Effective Outreach for a new Wisconsin Agriculture: A Social Marketing Approach to the Environmental Management Needs of Hispanic and Women Farmers

Effective Outreach for a new Wisconsin Agriculture: A Social Marketing Approach to the Environmental Management Needs of Hispanic and Women Farmers

Summary

During the second year of this project, we focused our efforts on data collection through surveys and interviews. Our project team developed and administered mail surveys for three specific populations of Wisconsin farm operators: Hispanic farmers, Women farm operators in the dairy sector, and women farm operators in the direct market sector. We supplemented findings from our survey data with personal interviews of farmers and focus group discussions. Through our Hispanic farmer outreach worker and in collaboration with our partner organization – the Wisconsin Farm Center (of the Wisconsin Department of Trade, Consumer Protection, and Agriculture) we used various techniques to locate Hispanic farmers and provide assistance. Our goal has been to:

– Identify unique challenges that Hispanic and women farmers experience, specifically in the area of environmental management,
– To identify information needs of these farmers and preferred methods of receiving information relevant to farming operations, and
– To suggest appropriate outreach strategies for Extension educators to reach underserved or non-traditional farm populations.

Objectives/Performance Targets

1.Analyze results of surveys and interviews of/with Hispanic/Latino farmers.
2. Analyze results of surveys with women principal operators in the direct market sector
3. Analyze results of surveys with women principal operators in the dairy sector.
4. Conduct interviews and focus groups with women farm operators to identify appropriate communication and outreach strategies.
5. Identify and share information with individuals involved in supporting minority and women farmers.
6. Work with collaborators and farmers to develop prototype outreach strategies and materials to better reach diverse farming populations.
7. Communicate the results of the research to established networks, including Cooperative Extension and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

Accomplishments/Milestones

Sample size and response rate: 215 surveys were sent out through the Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service (WASS) between October-December, 2008, to all individuals in their database who reported that they were Hispanic and that they were the primary operator of a farm in the 2002 and 2007 Agricultural Census. Of these, 104 were returned (48% response rate). We used a modified Dilman survey technique, where each potential respondent received 4 contacts from us (preliminary letter, first survey with letter, reminder postcard, second survey with letter). This frequency of contact improves response rate, as respondents are reminded of our interest, and encouraged to participate with ease of reply.

In an attempt to maximize response rate, we purposefully kept our survey short. We focused on the objective of understanding the type of farms that Hispanic farmers operate and the information needs and information sources of this population.

Type of Farm Operation:

Survey respondents were asked to check each category – from U.S. Agricultural census designations – that applied for type of operation. The greatest number of operators manage beef cattle operations (33 % of respondents), row crops (25%), vegetables and melons (20%), dairy cattle (19%), tree fruit (19%) and berries (15%). There were also a large number of operators who choose a catchall ‘Other’ category (27%), which represents a variety of different enterprises. Types of operations with responses in the ‘Other” category include: horses (4 operations), Christmas trees (3) CRP (3) hay production (2), and grapes (2).

Categories of Information Desired:

Survey respondents were asked the question “Do you want any information or training on the following topics?” The topics were general categories, rather than specific training areas. While there was no clear topic for which the bulk of farmers wanted information, three categories: sustainable or organic farming practices (37%), environmental improvement and conservation (35%), and marketing (35%) received higher percent ‘yes’ responses. All topics suggested received less than 40% ‘yes’ responses.

Information sources:

Survey respondents were asked four questions regarding their information needs and preferred means of getting information. Respondents were asked: “During the past year, did you consult with any of the following people or organizations when making decisions about your farm?” Of all sources of information listed, survey respondents reported that they tended to consult other growers or farmers (64%) for information more than other sources, followed by farm supply dealers or producer coops (49%), and the Farm Service Agency (41%). The relatively high utilization of the FSA is probably related to the availability of loans for minority and underserved farmers. Less than 30 percent of respondents reported using state-run sources such as UW-Extension and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture.

Print/Other Media for Information:

Access to information is critical in a field such as farming, where farmers need to be well versed on a wide range of topics, from agronomy and animal husbandry to marketing and regulations. We asked survey respondents “Do you use any of the following to find information regarding your farm?” Our findings indicate that farm magazines or newspapers are the primary source of information for the majority of Hispanic farmers (70%), but that use of the internet is also widely used for finding information for the farm operation (60%). Radio, television, and the local newspaper each were utilized by 49%, 47%, and 46% of the surveyed population, respectively.

Use of Internet:

To understand how farmers are using the internet, we asked: “Listed below are internet-based ways to receive farm-related information. Would you use any of them?” We found that the traditional format of information summary sheets or full reports was still the preferred method to receive information (43%).

Interview Information:

Interviews with Hispanic farmers provided rich portraits of selected individuals. Our interview sample included 16 immigrant farmers, 3 first generation farmers, and 6 second generation farmers. There was great diversity in the type of operation that these individuals managed, although all would qualify as small farms. We asked interviewees general questions about their farms and their path into farming, marketing strategies, environmental management issues, how they got information, and challenges or barriers they faced.

Individuals followed various paths into farming. We identified the following different ways in which interviewees got into farming (followed by the number of individuals):

1. Marriage into a farm operation
• Hispanic woman marries a man from a Wisconsin-based, non-Hispanic farm family (7)
• Hispanic man marries into farm family (1)
• Hispanic parent married into farm family (2)
2. Farmers works/worked at another job, then buys land (4)
3. Primary work as agricultural consultant/researcher, farming part time (3)
4. Sponsor or partner’s family lets grower use land for vegetables (3)
5. Dairy herdsman/foreman becomes employer’s partner (1)
6. Dairy herdsman buys heifers in order to own share in farm (1)
7. Dairy herdsman raises steer on employer’s farm (1)
8. Land managed in forest (2)

While we anticipated that many of Wisconsin’s Hispanic farmers were from Mexico, we were surprised by the wide diversity in country of origin. Of the immigrant farmers (where the individual interviewed was born in another country and subsequently immigrated to the U.S., even if this immigration occurred many years ago), 8 out of 16 were from Mexico. Others were from Columbia, Dominican Republic, Argentina, Puerto Rico, Bolivia, and Brazil. First and second generation farmers were from Mexico (7 out of 9), Puerto Rico, and Cuba.

Farm Challenges:

Of the farmers we interviewed, several farm challenges were predominant and consistent, regardless of whether the respondent was a new immigrant or a second generation farmer. Those challenges were: capitalization (access to loans), profitability, and marketing.

Immigrant farmers cited several additional, unique challenges (i.e., different from 1st and 2nd generation Hispanic farmers, and from the farming population in general), including: lack of knowledge and experience in farming, language barriers, culture shock, lack of a drivers’ license, not knowing who to go to for assistance, and difficulty understanding regulations. Some immigrant farmers reported having more difficulty finding information pertinent to their farming operations and services to support their enterprises. Additionally, several of these farmers tended to operate outside of formal channels and expressed lack of familiarity with Extension and other farm services. Many lived in areas where there was no solidly defined Hispanic community, and they reported limited networks of social capital. The farmers we interviewed tended to be risk-takers, but they did not tend to manage their operations with a business or marketing plan.

Discussion

Wisconsin’s Hispanic farmers are characterized by diversity – in farm operation, country of origin, path into farming, and other aspects of the farming operation. We did not identify any major concentration of farmers, either geographically or in type of farming operation.

Extension educators can provide assistance to Hispanic farmers by developing education programs on how to procure loans (working with FSA and ag. lenders), business planning for profitability, marketing options, understanding regulations, and gaining familiarity with government agencies and sources of assistance. These programs should be offered either in Spanish or with Spanish translation.
While the Hispanic farming population is currently not large , we anticipate that it will grow in future years with two potential new groups of entering farmers. First, the urban Hispanic (non-farm) population has been steadily increasing in Wisconsin, and there is evidence of interest in community gardening and direct market vegetable production among this population. Second, the Wisconsin dairy industry, at present, is heavily dependent on immigrant labor, and the number of Hispanic dairy workers has increased significantly over the last ten years. These workers have gained critical skills in animal husbandry and other aspects of dairy farm operations. We anticipate that urban Hispanic residents and/or immigrant dairy farm workers may contribute to the next wave of future farmers, particularly if there is national immigration reform. The challenge for Extension and other government agencies will be to be ready to assist these future farmers with information, services, and financing when that time comes.

Based on our interview results and analysis, we feel that Extension can be better positioned to support Hispanic farm enterprises now and in the future. We offer the following recommendations:
1) Increase our understanding and awareness, as educators, of how Hispanic residents are participating in agriculture (either as a farm operator, a farm laborer, or in other parts of the food system).
2) Recognize the differences (in opportunities and constraints) between immigrant farmers and 1st or 2nd generation Hispanic farmers.
3) Be aware of how immigration issues might affect farmers, gardeners, or farm workers.
4) Seek out immigrant farmers and develop one-on-one relationships with them.
5) Provide one-on-one technical assistance, and where necessary, work through a translator.
6) Target outreach and educational programs to smaller scale farms.
7) Target assistance to urban gardeners.
8) Utilize the Hispanic press and radio stations to deliver information in Spanish.
9) Provide information sheets to farm supply dealers and FSA offices in Spanish, and seek assistance from these enterprises and organizations to distribute farming information.
10) Provide farming information on the internet through web sites that are easily accessible to Hispanic farmers seeking this information.

Survey Findings– Women Direct Market Farmers

Sample size and response rate: 601 surveys were sent out in January – February 2009 through the WI Ag Statistics Service (WASS) to all those in their database from 2002 and 2007 Census of Agriculture. Of these, 373 complete surveys were returned, a 62% response rate. As with the Hispanic farmer survey, we used a modified Dillman survey technique, where each potential respondent received 4 contacts from us (preliminary letter, first survey with letter, reminder postcard, and second survey with letter). We mailed two different (but similar) versions of the survey, one to women farmers in the direct market sector, and another to women dairy farmers. Many of the questions for these two populations are the same, allowing comparisons on some variables.

Type of farm operation:

Respondents were asked to check each category that applied from a list of U.S. Census of Agriculture designations. The most frequently mentioned products raised were vegetables (40%), poultry and eggs (35%), beef (31%) and tree fruit (30%). Also mentioned were berries, fish, grains, and several minor crops. Less than half (37%) of the women described their farm operation as conventional, and the remainder described their farms as non-certified organic (30%), certified organic (6%), sustainable (16%,) transitional organic (3%), biodynamic (1%), or other. Of our respondents, 65% described themselves as the primary farm operator; another 33% were equal partners in a jointly managed farm. Over half of our respondents worked off farm full-time (30%) or part-time or seasonally (25%). Spouses who worked off-farm were more likely to work full-time (45%), than part-time (8%). Most (72%) Wisconsin women direct market farmers manage operations of fewer than 100 acres.

Challenges:

To ascertain the types of challenges that women farm operators experience with greatest frequency, we divided farm challenges up into three types of challenges: start-up/operations issues; business management issues/practices; and production issues/practices. We then asked respondents to identify the frequency (very frequently, frequently, occasionally, never) in which each of a number of identified issues are of concern or worry. Women farmers in the direct market sector reported the following were concerns ‘frequently’ or ‘very frequently’:
(a) Start-up/operations issues: health care (37%), access to labor (28%), quality of life (27%).
(b)Business management issues/practices: farm profitability (71%), marketing (46%), feasibility planning (43%).
(c)Production issues/practices: farm energy use (47%), soil and water conservation (37%), ecological health (34%).

Conservation Practices:

Despite the smaller size of direct market farms (relative to dairy farms or cash grain farms), use of conservation practices is reported by many women farmers in the direct market sector – though not to as great a degree as use by dairy farm women operators. Direct market women report use of the following practices on their farms: wildlife/insect habitat areas (63%), cover crops (55%), woodland management (44%), shelterbelts, windbreaks (44%). All other land management practices were utilized by less than 40% of respondents.

Less than half of the women farmers in the direct market sector report participation in conservation planning practices: 42% of respondents have a soil and water conservation plan, 41% have a nutrient and pesticide management plan, and 37% have a manure management plan.

Participation in Government Programs:

Only a small percentage of the women direct market farmers participate in government programs, with the most (16%) enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or Conservation Enhancement Program (CREP). Many (between 42-51%) were not aware of other similar programs. Farmer respondents, when they did not participate in a program, were likely to answer that the program does not fit their farm (between 26-46%, depending on program).

Perception of Environmental Issues:

We asked two similar questions regarding perception of environmental issues. First, we asked “How much do you think each of the following is a problem on your farm?” and then listed a series of broad environmental problems. We followed this question up with the question “How much do you think each of the following is a problem in what you would define as your region?, followed by the same list of problems.” Wisconsin’s women direct market farmers, to a great extent, perceive environmental problems for the region, but less so on their own farm. The largest number (31%) indicated that poor soils were a moderate or substantial problem on their own farm. Other categories were rated as moderate or substantial problems 6-10% of the time. In contrast, these respondents felt that several environmental issues where “substantially” or “moderately problematic in the region: poor soils (39%), groundwater contamination (37%), surface water contamination (36%) and stream bank erosion (31%). Women farmers perceive problems of groundwater and surface water contamination, but are clearly saying that these problems are emanating from other farms or other land-uses.

Farm Marketing Practices:

We asked respondents what products they marketed using direct market venues, and which types of marketing arrangements they participated in. We found a wide diversity of products being marketed through direct marketing, and similar diversity in the venues used for marketing. Of note is that 41% of our survey respondents used farmers’ markets to sell products, 32% used farmstands, and 26% marketed through wholesale avenues. A surprising 16% were involved with community supported farming (CSA) as a marketing option . Women farmers use a variety of eco-labels and value-added labels. The degree of participation in eco-labeling programs varied, with few marketing under fair trade (1%) or Food Alliance certified (1%), or the better known USDA certified organic label (4%). Other labels, including ‘Buy Fresh, Buy Local’ (13%), ‘Grass-fed’ (13%), “Free range” (13%) or ‘Something Special from Wisconsin’ (7%), were used to a slightly greater degree.

Information needs and sources:

We asked survey respondents if they wanted information or training on various topics. Direct market women farmers responded that they wanted training on government programs (53%), sustainable or organic farming practices (50%), marketing (49%), and environmental improvement and conservation (43%). Between 28% – 38% of respondents wanted information on other topics (financial record keeping, business planning, animal husbandry, crop production methods).

When asked about people consulted in the past year, direct market women farmers overwhelmingly listed other farmers (83%). They also consulted farm suppliers, equipment dealers, or producer coops (57%). University Extension was mentioned by only 36% of the women, and FSA by 30%. Other sources (State Department of Agriculture, Grower associations or farmer organizations, County Land Conservation Departments, Natural Resources Conservation Service, organic certifiers, bankers or financial consultants) were consulted less often. We followed up the question about who was consulted with a question to rank the importance of various information sources (we listed primarily media sources, not support individuals). When asked “How important is each of the following as a source of information for your farm?” respondents showed clear preference for other growers or farmers (65% reported this source as “very important”). Other important sources of information for direct market women farm operators are family members (47%) and the internet (41%).

Survey Findings– Women Dairy Farmers

Sample size and response rate: 755 surveys were sent out in January – February 2009 through the Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service (WASS) to all Wisconsin women farmers from the 2002 and 2007 Census of Agriculture database, who reported that they raised dairy cows, sheep or goats. Again, we used a modified Dillman survey technique, where each potential respondent received 4 contacts from us (preliminary letter, first survey with letter, reminder postcard, and second survey with letter). The survey for women dairy farmers was similar to that for women in the direct market sector, but the questions were adjusted to reflect dairy farm conditions.

For this population, the list that we used was problematic and had many errors. Additionally, we titled our survey ‘Survey of Women Dairy Farmers in Wisconsin.’ The perception of the survey elicited by the title did not correspond to the population surveyed, and may have reduced our response rate. Women who raise sheep and goats do not consider themselves ‘dairy’ farmers. Of the 755 surveys mailed, 165 were returned as ‘not valid’. Responses on the surveys returned (but not filled out) included: ‘I am not a farmer (134 responses – representing 19% of those who received the survey),’ ‘I farmed in the past, but am not farming now,’ ‘I am a horse, sheep, goat, or livestock farmer, but not a dairy farmer’ (26). We believe that a number of our non-respondents were sheep or goat farmers who threw out the survey because they felt it did not pertain to them.

In total, we received 262 responses (response rate for valid surveys of 44%). Of these, there were 211 dairy cow farmers, and 73 dairy sheep and goat farmers (respondents who raise both dairy cows and another dairy animal are included with each group). Analysis of the responses indicated that there were significant differences between the dairy cow farmers and the sheep and goat farmers, so we treat them as different populations. The analysis below is of the 211 dairy cow women farm operators who returned the survey.

Type of farm operation:

Within the dairy sector, there is a diversity of types of operation, from concentrated animal feeding operations, to small scale grazing systems, to calf care operations. We asked respondents to select a category that best described their farm. The vast majority of respondents identified their operations as “conventional” (59%), with an additional 14% characterizing their operation as a concentrated animal feeding operation. Rotational grazing was the option chosen for 17% of respondents, with an additional 4% voluntarily reporting this option as their second choice. Three percent (3%) of respondents indicated that their operations were certified organic (again, with an additional 4% voluntarily reporting this option as their second choice), and an additional 3% reported that their farm was non-certified or transitional organic. Of our respondents, 54% described themselves as the primary farm operator (less than the percent for direct market women farmers); another 38% were equal partners in a jointly managed farm, while an additional 8% reported that they were not the principal decision maker for the farm (despite designating themselves as such for Census of Agriculture survey purposes). Dairy farm women work off farm less often than do direct market women farmers, with respondents reporting that they work off farm full-time (12%) or part-time/seasonally (12%). Likewise, spouses of dairy farm women are also less likely to work off farm (23% full time, 8% part time).

Challenges:

Women farmers in the dairy sector reported the following issues as concerns ‘frequently’ or ‘very frequently’ (see description of questions on farm challenges in this section for direct market women):
(a)Start-up/operations issues: health care (55%), farm succession (34%), quality of life (32%).
(b)Business management issues/practices: farm profitability (68%), feasibility planning (31%), record keeping (24%).
(c)Production issues/practices: animal health/nutrition (35%), farm energy use (32%), food product safety (20%), soil and water conservation (20%).

Conservation Practices:

Women dairy farmers are more likely to utilize crop management practices than are direct market farmers. Women dairy farm operators report using cover crops (73%), conservation tillage (63%), no-till farming (49%), and contour farming or strip cropping (44%). Of those practices that we identified as ‘land management’ practices, dairy farmers indicated using the following: wildlife habitat areas (50%), livestock exclusion areas (48%), riparian buffer strips or grased waterways (46%), and rotational grazing (42%). Dairy farming women were more likely to use the planning practices we listed than were direct market farming women. Of dairy farming women operators, 58% of respondents have a soil and water conservation plan, 51% have a nutrient and pesticide management plan, and 59% have a manure management plan.

Participation in Government Programs:

Dairy farm women are more likely to participate in several of the farm conservation programs than are their counterparts in the direct market sector, with 29% participating in the Conservation reserve program, 23% participating in EQIP, and 36% participating in the Wisconsin farmland preservation program. Those that reported non-participation in these programs indicated that it either didn’t fit their farm (especially CRP) or that they didn’t know about it (especially CSP).

Perception of Environmental Issues:

When asked “How much do you think each of the following as a problem on your farm?” dairy farm women indicated that poor soils were either moderately or substantially a problem 18% of the time. For other issues, the perception of environmental problems on their own farms was very minimal (respondents rated other environmental issues as a moderate or substantial problem only 3-9% of the time). When respondents were asked the follow up question, “How much do you think each of the following is a problem in what you would define as your region?” dairy farm women report only slightly higher rates of concern, with poor soils (24%) and surface water contamination (23%) leading the list. Other environmental concerns were perceived as moderate or substantial problems by 15-19% of respondents. In general, women direct market farmers reported regional environmental problems more so than did women dairy farmers.

Information Sources and Training:

Dairy farm women want information on government programs (45%) and on animal husbandry (33%). Only 26-29% of respondents want information on other topics (crop production methods, sustainable or organic farming practices, environmental improvement and conservation, marketing, financial record-keeping, and business planning).

When asked about people consulted in the past year, women dairy farmers are similar to direct market women farmers. Women dairy farmers consulted other growers or farmers (74%) when making decisions about their farms. Respondents also indicated that they had consulted farm supply or equipment dealers (75%) and the Farm Service Agency (70%). Bankers were consulted by more respondents (54%) than was the University of Wisconsin Extension service.

When asked “How important is each of the following as a source of information for your farm?” the top response for women dairy farmers was family members (62% reporting this sources as “very important”), followed by other growers or farmers (53% as “very important”. For women dairy farmers, the sources of information that are either “somewhat important” or “very important” include farm magazines or newspapers (94%), other growers or farmers (93%), family members (90%), and equipment dealers or supplier publications (77%). University of Wisconsin Extension publications were “very important” to 23% of respondents and “somewhat important” to 47% of respondents (for a total of 70% of respondents).

In the 2009 calendar year, our women farmers research coordinator conducted interviews with 8 direct market farmers. We also conducted a large discussion group (called a “conversation circle”) at the Organic Farming Conference sponsored by the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service (MOSES). We did not recruit participants in advance for this discussion, and were surprised when over 40 women farmers attended over lunch. This venue attracted women farmers from the value-added sector, many of whom were organic farmers or transitioning to organic farming. The conversation was vibrant and stimulating, with women sharing information and ideas with each other and with the researchers. Results from the interviews and discussion group will be included in our 2010 annual report and final report.

We reported in the 2008 report about the establishment of a networking group of individuals who work with Hispanic farmers. Participants in the networking group are from the University, the state Department of Agriculture, the Natural Resources Conservation Services, and non-profit farming organizations. This group met once in 2009 to share results from the research project about Hispanic farmers. The work of developing outreach materials for Hispanic farmers is continuing through the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection’s (DATCP) Wisconsin Farm Center’s outreach project for women and minority farmers. Our collaboration with this project continues (notably, our women farmer research coordinator, who is a horticulturalist, is developing vegetable production guidebooks ‘in plain English’ for the Wisconsin Farm Center outreach project, and is providing consultation to outreach workers who have direct contact with Hmong and Hispanic growers).

Our women farmers research coordinator participated in the second annual Wisconsin Women Farmers conference as a member of the steering committee. During the conference, she networked with other individuals involved in working with women farmers, and conducted interviews with women farmers. We have held conversations with other individuals involved in women farming networks, and plan to hold a networking meeting of these individuals at the conclusion of the project.

Our research findings have suggested various outreach strategies and materials for improved interaction with and service to minority and women farmers. We have developed several grant proposals seeking to fund specific projects (creation of audio and video recordings with minority farmers, and in the language of these farmers; support for women farmer networking groups and farm walks. To date, these proposals have not been funded. We have experimented with the creation of blog formatted web sites to provide quick information to farmers, but have not pursued these, for two reasons: (1) the difficulties farmers report in utilizing the web and distance learning formats, (2) the investment of time necessary to keep blog and web pages up to date. We believe that there is a place for all of these outreach strategies, but without financial support for their development and maintenance, they will not be worthwhile to the farming population.

Perhaps the strategy that has the most salience and staying power is continued support for existing mechanisms to reach minority farmers, for example, through our collaborating partners in the ‘Minority and women farmers outreach and assistance project.’ This project uses traditional outreach techniques: direct communication and assistance from outreach workers speaking the language of the farmer. Hmong and Hispanic outreach workers identify farmers and gardeners, have direct contact with these individuals to determine their information and resource needs, and arrange direct assistance. The project also organizes training sessions for groups of individuals, and provides translation support, so that individuals who are not conversant with English can attend conferences. As mentioned above, our women farmers research coordinator is assisting this project with the development of vegetable growing guides in plain English.

Thus far, communication of our preliminary results has been accomplished through conference presentations and meetings of our Hispanic farmer networking group (detailed above). We presented our preliminary results at two conferences in 2009 – the National Small Farm Conference, held in Springfield, Illinois, in September, 2009, and a Wisconsin conference for Extension professionals in the Agriculture and Natural Resources program area, held in Chula Vista, Wisconsin, in October, 2009.

• Hispanic Farmers in Wisconsin, report with graphs
• Wisconsin Women Farm Operators in the Direct Market Sector, report with graphs

Impacts and Contributions/Outcomes

At the end of the 2009 project year, the impacts/outcomes of the project include:
1) Improved networking of people involved in supporting minority and women farmers.
2) Improved understanding, on the part of Extension educators and state government support staff, on the characteristics of Hispanic and Women farmers in the state.
3) Collaboration between the Environmental Resources Center and the Wisconsin Farm Center (a unit of the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection), particularly in the development of vegetable growing guidebooks for Hispanic and Hmong farmers.
4) Several proposals generated to improve outreach and education methods for minority and women farmers.
5) Development of “Web Resources for Sustainable Farmers” and “Web Resources for Wisconsin Dairy Farmers” (these are easy access guides to research-based web sites for Wisconsin farmers).

• Web resources for Wisconsin Sustainable Farmers
• Web resources for Wisconsin Dairy Farmers

Collaborators: