Incubator Farms as Beginning Farmer Support

Problem Statement

Simply put, America needs new farmers. However, support for new farmers is more complex than training up a new cohort. The average age of farmers is 57 and rising (USDA, 2007), and reasons for farmer and farmland loss are multifaceted. Farming continually grows more financially challenging, in part due to diminishing supplies of affordable inputs and competition with global exports (Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, 2010). Constraints vary, and reasons families do not stay in farming are often based around very personal, complex situations (Branan, 2011).

There is also increasing interest, from many non-farmers, in exploring farming as a new career. This is encouraging, but constraints deter aspiring farmers from pursuit of their dreams. These include access to land, access to capital, and farm business planning training and support (Curtis et al., 2010; Shute et al., 2011).

Background

The terminology "incubator farm" is fairly new and still somewhat variable in meaning. An incubator farm is typically a place where people are given temporary, exclusive, and affordable access to small parcels of land and infrastructure, and often training, for the purpose of honing skills and launching farm businesses.

A 2012 database developed by New Entry Sustainable Farming Project at Tufts University catalogued 61 programs across North America that consider themselves land-based incubator farms (existing or forming), with three of those programs in North Carolina (NC). Today, we are aware of nine distinct programs in NC (Table 1).

Theory of Change

The theory of change behind incubator farm development is: By providing opportunities for new farmers to access land, develop the skill set and experience essential to run a successful farm, and help developing a business plan, these farmers have a better chance of securing capital, accessing their own land, and ultimately being successful in achieving their farm business goals.

This theory of change is based upon assumptions:

• The large number of consumers willing to pay premium prices for healthy, locally grown food has brought farming into the realm of possibility for a new cohort of farm entrepreneurs.
• Market opportunities around towns and cities elicit small farm market viability.
• Incubator farms provide lower-risk environments for beginning farmers to hone skills and establish markets before major financial investment in land and infrastructure.

Comparison of Programs

To better understand the current design of incubator farm programs, we collected information on a sub-sample of programs from NC and around the U.S. (Tables 2 and 3). Programs selected represent outwardly successful, longer-running incubator programs as a beginning guide to possible approaches to establishing future programs. Review of the programs included interviews with key staff members and data gathered from program websites. Data points included:

• Management structure,
• Infrastructure,
• Training,
• Markets, and
• Evaluation

Our findings:

• Considerable variation exists among incubator programs, in their financing, land tenure, staffing, facilities, and fee structures.
• Although common challenges exist for beginning farmers across the country, there is no "cookie cutter" approach to designing incubator farm programs.
• Program evaluation of many incubator farms, to date, has been minimal; therefore, documentation of successes is limited.
• Extension's involvement in programs varies across the U.S.
• Programs are engaging many community and regional partners in their development and implementation.

Many incubator farms are reporting strong interest and participation. In North Carolina, educational workshops at three Extension-associated incubator farms are eliciting annual interest from 25-50 participants. Generally, 10-15% of those participants go on to use incubator land to start their businesses. Interest in the programs increases each year, despite lack of focused recruitment activities, highlighting the participant need for the program offerings in these particular programs:

• Farm business planning education,
• Access to land and equipment, and
• Early market assessment.

Some incubator farms work across the value chain, i.e. a food systems approach to local food economic development. For example, several incubator farms have established associated marketing programs, providing market outlets for participants and, in some cases, generating program revenue. This value-chain approach to beginning farmer support may encourage:

• More robust economic activity across the value chain, as well as
• Farmland maintained in active production,
• Rural revitalization, and
• Increased healthy food access.

The number of incubator farms in North America is increasing (Winther, 2013). It is evident from the distinct programs across North Carolina and the country that many communities consider incubator farms an idea ripe for exploration for beginning farmer support.

Extension: Partnering to Address the Problem

Throughout its history, Extension has:

• Focused on addressing issues facing rural America (Rasmussen, 1989), and
• Developed a complex model to help individuals develop skills necessary for success in agriculture and other fields (Boone, 1985).
• Since the problems faced in modern market-responsive agriculture are numerous and complicated, Extension's theory of change must adapt beyond the traditional educator framework (Dunning et al., 2012).
• Diverse interests and passionate individuals are often supporting incubator farm programs. Extension can serve a traditional role as educator and also has the opportunity to facilitate community partnerships as described by Patton (1986) and, specifically related to local food systems work, Raison (2010).

Conclusions

We believe incubator farms are worthy of continued exploration and research, and have the potential to influence food system change locally. In order for programs to support this local change, we conclude:

• Diverse expertise is needed for planning and implementation of programs, e.g., business planning, marketing, production, customer satisfaction, supply chain, and others.
• Extension may be suited to provide support to incubator farm programs beyond the traditional educator framework. As others have recently suggested, this includes:
  • Facilitation (Raison, 2010)
  • "Leader-as-catalyst" (Morse, Brown, & Warning, 2006), and
  • "Leveraging the concerns of the communities in which they are embedded into lasting food system change" (Dunning et al., 2012).
• Based on the complexities of the "farmer shortage" problem, as well as unpredictable social and environmental change, it will be important to train incubator farm participants on adaptable business and profitability strategies.
• Standard evaluation metrics for programs and additional research on success rates of incubator farm participants relative to those following alternative paths to farming will benefit the movement.

References

Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy—Science and Technology Committee. (2010). A Science Roadmap for Food and Agriculture. Retrieved from: http://www.nera.umd.edu/escop/scienceroadmapnov172010.pdf

Boone, E. (1985). Developing programs in adult education. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Branan, A. (editor). (2011). Planning the future of your farm: A workbook supporting farm transfer decisions. Chapel Hill, NC: Author.

Curtis, J., et al. (2010). From farm to fork: A guide to building North Carolina's sustainable local food economy (p. 35). Raleigh, N.C: Center for Environmental Farming Systems.

Dunning, R., Creamer, N., Lelekacs, J. M., O'Sullivan, J., Thraves, T., & Wymore, T. (2012). Educator and institutional entrepreneur: Cooperative Extension and the building of localized food systems. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development. Advance online publication: http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2012.031.008

Morse, R. S., Brown, P. W., & Warning, J. E. (2006). Catalytic leadership: Reconsidering the nature of Extension's leadership role. Journal of Extension [On-line], 44(2) Article 2FEA9. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2006april/a9.php

Patton, M. Q. (1986). Extension's partnership with the future. Journal of Extension [On-line], 24(3) Article 3FUT1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1986fall/sfut1.php

Raison, B. (2010). Educators or facilitators? Clarifying Extension's role in the emerging local food systems movement. Journal of Extension [On-line], 48(3) Article 3COM1. Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2010june/comm1.php

Rasmussen, W. D. (1989). Taking the university to the people: Seventy-five years of Cooperative Extension. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Shute, L. L., Anderson, A., Bernhardt, H., Creech, T., Fleming, S. vT., Oakley, E., & Shute, B. (2011). Building a future with farmers: Challenges faced by young, American farmers and a national strategy to help them succeed. New York: National Young Farmers Coalition. Retrieved from: http://www.youngfarmers.org/reports/Building_A_Future_With_Farmers.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2007). 2007 Census of Agriculture Fact Sheet: Farmers by Age. Retrieved from: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Fact_Sheets/Demographics/farmer_age.pdf

Winther, E. A. (2013, August). National incubator farm training initiative. Symposium conducted at the Southeast Beginning Farmer Conference. Columbia, SC.