms. Improving policy protections for farmworkers is an urgent step that could help to level the playing field for small-scale ecological farms. Labor protections could help to shift the structure of agriculture away from a system that currently relies on labor exploitation for maintaining artificially low prices, thus making labor-intensive farming practices more economically viable in the long-term.
This research also builds on previous work that has focused primarily on social class and race (e.g., Allen, Reference Allen2008, 2010; DeLind, Reference Delind2010; Guthman, Reference Guthman, Alkon and Agyeman2011), to consider the ways in which the gendered labor of food provisioning may limit participation in AFNs. The findings presented here suggest that in the sphere of consumption, the labor of food provisioning involved in AFN participation, combined with other factors, at times constrains AFN engagement. For example, being responsible for food provisioning and not having greater assistance or partnership in this labor, prevented some women from engaging fully in AFNs. Having children, being employed and having lower socio-economic status was also found to be a significant barrier to fully engaging in AFNs due to the ways in which they further complicated the labor of food provisioning. As noted above, AFNs promote practices that can be physically, mentally and emotionally laborious (Cairns et al., Reference Cairns, Johnston and Baumann2010, Reference Cairns, Johnston and MacKendrick2013; Bowen et al., Reference Bowen, Elliott and Brenton2014; Som Castellano, Reference Som Castellano2015, Reference Som Castellano2016). Our findings suggest that this additional labor may limit many from engaging in AFNs, or increasing their AFN engagement. Thus, as with food production, food provisioning through AFNs may be limited to those with certain privileges, such as the leisure time or extra income to do the extra labor or purchase prepared foods at higher prices.
Understanding that the labor intensity of AFN participation constrains women in AFN engagement, and how other responsibilities and forms of oppression further prevent them from engaging fully in AFNs, can also shape how policy is designed and implemented. For example, the findings presented here can help policy makers consider tools, which can ease the labor of food provisioning, enabling individuals to increase their participation in AFNs. For example, policy makers could explore the potential importance of convenience foods for consumers engaged in AFNs. Convenience foods that incorporate ideals of alternative agrifood and are affordable could ease both the physical and emotional labor of food provisioning, while simultaneously achieving the goals of improved ecological, community and human health and well-being. An important aspect of expanding the range of convenience foods that meet the ideals of AFN advocates could involve expanding processing facilities. Small-scale producers often lack the financial or geographic access to processing facilities, in turn limiting their availability for consumers. Building more processing facilities that can be utilized by small-scale producers could potentially ensure greater physical and financial access to convenience foods for alternative agrifood consumers. Strengthening distribution channels for local foods could also potentially ease the burden of food provisioning for women and simultaneously enable them to participate in AFNs. In recent years, there has been concern that conventional grocery stores are co-opting concepts such as organic and local, limiting the potential benefits of such products. However, making foods that meet AFN ideals available in conventional grocery stores could ease the burdens of food provisioning for women who aim to engage in AFNs. Thus, policies could aim to further regulate the concept of ‘local’ in particular, including defining the scale and geography of production, so that consumers could feel confident in procuring these foods at larger scale grocery stores. In addition, policies could provide further support for organizations like Green Bean Delivery, an Ohio-based program that aggregates sustainably grown foods and delivers them to people's homes. In short, making sustainably grown and processed foods more financially and geographically accessible could potentially ease the burdens of food provisioning for women who aim to engage in AFNs, but who have time, financial or geographic constraints.
Overall, this paper provides a deeper understanding of the everyday challenges that the labor intensity of engaging in AFNs poses for both producers and consumers. Because much of this added labor is care-work, or work that nourishes our bodies and the health of animals, water and soil, it cannot be priced, and thus poses a barrier for those who lack the financial capital and leisure time to devote the extra labor required of participants. Yet the rising costs of diet related illness and environmental problems associated with industrial agriculture provide incentives to address the labor issues discussed here.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a Rural Sociological Society Dissertation Award and two research grants from Rutgers University (Bruce). Research presented in this article was also supported by a USDA National Needs Graduate Fellowship (Competitive Grant No. 2008-38420-18750) from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and a Coca Cola Critical Difference for Women Grant (Som Castellano).
