february 2003 - ag.tennessee.edu publications/sustainablesuccess.pdffebruary 2003 center for...

February 2003

Center for Profitable AgricultureA Partnership of The University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture

and the Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation

Agricultural Extension ServiceThe University of Tennessee

A Tour Guideand Training Manual

for Agricultural Leaders in Tennessee

ForewordForeword

Welcome to the “Statewide Journey of Sustainable Success.” This educational program has beendeveloped to provide training for agricultural leaders. Specifically, the training is intended toenhance the understanding and applicability of a variety of marketing, production and management

concepts and practices that have been studied and implemented on various demonstration and case-studyfarms – concepts and practices that enhance the sustainability of Tennessee agriculture.

While Tennessee agricultural production alone generates more than $2.5 billion annually in farm cash re-ceipts, farmers have not been especially well paid for their efforts recently. In 2001, on average, Tennesseefarmers returned a net income of $4,500 per farm. One reason for this low net return is that the farmer’s shareof each dollar the consumer spends on food has been steadily decreasing. In 2000, only 19 cents of everydollar spent by the consumer on food items made it back to the farm level. For food items purchased atrestaurants and fast-food facilities, the farmer’s portion slips much lower, to less than 12 cents. An underlyingprinciple of the farm share for food items is that the more processing performed on a product beyond the farmbut before it reaches the retail level, the smaller the farm share. For example, fresh eggs require little pro-cessing and have a higher farm share than bakery products that require a great deal of processing. Opportu-nities to add value to agricultural commodities, tap niche markets and sustain the environment are timelytopics in need of continued, perpetual enhancement through competitive educational programs.

This “Statewide Journey” manual represents a unique guide to sustainable agriculture in Tennessee that willnot only be used as the curriculum handbook for the hands-on training tour, but also as an off-the-shelfresource for years to come. This manual showcases examples of sustainable success across Tennessee.These successes appropriately present value-added activities, niche marketing ventures, sustainable andorganic production practices and results of previous projects funded by the Sustainable Agriculture Researchand Education (SARE) program.

The entire “Statewide Journey” has been developed through the efforts of many. Primary funding support wasmade possible by a professional development grant from the USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research andEducation program, the Tennessee Department of Agriculture ag development funds and The University ofTennessee Institute of Agriculture.

Rob HollandCenter for Profitable AgricultureThe University of Tennessee

This project was funded in part under an agreement with the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education(SARE) Professional Development Program and the Tennessee Department of Agriculture.

Contributing AuthorsContributing AuthorsCurtis Buchanan

Jonesborough, TennesseeProject Coordinator for a SARE-funded project

Melissa CarroNorton Carro CommunicationsFreelance Writer

Anne DaltonThe University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension ServiceCenter for Profitable Agriculture, Extension Assistant

Clark GarlandThe University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleProfessor, Agricultural Economics

S. E. GreeneThe University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleGraduate Student, Entomology and Plant Pathology

K. D. GwinnThe University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleAssociate Professor, Entomology and Plant Pathology

S. L. HamiltonThe University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleAssociate Professor, Plant Sciences and Landscape Systems

Rob HollandThe University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension ServiceCenter for Profitable Agriculture, Feasibility Specialist

Shasta HubbsThe University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension ServiceAgricultural Development Center, former Marketing Specialist

Martin LyonsThe University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleResearch Associate, Plant Sciences and Landscape Systems

Alex McGregorSignal Mountain, TennesseeDirector of SARE-funded project

Trish MilburnTennessee Electric Cooperative AssociationFreelance Writer

Paul MillerAppalachian Spring Cooperative

B. H. OwnleyThe University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleAssociate Professor, Entomology and Plant Pathology

Carl SamsThe University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleProfessor, Plant Sciences and Landscape Systems

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsForeword

Presentation Summary: A Short Course in Sustainable Agriculture by Alex McGregor

Case Study: R-GROW Organic Soil Conditioner by Trish Milburn

Case Study: Precision Farming Project by Trish Milburn

Presentation Summary: Integrated Systems That Utilize Biofumigation, Solarization and Composts for Commercial Vegetable Production

by Martin Lyons and Carl Sams

Case Study: Direct Farm Marketing and Agritainment by Rob Holland

Presentation Summary: Small Farm Sustainability and Value-Added Food Processing/Products

by Paul Miller

Presentation Summary: Evaluating the Feasibility of a Dairy Processing Facility by Shasta Hubbs

Case Study: Greenhouse Production and Retail Garden Center Marketingby Melissa Carro

Case Study: Red Barn Winery by Melissa Carro

Case Study: Organic Grain Production by Trish Milburn

Case Study: Organic Food Processing by Trish Milburn

Statewide Journey Fact Sheet: Jones Orchard and Value-Added Bakery Products by Rob Holland

Statewide Journey Fact Sheet: The Effect of Municipal Compost on Christmas Trees – A Project Funded in Part by SARE

by Curtis Buchanan

Statewide Journey Fact Sheet: Pathways to Success: Opportunities for Communities and Farm Families - A Project Funded

in Part by SARE by Rob Holland

Statewide Journey Fact Sheet: Sustainable Dairy Systems - A Project Funded in Part by SARE

by Clark Garland

Statewide Journey Fact Sheet: Control of Soil-borne Disease with Bioactive Herbage Alone or in Combination with Biocontrol Agents by S.E. Greene, K.D. Gwinn, B.H. Ownley and

S.L. Hamilton

Additional Readings

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

2

5

6

10

13

15

18

20

22

26

29

33

35

37

38

40

41

43

A Short Course in Sustainable AgricultureA Short Course in Sustainable AgricultureWalden Farm – Signal Mountain, Tennessee

Written by: Alex McGregor

“Sustainable agriculture” is a term that has beenused by many different people. The term has asmany different definitions and interpretations asthere are people who use it. One simple thoughtoften comes to mind when sustainable agriculture isused: the ability to produce high-nutritional-valuecrops without depleting our resource base.Sustainable agriculture is a way of thinking, not aspecific system of farming practices.

To study sustainable agriculture, it is helpful toconsider its three different parts:

1) sustainability of the soil2) sustainability of the farm as a business3) sustainability of the community in which the farm operates

It is also helpful to consider how these three partsare related and interconnected:

Soil• Soil fertility must be maintained or increased,

using sustainable resources (i.e., compost, greenmanure crops and others).

• Soil minerals must be replaced.• Erosion must be eliminated.

Soil Quality(a good source for information on soil quality is theUSDA/NRCS publication, Soil Biology Primer)• Soil quality is best defined by its ability to support

a soil ecology that is highly diversified.• Soil functions:

• suppresses disease• improves nitrogen and other nutrient retention

in the soil• mineralizes nutrients• improves soil structure• allows decomposition of toxins in soil• produces plant growth promotion hormones• improves crop quality

Economics• The farm operation needs to produce a living wage

for the operators.• Crops should be diversified.• Marketing should be diversified into retail, whole-

sale and value-added.

Community• The farm operation must have connections with

the community in which it operates. Theseconnections are economic and social.

• High-nutritional-value crops sustain the commu-nity, which in turn sustains the businesses of thosewho make up the community, farms included.

• Social connections with the community provideresources and support for the farmers.

R-GROW Organic Soil ConditionerR-GROW Organic Soil Conditioner

Rollins Family Farm – Pulaski, TennesseeWritten by: Trish Milburn

OverviewR-GROW Organic Soil Conditioner is a successstory for Ed Rollins, his wife, Teresa, and their adultchildren, Robert and Debra, who collectively runRollins Family Farm near Pulaski, Tenn. Being in thecontract chicken business, they had to dispose a lotof poultry waste. A process that had been costingthem money became a money-making venture afterthe family decided to start a composting business.

BackgroundThough his wife is asecond-generationfarmer, Ed Rollins isthe first in his familyto farm. And until1996, he didn’t farmfull-time. Though thefamily raised beefcattle, his mainoccupation was as anelectrician for theautomotive industry,including GeneralMotors and Saturn.He’d also kept beesand produced honeysince the early 1970sas a hobby, a hobbythat is now another part of his multi-faceted farmoperation.

When the family decided to go into the contractchicken business in addition to their beef operation,Rollins says they looked at about 20 differentcompanies’ operations. Rollins decided to build theircontract layer houses to the strictest standards sothey could contract with any company. For the pastnine years, they’ve been contracted to producehatching eggs for Aviagen. Their roughly 18,500chickens produce 60,000-70,000 eggs twice a week.With that many chickens, plus 2,000 roosters, eatingthree tons of feed a day, there is obviously a lot ofwaste, not to mention several chicken mortalities aweek, all of which have to be discarded.

Originally, Rollins incinerated the dead chickens andspread the waste on his fields. However, two con-cerns led to the creation of the R-GROW OrganicSoil Conditioner. First, the price of propane, whichfueled the incinerator, jumped from 60-some cents agallon to more than a dollar per gallon. Rollins wasspending between $300 and $400 a month just torun the incinerator. Second, the Rollinses becameconcerned that they were putting too much waste ontheir fields.

At this point, they began looking at composting asan option for disposal of the waste. First, theyconsulted a pamphlet produced by the University ofTennessee Agricultural Extension Service aboutcomposting chickens, but it didn’t work correctlybecause the pamphlet was targeted for chickensweighing four pounds, not the 10-pound layers withwhich the Rollins farm dealt.

In 1995, the Rollines began the three-phase con-struction of a 40-foot by 120-foot dry-stack shedabout a mile and a half (a minimum distance re-quired by Aviagen) away from the layer houses tocompost the waste and chicken mortalities. Theypartnered with their county Natural Resources andConservation Service (NRCS) to build the facility inan effort to protect the environment. NRCS sent inan engineer to compile plans for the project, did acost estimate and shared in the cost of the construc-tion by contributing 75 percent of the constructioncost, about $40,000. Construction included threephases: the initial shed, an addition with improve-ments and finally the storage and bagging area, thelatter made necessary when they decided to com-mercially market their soil conditioner.

The Birth of a New ProductTo get rid of some of the extra waste, Rollins startedselling some to other people to put on their fieldsand flower beds. At this point, the sales were in bulkfor about $20 per ton. When Rollins began gettingrequests for smaller quantities, he began baggingthe product in 50-pound clear plastic bags with asimple stick-on label. The product didn’t even have aname, simply stated on the label that it was an

organic plant food compost. He hand marketed anddelivered the product to area lawn and gardenbusinesses, some buying it outright at a wholesalerate and some on a consignment basis if they werehesitant to try carrying a new product. Out ofthe approximately 30 stores Rollinsvisited, eight agreed to carry theproduct.

Like most new-product ventures,it was a process of trial anderror. At the end of the firstseason, Rollins visited all thestores that had carried hisproduct to get their inputregarding customer responseto the compost and suggestionsfor improvement. Problems theycited were: the labels peeled offfairly quickly, the 50-pound bags weretoo heavy, moisture accumulated insidethe bag and due to the 75 percent composting level,odor was a problem, even though the way theywater their chickens and run their facility results in amuch drier waste product than is typical.

To improve his product and make it more attractive,Rollins consulted the University of TennesseeAgricultural Development Center (ADC). ADCcanvassed Master Gardeners across the state tocompile a good knowledge base concerning whatconsumers wanted from a composted soil fertilityproduct. Rollins says he and his family pretty muchwent by the letter of ADC’s recommendations, such asusing a more attractive and informative 22-pound white

bag and changing the composting procedure to helpalleviate the unpleasant odor and moisture problems.

Today, the waste is mixed with wood shavingsRollins acquires from right-of-way trim-

ming crews who need somewhere todump their byproduct. It is moved

through a series of wooden bins,each of four batches beingmoved three times when thetemperature falls below 165degrees. Each time a batch ismoved to a new bin, thetemperature goes up and thedecomposition process

begins in earnest again.Unneeded microorganisms are

eliminated by exceeding normalrecommended temperatures of

130 degrees. After removal from thefinal bin, the mixture is run through a

homemade screening machine and rede-signed silage chopper to make its texture finer andeasier to spread. Once the final mixture falls below90 degrees, it is ready to bag.

Though automated baggers are available, theRollinses still bag R-GROW by hand, a process thathas two family members bagging for nine hours aday during the peak spring season. During thosenine hours, they can fill 400 bags for delivery.Automated baggers cost between $10,000 and$40,000. When you take into consideration that R-GROW will bring in $30,000-$40,000 gross sales in2002, Rollins doesn’t believe the automated system

is feasible yet, although he believes they’ll purchaseone sometime in the future when the business growsto a point where it makes sense.

And grow the business has. Sales increased morethan 10 times in the second year. The first quarter ofthe third year brought more sales than the entireprevious year. In addition to the local businesses thattook a chance on the Rollinses’ new product, R-GROW can now be found in Tennessee Farmers Co-ops across the state and Lowe’s® locations in Tennes-see, north Alabama and part of Georgia. They alsohave a tentative contract with Wal-Mart® and will likelysoon start contacting individual Wal-Mart® stores tosee if they are interested in carrying R-GROW.

MarketingEven though he’s been pleased with the results,Rollins says, “I didn’t realize marketing was a seven-day-a-week job.”

The marketing began as soon as he made those firstpersonal contacts with area store owners. Hecontinues to attend 10-12 trade shows a year wherehe markets not only the R-GROW but also the honeyand beef operations. He typically sells enoughhoney to cover the trade show expenses, so thesales of R-GROW, which he delivers at a later date,is profit. “At the bigger shows, we sell about 30pallets, which is about 1,200 bags,” he says.

Other means of marketing are direct mail brochures,participation in the Pick Tennessee Products pro-gram, which allows R-GROW to be listed on theprogram’s Website, seminars at Lowe’s® and otherlocations and a television commercial in the Chatta-nooga area. Unlike farmers of the past, Rollins saysthe marketing of the product has required that he

learn to work on the computer and spend a lot oftime e-mailing and talking on the phone, much ofwhich he does during his lunch “break” when he hasthe phone in one hand and a sandwich in the other.

Rollins says much of the work with the R-GROWproduct comes between the end of February andmid-May, when people are planting their gardensand flowerbeds. A fall season runs from mid-Sep-tember to mid-November, when they do about 30percent of the business they do in the spring. Rollinsmaintains a personal touch by doing all the deliver-ies himself, a part of the job that keeps him on theroad four days of the week during the peak season.

FinancialsRollins guesses the startup costs for the R-GROWbusiness to be around $100,000 including expendi-tures for a new tractor, bags, 25 percent of the dry-stack shed construction, and research and develop-ment. They also spend between $60 and $400 everysix months to get their product tested for composi-tion at either a private or university laboratory. “Weknow of no other soil conditioner on the market witha guaranteed analysis,” Rollins says.

R-GROW sells for $5.33 retail, $4 wholesale deliv-ered and $3.50 wholesale if the buyer picks up theproduct at the Rollins farm. Rollins says they makeabout $1.25 profit per bag retail, especially goodsince the process of getting rid of chicken wasteused to cost him money. In 2002, he expects to sell300-400 tons in bags plus perhaps 100 tons in bulksales. Rollins estimates that 25 percent of the farm’sgross income now comes from R-GROW.

He credits the value-added product for saving theRollins family farm. He says it kept them from going

under when they got a bad batch ofchickens in 2001, the only year theydidn’t make a profit on the hatchingegg business. “We wouldn’t besurviving if we didn’t diversify,” hesays.

Reasons for SuccessThe reasons why R-GROW hasbeen a successful product actuallybegan before the idea for theproduct occurred to the Rollinsfamily. Their decision to water theirchickens only at certain timesprevented the chicken waste from

being excessively liquid. This was part of a compre-hensive plan including insect and pest control andrunning a clean, nonoffensive operation. “We madea commitment to our neighbors not to be a nuisance,and we’ve had no complaints,” Rollins says.

Because the waste was drier, it was a good startingpoint for the compost product. By working withhelpful agencies such as the UT Agricultural Devel-opment Center and listening to customer feedback,the Rollinses were able to improve the product. R-GROW was marketed as a soil conditioner becauseit differs from many fertilizers currently on the marketand to comply with labeling regulations.

“After 60-90 days, all the nutrients are gone with anaverage fertilizer,” Rollins says. “R-GROW is slowrelease over a six-month period.” R-GROW alsoprovides all the micronutrients such as potassium,sulfur, magnesium, calcium, sodium, iron, aluminum,manganese, copper and zinc. And 20 percentorganic matter is left in the soil.

“A soil conditioner is used primarily for improving soilphysical properties such as soil structure and tilthover time,” says Hugh Savoy, an associate professorof biosystems engineering and environmentalscience at the University of Tennessee. “This resultsin a more productive soil because permeability of thesoil to water and air is improved, water-and air-holding capacity of the soil is improved, beneficialmicroorganisms flourish, nutrient cycling and avail-ability are enhanced through the interaction ofseveral processes. A soil conditioner may or may nothave some fertilizer value. A fertilizer is added to thesoil primarily to amend the deficiency of elementsthat are essential for plant growth. Physical proper-ties of the soil may or may not be affected.”

R-GROW customers have been happy to providepositive comments for the Rollinses’ marketing bro-chures. “I’ve used R-GROW in our flower gardens andvegetable garden,” says a customer from Lewisburg,Tenn. “The results were impressive. Our tomato plantsin particular yielded more tomatoes after using thisproduct than ever before. My wife’s rose garden wasabsolutely beautiful all summer long.”

Rollins also feels that their decision to diversify andhold off on the automated bagging equipment hashelped their bottom line. They run a $1.2 millionoperation with only $170,000 debt as of August2002. Rollins says they should be completely out ofdebt by the middle of 2004, something many farmerscan’t claim.

“We didn’t bet the farm that this operation wouldwork,” he says. “Lots of these composting busi-nesses have gone bust. We think our compostingfacility has succeeded because we did our home-work up front, we kept our capital investment to aminimum and we really worked hard with our retailpartners.”

The FutureRollins says he hopes to grow the R-GROW busi-ness until it has nationwide distribution. But hedoesn’t plan to add any more chicken layer housesin an effort to keep up with the demand for the value-added product they help produce. “We’ll eventuallybuy the end product, waste composted to the samestrict standards, from other farmers,” he says.

Even though the Rollins Family Farm currently has afour-pronged business, Rollins hopes to add yetanother value-added aspect sometime in the future.Agritourism, where people come out to spend a dayon a working farm, is increasing in popularity, and hehopes to capitalize on that popularity. One thing hehopes to offer that perhaps other day-on-the-farmexperiences can’t is a train ride through the old traintunnel on his land.

It only takes a few minutes of talking to Ed Rollins torealize he’s a firm proponent of diversification andvalue-added farming. “This is just my opinion, but Ibelieve that anyone who doesn’t diversify isn’t goingto be here in the future,” he says.

J. Tucker Farm – Prospect, TennesseeWritten by: Trish Milburn

Precision Farming ProjectPrecision Farming Project

OverviewGiles County, located in southern Middle Tennesseeclose to the Alabama border, is like many of the ruralcounties across the state in that many of its resi-dents depend on agriculture to make their living. Thecounty has about 250,000 acres in farm land, ofwhich about 30,000 are row crops such as corn andsoybeans with a bit of cotton and wheat. Like muchof Middle Tennessee, Giles County’s soil varieswidely in its ability to produce a good crop. Fertilebottom land may lie close to strips of farm land thatdoesn’t meet the cost of production. To help deter-mine the quality of the soil, its ability to produce andits profitability, some local farmers began to useGlobal Positioning System (GPS) units to sampletheir soil.

The University of Tennessee Agricultural ExtensionService in Giles County saw a need to explore thistechnology more fully to see how it could help localfarmers, whose annual yield brings approximately $5million into the county. Extension agent Kevin Rosecontacted some area farmers to see if they would beinterested in working on a precision farming demon-stration with the Extension office. A couple wereinterested in the results it would generate but didn’twant to be the “guinea pigs,” Rose says. Rose didfind a willing partner in J. Tucker, a young farmerfrom Prospect who had been farming alongside hisfather, Lamar, for as long as he could remember andwho has an agriculture degree from the University ofTennessee at Martin.

BackgroundOnce a $7,800 Sustainable Agriculture Researchand Education (SARE) grant was funded by thecooperative project between the U.S. Department ofAgriculture and the Environmental ProtectionAgency, Rose and Tucker began work on theprecision farming demonstration. The demonstrationwould not only help Tucker map out his fields basedon criteria such as bushels per acre of yield and pHlevels of the soil, but would also help educate areafarmers who might choose to adopt similar methodsbased on the study’s findings.

In 1999, two demonstration plots were selected, andsoil sampling and mapping data were collected touse as a baseline against which the 2000, 2001 and2002 data could be compared. In the following yearsof the study, they evaluated soil test results, gener-ated fertilizer application recommendations, appliedfertilizer using variable rate and uniform rate swaths,conducted scouting, recorded management prac-tices and weather information during the growingseasons, collected data from the yield monitormounted inside Tucker’s combine and conductedeconomic evaluations based on the data availableafter each growing season.

Educational ObjectivesAccording to one of Rose’s project reports, theprimary educational objectives were to study vari-able rate fertilizer and lime applications; determine ifthey were more economically feasible than tradi-tional, uniform applications; and determine if localagribusinesses could provide precision farmingservices that could be economical. Other aspects ofprecision farming practices such as grid or smart soilsampling and the use of yield maps were alsoobjectives of the project.

Many farmers are realizing that agriculture is chang-ing with the times, becoming more dependent ontechnology to make a profit. A sustainable familyfarm must be able to adapt to the changing agricul-tural economy through the adoption of the most cost-efficient uses of all resources such as land, labor,machinery, fertilizers, pesticides and information.

Giles County Extension Agent, Kevin Rose, at thedemonstration site.

This is even more important considering the ever-increasing costs of production, including those listedabove plus property taxes and crop protectionchemicals and the fact that commodity prices havenot kept pace with farmers’ costs of doing business.

By late summer 2002, Tucker had already madesome changes in his operation based on the projectresults. The yield maps showed him which sectionsof his fields were not meeting the cost of production.Many of these were in shady areas near streambanks. Fortunately, being able to identify these areascoincided with such areas being placed in theConservation Reserve Program, a Natural Re-sources Conservation Service (NRCS) program thatpays farmers to keep certain buffer zones in riparianareas out of cultivation to prevent agricultural runoffinto streams and erosion of streambanks. It has theadded benefit of providing additional wildlife habitat.

Tucker was also able to look at the maps showingthe pH levels in his fields and adjust his applicationof lime. In the areas where the pH was within theacceptable range, no lime was applied, while areaswith a too-low pH got additional lime. Tucker saysthat even though the fields might get, on average,the same total amount of lime, it was being appliedat rates that would bring all areas of the field up tothe proper pH level, increasing productivity. Withuniform application across fields, some lime wasbeing wasted, while other areas that were pH-starved continually under-produced.

Educational opportunities extendedbeyond Tucker himself. Severalfield days were held at one ofthe demonstration fields. Thefirst introduced area farmersto the GPS unit and theyield monitor, detailing thetypes of information eachcould provide.

Soils were sampled that fallusing the GPS. With the helpof the Tennessee Farmers Co-op and the Giles Farmers Co-op,more than 300 soil samples werepulled in the two project areas. Thefollowing spring, variable rate lime and potash wereapplied to the project areas — one 11-acre plot andone 206-acre plot. More soil samples were pulled todetermine the effect of the fertilizer.

In November 2001, a Soil Quality and Yield MappingField Day was held at one of the project fields. Theprogram included a summary of the project up to

that point, with a discussion on yield mapping andissues in precision soil mapping. NRCS personneldiscussed soil quality, buffer strips and the Conser-vation Reserve Program.

In addition to the two field days, one producermeeting and five cooperator meetings have beenheld to discuss the project’s progress. Six radiotapes have been produced to promote the program,and several articles have run in local newspapersand The Agronomy Page, the newsletter for Exten-sion agents.

Results of the ProjectThe three-year project was designed to last throughthe 2002 fall harvest, and over the span of thedemonstration a number of people have viewed it invarious stages. Those exposed to the precisionfarming concept have been other farmers,agribusiness owners and employees, and 30 county

Future Farmers of America students.

Tucker has bought a yield monitor he willcontinue to use after the demonstration is

complete, and he may buy his own GPSunit to replace the UT-owned GPS usedon the project. In 2000, he found a cornvariety in one of the project fields thatdid not pollinate as other varieties in thesame field. As a result of having yieldmaps that showed this difference, Tucker

was able to obtain a $36,000 compensa-tion from the seed company for estimated

yield losses.

The Giles Farmers Co-op successfully used theirtruck to apply variable rate lime and potash. Soiltests taken one year after the variable rate applica-tions indicated that the field was much more uniformin pH and available potassium. Because this truckwas not variable rate-ready and had to be set upeach time it went to a field needing variable-rateapplication, the Co-op decided to purchase another

truck that is variable rate-ready. Because of the Co-op’s investment in the new truck, they obtained thebusiness of a farmer who raises 3,500 acres of cornand soybeans. That farmer indicated that theinformation obtained from the precision farmingdemonstration on Tucker’s farm helped him makehis decision.

Of the 64 participants attending the Soil Quality andYield Mapping Field Day in November 2001, twoindicated they planned to adopt the use of a yieldmonitor, five stated they planned to adopt intensivesoil sampling and two intended to adopt variable ratefertilizer and lime applications.

Financial ImplicationsRose stated in his grant application: “Farmers andsuppliers in this area are willing to invest in precisionfarming technologies and practices if there is evi-dence they can reasonably expect increasedprofits....Farmers in this area need firsthand informa-tion on the precision farming practices and theeconomic consequences of adopting some or all ofthe practices. They also need opportunities to experi-ence these practices in a production setting, to betterunderstand the rationale for adopting practices in acertain order or priority and the ways they canmaximize their economic returns. In addition, smallfarmers need to understand that some of the preci-sion farming practices can be adopted withoutpersonally investing in all the hardware and software.”

Though the final results of the three-year demonstra-tion have not yet been compiled, results revealedalong the way have answered some of the abovequestions as evidenced by the local Farmers Co-opbuying a variable rate-application truck and otherfarmers beginning to invest in at least the beginningsof precision farming techniques. The Co-op’sinvestment will allow many farmers who cannotjustify the cost of purchasing precision farmingequipment to continue row crop production whiletaking advantage of the new technology.

Tim Prather, an assistant Extension specialist withUT’s Department of Biosystems Engineering andEnvironmental Science, has been the technicaladviser for the demonstration project and hasworked closely with Rose and Tucker on the collec-tion of data. In late summer 2002, Prather said thatthe data could not be fully interpreted until themonths after the final harvest in the fall of 2002. Hehoped to produce profit maps with the help ofagricultural economists at UT after the demonstra-tion was completed.

Even though the results of the study were inconclu-sive in August 2002, Prather did say that one thingbecame very clear. “What had the most effect (onyield) was what we had the least control over — soilmoisture,” he said. “But one of the biggest payoffs ofthe demonstration was finding areas that werechronically low-producing.”

Integrated Systems That Utilize Biofumigation,

Solarization and Composts for

Commercial Vegetable Production

Integrated Systems That Utilize Biofumigation,

Solarization and Composts for

Commercial Vegetable Production

Written by: Martin Lyons and Carl SamsPlant Sciences and Landscape Systems, UT Institute of Agriculture, Knoxville, Tennessee

BackgroundThe adoption of integrated production systems isadvantageous to both the agricultural communityand society as a whole. Consumers are increasinglydemanding produce that has no pesticide residuesand that fulfills nutritional requirements. Farmersalso have concerns about worker safety, as well aspotentially negative environmental impacts and long-term sustainability of intensive synthetic chemical-based pest control practices.

Vegetable producers face a substantial challengewhen attempting to produce an economically viablecrop under the constant pressure of disease-causing, soil-borne pests. Aggressive pathogens cansignificantly reduce total yields and reduce thequality of marketable product.

ResearchThe viability of biofumigation to control pathogenshas been investigated for many years. Two projectsrecently funded through the Southern SARE gradu-ate research program have successfully developedan integrated production system that combines anenhanced form of biofumigation with the manybenefits of composts. The studies conducted at TheUniversity of Tennessee have shown that certainBrassica cover crops, as well as mustard seed meal,contain high concentrations of isothiocyanates(ITCs). The seed meal is also a significant source ofnitrogen and other nutrients. When incorporated intothe soil, ITCs act as an effective biofumigant,reducing populations of pathogenic fungal species(Sclerotium, Rhizoctonia and Phytium), nematodes,weeds and certain insect species.

Solarization is a technique that elevates soil tem-peratures beneath a clear plastic layer to reducesoil-borne pests. The sub-lethal temperatures

generated in regions of the southeast United Statesmay actually lead to an improvement in the mode ofaction of biofumigation, making this treatment combi-nation an effective one for sustainable agriculture.

Research has also indicated that a pre-plant combi-nation of biofumigation with composted organicamendments increases the efficacy of both treat-ments. Composts improve plant health and produc-tivity due to enhanced soil nutrient levels andimproved physiochemical properties (increased bulkdensity, porosity, aeration) and increased water-holding capacity. Disease suppression due toadvantageous changes to the soil microbial compo-sition, including increases in the populations ofknown biological control agents (Trichoderma,Bacillus and Pseudomonas spp.), has been noted bymany researchers.

Composting is an ecologically sound way to recycleorganic farm wastes, such as animal manures andplant debris. It avoids the environmental hazardsassociated with burning, burying or spreading theseagricultural by-products on fields. These methodscan lead to problems such as increased particulate

matter in the air, leaching and ground water pollu-tion, and toxic excesses of phosphorous and nitrog-enous compounds in the soil.

Result DataFigure 1 depicts the visible differences betweenplants infected with Southern Blight in a control bedcompared with healthier plants growing in the

treated beds. Figures 2 and 3 summarize datacollected from field studies at the Knoxville Experi-ment Station during 2001 and 2002. In both yearstomato yields were significantly enhanced by theincorporation of composted amendments used as apre-plant soil treatment for plasticulture production.The occurrence of Southern Blight was also reducedin both years when compared to controls.

Figure 1. Comparison of control (foreground) versus treated beds.

Figure 2. Tomato yields per treatment for (a) 2001 and (b) 2002

Figure 3. Incidence of Southern Blight per treatment in (a) 2001 and (b) 2002

Direct Farm Marketing and AgritainmentDirect Farm Marketing and Agritainment

Valley Home Farm – Wartrace, TennesseeWritten by: Rob Holland

OverviewIt might be easier to write about the activities whichNancy Edwards does NOT provide at Valley HomeFarms rather than the numerous enterprises that sheand the rest of the Potts family have already under-taken. In just two years, this truly family farm opera-tion has assembled distinctive spring and fall on-farm marketing and agritainment activities with aretail shed, petting zoo, pavilion, wagon rides, nature

path, pumpkin patch, corn maze, restaurant, grainbin converted to a cooling house for miniaturepumpkins, commercial kitchen for food processingand manufacturing and a straw pit. This is anamazing family operation. The family has identifiedthat in direct farm marketing and agritainmententerprises, any one ingredient that is not perfectlyexecuted can kill the business. The entire ValleyHome Farm operation has numerous ingredients.Understandably, production of the crops has its ownset of unique success factors and ingredients, butbeyond production – processing, packaging, adver-tising, marketing, labor, safety and customer rela-tions – are additional ingredients.

BackgroundThe 350-acre farm, which is now home to thenumerous direct farm marketing and agritainmententerprises, was purchased in 1958 by Nancy’sgrandparents, R.K. and Nellie Potts. On this farm her

grandfather made his living growing corn, soybeans,beef cattle, hogs, poultry and hay. Granny Pottsraised matted-row strawberries for extra income inthe same field where strawberries are grown today.In 1960, Nancy’s parents, Lowell and Martha Potts,moved their family (four children – Linda, Vickie,Nancy and Bobby) not only to the farm but into thesame house with Lowell’s parents. Lowell andMartha still live on the farm and are very involvedwith the diversified farming operation. The main farm

house, where three generations of Pottslived, was built in 1835 and is now on theNational Register of Historic Places for itsarchitectural significance. This house is nowNancy’s home.

When Nancy’s husband died in 1998 at age47, Nancy decided that she did not want tostay in the corporate world but that shewould rather return to the farm full-time. Shestudied many alternative farm enterprisesbut struggled to find anything with thepotential revenue to provide a full-timeliving. Nancy actually considered a bed &breakfast business in the historical house,but found that such an enterprise just wouldnot provide the amount of net return thatshe desired.

Nancy needed something small enough that shecould manage, but with an adequate profit potential.Because strawberries had been grown well by hergrandmother and her brother, Nancy heavily consid-ered this crop as a nucleus for her return to the farm.In searching for specific production informationabout strawberries, Nancy met some poignantdiscouragement from some of the experts. This mayhave been just the motivation Nancy needed. Afterattending a short-course on plasticulture strawberryproduction in North Carolina, she realized why shehad been discouraged by others. Nancy realizedthat a profitable commercial strawberry enterprisewould be much more than she could manage alone.Frustrated, Nancy shared her findings with herbrother Bob, and he simply said “I didn’t think youknew how much was involved.” So, Nancy reluc-tantly returned to work until Bob dropped by andsaid that if she really wanted to stay on the farm andgive the strawberries a try, he would do it with her . . .so they were partners.

UT Extension specialists John Buchanan andAllen Straw met with Nancy and Bob on thefarm and got them started in the right direction.Both specialists have made several returnvisits to the farm over the years and haveconsulted numerous times over the telephone.Bob and Nancy also continue to attend shortcourses in North Carolina.

Labor is an essential ingredient to the successat Valley Home Farm. Nancy admits that theyprobably would not be able to pull off theoperation if they did not have such dedicatedfamily labor. Family labor offers three helpfulelements at Valley Home Farm: “they workcheap, they are committed to success and they arealways available.” Nancy and Bob do rely on hiredlabor to pick strawberries for a flat rate per gallonpicked.

Family Labor, Management

and InvestorsNancy is very familiar with the importance of peopleskills at the farm, and all the folks at Valley Home Farmhave learned this very well from Nancy. Nancy remindsthem that if they slack on their people skills, all theother ingredients in the business will not offset it.• Linda Potts Williams is Nancy’s oldest sibling.

Linda is a middle school principal and scienceteacher and is in charge of the farm’s restaurant.She is also a partner in the jam-making businesswith Vickie.

• Vickie Potts Pyrdum is the director of the BedfordCounty Medical Center’s cardiac testing. She is apartner in the farm’s jam business. Vickie’shusband Billy Pyrdum operates the farm’s springand fall markets.

• Nancy Potts Edwards is a former businessmanager with experience in retail, mail-order,manufacturing and publications/advertising. Sheis a partner with her brother Bobby in the farm’sspecialty crop production.

• Bobby Potts and his wife Janet are the actuallandowners of the farm. Bob has farmed on hisgrandfather’s place full-time since age 14. Heowns and operates the farm’s 100,000-headbroiler enterprise and a diversified livestock andhay operation. Bobby has dabbled in various cropand farm enterprises over the years and evenoperated a local retail grocery store businessbefore partnering with Nancy in the specialty crops.

In the

SpringThe spring market,where the harvests from the farm’s three acres ofplasticulture strawberries are sold, is generally open forsix weeks – mid-April through May. Bob and Nancybegan with two acres of strawberries but increased tothree acres after they gained confidence in theirproduction capabilities and found that the third acregreatly enhanced the overall profit potential. Nancyestimates that 98 percent of their strawberry crop issold directly from the farm. The remaining 2 percent ofthe crop is taken to nearby towns and sold from thepick-up truck. A majority of the strawberries sold at thefarm (about 80 percent) are pre-picked and priced at$9.50 per gallon, and about 20 percent are sold at$8.00 per gallon for the “U-Pick” customers. Strawber-ries at the farm are priced relatively close to berries ingrocery stores, although as the grocery store pricesfluctuate, the prices at the farm are sometimes a bithigher. Nancy has found that customers coming to thefarm are primarily interested in the superior quality andthe opportunity to interact with the grower.

Strawberries provided the primary raw ingredient forthe Valley Home Farm commercial kitchen, wheresisters Linda and Vickie develop a variety of specialtyjams, jellies, sauces and vegetables flavored with localblackberries, peaches, strawberries, peppers andmixed vegetables. The commercial kitchen area alsoserves as host to the spring strawberry sales. Allproducts from the commercial kitchen are available bymail order.

In the FallThe fall market is generally open for six weeks frommid-September to Halloween. The fall retail market

offers mums, pumpkins, gourds, winter squash,straw bales, corn-stalk shocks, jams and jellies,honey and a complete line of agritainment activitiesincluding a five-acre corn maze, hayrides, animalbarn, restaurant, pavilion and a walking nature trail.

Nancy and Bob have decided not to contract with anational corn maze company instead opting todesign and cut it out themselves. The first attemptwith a corn maze in 2001 featured the design of twohorses running with “Valley Home Farm” spelled outat the top. Unfortunately, on the third day of the 2001maze season, a wind storm destroyed the maze andessentially snipped the maze income stream. Onceagain determined, Valley Home Farm’s 2002 cornmaze featured a complicated design of circles andgeometric patterns which they “guaranteed toconfuse and challenge the best mazers.” Even withmany years of corn-growing experience, Bob andNancy have learned a great deal more about grow-ing corn when the objective is a maze. Bob says “Idon’t think we could grow corn for a suitable mazewithout irrigation.” The maze is open daily from mid-September through Halloween. The operatingschedule is Mondays - Thursdays from 8 a.m. until 7p.m.; 8 a.m. until 10 p.m. Fridays, Saturdays andSundays. The admission is $6 per person. Childrenunder 3 are admitted free. While the maze hasbecome a great attraction and money maker for theoverall fall operation, Nancy does not think that themaze alone could sustain their fall income needs.Schools and other group tours are booked Tuesdaysthrough Fridays from September 16 - October 31.These tours include a hay ride to the crop fields andthe beeyard, a visit to the corn maze and animalbarn and a free pumpkin to take home.

Unlike other agritainment enterprises, Nancy doesnot unload visitors from the hay ride at the pumpkinpatch. Pumpkins are made available to both tourgroups and individual customers exclusively at thefall market location or near the animal barn. Nancyhas found that she maintains much more control ofthe tour groups when they do not load and unloadfrom the wagon. Speaking of wagons, the ValleyHome Farm wagons are converted from old cottonwagons and can hold close to 75 people at a time.

LocationValley Home Farm is located in the Wartrace com-munity about 12 miles east of Shelbyville in BedfordCounty. The Farm is located abut 3 miles east ofWartrace on Potts Road just off Highway 64. Thefarm is also located about 10 minutes west of exit#97 on Interstate 24 and about 50 miles southeast ofNashville. Most of the Valley Home Farm customerscome from within 40 miles, which includes thelarger-populated towns of Manchester, Tullahoma,Shelbyville, Murfreesboro and Smyrna. Nancy wasinitially concerned about their rural location, but afterstudying traffic counts on nearby roads and studyingthe population and demographic statistics of thenearby towns, she realized that their location wasactually a positive aspect of the operation.

Other Issues, Observations

and PhilosophiesAlthough a necessity, liability insurance for theoperation did not come easy. After realizing theamount of liability they were undertaking with the on-farm retail and agritainment activities, Bob andNancy first tried to get adequate liability coveragefrom their existing farm insurance provider. Theywere first informed that the liability coverage neededwould not be possible. Determined, Bob and Nancykept pushing the issue, and after some fighting, theyfinally did get good coverage at an acceptable ratefrom their existing insurance provider.

In the spring of 2002, Nancy hosted a “strawberrybake-off,” which garnered outstanding newspapercoverage with several full-page and full-color featurestories. However, despite such great publicity, Nancyhas not been able to find that the coverage actuallyconverted into any additional sales.

After returning to the farm from her corporate experi-ence, Nancy realized that she had to learn again thaton the farm, most success factors are secondary tothe weather. This was especially true in the manage-ment area, production and market management,where many times she has realized that no amount ofmanagement will offset the weather.

Nancy credits much of their short-term success tothe fact that each family member has invested in theoperation and keeps investing. After the third mar-keting year they have, however, decided to wait oneyear before adding any more. Another year shouldgive them some additional income that is not re-invested in the operation.

Small Farm Sustainability and Value-Added

Food Processing/Products

Small Farm Sustainability and Value-Added

Food Processing/Products

Appalachian Spring CooperativeWritten by: Paul Miller

The Problem of Small Farm

SustainabilitySmall farms in America, and indeed throughout theworld, face a crisis of unprecedented proportionsarising out of intense social, political and economicpressures that are largely beyond the control of theagricultural producers who are most affected bythem. These pressures include a relentless upwardspiral in the cost of inputs, equipment, labor andmarketing; stagnation in the rate of increase in farm-gate prices for agricultural products; andmarginalization of small producers with respect to amainstream food distribution system dominated bymass-merchandisers and supplied by mega-farmslocated both on- and off-shore.

This is especially true in our region of the country(the southern Appalachian highlands of East Tennes-see), an area where, for generations, tobacco, beefcattle and hay have been the principal cash crops.The past several years have seen rapid and sub-stantial changes in the ways in which tobacco isproduced and marketed; changes that include cutsin quotas, sell-offs of small quotas to larger growers,competition from tobacco producers overseas andmoves toward direct contractual relationshipsbetween (larger) American producers and thetobacco companies. Moreover, the profitability ofsmall beef cattle and hay operations in recent yearshas been less than impressive and there is littlereason to believe that substantial positive changesare likely to occur in the near future. Absent theunderpinning of tobacco production in the localagricultural economy, many, if not most, of the smallfarm enterprises in our region face the prospect offailure and demise in the next decade unless realalternatives can be identified and profitably imple-mented by our agricultural producers.

The Value-Added SolutionFor more than a decade now, USDA, through itsExtension and Ag Development programs, has beenpromoting to small farmers the benefits of diversifi-cation, value-added production and niche marketingof farm products as a means to increase the income,profitability and sustainability of small-farm enter-prises. Indeed, it would not be difficult to show thatthose small farm enterprises that are currently mostviable and with the best prospects for long-termsustainability are those that have taken activemeasures to diversify their operations, developvalue-added components and access niche marketsfor their products.

For some of these producers, “value-added” beginsin the field with the production of specialty crops forniche markets in place of conventional or commoditycrops. Examples of this would include production oforganically grown crops that have historicallybrought a price premium in the marketplace; brand-or region-identified crops (such as Grainger Countytomatoes, Vidalia onions, etc.); or production ofspecialty, gourmet and ethnic crops for niche markets.

For others, “value-added” has meant the addition ofa processing component to their operations, turningself-produced or contracted-for raw inputs intofinished products for sale to retailers, distributors ordirect-to-consumer as a means to maximize thepercentage of the consumer dollar that goes to theprimary producer. Examples of this would includeproducts such as artisan cheeses; specialty pro-cessed foods for gourmet, ethnic and health foodmarkets; and, for some, the conversion of seconds,cull, and over-production of raw crops into locally-marketable processed foods (often of a sort withlocal, regional or traditional appeal to local orregional consumers).

Key to the development of a value-added processingcomponent for many of these producers has beenthe appearance nationwide in the last decade ofapproximately a dozen licensed, shared-use food

processing/business incubator facilities such as theClinch-Powell Community Kitchens in HancockCounty, Tennessee. Small-scale producers whocould not achieve the economies of scale necessaryto contract with large, commercial food processingfacilities are finding in these shared-use kitchenscomprehensive services and facilities to enable andsupport not only the production of their value-addedprocessed foods, but also the development ofbusiness plans, access to start-up financing, compli-ance with legal requirements for food products andeffective marketing strategies. In the case of theClinch-Powell Community Kitchens, the creation anddevelopment of an affiliated value-added producersmarketing cooperative (Appalachian Spring Coop-erative) has added an additional level of support forproducers, assisting them with access to most-lucrative markets for their products.

And, not content to wait for potential producers toshow up at the kitchen door, idea in hand, the staffand members of Clinch-Powell Community Kitchensand Appalachian Spring Cooperative have em-barked on the development of a model program todevelop strategic, productive alliances betweenprimary producers seeking value-added alternativecrops and secondary producers requiring specialtycrops or varieties for processing into finished foodproducts for targeted markets.

We believe that efforts such as these to developcoordinated, value-added components in the field, inthe kitchen and in the marketplace will prove to beessential to the sustainability of small-farm enter-prises in our region and a ray of hope to those face-to-face with the prospect of demise for their tradi-tional farming operations.

Through the centuries, farmers have been process-ing and packaging dairy products on the farm forpersonal consumption. Oftentimes, they considerdoing this on a larger scale to service their localcommunity or region and provide extra farm income.However, before capital is invested in such anendeavor, it is important that the economic feasibilityof such an undertaking be analyzed.

Several general business management areas shouldbe addressed in the beginning stages of businessplanning. These include:

• Legal business formation – sole proprietorship, corporation, LLC, etc.

• Zoning and other local regulations• Food regulations, inspections and permits• Food-labeling regulations• County business license• Insurance – property, production liability,

general liability

Next, it is important to study some of the limitingfactors that may be encountered along the way.These may include such things as:

• Federal marketing orders• Production parameters• Technical expertise• Costs• Dairy products industry trends• Targeted marketing area demographics and

consumption data• Image• Product packaging• Pricing

Federal Milk Marketing

OrdersThe Federal Milk Marketing Orders system wasdeveloped to pool the proceeds of all milk sales toensure that all producers in an area receive thesame uniform price for their milk regardless of howtheir milk is used. Dairies that process and packageless than 150,000 pounds (17,442 gallons) of theirown fluid milk per month are denoted as a “producer/processor exempt plant.” These dairies are allowed

to sell any remaining raw milk, above 150,000pounds, the same way that they have in the past.However, if the dairy processes above the 150,000pound mark, any excess milk must be sold on themarket at other than class 1 utilization rates.

Production ParametersThe maximum level of farm production will largelydepend on the size of the dairy herd and the level ofmilk production per cow. Once the maximum level ofproduction is determined, it must be adjusted for theFederal Milk Marketing Orders and the percentage ofmilk a farmer wants to devote to the new enterprise.In addition, the capacity and size of the equipmentpurchased will limit the amount of products that canbe produced at any given period of time.

Technical ExpertiseWhile dairy farmers may have previously processedand packaged dairy products for personal consump-tion, it is important that products for retail sale beprocessed using accepted industry practices andfollowing all regulations. This may entail attendingclasses or workshops to learn and understandprocesses and regulations, etc. The product producedshould be high quality and acceptable to the public.

CostsAll costs associated with a dairy processing facilityshould be analyzed, including start-up costs, annualoperating costs and variable costs. Start-up costsare the initial investment that must be made to getan enterprise running. Start-up costs may includethe costs associated with building a facility, purchas-ing equipment, initial marketing, setting up utilities,etc. Annual operating costs are those associatedwith running the business on a yearly basis and mayinclude repayment of borrowed funds, labor, utilities,repairs and maintenance, supplies, marketing, etc.Variable costs are the production costs per product,which may include the costs associated with pro-cessing, ingredients, losses, packaging, etc. on aper-unit basis.

Evaluating the Feasibility of a Dairy Processing FacilityEvaluating the Feasibility of a Dairy Processing Facility

Agricultural Development CenterWritten by: Shasta Leinart Hubbs

Dairy Products

Industry TrendsLooking at the current trends in the dairy productsindustry as well as trends for the specific productsthat will be produced is important. Trends provideindications as to the general mood of the consumingpublic. Is the public becoming more or less healthconscious? Is flavor more important than fat content?Are new products being accepted or are products thatare currently on the market satisfying the consumers?How much is currently being spent on specificproducts? Is more or less being purchased than waspurchased five years ago? All of these questions giveinsight into the industry in which the new dairyprocessing facility will be competing.

Target Market Demographics

and Consumption DataWhile it is easy to believe that the entire world is themarket, it is a naïve belief. Only consumers whohave a need or want for a specific product or thosewho stand to reap benefits from it are likely consum-ers. These individuals are called the target market.Gather as much information as possible regardingindividuals in this group – annual income, age,marital status, hobbies, where they live, what theybuy, how much of specific products they consume,etc. The information will provide the processor theopportunity to tailor a product attributes and market-ing efforts to best reach those individuals.

Product ImageAn image is the set of beliefs, ideas and impressionsa person holds regarding a product or service.People’s attitudes and actions toward a product orservice are highly conditioned by an object’s image.The image should reflect the wants and needs of thetarget market. The image should be reinforced in allmarketing strategies, product packaging and pricing,etc. If an image is not created by the processor, aproduct may go unnoticed or the public may create animage different from that intended by the processor.

Product PackagingA product’s packaging is more than just a shippingcontainer or a place to provide mandated information.Packaging is another opportunity to market a productto the public. Packaging can be used to catch theconsumers’ attention through the effective use ofcolor, graphics, shape, etc. The packaging shouldsupport the intended product image. The first productthat a consumer picks up off a retail shelf is morelikely to be purchased than any of its competitors.

Product PricingA product should be priced so that all costs associatedwith its production are covered plus a specified profit forthe processor. However, product pricing has additionalimplications. A product’s price must be reflective of theproduct’s image – gourmet, high-quality, discount,average. The price should also be in line with competingproducts to ensure trial by consumers.

At first glance, beginning to process and packagedairy products on the farm seems like a simple task.After all, haven’t farmers been doing it for centuries?But, it is actually a much more complicated process.All areas of such an endeavor should be analyzed toensure that everything is being done in the mostefficient and legal way possible. In addition, market-ing, an often overlooked area, should be consideredand used to the benefit the enterprise.

Greenhouse Production and Retail Garden

Center MarketingPWP Greenhouses and Retail Garden Centers

Pall Mall, Lenoir City and Lascassas, TennesseeWritten by: Melissa Carro

Greenhouse Production and Retail Garden

Center Marketing

BackgroundAlthough the 300-acre family farm in Pall Mall,Tennessee, had been a dairy farm for 20 years, mostmembers of the family had pursued non-farming

paths in life. Bob Washburn and his brother-in-law,Bob Pile, had careers as a lawyer for TVA in Knox-ville and an engineer with TVA in Muscle Shoals, AL,respectively. Both decided in the mid-1980s that theywanted to raise their children in the country, awayfrom the hustle and bustle of city life. They wanted toreturn to the family farm.

They didn’t, however, want to be dairy farmers. Sothey considered their options for alternative agricul-ture. One of Pile’s most recent projects with TVA wasto design a greenhouse that could be heated withthe hot water discharged from TVA’s Browns FerryNuclear Plant. From this expertise was born the ideafor a series of greenhouses. Their first greenhouse,opened in 1982, was small – 30x90. As the green-house was located next to her property, Washburnand Pile’s sister-in-law Connie Pile ran this firstgreenhouse until Washburn and Pile sold theirhomes and moved onto the Pile family farm in 1985

and 1986. They set an initial goal of one acre ofproducts in five years. PWP Greenhouses, Inc. wasofficially underway.

Slow, Careful GrowthBecause they had left lucrative jobs, soldhouses and transitioned their families to anew region, finances were a chief concern,and prudence prevailed when it came toeconomic investments. Both Washburn andPile wanted to manage PWP’s growthcarefully. They added a few greenhouseseach year, always putting any profits backinto PWP to facilitate future growth. Always,they kept their eyes on the five-year mark.

Signs of frugality were evident in PWP’s earlydays, and remain today. Bedding plant flatsare grown on top of a black plastic weedbarrier. Doors, vents and some of the green-house structures are homemade. Old, one-

ton farm trucks are used to transport plants from thepotting building to the greenhouses.

Where it was important, however, significant capitalinvestments were made. PWP did its homework anddetermined that an automated transplanting linecould cut transplanting costs in half over transplant-ing and filling flats by hand. For this reason, PWPbuilt a custom-designed steel building that containsa Bouldin & Lawson flat filler, transplant line and mistchamber. This high-tech equipment meets theobjective of producing high-quality, uniform trays ofbedding plants. With such substantial reduction intransplanting costs, PWP is able to pass the savingsalong to customers by keeping prices lower thanthose of other growers.

By 2001, PWP had expanded to 48 greenhouses,and exceeded its five-year goal by 50 percent.

Finding the CustomerPWP developed a solid customer base, ranging fromlarge garden centers to small “mom-and-pop”greenhouses that fill their pick-up trucks with PWPproducts. One of PWP’s largest customers continuesto be Tennessee’s Wal-Mart® stores. Fifty percent ofPWP’s products go to Wal-Mart®. Maintaining thiscustomer relationship is a dynamic situation, be-cause people in Wal-Mart® change all the time.There is also always the concern that Wal-Mart®

could choose to buy elsewhere.

There is an inherent challenge for mid-sized growerslike PWP. As large growers benefit from economiesof scale and bargaining power with their suppliers,they can afford to reinvest significantly and enhancetheir productivity. On the opposite end of the spec-trum, small growers can carve out new niches forthemselves by specializing in more unusual plants.The mid-sized grower, like PWP, however, mustcarefully determine which plugs are not cost-efficientto grow themselves. For instance, PWP identifiedvinca and begonia plugs as being too expensive togrow, so they purchase those plugs and concentrateon growing only plugs that germinate well in their soil– like marigolds, petunias, tomatoes and salvia.

Although pleased with their initial productivity andcustomer base, PWP needed to plan more aggres-sively for the future in an uncertain economy. Theyhad found a customer base within their rural commu-nity. They had established a wholesale market withWal-Mart®. What was lacking was a retail strategy tooffset any economic downturns that their position asa mid-sized grower could bring.

Building Retail OutletsIncreasing profitability would come only throughincreasing retail business. Toward this end, PWP setout to build its own retail outlets, with the long-termobjective of PWP’s largest customer to shift fromWal-Mart® to PWP’s own retail outlets.

In pursuing a retail strategy, PWP encountered twomajor stumbling blocks. The first was its name,which was not retail-friendly. The retail business wasset up, then, under the name Wolf River ValleyGrowers, indicative of the lush valley in which thefamily business is set.

Three retail outlets were established over the periodof four years. First, retail customers were alreadyvisiting the original greenhouse in Pall Mall to buythe products. The second outlet, opened in 1997,was a full-service garden center, Meadow ViewGreenhouse and Garden Center, built in Lenoir City,about 20 miles west of Knoxville, TN. The gardencenter was opened in Lenoir City solely to have anoutlet for the product grown in Pall Mall. In this way,PWP created its own customer.

Retail progress continued. In 2000, PWP opened itslatest venture – Valley Growers in Murfreesboro, TN,a location chosen because of the tremendousgrowth in the area, as well as because familymembers were available in the area to staff theoperation.

Currently PWP is its own retail customer for approxi-mately 20 percent of its total volume. PWP plans toopen two or three more retail locations to increasethat percentage.

Different Sets of ChallengesMarketing remains the greatest challenge for PWP,but the wholesale and retail operations have had toemploy totally different marketing strategies. Al-though both sides of the operation need to find thecustomer, the type of customer they need is totallydifferent.

The wholesale marketing strategy is relationship-driven. The wholesale side of PWP – Wolf RiverValley Growers – must forge new relationships withlarge customers such as Wal-Mart®, or identifypotential new customers, like Home Depot® orLowe’s®. With 50 percent of their product going toWal-Mart®, PWP sells 30 percent to other gardencenters, with the remaining 20 percent stockingPWP’s retail centers.

PWP’s retail outlets must employ a completelydifferent marketing approach. The garden centers inLenoir City and Murfreesboro do weekly radio spotsand newspaper inserts. In addition, in Lenoir City,the garden center does a direct mail piece targeting1,300-1,400 individuals five or six times per year.Effectiveness of these direct mailings are quite high,with an approximate 20 percent rate of return.

Related to marketing, retail has other inherentchallenges that don’t exist in wholesale. Becauseaesthetics carry an importance that is irrelevant inthe wholesale environment, for instance, retailcarries a higher overhead. While the productiongreenhouse tries to maximize space, the gardencenters must have convenient, paved parking; wideaisles; and an enticing environment.

Both wholesale and retail operations have benefittedfrom a well-organized Website. Although flowerproduction does not innately seem to be a high-techoperation, contemporary society – and marketingtechniques – dictate that a business be searchablethrough the Internet.

The greenhouses in Pall Mall, on the other hand,have more labor and transportation costs. Findingdrivers – especially in the Cumberland Mountainsregion of East Tennessee – is difficult. Theoperation’s full-time labor base is good, but it’sdifficult to secure temporary truck loading labor tomeet seasonal need. Although PWP rented trucksduring the spring rush every year, a cost/benefitanalysis shows it made more sense for PWP to ownits own trucks. For this reason, PWP finally invested,in 1997, in its own fleet of delivery trucks.

The retail outlets have a completely different type oflabor issue. More employees are needed springthrough summer, and the garden center managershave to contend with a part-time workforce.

Achieving an Effective

BalanceUsually agriculturists either grow the product or sellit; it is rare to do both. PWP achieved a healthybalance between their wholesale and retail businesslines. Not only is the product shared in the sensethat it’s grown in one place to be distributed inanother, but the workloads in the two types ofoperation complement each other.

PWP may be viewed as three business lines, repre-senting distinct workloads, in one umbrella company.The different business lines’ busiest times of yearcomplement each other. The wholesale operation isbusiest in January and February, in making theproduct – sowing seeds and doing cuttings. At thattime the retail outlets are slower and use that time todo facility modifications and concentrate on selling giftitems. Then, in early spring, the wholesale operationsare slower, while retail outlets see as many as 1,000customers on any given weekend. In July and August,while the growing side of the business is slower, thewholesale business is at its peak, transporting mumsand other fall products. Meanwhile the retail outletsare gearing up for fall sales.

Like any successful business, PWP has managers –specialists in their distinctive areas. Unlike manybusinesses, however, the titles are much moreagricultural and descriptive of an actual task done –such as watering specialist, transportation specialistand potting specialist.

Looking at PWP’s revenues for the past few years,one can see an enviable balance between retail andwholesale dollars. While the Pall Mall farm doesapproximately $1 million in wholesale business butonly $200,000 in retail, the Lenoir City garden centershowed retail sales of $500,000 and theMurfreesboro center sales of $220,000. Achievingthis balance between wholesale and retail enablesPWP to absorb the impact of any potential customerlosses or reductions.

The Key to SuccessPWP realized early on that the flower business is alow-margin enterprise. It is critical to watch what is

being bought and when it’s being bought. Carefulanalyses of buying and sales trends help PWP planits seed ordering for the next season. Excess productgoes to customers who are stocking flea markets.This process somewhat buffers the cost of excessproduct, but PWP tries to minimize the overage.

Washburn and Pile have seen many growers andgarden centers go under – especially in these tougheconomic times. They have witnessed horticulturistsfocusing too much time on each plant and notrecognizing agriculture as the business that it is. Intheir own words, their retail operations are nodifferent from Sears’® operations, except that PWPhas a living product to water.

Driving PWP’s operations are some facts they’velearned about their business and their customer:

Customers need greater convenience. Withcontemporary society’s hectic lifestyles, custom-ers have increasingly less time for gardening.Retail outlets need to maximize the customers’convenience by offering ready-to-grow plants inlarge pots and access to concise information.Environmental concerns. There are increas-ingly stricter environmental controls and a growingneed to continually conserve water. As water

shortages continue, the demand will increase fordrought-resistant/low-maintenance plants.Rising fuel prices. It seems that fuel prices willcontinue to rise, so PWP is investigating alterna-tive heat sources and considering growing plantsthat don’t require as much heat.Labor shortages. Increasing wages are a givenin today’s economy. Although it’s important toautomate as much as possible, PWP advocatespaying current employees as much as possible,because retention is much more cost-efficientthan recruiting and training new employees.Combination of high tech with personalservice. Today’s society demands a high level ofservice that includes both Internet information andface-to-face interaction. Neither aspect of a retailbusiness, even one that’s agricultural in nature,can be ignored.

Although PWP is a family business, that nomencla-ture does not reveal the incredible volume that thegrowers have achieved in the past 15-odd years.Each year, PWP and its retail outlets produce morethan 30,000 flats of annuals, 5,000 units of perenni-als and herbs, 20,000 hanging baskets, 11,000 potsof mums and 12,000 pots of poinsettias.

Red Barn Winery

Lafayette, Tennessee Written by: Melissa Carro

Red Barn Winery

BackgroundPlanting their tobacco crop in 1999 was bittersweetfor Judy and Glen Clements. Tobacco had been theirlivelihood on their family farm. They had been grow-ing tobacco on 100 acres in Macon County, Tennes-see, for almost 30 years. However, asthe federal government began slashingtobacco bases in Tennessee in 1996, theClements saw the writing on the wall.Between 1996 and 1998, the Clements’tobacco base had been reduced from8,000 to 2,100 pounds, and their familyincome reduced by more than $30,000 ayear.

The Clements’ chief objective was tomaintain their way of life, which in-cluded living and working on the familyfarm. Starting in 1996, they began toplan for a future without a tobaccoproduct. To survive, they had to begin anew product. The choice was straight-forward, as they had already estab-lished a secondary product a few yearsearlier. A winery had approached the Clementsabout planting grapes. They had done so – with twoacres of blackberries in 1990 and seven acres ofgrapes in 1994. With some initial success, theydecided to enter the state’s 75/25 program, in whichTennessee mandates that wineries in the stateobtain a minimum of 75 percent of the fruit for theirwine from Tennessee growers. This plan gave theClements a fresh produce market.

After eight years in grape production, they decidedto process wine. In 1999, the Clements receivedtheir license and the regulatory approval necessaryto operate a winery. The full transition from tobaccoto wine had begun.

Learning the ProductHaving farmed for so many years, the Clements hada thorough knowledge of the soil and an understand-ing of what the leaf structure for grapes should looklike. They also knew the challenges of the climate.

Although the soil was good, there was high humiditywith which to contend in the Highland Rim of MaconCounty. They also had to identify the grapes that aremost successful – French hybrid or North

American. These grapes will grow well inTennessee’s climate and are most comparable insweetness to the Vinifra grape from California.Pinpointing the right type of grape was important,because the Clements had to market their product tothe taste buds of the region, and East Tennesseansprefer fruitier, sweeter wine.

Starting wine production meant refresher courses inchemistry. The University of Tennessee AgriculturalDevelopment Center was instrumental in getting theClements the resources they needed to beginproduction. The greatest learning curve, according tothe Clements, was related to the cleanliness pro-cess. Experts from UT and University of California-Davis helped the Clements understand the nature ofair-borne bacteria and how to prevent it. In addition,the Clements attended seminars offered by PurdueUniversity.

The Clements set up the Red Barn Winery as aLimited Liability Company (LLC) and do their own

bookkeepingwith off-the-shelf software.

They pursuedmany avenues for

grant money, butthe Small Business

Association and their county executive said there wereno grants available for agricultural businesses of thattype. They finally went to a local banker who askedthem to submit a financial plan for their projectedbusiness plan. It was advantageous that the Clementsknew the local bankers from previous businessventures, but the bankers still asked tough questionsabout how a winery could make money in a dry county.It was a question that the Clements had to thinkthrough themselves and strategize.

Overcoming Regulatory

HurdlesBecoming licensed to produce and sell wine requiredthat the Clements jump through a number of regulatoryhoops. The first step was to inform local county officialsabout the plans for the winery. Since Red Barn Wineryis located in a dry county, the Clements were con-cerned that they might meet up with philosophical ormoral opposition. Surprisingly, they received supportfor the venture from county officials. Next, the localhealth department had to visit the Clements’ farm andcheck the water. Then, the Clements had to go in frontof the Tennessee Department of Agriculture RegulatoryDepartment. There were strict requirements on howthe winery could be built. They found out that theconcrete on the floors had to be 1/8 inch to the drain,and that the walls could not be absorbent. The finalstep with this state agency was to send the winery’s

floor plan to the Tennessee Department ofAgriculture.

The next step was to complete thelengthy paperwork necessary to obtain apermit from the Alcohol BeverageCommission. Then the Clements had topursue the same process with theBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire-arms. The most time-consuming paper-work, however, was associated with theWashington D.C. Labeling Department,which demanded that the package carryvery specific warnings about the productand its alcohol content.

In general, the Clements found thefederal demands and paperwork much

simpler than the state’s. The whole regulatoryprocess – both federal and state – took 14 months.

It Takes a MarketBy 2000 the Clements had three varieties of grapesand blackberry wine, and they opened the farmwinery to the public.

The first hurdle the Clements had to face: how tofind the customer. The Clements were primarilydependent on local trade, since Tennessee lawsprohibit them from selling off-site, except through adistributor. To market their products through adistributor meant giving up 40 percent of the grosssales, so on-site sales had to be the Clements’emphasis, at least in the beginning.

It became clear to the Clements that they needed toestablish a clientele and depend on repeat business.Another marketing challenge, though, was theirlocation off a well-traveled highway. The winery wasdifficult to find. Signage would be an advantage, butthere again, the Clements’ efforts were thwarted.There were stringent regulations about placementand types of signs, and highway directional bill-boards were almost prohibitively expensive.

The Clements had to think creatively and make thewinery a destination in itself. To accomplish this, theClements had to focus not only on marketing theproduct but the environs as well. Toward this end,they began an extensive remodeling of the tobaccobarn. The single, double and triple tiers of thetobacco farm became different venues for thewinery. The main part of the barn was renovated tobe the sampling room. The side parts of the barnwere renovated to become party rooms, and a large

covered patio was added. One focus of Red BarnWinery became special events and jamborees,which brought visitors on-site to become familiar with– and purchase – the products. One annual event,which became very popular, is the Grape StompinJamboree, held on Labor Day weekend every year.As many as 3,000 visitors have attended this event.

Requiring Retail SavvyBecoming a destination and hosting special eventsrequired retail savvy, a skill unnecessary for tobaccofarming. The Clements’ winery meant much morepublic contact than tobacco farming. As many as200-300 visitors per week visit the winery, and thespecial events bring in even more people. In additionto the Jamboree, the Clements book their partyrooms for weddings and other celebrations. Theparty rooms are booked solid in weekends fromMarch through December. Red Barn Winery is alsothe site of a Murder Mystery Weekend in October.

Several factors have enhanced the winery’s traffic.The proximity of two bed and breakfast inns providesa target market for visitors to the winery. In addition,the Clements joined the Tennessee Farm WineriesAssociation (TFWA). Through this affiliation, the RedBarn Winery was included in a brochure that spot-lights Tennessee wineries and benefitted fromattractive Tennessee Wine Country signs positionedthroughout the rural back roads. The Clements alsoworked diligently to be good neighbors to thecommunity, hosting church and other local groups.Red Barn Winery worked hand-in-hand with thetourism industry in the eastern part of Tennessee. Itwas a mutually beneficial relationship.

Being a retail outlet necessitated a significant capitalinvestment. Red Barn Winery had to have a full-service kitchen from which caterers could work. Also,beyond the $800,000 investment in pumps andstorage tanks necessary to produce the product, theClements invested $80,000 in refurbishing the barn.

An Award-Winning

WineryIn the end, the Clements not only successfullytransitioned to a different type of agriculture, but alsomade a product that has won several awards at theIndy Indiana International Wine Competition, includ-ing second-place silver medals for the blackberry,muscadine and Tennessee Red Neck wines, as wellas six third-place bronze medals for various othersweet wines. Through creative marketing andstrategic community networking, the Red BarnWinery has become a popular visitors’ destinationand has cultivated an enviable level of local trade.

The Clements now have three diverse product lines:five varieties of dry, three of medium and six ofsweet wines. Knowing their market, they know howto tailor the products to the taste buds of the localtrade. In 2001, Red Barn Winery sold 2,000 gallons.There is room to grow and expand, as the limit setby the Tennessee Alcohol Beverage Commission is20,000 gallons. Certainly, it seems, the Clementshave both the wherewithal and the capability to growas much as they want.

Their priority, however, is to preserve the integrity ofthe product and to continue to produce on a familyfarm. Therefore, future growth will be carefullyplanned and managed.

OverviewFormer cattle farmer Alfred Farris got into theorganic grain business partially as a result of achallenge by his children to farm in a moreenvironmentally friendly manner. The decision toswitch to organic grain farming was partially aspiritual decision, but it appears to have been asmart business decision as well. Even though it ishard work and nothing in farming is guaranteed,Farris and his business partner, Sam Justice, arehappy with their decision to leave conventionalfarming methods behind.

BackgroundIn the 1970s, Alfred Farris raised Charolais cattle ona farm west of Nashville. During this time, he talkedwith a number of young people, including his chil-dren, who were a part of the growing environmentalmovement. From those conversations, and his ownfirm belief as a Christian that we should be goodstewards of the land, he began to rethink his priori-ties. He asked himself questions such as: Are wesimply miners of the soil, taking all we can get, orare we caretakers so that future generations also willreceive the blessing and benefit of the good land?Should we engage in farming practices that aredetrimental to the life in the soil, to the plants andanimals that soil produces and to the health of thepeople who consume that food?

As the early 1980s dawned, Farris and his wife,Carney, also began traveling to Uganda to aid thepeople of that country to work toward sustainableagriculture. Being away from home several monthsat a time wasn’t compatible with cattle farming, sothe Farrises made the decision to switch to fieldcrops. The farm where they’d lived was sold by thefamily, and the Farrises took their share of the profitand bought their current 460-acre farm in RobertsonCounty near Orlinda.

Meanwhile, Robertson County native Sam Justicealso was becoming interested in the organic farmingbusiness. He’d been a conventional farmer but soldhis farm and went to work in a factory. He wasn’thappy in his position, however, and began to explore

Organic Grain ProductionOrganic Grain Production

Windy Acres Farm – Orlinda, TennesseeWritten by: Trish Milburn

the possibility of returning to farming, even in a limitedcapacity. In 1984, he started growing organic blueber-ries, one of the easiest crops to grow organically, hesays. When Carney Farris visited him to buy someblueberries, they began talking about organic farming.It was a fateful meeting, since the Farrises andJustice held many of the same farming philosophies,ones that weren’t widely held at the time.

“We were convinced the continual use of chemicalswas killing the land,” Alfred Farris says.

A New DirectionToday, the Farrises and Justice work side by side onWindy Acres Farm, growing organic soybeans,wheat and corn. The Farrises own the land, butJustice shares the work and the profit from the cropsthe land produces.

They weren’t fully organic from the beginning, butthey did start out by using one-third less chemicalsthan neighboring farms growing the same crops.They had to gradually wean the land off the chemi-cals that had been put in the soil for years.

“The land has to be chemical-free for three years tobe certified organic,” Justice says.

The term “organic farming” was coined by J.I.Rodale, the publisher of Organic Farming andGardening Magazine, in 1940. It means “goodfarming practice without using synthetic chemicals”

and is characterized by the following practices: croprotation, cover cropping, composting, elimination ofsynthetic pesticides and herbicides, enhancement ofthe soil’s aerobic biological life, reduction ofcompaction and increasing water retentionqualities of the soil and prohibition of the use ofgenetically modified seed.

Organic farming got a boost in 1962 when RachelCarson published Silent Spring, which docu-mented the harmful effects of pesticide use. Still,it was a fringe movement and was often theobject of derision by farmers using the fullcomplement of pesticides, herbicides and fertiliz-ers. Today, however, it is becoming more main-stream, and Farris sees a change in attitudes.

“The market is driving the change,” he says. “Theorganic market is growing by possibly 20 percenta year, the only sector of U.S. agriculture that’shealthy and growing. Educated people want foodfree of chemicals.”

As evidence of its increasing popularity, the organicmarket’s 2000 sales figures reached $7.8 billion,according to www.marketresearch.com.

Even though organic farming presents severalchallenges, such as dealing with weeds, Farris and

Justice adhere to the strict standards imposed by theU.S. Department of Agriculture in order to be certi-fied organic. They use no toxic materials; plant covercrops such as hairy vetch to put nitrogen back intothe soil – especially in the fields where they raisecorn, a heavy nitrogen user; spread a compost madeof a mixture of sawdust and chicken manure; don’tuse genetically-modified seed; and perform deeptillage, which gives their fields an aerobic zone 11inches deep and makes it very workable and able toretain lots of water. This keeps the water fromrunning off into creeks, taking valuable topsoil with it.

Farris and Justice also had to take precautions toprotect their organic certification since their neigh-bors are conventional farmers who use chemicals.“We maintain 25- to 40-foot buffers – grassways andwater buffers,” he says. If chemicals from adjacentfields do manage to reach some of their crops, theysimply harvest them and take them to a conventionalgrain elevator. Fortunately, this usually involves onlythose crops on the edges of his fields and isn’t acommon concern.

Of more concern is the possibility of geneticallymodified seed cross-pollinating with their crops,especially the corn. To avoid that potential problem,Farris communicated with his neighbors, providingthem with maps of their land and asking that theymark what they were using on their crops in certainfields. The majority of his neighbors responded to hisqueries.

Farris says they’ve fortunately not had any troublewith pests but have fought a battle with pigweed.They hired a few summer laborers to help removethe pigweed by hand and also constructed whatamounts to a four-headed weedeater that they canpull behind a tractor to cut off the tall stems of thepigweed.

One of the other challenges of organic farmingactually takes place inside Farris’s home office. Thenew USDA National Organic Program, effective Oct.21, 2002, requires lots of record keeping so that anorganic operation can be audited easily. Farris’soffice contains several thick manuals about what isand isn’t acceptable in his organic business.

“The organic farming community pushed for this,”Justice says. “We needed the uniformity betweenstates and the strict standards.” He notes the strictstandards because earlier versions of the programdidn’t differ significantly from conventional farming,still allowing harmful chemicals, and would have putorganic growers out of business.

MarketingToday, marketing organic farm products is easierthan 20 years ago because of the niche’s growingportion of the total agriculture market, but it still hasits challenges. Since there aren’t any organic grainelevators or storage facilities as there are for con-ventionally-grown crops, organic farmers must havetheir own storage. But this also allows them to sell tomany different customers and in varying amounts.Even though Windy Acres Farm’s biggest customeris Clarkson Grain Company in Illinois, they also sellto small food processors such as Joy Soy in Clifton,organic grain brokers and even locals who mightonly want 500 pounds of feed-grade grain to feedtheir farm animals.

“We’re very interested in smaller customers,” Farrissays. They’ve also just joined the Midwest OrganicFarmers Co-op, which they hope will open up newmarkets to them.

Most of their crops are not grown on contract, butthey will grow certain amounts and varieties forestablished customers such as Joyce Swiatek,owner of Joy Soy, who wanted a specific type ofsoybean for her line of soy-based food products.

To add more value to their product, Justice saysthey’ve constructed a seed-cleaning apparatus. “It’snot a necessity, but a convenience,” he says. “Wecan sell the grain at a higher price (when it’scleaned).”

Networking and word of mouth is important in theorganic industry. Belonging to groups such as theMidwest Organic Farmers Co-op, the SouthernSustainable Agriculture Working Group and QualityCertification Services, the organization that handlesWindy Acres’ annual organic certification, aids in thiseffort.

FinancialsFarris says the capital outlay to get into organicproduction was gradual, and many of the items heneeded, such as a tractor and combine, were nodifferent than those conventional farmers mustpurchase. Storage, as mentioned above, is a neces-sity. Farris has storage facilities on his farm that willhold 52,000-53,000 bushels of grain, which must beaerated regularly so the grain doesn’t deteriorate.

One of the areas where the cost to organic farmersis higher than his conventional neighbors is incultivation. “In fighting weeds, we go over the fields alot more,” Farris says.

But the extra work pays off in the end. Farris andJustice get premiumprices for theircrops, roughly twicewhat farmers usingchemicals receive.For instance, theyreceived $3.50-$4 abushel for yellowcorn, $5.40 abushel for whitecorn and more than$10 a bushel fortheir soybeans ontheir last crop. Oftheir 460 acres,they usually plantcrops on 390-400acres, typically 130acres each ofwheat, corn andsoybeans. With no inputs, the yield is typically 116bushels of corn per acre, 45 bushels of wheat peracre and 40-50 bushels of soybeans per acre.

With the standardization of the organic market, pricingwill also be easier. In the beginning, Farris had to sethis own prices since there was no standard fororganic crops like the standards set by the ChicagoBoard of Trade for conventionally-raised grains.

Farris says they aren’t getting rich, but they are pleasedwith the overall results. “Exciting things are happening,but we have a long way to go,” Justice says.

Reasons for SuccessFarris believes the organic market will continue togrow because of the increasing belief that chemicalssprayed on food crops are harmful. And becausethey give back to the soil by using nitrogen-rich

cover crops and rotating crops to best advantage, hebelieves his land won’t play out.

Their approximately 400 acres of crops is smallcompared to many conventional farmers who plantthousands of acres each year. Farris says with suchlarge acreages under cultivation, those farmersplant, spray and harvest. By being organic, he has tobe out in his fields every day, and so he knows hisland intimately, which wouldn’t be feasible for afarmer with 10,000 acres.

“Growing organic allows us to get by financially on asmaller acreage,” Justice says.

The FutureFarris’s belief that farming isn’t solely for the purposeof making money is a message he shares when hespeaks to groups about organic farming. It’s aboutgiving back to the land that gives to us, aboutleaving the land better than he found it, aboutgrowing a product he can be proud of and that isgood for people. He enjoys the organic businessenough that he’d like to diversify further and perhapsgrow organic vegetables and heirloom plants.Justice wants to get back into growing organicblueberries as well as strawberries.

Though he is no longer in the cattle business, Farris,as well as Justice, would like to see the organicindustry grow to the point where there were optionsfor cattle farmers. Right now, there aren’t anyslaughterhouses in Tennessee that are certifiedorganic, so growing organic beef isn’t really anoption. They’ve seen an increasing interest in free-range chickens, too, another indicator that peoplewant healthier food free of harmful chemicals. Andboth men firmly believe there are other nichesavailable in the organic farming field for thosewanting to explore them.

The partners also would like to take on a third,younger partner who could continue the business foryears to come.

When asked what they would have done differently ifthey had it to do over again, Farris and Justice agreethat they would have gotten into organic farmingsooner.

Organic Food ProcessingOrganic Food ProcessingJoy Soy – Clifton, Tennessee

Written by: Trish Milburn

Joyce Swiatek’s road to becoming a successful soyfood products manufacturer and retailer began whenshe was a child. In those early years, her parentsbecame vegetarians because, Swiatek says, “Wefound we were healthier with a vegetarian diet.”

“I learned then, when I started to cook at an earlyage, that it’s essential in a vegetarian diet to use soyalong with other plant-based foods,” Swiatek says.

When her familydropped meat fromtheir diets, herfather’s recentlyhealed hemorrhag-ing ulcers didn’treturn, her mother’shay fever easedand the familytended not to getcolds. She alsonotes that theydidn’t have toothdecay problems because they didn’t eat sugars.

“Through the years, I have cooked for schools,groups and restaurants. Finally, people said, ‘Thesefoods are good. You ought to market them.’ So, forthe last eight years, this has been my goal. We’vebeen manufacturing for four years now.”

Swiatek’s business, Joy Soy, is based in a formergarment factory in the small Tennessee River townof Clifton. Even with her familiarity with soy products,the business evolved gradually.

“We started out with a soy milk we call Joy Soy, andthen we added a vanilla-flavored milk. After that, wemade a butter spread we call Instead O’Butter, thenmore Instead O’ spreads. Next we made some JoyO’s cereal and some Soy Snax. Everywhere I went, Itook along products for people to taste, and I keptand improved what people liked and changed whatthey didn’t like. An amazing number of peopleseemed to enjoy our Joy Soy products. In fact, justrecently we won an Award of Excellence fromQuality Institute International for our powderedsoymilks.”

That award, an Award of the Americas, is bestowedafter a group of chefs select winners based ontaste tests.

Swiatek, who had previous business experience asthe owner of a health food store, restaurant and artgallery in downtown Clifton, had about $300,000 instartup costs, including machinery, labor and rent onthe building. Part of the funding came from a Small

Business Association loan and family financing.

“It cost more than I expected,” she says. “Theinitial labeling cost $12,000-$15,000.” AndSwiatek spent at least that much more when shehad to redesign the labels only two years inbecause buyers weren’t responding well to theoriginal design.

Each new product she introduces costs Joy Soyapproximately $100,000 considering the label,trademark, development and marketing process. Eachnew product takes about two years to turn a profit.

From that initial staple of products, Joy Soy nowsells more than 20 different items, and the productline continues to grow. New products include:Kruncha’lot Soy Power Snacks in butterscotch andberry flavors plus a full line of Instead O’ spreadsthat replace butter, mayonnaise, ranch dressing andcheese; cereals; milk; and cream. The very popularTennessee River Mud Balls are described on the JoySoy Website as a “yummy, melt-in-your-mouthcarob-confection.”

Swiatek says each product evolved from the prod-ucts she’d already developed, and she constantlyhas more ideas that may see store shelves in thefuture. Sometimes she’ll get an idea and stay late atwork to run experiments to check for flavor, nutri-tional value and consistency.

The increasing popularity of natural foods is generat-ing new markets that bode well for Joy Soy andother manufacturers of organic, soy-based products.Swiatek has worked hard to ensure her product is astasty as it is healthy.

“Our process gives the soy a nutty taste which mostpeople like,” she says. “Many of our products wouldbe acceptable to the general public.”

the testimonials on the company’s Website. Forexample, this comment from a small health foodstore owner in northern Idaho: “A customer came inand bought an Instead O’Butter and InsteadO’Cheese. Within two days, they came back andordered seven cases of each. Wow! I can hardlybelieve it, and now that I hear Instead O’Mayo andInstead O’Ranch are available, I can’t wait to startstocking them also.”

Another benefit of soy Swiatek touts is its ability tohelp lower cholesterol by replacing animal proteins.Some health professionals look to soy as a possibleaid in helping reduce the chances of heart diseaseand cancer. Swiatek notes that there is a wide varietyof opinions about what is healthy. Her best advice isto read the label on food products and ask questions.

Ken Burress, Wayne County’s Extension agent andcounty director, says Swiatek’s efforts have not onlyhelped her business but also the community. “Thebusiness adds to the employment base, has takenup an empty building and brought a new business toa small town,” he says.

Burress says that when Swiatek was beginning to dopreliminary work for Joy Soy, his office didn’t havethe expertise she needed since the AgriculturalDevelopment Center at UT hadn’t opened yet, buthe did help her locate sources of organic grains andresearch the organic standards and regulations thatwould affect her business.

“He is a good cheerleader and encourager,” Swiateksays of Burress.

When asked, “What types of things do people needto consider before going into business in a nichemarket,” Swiatek responded with several questions:How good is your endurance and determination?How deep are yourpockets, or howpersuasive areyou? Do you knowthat God wants youto do this, and if so,how much faith doyou have that Hewill see youthrough?

“It’s a struggle,” shesays. “You have toreally want it, andwant to do it for therest of your life.”

Swiatek says that sometimes it can be difficult to get aperson who has never eaten soy products to do so, butmost of the time if it’s a one-on-one contact, they’remore receptive. She says it’s not difficult to learn tocook or adjust one’s diet to soy with a little education.

In the increasingly competitive field of organic foods,it is important to differentiate one’s products, andSwiatek has endeavored to do exactly that.

“We deliver what we call a ‘Deep Nutrition’,” shesays. “It is common practice in our industry to firstremove or isolate difficult-to-handle elements ofsoybeans and grains. But our unique process takesnothing out, so you get all the proteins, isoflavonesand fiber locked up in the mighty little soybean,” shesays. “Our products are made from organic grainsand soybeans, and are not genetically modified.Being all dry mixes, they are shelf-stable.”

The fact that her products, even her soy beverage,Soy Melk, is packaged as a dry mix saves onproduction costs. To manufacture and sell the milkas a liquid would have been cost-prohibitive for hersmall company.

Using only certified “organic” is integral to most naturalfoods producers, including Swiatek. She uses onlycertified organic soybeans and grains, purchasingthem from Windy Acres Farm in Orlinda, Tennessee.

Joy Soy has grown to where the operation now hasfive employees in production and that many more inthe office and retail store, up from three total whenshe began the business. When Swiatek startedmarketing her products, much of her business wasconducted by mail order. Now, less than half of thebusiness is generated that way. “We are now gettinginto distributors and health food stores,” she says.“Our next goal is to get into grocery and conve-nience stores as well as food service.”

If some of the possible outlets for her products cometo fruition, Swiatek may need to increase the size ofher manufacturing facility and has already found apiece of land outside Clifton on which she’d like tobuild a new plant.

Even though the retail store serves a small ruralcommunity, Swiatek says that it has been well-received and holds its own. And the businessWebsite, www.joysoy.com, generates direct sales.

Soy products no longer just appeal to vegetarians.Swiatek says her customers are people who areinterested in improving their health. And many ofthem give Joy Soy glowing reviews, as evidenced by

Jones Orchard and Value-Added

Bakery Products

Jones Orchard – Millington, TennesseeWritten by: Rob Holland

Jones Orchard and Value-Added

Bakery Products

Jones Orchard is owned and operated by Lee Woodand Juanita Jones. The family orchard began in1940 by Lee Wood’s father, H.L. “Peaches” Jones.The farm is located in Millington, Tennessee, about15 miles north of Memphis, in Shelby County. LeeWood has managed the farm operation since hisfather’s death. Lee’s wife, Juanita, is a retiredShelby County court reporter and now works prima-rily with the value-added, fruit-product enterprises.

Business Idea Discovery

ProcessIn the early 1990s, Juanita found a recipe for peachpreserves that did not include pectin. Because of herstrong interest in jams and jellies, she decided to trythe recipe using fresh peaches from the orchard.She then took the pectin-free preserves to farm-market stands and discovered they were sellingquite well. Thinking that their children would someday return to the farm, they decided to build amodern facility for preparation of fruit products forcommercial sales. The facility included a certifiedcommercial kitchen, walk-in cooler, environmental-control storage area and large retail shed with pull-down overhead doors. The retail market was de-signed to display fresh fruit, local vegetables and avariety of fruit products made in the kitchen (jams,jellies, preserves, cakes, cookies, breads, salsa andchow-chow relish).

Market Discovery ProcessInitially, very little market research was done. TheJoneses visited some similar operations and at-tended educational programs by the AgriculturalExtension Service and the Tennessee Fruit andVegetable Growers Association. Existing customerswho frequented the pick-your-own and roadsidestands were the targeted customers for the value-added products. The Joneses maintain four separatefarm markets, and value-added products from the

commercial kitchen were placed at each of them.Most products moved very well through the on-farmstands; however, the costs of the inspected kitchenrequired more sales than occurred from just settingout the value-added products. So, in recent years, avery aggressive marketing campaign has been in theworks. Working very closely with specialists from thecounty Extension office and the UT AgriculturalDevelopment Center, Juanita has developed abrochure, direct mail communications and othersales literature, a logo that has been used exten-sively on printed materials, custom-printed shippingboxes, gift packages (containing jams, jellies andrelishes) that can be prepared and shipped, a toll-free telephone number and a Website.

The sale of value-added products is not up to thedesired level, so marketing strategies are ever-changing. One of the biggest obstacles has beentrying to locate reasonably priced sources for jars,labels, lids and other materials. Among the mostsuccessful marketing tactics at Jones Orchard istheir diverse product line. To spread the cost of thefixed facilities over as many unit sales as possible,the Jones’ extended their product line to more than20 different varieties of jams, jellies and preserveproducts, several relishes, salsa and lots of freshbaked goods, including cookies, cakes and breads.

Capitalization ProcessA substantial investment was required to finance thefour farm markets, an inspected commercial kitchenand a large cooler for fresh fruit. A loan for the facilitywas obtained from the family’s longtime local farmlender. Obtaining the loan required very little infor-mation about the value-added enterprise and wasarranged similar to a farm loan. Construction of thefacility and acquisition of the commercial kitchenequipment approached $100,000; however, Juanitanotes that “the cost of building the facility is smallcompared to the cost of operating it.”

Regulatory ProcessAll of the value-added products made at JonesOrchard must be made under Good ManufacturingPractices (GMPs) in the inspected kitchen facility.Some products must be made under the direction ofsomeone who has been trained in a Better Process-ing School and/or in low-acid or acidified foodprocessing; Mrs. Jones has successfully completedboth trainings and the kitchen meets all GMPs. Thekitchen is inspected periodically and has consistentlyreceived a high score.

Business Growth ProcessShort-term plans include pursuing mail-order andgift-package sales, evaluation of Internet salespotential and working to get more publicity throughbrochures. Production of sugar-free products willalso be evaluated in the short term. Use of printedpromotion materials will continue and seriousconsideration will be given to targeting specialty/gourmet food stores.

The Effect of Municipal Compost on

Christmas Trees

The Effect of Municipal Compost on

Christmas Trees

A Project Funded in Part by SAREJonesborough, Tennessee

Written by: Curtis Buchanan

BackgroundAn individual/producer SARE grant was awardedand used to test the effects of municipal compost onFraser Fir Christmas trees. Municipal compost ismade from sewer sludge and yard waste. The use ofmunicipal compost carries some legitimate concerns(i.e., e-coli and heavy metals) but also has manybenefits. Municipal compost recycles local wastematerials and can provide a reasonably pricedsource of nitrogen, phosphorus and beneficial micro-organisms.

ExperimentThe experiment lasted three years and involved1700 trees. The trees varied in age and were dividedinto two groups. One group received commerciallyavailable organic fertilizers. The other group re-ceived only municipal compost. Records were keptand comparisons made using both objective andsubjective criteria.

ResultsResults were mixed. Municipal compost cost less,but the labor was more. The labor was more intensewith the municipal compost, because one truck loadof the compost covered about a hundred trees.Thus, 20 trips were needed to pick up the compost,while only one trip was required to obtain theamount of commercially available fertilizers neededfor the same number of trees, and it took less than aday to apply the fertilizer. Growth and color wereequal in both test plots, but bud set was 15 percentgreater on those trees that received purchasedfertilizers. There are two areas, though, wheremunicipal compost does have a significant advan-tage. First, the municipal compost is longer-lastingthan other forms of fertilizer, so it does not need tobe applied each year. The second, and directlyrelated to the first, is that it provides beneficial micro-organisms for the soil.

A Project Funded in Part by SARESubmitted by: Rob Holland

The “Pathways to Success” project was a SARE-funded project in the 1990’s that developed a seriesof video case studies to show practices familyfarmers are adopting to confront challenges inagriculture today and steps communities can take tosupport local farmers.

The purpose of these case studies is to extend agreater understanding and support of sustainableagriculture and encourage increased adoption ratesof sustainable technologies on the farm.

In this series, sustainable agriculture is consideredto be an approach that allows farmers and farmfamilies to farm more profitably, environmentallyfriendly, efficiently, competitively, and in a mannerthat maintains the social fabric of rural communities.

Although the five case studies in these materialshighlight farms located in the Southern region, thegeneral concepts of sustainable agriculture dis-cussed are applicable to many farm types through-out the country. While the specific activities dis-cussed may only be ideal for the case study farms,the emphasis of the Pathways video series is onteaching the general concepts of sustainable agricul-ture, extending the experiences of farmers in apply-ing these concepts, and encouraging participants tothink about how the general concepts of sustainableagriculture could be applied to other farms. Theinformation in these written materials and theaccompanying videos is not to be considered acomplete treatment of any given topic, but rather astimulus for future discussion and/or investigation.

The five case studies are independent of oneanother and vary in farm type and topic. Each casestudy highlights one farm family that applied con-cepts of sustainable agriculture to their farm to bringabout positive changes. Although each of thesefarms has adopted many sustainable farmingpractices, the case studies highlight two major topicsper farm.

The purpose of the Pathways video series is tointroduce or reinforce sustainable solutions to issuesin agriculture. These case studies are depictions ofissues that were actually faced by farmers and theirfamilies, the courses of action taken and the out-comes. The case studies are faithful renderings of thefacts, opinions and prejudices upon which decisionswere made, and the results of those decisions.

Following are descriptions of the topics for each case.

Coggin Farm• Improved Management Information Systems

The Coggins, a beef cattle and row crop farmfamily in Mississippi, explain how the addition of asatellite information system and personal com-puter to their farm management informationsystem has improved marketing decisions andmanagement of farm records.

• Chemical ManagementThe Coggins discuss how they have improvedtheir approach to weed management by cuttingherbicide application rates and building anenclosed storage shed for safer storage of chemi-cals. They share how this approach has helpedthem cut costs and preserve the environment.

Hill Farm• Estate Planning

The Hill farm in West Tennessee is a row-cropoperation owned and operated by three Hillfamilies. The Hills discuss how their estate planprovides security for a retiring family, whilecontinuing to support the two families who willtake over the operation.

• Integrated Pest ManagementThe Hills discuss how their approach to integratedpest management (IPM) helps them managecosts and preserve the environment.

Pathways to Success: Opportunities for

Communities and Farm Families

Pathways to Success: Opportunities for

Communities and Farm Families

Mercer Farm• Strategic Planning

Dane Mercer, a dairy farmer in East Tennessee,implemented a strategic plan that called for anincrease in herd size (from 80 to around 280cows) and construction of a new loafing barn andwaste management facility.

• Quality of LifeThe Mercer family discusses the difficulties theyhad finding quality family time prior to the imple-mentation of their strategic plan. Implementing astrategic plan in support of their family valuesultimately created more opportunities for theMercer family to pursue family activities andpersonal interests.

Roberts Farm• Conservation

The Roberts discuss their response to waterquality and erosion issues on their row-crop andbeef cattle farm in Western Kentucky. By buildingearthen dams and a rock structure and reducingcattle access to ponds and creeks, the Robertsimproved water quality on- and off-site andreduced erosion.

• Community ServiceThe Roberts discuss the benefits of their partici-pation and leadership in various agriculture-related and nonagriculture-related communityactivities.

Teamer Farm• Whole-Farm Planning

The Teamers, owners and operators of a smallrow-crop and farrow-to-finish hog farm in WestTennessee, discuss how they created a whole-farm plan for their unique set of resources.

• Conservation TillageErosion had carved large trenches in the fields ofthe Teamer farm before the Teamers adoptedconservation tillage.

Sustainable Dairy SystemsSustainable Dairy Systems

A Project Funded in Part by SARE (1994-1998)Contact Person: Clark Garland

Dairy farming is a significant and dramaticallychanging part of agriculture. These changes areoccurring in production systems, investment require-ments, environmental concerns and the need forenhanced overall business management.

Over a four-year period, 1994-1998, a 24-memberteam of engineers, economists, agronomists, Exten-sion agents and dairy specialists, along with farmeradvisors from Tennessee and Kentucky, completed adairy systems manual and user-friendly computerprogram. The manual has been used in educationalprograms with more than 500 Tennessee and Ken-tucky dairy farmers. The manual and software weredesigned to provide refined investment requirementsand cost estimates for use in comprehensive farmand financial planning with farm families.

The project included chapters on forage systems,feeding systems, manure-management systems,milking center facilities, management informationand decision support, dairy farmstead planning, drycow housing, feeding and management, replace-ment heifer housing, feeding and management,milking herd feeding and housing facilities andadditional inputs. Systems were developed for herdsizes ranging from 50-to 800-cow operations.

Dairy systems training for Extension personnel in allthe southern states was held in August and Septem-ber 1998. Sixty specialists and agents from the 13southern states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islandsparticipated in the training program. The training wasconducted in Florida and North Carolina. A $90,000Southern Region SARE grant provided additionalresources to develop and use the manual andsoftware in Tennessee and Kentucky. Another$48,500 grant was received from SARE to conductthe southern region training program.

Nationally, exceptionally high interest has beenexpressed in the dairy systems subject matter andprocess. Cooperative State Research, Educationand Extension Service recognized the dairy systemsproject in a national publication entitled Innovation inExtension Programs: Examples Related to Agricul-tural Economics. Presentations and/or papers havebeen given in four international, nine national and

seven regional meetings, for a total of 20 meetings.Initial work on the project was primarily for the benefitof Tennessee and Kentucky farmers. As the projectdeveloped, the program was expanded to the south-ern region. The last step was to make the programavailable world-wide – distributing software to fiveadditional countries.

Educational materials developed in this project are acritical component in an overall farm and financialmanagement educational program. The dairy sys-tems program has demonstrated to others theimportance of a systems approach to management.This has encouraged leaders in other commodityareas to consider using this approach. Lessonslearned and portions of the teaching material devel-oped in the dairy systems manual have been useful inadditional work directed to other types of farms. Amajor benefit of this program is the professionalgrowth experienced by the 24 member team. Workingtogether as a team in putting together a total interac-tive system has improved the ability of each “special-ist” to look at the often-complex total picture instead offocusing only on a small part of the issue.

Control of Soil-borne Diseases with Bioactive

Herbage Alone or in Combination with

Biocontrol Agents

UT Bioactive Natural Products Center, Knoxville, TennesseeWritten by: S.E. Greene, K. D. Gwinn, B. H. Ownley and S. L. Hamilton

Control of Soil-borne Diseases with Bioactive

Herbage Alone or in Combination with

Biocontrol Agents

The threat of large crop losses due to soil-bornepathogens in greenhouse production systems canlead to overuse, and illegal use, of pesticides.Furthermore, situations exist where disease controlwith synthetic pesticides is either unavailable orineffective (e.g., no registered pesticides or pesti-cide-resistant pathogens). Many bioactive controlagents have been proposed as natural alternativesto combat soil-borne plant pathogens, but onlymarginal success has been achieved. Dried groundplant material high in antifungal essential oils(bioactive herbage) is an additional disease controloption for pathogens.

A rapid growth chamber test was developed toscreen Monarda herbage for activity against seed-ling disease caused by Rhizoctonia. We chose thecultivar ‘Marshall’s Delight’ because it showedfungicidal activity in a bioassay and had no impacton tomato germination in greenhouse tests. ‘Elsie’sLavender’ was selected for study because of its highconcentrations of several key compounds (e.g.,thymoquinone, carvacrol). ‘Sioux’ was chosenbecause it contains high concentrations of cymeneand thymol.

A. B.

B

Marshall’s Delight

Elsie’s Lavender

Sioux

No Herbage Herbage

Control Pathogen

A A

C

AA

B C

BA

B C

See

dlin

g h

eig

ht

(cm

)

2

1

2

1

2

1

Marshall’s Delight

Elsie’s Lavender

Sioux

No Herbage Herbage

Control Pathogen

A

C C

B

A

C C

B

A

CC

B

3

2

1

3

2

1

6

4

2

Charts A and B show the effect of Monarda herbageon plant height and Rhizoctonia disease of tomato.Tomato seeds were planted in germination mediumor medium amended with herbage from a Monardacultivar. Treatments were control or amended withRhizoctonia inoculum. Chart A shows the seedlingheight at seven days after planting. Chart B showsthe disease data. The disease index was determined

on a scale of 1 to 4 where 1 = no disease, 2 =seedling living but lesions present, 3 = seedlingdead due to post-emergence damping-off, and 4 =seedling dead due to pre-emergence damping-off.Bars with the same letter are not different accordingto a Fisher’s-protected least significant differencetest at P=0.05.

Additional ReadingAdditional Reading

Publications and resources addressing sustainableagriculture are available from USDA’s SustainableAgriculture Research and Education (SARE) pro-gram. A complete listing of these resources; adescription of each including number of pages,publication date and cost; online status; and instruc-tion for ordering by Web, FAX, or mail can beobtained at <http://www.sare.org> and by clicking on“Publications and Other Resources.” Publicationsand resources available include the following:

Building Soils for Better Crops – How ecological soilmanagement can raise fertility and yields whilereducing environmental impacts.

Managing Cover Crops Profitably – Comprehensivelook at the use of cover crops to improve soil, deterweeds, slow erosion and capture excess nutrients.

Steel in the Field – Farmer experience, commercialagricultural engineering expertise and universityresearch combine to tackle the hard questions ofhow to reduce weed control costs and herbicide use.

‘Naturalize’ Your Farming System: A Whole-FarmApproach to Managing Pests – By laying out eco-logical principles for managing pests and suggestinghow to do so in real farm situations, this bulletinhelps producers design farm-wide approaches tocontrol pests.

The Real Dirt: Farmers Tell about Organic and Low-Input Practices in the Northeast – Based on inter-views with more than 60 farmers in eight Northeaststates, this publication summarizes practical meth-ods for ecological soil, pest, disease, crop, green-house and livestock management.

Profitable Pork: Strategies for Hog Producers –Showcases examples of alternatives ways to raisepork profitably – in deep-straw bedding, in hoopstructures and on pasture – to save on fixed costs, findgreater flexibility and identify new marketing channels.

The Small Dairy Resource Book – Evaluates books,periodicals, videos and other materials on farmsteaddairy processing in a thorough, annotated bibliography.

Profitable Poultry: Raising Birds on Pasture –Farmer experiences plus the latest research createthis “how-to” guide to raising chickens and turkeyssustainably, using pens, movable fencing andpastures, with original ideas for marketing strategies.

The New Farmers’ Market: Farm-Fresh Ideas forProducers, Managers & Communities – Covers thelatest tips and trends from leading sellers, managersand market planners to best display and sell products.

Reap New Profits: Marketing Strategies for Farmersand Ranchers – Offers creative alternatives to market-ing farm products through conventional channels.

The New American Farmer: Profiles of AgriculturalInnovation – This collection of in-depth interviewswith producers describes diverse operations aroundthe country and details of the effects of thosesystems on farm profitability, quality of life, ruralcommunities and the environment.

SARE Annual Reports, 1994-2001 – Each year,SARE staff choose 12 research and educationprojects from across the country exemplifyingfarming systems that improve profits, benefit theenvironment and are good for communities.

How to Manage the Blue Orchard Bee as an Or-chard Pollinator – Using this guide from the USDA-ARS Bee Biology and Systematics Laboratory, learnhow to improve orchard pollination by rearing theblue orchard bee.

Put Your Ideas to the Test: How to Conduct Re-search on Your Farm or Ranch – Outlines how toconduct research at the farm level, offering practicaltips for both crop and livestock producers.

Contact information (in order of presentation)Contact information (in order of presentation)

A Short Course in Sustainable AgricultureAlex McGregor840 Murrell RoadSignal Mountain, TN 37377(423) 886-6743

R-GROW Organic Soil ConditionerEd Rollins Hugh Savoy, Associate ProfessorP.O. Box 324 The University of TennesseePulaski, TN 38478 Biosystems Engineering & Environmental Science(931) 424-3985 101 Agricultural Engineeringe-mail: [email protected] 2506 E. J. Chapman Drive

Knoxville, TN 37996-4561(865)974-7266e-mail: [email protected]

Precision Farming ProjectJ. Tucker Kevin Rose, Associate Extension Agent2156 Veto Road Count Giles CountyProspect, TN 38477 P.O. Box G(931) 363-1832 Pulaski, TN 38478-0907

(931) 363-3523

Integrated Systems That Utilize Biofumigation, Solarization and Composts forCommercial Vegetable ProductionCarl Sams, Professor, and Martin Lyons, Graduate StudentThe University of TennesseePlant Sciences and Landscape Systems252 Ellington Plant Science2431 Center DriveKnoxville, TN 37996-4561(865) [email protected]

Direct Farm Marketing and AgritainmentNancy Edwards Allen Straw, Assistant ProfessorValley Home Farm The University of Tennessee310 Potts Road Plant Sciences & Landscape SystemsP.O. Box 113 252 Ellington Plant ScienceWartrace, Tennessee 37183 2431 Center Drive(931) 389-6470 Knoxville, TN 37996-4561www.cafes.net/valleyhome (865) 974-7324

e-mail: [email protected]

Small Farm Sustainability and Value-Added Food Processing/ProductsPaul MillerTamsen Farm1253 Pressman’s Home RoadRogersville, TN 37857(423) 272-5163

Evaluating the Feasibility of a Dairy Processing FacilityMike Davidson, ProfessorThe University of TennesseeFood Science and Technology114 McLeod Food Technology Bldg.2509 River DriveKnoxville, TN 37996-4539(865) [email protected]

Greenhouse Production and Retail Garden Center MarketingRodney Grugin Charles Hall, ProfessorMeadowview Greenhouses and Garden Center The University of Tennessee9885 Highway 11 East Agricultural EconomicsLenior City, TN 37773 314 Morgan Hall(865) 986-7229 2521 Morgan Circle

Knoxville, TN 37996-4521(865) 974-7271e-mail: [email protected]

Red Barn WineryJudy and Glen Clement Bill Morris, Professor David Lockwood, Professor1805 Tanyard Road The University of TN The University of TNLayfette, TN 37803 Food Science & Technology Plant Sciences & Landscape Systems(615) 688-6012 114 McLeod Food Tech 252 Ellington Plant Sciencee-mail: [email protected] 2509 River Drive 2431 Center Drive

Knoxville, TN 37996-4531 Knoxville, TN 37996-4561 (865) 974-7331 (865) 974-7324

email: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

Organic Grain ProducersAlfred Farris or Sam JusticeWindy Acres Farm5552 Dixon RoadOrlinda, TN 37141(615) 654-3599e-mail: [email protected]

Organic Food ProcessingJoyce SwiatekJoy SoyP.O. Box 258Clifton, TN 38425(931) 676-5470Website: www.JoySoy.come-mail: [email protected]

Jones Orchard and Value-Added Bakery ProductsLee Woods and Juanita Jones5762 Pleasant Ridge RoadMillington, TN 38053(901)872-0383e-mail: [email protected]

Rob HollandFeasibility SpecialistCenter for Profitable AgricultureP.O. Box 1819Spring Hill, TN 37174-1819(931) 486-2777e-mail: [email protected]

Rob HollandFeasibility SpecialistCenter for Profitable AgricultureP.O. Box 1819Spring Hill, TN 37174-1819(931) 486-2777e-mail: [email protected]

The Effects of Municipal Compost on Christmas TreesCurtis Buchanan208 East Main StreetJonesborough, TN 37659(423) 753-5160

Sustainable Dairy SystemsClark GarlandThe University of TennesseeProfessor, Agricultural Economics2521 Morgan Circle314 Morgan HallKnoxville, TN 37996-4521(865) 974-7271e-mail: [email protected]

Control of Soil-borne Diseases with Boactive Herbage Alone or in Combination with Biocontrol AgentsKimberly Gwinn, Associate ProfessorThe University of TennesseeEntomology and Plant Pathology205 Ellington Plant Science2431 Center DriveKnoxville, Tennessee 37996-4560(865) 974-7135e-mail: [email protected]

Tennessee’s Sustainable SuccessesTennessee’s Sustainable Successes

Red BarnWinery

R-GrowOrganicSoil Conditioner

Organic GrainProduction

PrecisionFarming Project

Direct Farm Marketing& Agritainment

A Short Course inSustainable Agriculture

The Effect of Municipal CompostonChristmas Trees

Small Farm Sustainabilityand Value-Added FoodProcessing/Products

Jones Orchard &Value-Added

Bakery Products

Organic FoodProcessing

GreenhouseProduction

& Retail GardenCenter Marketing

R12-4010-007-001-03

The Agricultural Extension Service offers its programs to eligible persons regardless of race, color, age, national origin, sex,disability, veteran status or religion and is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICSThe University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, U. S. Department of

Agriculture, and county governments cooperating in furtherance of Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914.Agricultural Extension Service

Charles L. Norman, Dean.

Visit the Agricultural Extension Service Web site at:cpa.utk.edu/default.htm

andhttp://www.utextension.utk.edu/

february 2003 - ag.tennessee.edu publications/sustainablesuccess.pdffebruary 2003 center for...

Documents