this project proposal is prepared using 100% post-consumer ...€¦ · bse, rural adaptation and...

Master’s of Environment Thesis Proposal and Progress Report

Environmental Conservation Lab September 2007

Colin Ray Anderson

6757614 Department of Environment and Geography

University of Manitoba Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2

[email protected]

This Project Proposal is Prepared Using 100% Post-Consumer Waste Paper

BSE, Rural Adaptation and Local Food Systems Masters of Environment - Research Proposal

Colin R. Anderson 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 CONTEXT - RURAL DECLINE ...........................................................................................................3 2.0 THESIS ORGANIZATION ....................................................................................................................4 3.0 CHAPTER 1 – BSE: PRODUCER RESPONSES TO AN ONGOING CRISIS................................5

3.1 THE BSE CRISIS AND CANADIAN AGRICULTURE....................................................................................5 3.2 PURPOSE AND RATIONALE ......................................................................................................................6 3.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................................................................6 3.4 STUDY AREA...........................................................................................................................................6 3.5 METHODS................................................................................................................................................7

3.51 Mixed Methods approach.................................................................................................................7 3.52 Focus Groups, Surveys and Interviews............................................................................................7 3.53 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................................9

3.6 PROGRESS .............................................................................................................................................10 4.0 CHAPTER 2 – DIRECT MARKETING AS ADAPTATION TO RURAL DECLINE..................12

4.1 FARMERS: PRODUCERS OF COMMODITIES OR PROVIDERS OF FOOD .......................................................12 4.2 PURPOSE AND RATIONALE ....................................................................................................................14 4.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................15 4.4 PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS - PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH ................................................15 4.5 STUDY AREA.........................................................................................................................................16 4.6 MIXED METHODS DESIGN.....................................................................................................................17 4.7 SAMPLING AND RECRUITING.................................................................................................................19 4.8 ANALYSIS AND DISSEMINATION ...........................................................................................................19 4.9 PROGRESS .............................................................................................................................................20 4.10 PRELIMINARY RESULTS ......................................................................................................................20

5.0 PROJECT TIMELINE..........................................................................................................................23 APPENDIX A - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................25 APPENDIX B – LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................26 APPENDIX C - COURSEWORK ..............................................................................................................31 APPENDIX D - FUNDING .........................................................................................................................32 APPENDIX E – CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS.............................................................................33 APPENDIX F – MEDIA..............................................................................................................................34 APPENDIX G - ETHICAL CONSIDERATION......................................................................................35


Colin R. Anderson 3

Figure 1 – Abandoned barn in South-western Manitoba symbolizes the ongoing trend of rural depopulation.

1.0 Context - Rural Decline Over the last century, rural areas in Canada have experienced a period of

consistent deterioration of infrastructure, decline of population and reduction in political power; this arguably resulting in a decline in quality of life. These trends have occurred alongside the rise of industrial agriculture and the resulting concentration of ownership in agriculture. An abrupt decline in the number of farmers has been linked to the erosion of the economy and social systems in rural areas (Thu et al., 1996). The implications of this accelerating decline in farming communities for food security on local, national and global scales are severe.

Today’s agriculture industry has become increasingly centralized, export-oriented, large scale, and reliant on non-renewable energy and government subsidies. Increased petroleum, chemical and fertilizer costs and the ongoing mechanization of agricultural processes have caused the cost of industrial agricultural production to increase considerably. Despite rising costs, commodity prices have remained consistently low for decades (NFU, 2003). In terms of production per acre, Canadian farmers have become increasingly efficient as productivity and gross farm income have consistently risen. At the same time, realized net farm income has fallen well below zero, currently averaging negative $20, 000 (StatsCan, 2006a). These losses are offset by agricultural subsidies, which have historically mitigated economic hardship, especially in times of crisis. However, reductions in agricultural subsidies, especially with the removal of the Crow rate in 1995, exacerbate the slimming profit margins in the prairies.

Farmers are facing rising debt loads totalling $52.3 billion nationally, an increase of 4.6% over the previous year and equating to an average farm family debt of approximately $232,000 (StatsCan, 2007). Farm bankruptcy is on the rise and the number of farmers in Manitoba declined by 20% from 1996 to 2006 (StatsCan, 2006a). At this rate their numbers will be halved by 2025 (NFU, 2005a). Concurrently, average farm size rose in Manitoba from 891 to 1,001 acres (StatsCan, 2006a). These trends illustrate the reality of a “get big or get out” paradigm that undermines family farming as a way of life. The standard in conventional agriculture is that a farm must gross over $250,000 to be adequately profitable while smaller farms must rely on off-farm income to support a family (Sparling and Laughland, 2006). Yet, as rural decline worsens, there are fewer rural employment opportunities and thus less ability for farm families to bring in off-farm income.

In addition to these and other systemic issues, farmers have been faced with a number of recent intermittent stressors including BSE, drought, disease and grasshopper infestations that have further strained the economic viability of family farms (Stozek and McLachlan, 2007). This decline, in turn, has substantial “spillover” effects on rural


Colin R. Anderson 4

communities as a whole and has resulted in the decline of rural Canada (Figure 1). Less than 2% of Canadians now farm (Boyens, 2002) and less than 20% of Canadians reside in rural areas (StatsCan, 2006b). A dwindling population has, in part, resulted in a corresponding loss of services to rural communities including stores, restaurants, schools, banks, and elevators. Economic hardship and loss of infrastructure places considerable stress on the rural social fabric. The impacts are obvious, and there has been a corresponding decline in population health since the boom years of the 1970s. In Manitoba, the number of calls to the Manitoba Farm Stress Line have more than doubled in the five year period between 2001 and 2006 (Stevenson, 2007). Mental stress, family violence, substance abuse and teen suicide in Manitoba have all increased over this time period (Parry et al., 2005). These represent the inevitable and still largely underappreciated symptoms of a rural culture that is under enormous stress.

Farmers and rural communities are obviously facing new challenges and considerable hardship in the wake of an ever-changing agriculture industry. Producers have long been accustomed to adversity and many are still finding ways to adapt. Indeed, farmers have a long history of adapting to change associated with technology, disease, politics, climate, weather, and globalization (Winson, 1993; Mazoyer, 2006). Each of these introducing a unique element of risk and all of which influence the vulnerability of farmers. The ability of farmers to adapt to change is paramount in an industry that is prone to risks from natural events and an evolving political economy of food. In Canada, the dominant approach to adaptation, promoted by industry and government, is one that advocates for increased technology adoption and other efficiency-utilization measures for farmers (Desmarais et al., 2006). However each of these strategies have finite gains. The challenge facing farmers, rural communities, consumers and, more broadly, human kind is to employ adaptation strategies that are sustainable in the long-term.

2.0 Thesis Organization In addition to a larger literature review and discussion, my thesis will comprise

two empirical parts, each formatted as a manuscript suitable for publication. Part one investigates general producer adaptive responses to the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) crisis. Part two explores direct marketing and local food systems as an adaptive response to BSE and, more generally, to rural decline. It will include a case study of the Harvest Moon Food Group (HMFood Group). In both chapters I have used a sequential mixed methods approach for data collection. Chapter One will be composed of a mail-out survey and group interview methods. The primary instrument used in Chapter Two will be the individual interview; however, this will be complemented with the use of group interviews, surveys and participant observation. Findings from the first chapter have and will continue to formally shape the direction of the second chapter. However, the analytical flow of this research design is circular in nature and each chapter will inform the analysis of the other.


Colin R. Anderson 5

Figure 2 – Thesis organization

3.0 Chapter 1 – BSE: Producer Responses to an Ongoing Crisis

3.1 The BSE Crisis and Canadian Agriculture

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) is a chronic, degenerative disorder affecting the nervous system of ruminants including cattle, sheep, goats, elk and bison. BSE was first recognized in the United Kingdom in 1986 (Nathanson, Wilesmith and Griot, 1997) after which it escalated into an agri-food epidemic that climaxed in 1993 in the mass culling of over 160,000 head of cattle in the U.K. (Leiss, 2004). Since then, BSE has been found in 25 countries (World Organization for Animal Health, 2007) and continues to threaten the livelihoods of farmers and the safety of our food systems around the globe. BSE is not a contagious disease, but rather is transmitted through the consumption of BSE-infected animal tissue. In the livestock industry, the offal or waste from animal processing is rendered and used as a high-protein feed supplement. BSE is passed between ruminants through the consumption of rendered nervous system tissue from a BSE-infected animal. In an analogous process, transmission of the BSE agent to humans, leading to the human variant Cruetzfelt Jacob Disorder (vCJD), is believed to occur via ingestion of food products tainted with the BSE agent (CFIA, 2005). Although the incidence of vCJD has been relatively low, the threat to human health is high and the disorder is thus far always fatal and therefore a concern for human health. Because both BSE and vCJD have long incubation periods (2-8 years) and there are no known pre-mortem testing procedures, these diseases have the potential to reach pandemic proportions before they are ever detected.

On May 20th 2003, a single case of BSE was discovered in Alberta. Over 40 countries immediately imposed import restrictions to Canadian meat and animal by-products, causing related commodity prices to plummet (Mitura and Pietro, 2004) and inflicting a devastating blow to the Canadian beef industry (Loppacher, Kerr and Villet, 2004; O’Neil, 2005). The immediate economic impacts on the beef industry were significant and widespread and by 2004 had exceeded $5 billion. In absolute terms, large feedlot operations experienced the largest economic hardship (Mitura and Pietro, 2004);


Colin R. Anderson 6

however, small family farms and predominantly cow/calf operators have also been devastated in ways that have received relatively little attention (Stozek and McLachlan, 2007). The impacts of BSE were especially damaging when compounded with coinciding stressors including drought, grasshopper infestation and the continuous rise of input costs. It is becoming clear that BSE is only part of a larger crisis in Canadian agriculture and that effective solutions necessitate a holistic approach that are not BSE-specific.

3.2 Purpose and Rationale Impacts of the trade ban for the farmers following the discovery of BSE in

Alberta were significant and widespread. Although generally underemphasized in subsequent mainstream media coverage, the loss of these beef export markets has and will continue to have impacts that threaten family farming. Yet, both media and academia have neglected the social, environmental and economic consequences of BSE and perhaps more importantly, way farms have adapted. Surprisingly, this is true of BSE coverage around the world where farmer experiences have been eclipsed by concerns about human health. There is a particular need for research that gives voice to farmers and rural citizens who are often marginalized by BSE-related rhetoric, which tends to characterize farmers as vulnerable and helpless. This study will look beyond the standard macro-level analysis of the economic consequences of BSE by evaluating the relatively overlooked micro and meso level responses to this ongoing crisis. Indeed, both the impacts of and responses to BSE have implications for the livelihoods of Canadian producers long into the future. Understanding the relationship between demographics, the relative farm-level impacts and adaptive responses during the BSE crisis will provide insight into the conditions that help predict effective adaptation. Ultimately, these important results will be presented in ways that are accessible to policy and decision makers in government, farm groups, consumers and, of course, to farmers.

3.3 Research Objectives • Explore the nature of producer adaptive responses to BSE. • Determine the variables that help predict the success of these adaptive responses. • Assess the role of direct marketing as an adaptive response to BSE.

3.4 Study Area This research will focus on the three Canadian Prairie Provinces: Manitoba,

Saskatchewan and Alberta. These provinces were some of the hardest hit by the BSE crisis (CAHC, 2004), in large part because they represent the largest concentration of beef cattle and livestock in Canada (StatsCan, 2007). The types of livestock production and the distribution of other important aspects of the livestock industry vary substantially within and among these provinces. We will be assessing what role, if any, this variation played in determining the adaptive responses to BSE.

Alberta is home to over 43% of all beef cattle production in Canada, and 63.5% of all cattle in specialized feedlots (MacLachlan, 2005). In contrast, Manitoba and Saskatchewan producers are primarily involved in cow-calf, backgrounding1 mixed

1 Backgrounding refers to the feed management practice that uses pasture and other forages from the time calves are weaned until they are placed in a feedlot.


Colin R. Anderson 7

farming operations (StatsCan, 2006a). Alberta has three federally inspected beef packing plants, two of which – Lakeside Packers and Cargill Foods – slaughter, process and ship 80% of Canadian beef (Qualman, 2001). Saskatchewan and Manitoba are each home to a single, much smaller federally inspected packing plant.

3.5 Methods

3.51 Mixed Methods approach BSE has had social, political, economic and environmental impacts at macro,

meso and micro levels of organization. This study will primarily explore the nature of the family or farm level impacts and adaptive responses. There is a limited body of literature that explores the relationship between impacts, adaptation and risk from a producer perspective, thus necessitating an iterative methodological framework that allows for an exploration of these issues. An interdisciplinary and “mixed” methods approach will be employed using group interview and survey tools (Creswell, 2003). The use of both qualitative and quantitative instruments represent strengths at all steps in the research, inquiry, analysis and dissemination processes. Grounded theory provides the theoretical basis for our data collection and allows for a deeper understanding of the issues that underlie social phenomena throughout the entire research process (McCallin, 2003). A grounded approach becomes especially important in this type of study given that there are many unknowns about farmers’ experiences with risks such as BSE. As such, I have chosen instruments that will be effective in capturing and understanding the variation in responses to BSE. Perhaps most importantly, to ensure that the research is representative and useful to farmers, the research design has been developed in active consultation with producers. We have used a range of research instruments to bring their voices, concerns and experiences to the forefront of our methodology.

3.52 Focus Groups, Surveys and Interviews2 Preliminary Focus Groups:

In December 2005, two farmer focus groups in two distinct rural regions in Manitoba were conducted in anticipation of the subsequent mail-out survey. The two focus groups were conducted in Onanole, MB (December 5th, 2005) and Clearwater, MB (December 13th, 2005) in large part because of our long-term partnerships with these communities. Each was approximately three hours in duration and involved between 5-10 participants from surrounding regions. These focus groups were instrumental in defining the scope, purpose and content of the mail-out survey. Mail-out Survey:

The study sample regions used in the survey were selected based on two factors: cattle production density and proximity to a federally inspected beef slaughterhouse. Four strata were chosen in each province based on “high” or “low” cattle production density and “close” and “distant” proximity to the nearest federally inspected slaughterhouse. 2 My role in this research project evolved from research assistant into co-investigator (as a part of my Masters of Environment Thesis)


Colin R. Anderson 8

The four strata in each province were defined as: 1) low/close; 2) high/close; 3) low/distant; and 4) high/distant, Cattle production density information was compiled from Canada Post and Stats Canada data using GIS. Low and high cattle production was defined as 0-21 cattle/km2 and 22-65 cattle/km2, respectively. A 150-km buffer zone radius, stemming from a federally inspected slaughterhouse in each province was used to distinguish any advantage producers or communities might have as a result of their location relative to the slaughterhouse. Census districts (CD) in each of the three provinces were allocated to each of the four strata and two CDs were then randomly selected for each (n=24). Because no mailing lists were available for purchase or otherwise for rural communities in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, we were forced to use unaddressed admail (i.e. “junkmail”). In each CD, all residents classified as “farmers” by Canada Post were identified for all postal outlets (e.g. R0M 0M0). A subset of postal outlets were randomly selected, none of which exceed 100 farms. This process was repeated until 900 farms had been selected for each CD.

The mail-out survey included one longer 12-page version, and a shorter four-page follow-up reminder survey. The questions and content were informed primarily by the preliminary Manitoba-based focus groups but also by an analysis of the Prairie farm press, particularly the Farmers Independent Weekly, Manitoba Co-operator, and Western Producer. These tools helped better ground the research in the experiences and needs of the farmers, ranchers and communities we are advocating for in this research. The eight-page survey was broken down into the following sections:

1. Community Impacts a.) Direct economic impacts b.) Spill-over economic and social impacts c.) Other agricultural/community risks d.) Canadian agriculture policy e.) Government responses to BSE f.) Changes in Canadian livestock industry

2. Livestock Producer Impacts a.) Equity and assets implications b.) Farm/ranch expenditure changes c.) Adaptive strategies and measures d.) Environmental and animal health implications/changes e.) Marketing choices/changes f.) Hypothetical government policy options for BSE risk mitigation,

3. Demographics

The four-page survey was designed to serve as a reminder to producers (Dilman, 2000), to be mailed out to the same sample as the longer survey. This technique allows participants a second chance to participate in the research, acknowledging that recipients are both busy and likely inclined to discard a survey that would have arrived to them in the form of unaddressed admail during a busy calving season. The shorter survey contained a subset of questions selected from the longer version but focused more on impacts and less on adaptations. As such, this thesis will focus on the subset of data collected from the longer survey that focused on adaptation. In both versions of the


Colin R. Anderson 9

survey, approximately 25% of the space was allocated to open-ended questions to facilitate the important qualitative aspect of the research.

On March 7, 2006, 9,713 surveys were distributed through admail to all Canada Post-identified “farmers” in the selected CDs in the three provinces. One week later, on March 14th, 2006, a letter was sent to the same postal outlet to remind and encourage respondents to participate in the research by filling out and returning the survey. On March 20th, the shorter version of the survey was sent, which served as both a second reminder to fill out and return the larger survey and to provide a replacement of a less time-consuming survey (Dilman, 2000). Non-response survey and calculated response rate

Of the 9,713 surveys that were mailed out, a total 1,470 completed surveys were filled out and returned, representing a 15.13% absolute response rate. A non-response survey was conducted over the phone, contacting farmers in the survey strata regions. Ten farmers were contacted in each of the four sample strata in all provinces, five of whom were identified as having responded and five of whom had not. In total, 85% of those who were contacted agreed to partake in the non-response follow up survey, and were given a brief explanation of the purpose and intent of the process and asked a subset of questions regarding BSE and its impacts that were taken from the mail out surveys. In addition, those that had not responded were asked to indicate reasons for their refusal. There were no significant (p=0.8241) differences in response between responders and non-responders, although phone respondents were more likely to indicate extreme responses than those responding to the mailed surveys. While lack of time and cynicism about research were cited as reasons for not responding, most (83%) simply did not recall receiving a survey at all, indicating that they had likely discarded the surveys assuming they were junk mail. With this information, we calculated the adjusted response rate as 33.3%.

Follow-up Focus Groups and Interviews Following the mail-out survey, a focus group was conducted in each of the 12

sampling regions. Having identified each respondent’s willingness to participate in further research using the surveys, clusters of possible focus group participants were identified and contacted by telephone. These focus groups ranged in duration from 2-4 hours, and were audio-recorded. Overall, these focus groups provided additional depth and insight into the realities of the BSE crisis.

3.53 Data Analysis Quantitative survey data will be analyzed using both univariate and multivariate

statistical techniques. Factor analysis will be used to identify underlying latent variables (Field, 2005). Logistic regression and AIC will be used to identify independent predictor variables as they relate to the identified factors (Burnham and Anderson, 2002, Brook and McLachlan, 2006). Emerging themes will be identified from open-ended responses and quantitative statistical outcomes will be resolved with themes identified from open-ended questions.


Colin R. Anderson 10

Figure 3 – Variable reduction of producer adaptive responses using factor analysis

3.6 Progress The socio-demographic data indicated that the average farm size of respondents

was 2,313 acres and average cattle herd size was 182 head. The mean categorical response rate for income showed that respondents “get by on their families resources but things are tight”.

Factor analysis identified three factors that underlie producer responses to the BSE crisis (Figure 3). The first factor was characterized by those who undertook novel adaptive measures (“innovators”), the second factor by those who operationally maintained the status quo to survive the crisis (“endurers”) and the third factor by those who either downsized or left the industry (“exiters”). For many, and perhaps especially for those who “endured”, the reduction in equity and adverse affects of short-term adaptation strategies (ex. reducing non-essential expenses, over-grazing paddocks) have been significant and will undoubtedly diminish their ability to respond to future crises (Figure 4).

“We were not able to move forward with any expansion or renewal plans for our ranch; we may not be able to deal with future disasters as our resource are somewhat depleted at this time.”

Survey Respondent # 570

“Sold off the best of my replacement heifers thus affecting quantity and quality of future production.”




“Exiters” were often forced to liquidize assets, effectively exiting the industry or significantly downsizing their operation. Other exiters have simply lost faith in the viability of cattle farming as a livelihood and moved on to greener pastures.

“Young and older farmers quitting and selling out. No future ahead to make a living on the farm – grain or cattle. Rural communities are taking a severe set back. Corporate farms will replace the family farm.”


BSE was a quiet storm. Now a year later we watch as our young families in the community and the not so young, sell their cow-herds and move on to other occupations mostly in Alberta.


Figure 4 – Loss in equity and adaptive capacity (n=601)

Figure 5 – Marketing directly to consumers helped to cope with BSE (n=491)

In contrast, “innovators” have diversified their business by exploring new markets or otherwise altering their operation, which has generally mitigated the adverse consequences of the BSE and arguably will reduce their vulnerability to future crises. As one respondent from central-eastern Manitoba stated,

“When the value of cattle dropped we responded by direct marketing beef. Our income from beef returned to normal and then increased above pre-BSE levels.”

Direct marketing was strongly associated with innovators (Factor 1) and was identified as a strategy that allowed producers to better cope with BSE (Figure 5). Although farm cash receipts for cattle were substantially lower during the heat of the BSE crisis (Dunn, 2004), wholesale and retail prices for beef remained substantially unchanged. Producers involved in direct marketing are well aware of this discrepancy. Don Guilford, a beef producer and member of the emerging HMFood Direct Marketing Group states,



“We all know what happened with the beef business through BSE and of course, that's where we make a living out of. But I think potentially, if we make this (direct marketing) work, things like BSE aren't going to be an issue because our market wouldn't have dropped, everything would have continued on… Nothing changed at Safeway or any of those other stores and it wouldn't change for us either because we're marketing directly to the consumer and the financial losses that beef producers have taken over the last 3 years for a group like this it wouldn't have happened…Our income, it's going to stabilize it, and that's huge.”

By avoiding a volatile beef commodity market and reducing the role of intermediaries, producers who find a niche in the local market can hypothetically extract more profitability out of the value-chain and reduce risk associated with market fluctuations. The opportunities for farmers created through direct marketing are numerous and promising. Accordingly, local food systems will be the focus of the second part of this thesis.

4.0 Part 2 – Direct Marketing as Adaptation to Rural Decline

4.1 Farmers: producers of commodities or providers of food Over the course of a century, the role of farmers, markedly manifested in

agricultural and food language, has been transformed from being providers of food to becoming producers of commodities (Wieb, 2007). One of the consequences of this reality is that consumers, and particularly urban consumers, have generally become emotionally, practically and cognitively divorced from the farmers and communities that they depend upon. Even in rural areas, local food systems have disintegrated to the point where local food is the exception rather than the norm. The prevalence in both rural and urban retail outlets of foods that have been shipped around the world is an anomaly in a province that has the capacity to provide much of these same products from local sources. Food is typically grown in specialized production zones at great distances from where it is ultimately consumed. This specialization has reduced the amount Canadians pay for food, from 30% of the typical household budget in 1950 to less than 10% today, at a cost that is ultimately borne by farmers. However, many Canadians still go hungry, and this is to say nothing about the reduced palatability, safety and nutrition, environmental compatibility, and cultural diversity of distance foods (Davis and Tarasuk, 1994). These, among other, contradictions have fuelled a growing movement of food citizens working to find socially, environmentally and culturally appropriate alternatives to the conventional food system. Recent alternative food discourse has turned towards local food as a solution to what some consider to be an agro-food crisis. Although organics still dominate the realm of alternative food choices, there is a growing concern that the corporatization and long-distance transportation associated with “organic lite” has fundamentally compromised the values of this movement (Fromartz, 2006). Indeed, there is a growing sentiment that “local is the new organic” (Bellie, 2002) or, as noted on the cover of Time Magazine,



“Forget Organic, Eat Local” (Time Magazine, 2007). Clearly localism is becoming a popular alternative to long distance food and is fuelling critical discourse around organic food. Local food based cooperatives, NGOs and initiatives are emerging around the globe. Provincially, Manitoba has experienced an increased interest in farmers markets (Doucette, 2005) and an upsurge of local food initiatives focusing on promoting and enabling local food production including the Harvest Moon Society, 100-mile diet and the Manitoba Food Charter (HMS 2007; 100 Mile Manitoba 2007; Manitoba Food Charter 2007). What is clear, however, is that Manitoba is currently farm behind in terms of local food systems, despite the importance of these recent initiatives. It is Manitoba’s particular combination of circumstances – extreme climate, low population density, geographic isolation, inertia, and the absence of an effective distribution network, that currently makes local production seem insurmountable. However, local food production is mandatory for food security and can play a pivotal role in connecting rural and urban people. It has the potential to provide consumers with greater awareness around their food and those who produce it. In the short-term, this allows consumers to have increased knowledge around and input into the way their high quality and affordable food is produced. In the longer-term, it has the potential to create partnerships in the food systems where the responsibility and risk is shared between farmers and consumers amongst others. In this way, the reliance of our food systems on processes that ultimately damage all human communities, and those that aggravate the divide between the urban and rural, is lessened.

The Harvest Moon Society (HMS), an organization that promotes urban-rural linkages and local sustainable agricultural alternatives, has developed a program of educational activities, popular culture, and research related to local food and food security (HMS, 2007). These activities promote the importance of rural communities and culture (Anderson and McLachlan, 2007). One exciting grass-roots initiative that has emerged out of the decade-long presence of HMS in South-western Manitoba is a producer-driven direct marketing collective, the Harvest Moon Food Group (HMFG). The second part of this thesis will focus on this nascent local and social enterprise.

While local food is increasingly reflected in urban-cantered research, there are very few studies that explicitly explore the linkages between the social economy, alternative food systems and rural renewal. The role of the social economy and more specifically of local food systems in rural rejuvenation has received relatively little attention in a discourse that is couched predominantly in economic terms. Moreover, the role that these initiatives play in reducing vulnerability to stressors such as disease and drought is almost entirely absent from the risk literature (Anderson et al. 2007). An understanding of the social economy and, in this study, local food-based social enterprise, is an essential component of rural rejuvenation. Social enterprises have the capacity to build and enhance social capital and social cohesion both within homogenous groups and within heterogeneous communities. Cooperatives and other collectively owned producer enterprises contribute to rural economies in Canada and to rural communities as a whole (McCagg, 2006, Anon, 2002, Anon, 2004) and the function of these enterprises in generating social capital and social cohesion merits further exploration.

Social capital is the set of resources inherent in interpersonal relationships and social organization that can be used to enhance cooperation for mutual benefit (Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 2000; Putnam, 1995). These resources include not only family and



community relationships but also norms of reciprocity and relations of trust. Social capital that extends into the wider, non-farming community can also help rural communities and farmers (Brodt et al., 2006). Thus, consumer support for Canadian cattle producers was reflected by increased consumption of Canadian beef during the height of the BSE crisis. A pillar of the HMS food group, is reconnecting farmers and consumers and thereby undermining anonymity in the food system by deliberately building meaningful relationships and accountability in an alternative and local food economy. Numerous economic and social benefits accrue to both farmers and consumers when they are re-connected through direct marketing food (Lyson et al.,1995; Feenstra, 1997). Farmers can add value to their product and consumers can have a more satisfying food experience resulting in increased confidence in the source of their food (Gale, 1997). A consuming public that understands how healthy food systems work and the mutually dependent links between personal health and the health of farm communities is more likely to provide support to producers and rural communities. By rekindling relationships between producers and consumers, food buyers will also be more likely to support producers, especially in times of crisis. Thus, one of the possible legal structures that is being explored for the marketing group is a multi-stakeholder cooperative whereby consumers would become shareholders in the enterprise. As members of the cooperative, customers would no longer merely be regarded as passive consumers but rather as active partners in food production. The HMFood Group feels that moving towards a collaborative approach to food systems will engender a sense of ownership and loyalty throughout the food value-chain thus building social capital and norms of trust and collaboration at every stage in the process.

Participation in social enterprises such as cooperatives enhances social cohesion and human capital within the group. This combination of increased cohesion, skills and knowledge at once benefit members and the larger community. They facilitate the sharing of responsibility and resources, provide for meaningful involvement, reflect democratic organizations that are open and transparent; and create enterprises that are greater than any one individual and thus that are local in nature and are not easily removed from their home communities (Anon, 2002). As such, they build as much social and human capital as they do economic capital and thus help benefit larger communities in time of stress (Anon, 2004). The resulting increases in social cohesion allow rural communities to better adapt to a wide variety of stressors (Anderson et al. 2007) and allow them to better persist in the future. In as much as they also reflect a concern regarding the larger environment they accommodate sustainable agriculture practices that at once allow for decision making that reflects mutually compatible economic, social, and natural priorities.

4.2 Purpose and Rationale In Chapter One, direct marketing was identified as an important adaptive response

to the BSE crisis (Anderson and McLachlan, 2007). However, much of the literature on local food systems is urban centred and few empirical studies exist that focus on the producer level impacts of localized foods systems. Working in collaboration with the HMFood Group will enable us to characterize local food systems and empower the community to succeed in this nascent social enterprise. The overall purpose of this study



is to explore the producer level experiences, opportunities, expectations, attitudes and concerns around direct marketing. Further insight into local food systems will be explored with additional stakeholders in the food value-chain including retailers and consumers, and will identify similarities and differences in priorities and expectations among these groups. An embedded sequential mixed methods design type (Creswell, 2007) was chosen in collaboration with the HMFood Group and was identified as the design that most appropriately addressed the emerging research questions and the needs of the community.

4.3 Research Objectives The current objectives for this component of the research are to:

• Characterize local food systems and evaluate how and to what degree food production and procurement in these systems differ from those of conventional food systems.

• Investigate the perspectives of consumers, retailers and farmers in these local food systems.

• Explore the degree to which local food systems and, more specifically, direct marketing can mitigate the adverse affects of the BSE crisis and more generally rural decline.

4.4 Philosophical Foundations - Participatory Action Research Through a community-based case study and a systematic review of the literature,

this research will explore and promote the importance of local food networks for rural and urban communities. This will enable us to develop a conceptual framework that accommodates a better understanding of producer level opportunities, concerns and dynamics of local alternative food networks. An advocacy-participatory approach will be used that focuses on the experiences of individuals who suffer from marginalization, in this case producers, and engage in research that addresses these power differentials (Mertens, 2003). This necessitates the understanding of multiple contexts, building trust between researchers and research participants and addressing the diversity of these groups. This project will explicitly build partnerships and networks among the multiple stakeholders in the Manitoba food system and give voice to their priorities and values regarding local food. In addition to producers, other participants in the research will include consumers and retailers. The ultimate goal of this research, however, is to conduct research that will inform and empower the HMFood Group to prosper in a local food economy.

Participatory action research (PAR) is an extremely effective tool in advocacy research in that it gives voice to those who are often exploited and oppressed. Thus, PAR can create a greater awareness in the community of their own resources and mobilize them for self-reliant development (Hall, 2001). While the participation of the community in the research process facilitates a more accurate and authentic analysis of social reality (Hall, 2001), the main intended beneficiaries of this research are the members of this community. Instead of working from the top down, that is from theory to hypotheses to data, the methodology is collaborative. Participants function as active members of the research team, helping to form questions, analyzing the data and implementing the results



Figure 6 – Study area

in practice. (Creswell, 2007) In this project, research questions and methods have been and will continue to be developed in collaboration with the HMFood Group in an iterative fashion. A research advisory committee made up of volunteer community members will act to guide the goals, mission, research questions and methods of this research. This collaborative and participatory approach helps ensure that the results will be of greatest benefit to the community.

4.5 Study Area The epicentre of this action research case study is located in Clearwater, a hamlet of less than 100 residents, located in the Louise Municipality in the Pembina Valley region of Soutwestern Manitoba (Figure 6). Although the region is still a hotbed of agricultural

activity, the rural landscape is changing. The family farm is being pushed off of the land, profoundly affecting rural people, communities and food production (NFU 2003). Indeed, rural communities in this region, and others across Canada, are encountering substantial hardship with no relief in sight. This particular region is characterized by a trend of decline that mirrors or surpasses the national averages. Indeed, the population of the Louise Municipality has declined by 24.1% (StatsCan, 2007) over the last 10 years and has seen the closure of schools, grocery stores, hospitals and other essential services. Research will also be conducted with consumers and retailers in Winnipeg, the largest urban centre in Manitoba with a population of 705,000 residents (City of Winnipeg, 2007).



Figure 7 – Part 2 sequential embedded mixed methods research design.

4.6 Mixed Methods Design An eight-month period of informal interaction with the HMFood Group, led to a

sequential mixed methods design being selected for this study. Sequential designs involve data collection in phases where one form of data collection is followed by the other (Creswell, 2003). In this case, three data collection phases will be incorporated into the design. Phase one will use a qualitative focus groups to develop the instrument for the second phase. Phase two will involve a series of semi-directed in-depth interviews and a short Likert scale questionnaire. Phase three will consist of a final focus group interview with participants from the previous phases to collect feedback on the validity of the analysis and to identify ways of disseminating research findings back to the community.

Phase One In the first phase, qualitative data will be collected in an exploratory focus group

in which participants characterize local food systems and adaptation to stress associated with BSE. These data will be transcribed, analyzed, and used to develop a survey instrument that will be implemented in the second phase of the study. Creswell (2007) labels this as an instrument development design where researchers build on the results of



a preliminary qualitative phase by developing an instrument, identifying variables, or stating propositions for testing based on an emergent theory or framework.

Phase Two

Phase two will consist of in-depth semi-directed individual interviews with producers involved in the HMFood Group (n=16), as well as with conventional producers (n=8) and other stakeholders in Manitoba’s food system including retailers (n=8) and consumers (n=8). These additional interviews will allow us to explore the roles of all three stakeholder groups in local food systems. Following the initial interviews with members of the HMFood Group, a short quantitative questionnaire will be developed from a preliminary analysis of the interview transcripts. This survey will be completed by all participants, and will be administered retroactively to the interview participants from the HMFood Group. In this way, each of the three groups (producers, retailers, consumers) will be interviewed using a consistent set of research instruments. The survey questionnaire will be developed using the scale development procedures of DeVellis (1991). Additionally, at the end of the initial interviews, members of the HMFood group will be given the opportunity to voice questions that they would like to have posed to retailers and consumers. These will be compiled and the two most common questions will be included in the subsequent interviews with retailers and consumers. In this way, the development of the two instruments (individual interview question set and the short quantitative survey) will be derived from interactions and direct input from the HMFood Group. This will help ensure that the research results are most relevant to the community on which this research centers - this a central objective of PAR (Reason and Bradbury 2002).

Survey data will be embedded (Creswell, 2007) in the qualitative data to provide clarity on the differences and similarities between the three stakeholder groups (retailers, consumers and producers). Methodological triangulation using qualitative and quantitative data allows researchers to obtain different but complementary data on the same topic (Morse 1991, Creswell 2007). The rationale for using methodological triangulation includes: completeness; abductive inspiration; and confirmation (Risjord, Dunbar & Maloney 2002). Completeness is accomplished when quantitative methods can further develop findings derived from qualitative research and visa versa and thus builds a stronger, richer analysis of the phenomena in question (Shih, 1998). In turn, abductive inspiration occurs when early data collection and analysis informs future design as exemplified in the instrument development portions of our design (Risjord et al. 2002). This iterative and responsive design technique allows the researcher to adapt the design when new information reveals a more appropriate method of collecting data or exposes additional research questions. Finally, triangulation of quantitative data allows for the confirmation of analysis from qualitative research with quantitative data or visa versa. Phase Three

In the third phase of this study, the results and preliminary analysis of data from the first two phases will be presented back to the HMFood group in a final focus group



interview. This will allow for feedback and dialogue around the analysis, thus serving as a validity measure.

4.7 Sampling and Recruiting We will use a stratified sampling technique to recruit participants from producers,

consumers and retailers. Stratified purposive sampling will be used to achieve a rich sample and allow for further comparison within strata (Patton, 2002). We will use a combination of snowball sampling techniques and random purposive sampling (Patton, 2002). The initial and primary sample will include all members of the emerging Harvest Moon Food Group (HMFG) who represent the perspective of producers who self-identify as being actively engaged in local food systems (a.k.a. alternative producers). Each HMFG interviewee will be asked to identify: a) conventional producers; b) non-alternative rural consumers; c) alternative rural consumers. Potential interview participants identified by the HMFG will be contacted by telephone and invited to participate in a semi-directed interview. Urban retailers identified by HMFG and through snowball sampling will be interviewed and asked to identify consumers who have a high preference for locally produced food products. Finally, we will ask these alternative consumers to identify consumers who they feel are non-alternative. Population Stratum Recruitment

a. 16 alternative Participants in the HMFood Group 1 – Producers (n=24) b. 8 non-alternative Identified by HMFood Group a. 2 rural Identified by HMFood Group b. 2 urban alternative Identified by HMFood Group

2 – Retailers (n=6)

c. 2 urban non-alternative Identified by HMFood Group a. 2 rural Identified by HMFood Group c. 2 urban alternative Identified by urban alternative

intermediaries

3 – Consumers (n=6)

d. 2 urban non-alternative Identified by urban alternative consumers

Figure 8 – Summary of sampling and recruitment strategies

4.8 Analysis and Dissemination Data collection, analysis and theory are all mutually dependent in this approach.

Theory will be grounded in the data collected from interviews, observations and surveys (Charmaz, 2005). Qualitative data will be analyzed using NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis software to identify any emergent themes. Survey data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and used to support the qualitative data analysis. Early on in the research, the HMFG identified video as an important outcome of this research. As such, interviews with members of the HMFG will be captured with video and used to compile a short 30-min documentary. This video will reflect the themes identified in the qualitative data analysis and will be used to disseminate research findings and increase awareness of food and rural issues in Manitoba.



4.9 Progress On April 10th 2007 we conducted a

preliminary exploratory focus group with the members of the HMFood Group (n=12). This interview was audio recorded, transcribed and analyzed. A number of emerging themes and issues were identified as important to the group including: motivation for participating in local food systems; grassroots organization; government role in local food, organics and rural adaptation; relationships between organics and local food; group marketing versus individual marketing; control and power in food systems; barriers to local food; roles of trust and relationships in local food systems; and environmental implications of local food systems. These themes were used to develop question set A (appendix H) and will be further explored in individual interviews in the second phase of the research design. Having been immersed in the community for over eight months and after conducting one exploratory focus group, I have already gained much insight into several of these emerging themes.

4.10 Preliminary Results Control

As agri-business comes to control an increasing proportion of the agro-food, producers have been progressively losing the ability to make independent decisions on their own farms (Lewontin, 2000). Power and control is increasingly concentrated within a handful of powerful conglomerate corporations that, without meaningful competition, have the ability to manipulate the industry to their advantage. In order to access new technology, producers are often forced to commit to contractual arrangements. Lewontin (2000) describes the power of agribusiness, “The problem for industrial capital, then, has been to take control of the choices from the farmers, forcing them into a farming process that uses a package of inputs of maximum value to the producers of those inputs, and tailoring the nature of farm products to match the demands of a few major purchasers of farm outputs who have the power to determining the prices paid.” The fact that the farmer retains the legal title to the land becomes inconsequential when there is no alternative economic use for the means of this production. However, in a local food economy, producers can carve out an alternative market and create a new economic use for the production, thus avoiding the trap where farmers have very little decision-making power regarding production on their own land. Members of the HMFG felt that control over production in a local food system is largely in the hands of the producers and the consumers rather than those of agri-business.

Figure 9 – Harvest Moon Food Meetings (Top: Elsie Boyd, Robert Guilford; Bottom: Allen Fallis, Arvid Dalzell, Shayne Kinley)



“If we create our own market and our own chain to get it to the consumer then we have a little more control over what our top line is going to be.” Don Guilford, Farmer

By removing the intermediaries, an essential link between farmers and consumers can be created whereby the terms of food production, purchasing and consumption can be negotiated by both on an ongoing basis. While direct marketing reinstates some level of control over production to the farmer, some participants felt that the consumer ultimately retained control in all market-based systems.

“You're being strictly driven by the consumer because they won't buy the product.”

Arvid Dalzell, Farmer “I think the consumer is going to keep us accountable as far as developing a product from an environmental standpoint and a quality product. We'll be listening to them and they're going to be the boss through the whole thing.”

Dan Deruyck

De Lind (1993) is appropriately apprehensive over the use of the term, alternative food systems when most “alternative” food systems are simply filling a gap or niche in the conventional market-based or neo-liberal system. A niche market addresses a demand for a product or service that is not being addressed by mainstream providers. Currently, the demand for local food is too small to be worthwhile to mainstream food outlets. However, as experienced in the organics industry, success in a niche market attracts the attention of mainstream business and risks being taken over and compromised by big business (Fromartz, 2006). A truly alternative food system will be incompatible with conventional agribusiness and therefore immune to infiltration and take-over. An alternative system requires a paradigm shift where producers are no longer identified as merely being producers of commodities but are rather recognized as playing the critical role of (and fairly compensated for) providing food for people and communities (Kneen, 1989).

Within the HMFood Group meetings, there has been a concerted effort to use language that is consistent with the group’s goal of transitioning back to being providers of food rather than producers of commodities. This

Figure 10 – Harvest Moon Food Meeting. Don Guilford, Don McIntyre, Allen Fallis, Arvid Dalzell (Left to Right)



fundamental shift in language represents a move towards an authentic relationship between farmer and consumer. These relationships become more than mere economic transactions. Instead they redefine consumers as food citizens who take responsibility for the future of food, thus reconnecting consumers to the land. Motivation: Ideology and pragmatism

Within the group, there is a common hope that this enterprise will positively impact the ability of the next generation of farmers to engage in agriculture. The majority of the social motivators behind participation, including knowledge sharing, building community and reversing rural decline, are also common among all producers. Although there is great potential in the HMFood Group to engage in a food system that operates outside of the influence of the conventional food market, there is a degree of inter-group diversity in motivations that represent divergent paths for the future of the group. The group shares many common values and it is clear that increased profitability and being fairly compensated for growing food is an important driver for every participating producer. The reduction of risk to market fluctuations is also an important motivator for the majority of the producers involved. Beyond these obvious economic benefits, participants vary in their ideological motivations. Indeed, for some, ideology is the primary driver and even trumps economic motivations.

“If Pam and I can replace some of the food that 25 or 30 families eat. Be it the chickens that come out of a conventional chicken barn. We can replace those with a better product. Hogs that come out of a hog barn. Beef that comes off a feedlot that's been implanted with Ralgrow and everything else. If we can replace those with all better products, we can make an impact.”

Clint Cavers, Farmer There are also many differences in terms of pesticide and chemical usage, animal husbandry, fossil fuel usage and perhaps most important, growth management. The challenge for the group will be to find common ground on these differences, perhaps allowing space for diversity within the group by remaining inclusive at the beginning and working towards a more rigorous standard as the enterprise progresses. Organic Certification

Generally, members of the HMFood group feel that local food systems are not necessarily linked to organic agriculture. However, the producers generally felt that local food production represents a small, time-intensive approach that is generally “off-of-the-radar” for larger farm operations that are typically less inclined to practice sustainable or organic agriculture. Local food self-selects for smaller scale producers who may already practice organic agriculture – although are not necessarily organically certified. In some cases, local food may even have the potential to displace organic certification. Many small-scale organic farmers are frustrated with the bureaucratization and corporatization of organic foods that has created regulatory demands that are ultimately incompatible with small-scale agriculture (Fromartz, 2006). Furthermore, those who practice small-



scale organics are often driven by ideology and feel disenfranchised by the corporate direction of mainstream organics. A number of HMFood Group participants who are or used to be organically certified expressed their concerns around the direction of the industry.

“We've been on this organic journey for 20 years now and we just dropped our organic certification…David Neufeld who has an organic greenhouse in Bosivainne, he's done the same thing… I think local is the new thing, I mean organic has been corporatized now to the point where there are Walmarts and everyone else in it. You got to do something to stay one step ahead of them. I think local is one thing that they can't steal from you.” Robert Guilford, Peri-Organic Farmer

In the case of small farmers who are struggling to afford and manage the bureaucracy of a certification process that is geared towards large corporate farms, it appears that local can indeed displace organic certification. For Robert Guilford and David Neufeld, organic certification (but not organic farming practices) has been replaced by a trust-based relationship between the producer and the consumer. The capacity to build social capital in local food systems does not exist in the conventional agro-food system where anonymity is the norm and farms have become so large that it would be impossible to manage even a small percentage of farmer-consumer relationships. Local food systems present an opportunity to build a community made up of consumers and farmers that share the responsibility of food production. By founding this food endeavour on relationships and community, the HMFood Group has an opportunity to create a truly alternative local food system that will be resistant if not incompatible with corporate penetration.

5.0 Project Timeline I intend to complete this research and defend my thesis by January 2009. The following table outlines my proposed work plan.



Figure 11 – Thesis timeline

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N DThesis ProposalThesis Defence

Chapter 1Design StudyAnalyze DataWrite first chapterWrite/Submit Publication

Chapter 2 Design StudyData Collection - InterviewsData AnalysisFocus Group w/ community members - discuss findingsData Analysis - VideoWrite second chapterWrite/Submit Publication

2007 2008



Appendix A - Acknowledgements The Harvest Moon Society and the producers involved in the Harvest Moon Food group have provided motivation, insight, hospitality and inspiration for this research. I would like to thank my colleagues in the Environmental Conservation Laboratory for inspiration, technical assistance and knowledge sharing: particularly Alam Ashraful, Troy Stozek and Melisa Yestrau with whom I have worked closely on the larger BSE survey. I would also like to thank the members of my advisory committee for their support and guidance.



Appendix B – Literature Cited 100-Mile Manitoba (2007). Viewed September 18, 2007 at http://www.100milemanitoba.org/. (Anon) Anonymous. (2002). The Co-operative Option: A Natural Fit For Public Policy In Agriculture Report To The Secretary Of State Andy Mitchell By The Minister's Advisory Committee On Cooperatives. Retrieved February 6 2007, from http://www.coop.gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=pub&page=agriculture (Anon) Anonymous. (2004). Co-operatives and the Social Economy. Retrieved Aug 31, 2007,

from coop.gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=pub&page=soc Anderson, C. R., & McLachlan, S. M. (2007). Producer Adaptive Responses to BSE. Paper

presented at Canadian Association of Food Studies Annual Conference. May 29, 2007. Anderson, C. R., McLachlan S. M., Stozek, T., Ashraf, A. (2007). Producer Adaptive Responses

to BSE. Paper presented at PrioNet Annual Conference, February 17, 2007. Calgary, AB. Belli, B. (2007). Local is the New Organic: The Growing Movement to Know your Farmer and

Your Food. Emagazine, 18. Brodt, S. e. a. (2006). Farmer-community connections and the future of ecological agriculture in

California. Agriculture and Human Values, 23, 75-88. Brook, R. K., & McLachlan, S. M. (2005). Factors influencing farmers’ concerns regarding

bovine tuberculosis in wildlife and livestock around Riding Mountain National Park. Journal of Environmental Management 80, 156–166.

Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodal inference: practical

information – Theoretic Approach (2nd ed.). New York.: Spronger. (CFIA) Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (2005). Technical Overview of BSE in Canada.

Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/ disemala/bseesb/200503canadae.shtml#chap2

Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded Theory in the 21st Century; Applications for Advancing Social

Justice Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 507-535). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

City of Winnipeg (2007). Population of Winnipeg. Retrieved August 11, 2007, from

http://www.winnipeg.ca/cao/pdfs/population.pdf Coalition, C. A. H. (2003). Economic Implications of BSE in Canada, 2003: Final Report.

Sercon Management Consulting Inc. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap press.



Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. Davis, B., & Tarasuk, V. (1994). Hunger in Canada. Agriculture and Human Values, 11(50-57). DeLind, L. B. (1993). Market Niches, 'Cul de Sacs', and Social Context: Alternative Systems of

Food Production. Culture and Agriculture, 47, 7-12. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development : theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

Calif.: Sage Publications Inc. Dillman, D. A., & Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys : the tailored design method

(2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Doucette, K. (2005). Manitoba farmers markets. A sub report from Manitoba Alternative Food

Production and Farm Marketing Models, Community Shared Agriculture, Farmers’ Markets, and The Humane Society Certified Labeling Program. from http://www.manitobaresearchallianceced.ca

Dunn, F. J. (2004). Report of the Auditor General on the Alberta government’s BSE-related

assistance programs. Emilson, K. (2005). Just a Matter of Time: a Grassroots Look at Canada’s Cattle Industry

Struggling Through the Aftermath of Mad Cow Disease. Vogar, MB: Nordheim Books. Feenstra, G. W. (1997). Local food systems and sustainable communities. American Journal of

Alternative Agriculture, 12 (1), 28-36. Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: SAGE. Fromartz, S. (2006). Organic, inc.: natural foods and how they grew (1st ed.). Orlando:

Harcourt. Gale, F. Direct Farm Marketing as a Rural Development Tool. Rural Development Perspectives.

United States Department of Agriculture Vol. 12, No. 2. Hall, B. L. (2001). I wish this were a poem of practices of participatory action research. In P.

Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice (pp. 171-178). London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.



(HMS) Harvest Moon Society (2007). Viewed September 15, 2007 at

www.harvestmoonsociety.org. Kneen, B. (1989). From Land to Mouth: Understanding the Food System. Toronto: NC Press. Lewontin, R. C. (2000). The Maturing of Capitalist Agriculture. In F. Magdoff, J. Bellamy

Foster & F. H. Buttel (Eds.), Hungry for Profit: The agribusiness threat to farmers, food and the environment (pp. 93-106). New York: Monthly Review Press.

Loppacher, L. J., Kerr, W. A., & Viliet, V. (2004). The BSE Crisis in Canada: A Trade

Perspective on Sanitary Barriers. Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://www.esteycentre.ca/BSE_Crisis_in_Canada.pdf

Lyson, T. A., G. W. Gillespie, Jr. and D. Hilchey. (1995). 'Farmers’ markets and the local

economy: Bridging the formal and informal economy. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 10(3), 108-113.

MacLachlan, I. (2004). Kill and Chill: The Restructuring of Canada’s Beef Commodity Chain. (MFC) Manitoba Food Charter (2007). Viewed September 15, 2007 at

http://food.cimnet.ca/cim/43C1_4T97T3T7.dhtm. Mazoyer, M., & Roudart, L. (2006). A history of world agriculture: from the neolithic age to the

current crisis. New York: Monthly Review Press. McCagg, L., & (2006). Co-operatives in Canada. Retrieved August 30, 2007, from

www.coop.gc.ca/pub/pdf/coopcan03_e.pdf McCallin, A. M. (2003). Designing a Grounded Theory Study: Some Practicalities. Nursing in

Critical Care, 8(5). Mitura, V., & Pietro, D. (2004). Canada's beef cattle sector and the impact of BSE on farm

family income. Ottawa, On. Statistics Canada. Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation.

Nursing Research, 40, 120-123. (NFU) National Farmers Union (2003). The farm crisis, bigger farms and the myths of

"competition" and "efficiency". Saskatoon, Sk. (NFU) National Farmers Union (2005). The Farm Crisis & Corporate Profits. O-Neill, K. (2005). How Two Cows Make a Crisis: U.S.-Canada Trade Relations and Mad Cow

Disease. American Review of Canadian Studies, 35.



Parry, J. e. a. Farmers, farm-workers, and work related stress. Health Executive Office, London, UK.

Patton, M. Q., & Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 ed.).

Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy

(1), 65-78. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Qualman, D. (2001). The Farm Crisis and Corporate Power. Canadian Center for Policy

Alternatives. Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and

practice. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE. Risjord, M. W., Dunbar, S. B., & Maloney, M. F. (2002). A New Foundation for Methodological

Triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 34(3), 269-275. Roppel, C. e. a. (2006). Farm women and Canadian agricultural policy. Status of Women

Canada. Ottawa, ON. Shih, F.-J. (1998). Triangulation in nursing research: issues of conceptual clarity and purpose.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(3), 631-641. Sparling, D., & Laughland, P. (2006). The Two Faces of Farming. Guelph, ON.: Institute of

Agri-Food Policy Innovation. (StatsCan) Statistics Canada. (2006a). Census of Agriculture. Ottawa. (StatsCan) Statistics Canada. (2006b). Census of Population. (StatsCan) Statistics Canada. (2007). Farm Debt Outstanding. Catalogue #21-014-XWE.

Agriculture Economic Statistics Stevenson, L. (2007, August 2, 2007). Volunteer opportunity with Manitoba farm and rural stress

line. Manitoba Cooperator. Stozek, T., & McLachlan, S. M. (2006). What's the beef? Impacts of BSE on producers and rural

communities across western Canada. Paper presented at PrioNet Conference in Ottawa, ON.

Stronen, A. V., Brook, R. K., Paquet, P. C., & Mclachlan, S. M. (2007). Farmer attitudes toward

wolves: Implications for the role of predators in managing disease. Biological Conservation 135( 1-10).



Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral

research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. Thu, K., DeLind, L. B., Durrenberger, P., Flora, C., Flora, J., Heffernan, W., et al. (1996).

Understanding the Impacts of large-scale swine production: Proceedings from an Interdisciplinary Scientific Workshop. In Social Issues. In K. Thu (Ed.) (pp. 71-116). Iowa City: University of Iowa.

Wieb, N. (2007). Reconnecting Farming to Food. Paper presented at the Canadian Association

of Food Studies in Saskatoon, SK. Winson, A. (1993). The intimate commodity : food and the development of the agro-industrial

complex in Canada. Toronto: Garamond Press. World Organization for Animal Health. Number of reported cases of bovine spongiform

encephalopathy (BSE) in farmed cattle worldwide. Retrieved August 22, 2007, from http://www.oie.int/eng/info/en_esbmonde.htm



Appendix C - Coursework Students in the Master’s of Environment (M.Env.) program at the University of Manitoba are required to complete at least 12 credit hours as follows: 6 credit hours from the 700 level, and 6 credit hours of any other course at the 300-level or higher. As of August 30, 2007, I will have completed a total of 12 credit hours and have met all the coursework requirements for this degree.

Completed: Critical Thinking and the Environment ENV 4110 – Grade A+ Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Issues in the Environment GEOG 7360 – Grade A+ Project Management for Environmental Practitioners ENV 4000 – Grade A+ Alternative Food Networks and the Social Economy GEOG 7010 – Grade A+



Appendix D - Funding Chapter 2

1) SSHRC – Linking, Learning, Leveraging – Social Economy

$12,000 Internship, $5000 project support

2) Heifer International (Lead Applicant) $210,000 project support $800 stipend support

3) Sustainable Development and Innovations Fund (SDIF) (Co-Applicant)

$24,500 project support



Appendix E – Conference Presentations I have presented preliminary results from the first chapter of this thesis at two conferences in the first half of 2007. On February 27th, I entered a poster competition at the PrioNet Canada annual conference in Calgary, AB where I placed third place (Figure 12). The electronic copy of this poster is available for download at www.harvestmoonfood.ca. On May 30th, 2007, I delivered an oral presentation to the Canadian Association of Food Studies (CAFS) at SSHRC Congress in Saskatoon.

Figure 12 – Colin answering questions regarding preliminary research findings in a poster presented at the PrioNet Annual Conference in Calgary, AB.



Appendix F – Media Website As a contributor to the progress of the HMFG, I designed and constructed the Harvest Moon Food Group website located on-line at www.harvestmoonfood.ca. In the early stages of this initiative, the website has been an important point of contact for producers interested in joining the group and for other stakeholders who have plugged in as consultants, funding agencies and other supporters. I have also designed and produced a number of promotional materials for the group (Figure 13).

Media A number of articles related to this project have been featured in the local newspaper, the Sentinel Courier. Outcomes of this research will be disseminated through the farm press and local newspapers.

Figure 13 – Harvest Moon Food promotional material



Appendix G - Ethical Consideration We have been interacting with farmers and other stakeholders through surveys, individual interviews and focus group interviews. We have used video and audio recording devices to document our interactions. Participation has been voluntary, informed consent has been given throughout, participants have been given the option to remain anonymous and no deceptive measures have been taken during these interactions. We received ethics approval from the University of Manitoba research ethics board on January 7, 2006 (#J2005:166) for methods used in chapter 1. We received ethics approval for chapter 2 on March 23, 2007 (#J2007:008).



Appendix H – Question Set A (Individual Interviews) Introduction

• We are interested in gain insight into the expectations, ideas and feelings around today’s food systems – both local and conventional

• When we refer to food systems we are talking about the series of events and the groups and individuals that act to bring food from farm to fork.

Section 1: Our current global food system

• Could you describe our current food system? How do you feel about this description of our current food system? o How does our current global food system influence your life? o Who controls our food system and who has the power to change it? o What changes are needed in our food system and what needs to happen to

make these changes happen change? (Follow up: ensure they touch on individual and institutional action and their thoughts on the differences between)

• What are the differences in effectiveness between bottom-up or grassroots approaches to adaptation and top-down approaches to adaptation (such as that facilitated by government or industry)? Is it important to you that it is from the bottom up?

• Do you think that food systems affect men and women differently? If so, how and why?

Section 2: Alternative (local) food systems

• What motivated you to become involved in a local food system? o How did BSE impact you and does did this influence your motivation to

become involved in local food? o Are there any other events or issues that impact your interest in local food

systems? • What barrier’s do you anticipate (or have you encountered) around local food

production/ distribution/consumption? • What successes do you anticipate or have you had with local food systems? • What do you see as the economic, social, and environmental implications of an

increased interest in local food distribution? • What is the relationship between organic and local? • Can local displace organic? • Is the relationship between the producer and the buyer important to you and

why?

Producer Specific Questions • Have your attitudes or farming methods changed as a result of being a part of

this group – or do you expect them to? • What are the advantages of marketing as a group as opposed to marketing as

individuals? What are the disadvantages? • We will be interviewing other producers who are not involved in this local

food group. Could you identify someone from the area who you think would be



content with the current food system or a farmer that you might characterize as being non-alternative and might be willing to participate in an interview?

• Could you identify a rural consumer who you might consider to be an alternative consumer or someone who supports local and sustainable agriculture through their purchasing habits? A conventional consumer?

• Given that we will be conducting similar interviews with retailers and consumers over the next short while, what would you like to learn about consumers and/or retailers regarding local food systems?

Consumer Specific Questions

• TBA – derived from interviews with HMFood group members • (Posed to alternative consumers) – Can you identify someone whom you assess

to be content with the current food system?

Retailer Specific Questions • TBA – derived from interviews with HMFood group members • Can you identify some urban alternative consumers that might be interested in

participating in a similar interview? Perhaps some of your loyal customers? In return for participating in the interview, we would offer them a $50 gift certificate to your establishment.

this project proposal is prepared using 100% post-consumer ...€¦ · bse, rural adaptation and...

Documents