Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:38:39.136Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mapping the potential of local food capacity in Southeastern Minnesota

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2014

Jake C. Galzki ,
David J. Mulla  and
Christian J. Peters
Jake C. Galzki*
Affiliation:
Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.
David J. Mulla
Affiliation:
Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.
Christian J. Peters
Affiliation:
Friedman School of Nutritional Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The numerous benefits associated with localized food production have helped increase its popularity among a diverse cross-section of concerned citizens over the past few decades. Quantitative benefits are often attributed to local food systems, such as improvements to local economies or environmental benefits associated with decreased food transportation distances. Qualitative benefits play an equally vital role in the increasing popularity of local foods. The direct connection between people and agricultural land instills a sense of responsibility among consumers, there is a great deal of pride associated with creating a self-sustaining community, and increasing locally derived nutritional produce in our diet can improve health. This research attempts to analyze the feasibility of supplying the nutritional needs for an 11-county region in Southeastern Minnesota entirely from locally grown foods. The study also evaluates an alternative land-use scenario to illustrate how better utilizing land resources can yield environmental benefits in addition to those already inherent with local food production. Potential foodsheds are mapped to represent the theoretical spatial extent of agricultural resources needed to sustain population within the region. The foodshed model finds optimum locations for growing local food based on production potential and availability of agricultural resources to meet the demands of population centers, while minimizing the total distance to transport local foods to nearby distribution centers. Results show that it is theoretically feasible for Southeastern Minnesota to be entirely sustained on local food production. The average distance a unit of food travels in this theoretical baseline scenario is just under 12 km (7.5 miles). The foodshed model produces a surplus of agricultural supply in the region, thus an alternative land-use scenario was explored that involves removing marginal cropland from cultivation in vulnerable landscapes with high ecological value in an attempt to further increase the environmental benefits of locally grown foods. In comparison with the baseline foodshed model, the alternative land-use foodshed converts 68,000 ha (168,000 acres) of marginal cropland on vulnerable landscapes from annually cultivated land to perennial agriculture. This conversion not only reduces total distance traveled by a unit of food from 11.8 km (7.3 miles) in the baseline scenario to 10.8 km (6.7 miles) in the alternative scenario, but also reduces soil degradation, has positive impacts on surface water quality, and may lead to better wildlife habitat. The multiple benefits demonstrated by this study are encouraging to leaders of the local food movement in Southeastern Minnesota. Results of the study demonstrate that the methodology developed for mapping New York state foodsheds is adaptable to the Midwestern US, and should also be adaptable in other regions of the country.

Keywords

foodshedgeographic information system (GIS)local foodland use
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , August 2015 , pp. 364 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Moore-Lappé, F. 1971. Diet for a Small Planet. Ballantine Books, New York.Google Scholar
2 Hightower, J. 1972. Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times. Schenkman Publishing, Boston.Google Scholar
3 Berry, W. 1977. The Unsettling of America. Sierra Club books, San Fransisco.Google Scholar
4 Festing, H. 1998. Farmer's Markets: An American Success Story. Eco-logic Books, Bristol.Google Scholar
5 Groh, T. and McFadden, S. 1997. Farms of Tomorrow Revisited: Community Supported Farms—Farm Supported Communities. Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Inc., Kimberton.Google Scholar
6 Kneen, B. 1993. From Land to Mouth: Understanding the Food System. NC Press Ltd, Toronto.Google Scholar
7 Powell, J. 1995. Direct distribution of organic produce: Sustainable food production in industrialized countries. Outlook on Agriculture 24(2):121–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Pretty, J., Ball, A., Lang, T., and Morison, J. 2005. Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Bregendahl, C. and Enderton, A. 2013. 2012 Economic Impacts of Iowa's Regional Food Systems Working Group. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
10 Hedden, W.P. 1929. How Great Cities Are Fed. D.C. Heath and Company, Boston.Google Scholar
11 Getz, A. 1991. Urban foodsheds. The Permaculture Activist 24:26–27.Google Scholar
12 Hendrickson, J. 1994. Community Supported Agriculture. Direct Marketing. 41. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
13 Kloppenburg, J., Hendrickson, J., and Stevenson, G.W. 1996. Coming in to the fooshed. Agriculture and Human Values 13(3):33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Vitek, W. and Jackson, W. 1996. Rooted in the Land: Essays on Community and Place. Yale University Press, New Haven.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Weber, C.L. and Matthews, H.S. 2008. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology 42(10):3508–3513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16 Peters, C.J., Bills, N.L., Lembo, A.J., Wilkins, J.L., and Fick, G.W. 2009. Mapping potential foodsheds in New York State: A spatial model for evaluating the capacity to localize food production. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24:72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Timmons, D., Wang, Q., and Lass, D. 2008. Local foods: Estimating capacity. Journal of Extension 46(5):1–10.Google Scholar
18 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. National Land Cover Data. Available at Web site: http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2001.html (accessed February 15, 2014).Google Scholar
19 Peters, C.J., Wilkins, J.L., and Fick, G.W. 2007. Testing a complete-diet model for estimating the land resource requirements of food consumption and agricultural carrying capacity: The New York state example. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22(2):145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2011. County Crop Yield Data. Available at Web site: http://www.nass.usda.gov/ (accessed February 15, 2014).Google Scholar
21 Rosen, C.J. and Eliason, R. 2005. Nutrient Management for Commercial Fruit and Vegetable Crops in Minnesota. University of Minnesota Extension Service, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
22 US Census Bureau. 2008. Centers of Population by Block Group. Available at Web site: http://www.census.gov/ (accessed February 15, 2014).Google Scholar
23 Frontline Systems, Inc. 2005. Risk Solver Platform for use with Microsoft Excel® . Frontline Systems, Inc., Incline Village, NV. Available at Web site: http://www.solver.com (verified November 8, 2012).Google Scholar
24 Updegraff, K., Gowda, P., and Mulla, D.J. 2004. Watershed scale modeling of the water quality effects of cropland conversion to short rotation woody crops. Renewable Agricultural Food Systems 19(2):1–11.Google Scholar
25 NRCS Web Soil Survey. 2011. Crop Productivity Index Ratings for Minnesota. Available at Web site: http://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/soil_cpi.html (accessed February 15, 2014).Google Scholar
26 Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. 2011. Environmental Benefits Index data. Available at Web site: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/ecological_ranking/ (accessed February 15, 2014).Google Scholar