When farmers in cold climates take a well-earned winter rest, their communities still want local produce. Grocery chains provide food through winter, shipping goods from across the world, but this is expensive and can weaken local self-reliance and food security. Having no local options makes a town more dependent on outside food sources that the community does not control, and it reduces the amount of dollars staying local. It also renders Fairbanks less food secure because, like other rural towns in cold climates, it is at the end of a long, tenuous supply chain with a high chance of disruption from too much snow on hundreds of miles of roads to shipping delays as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. A lack of local produce during winter also means many farmers lose income from fall to spring.

Sam Knapp, a farmer in Fairbanks, has found a way to bridge that gap by building his own affordable, accessible cold storage. This has allowed him to sell his produce through one of the country’s harshest winters. He combines a science background with experience running his own farm, and after speaking with cold storage innovators across the country, he is sharing what he has learned in his new book, Beyond the Root Cellar.

Knapp has a B.S. in chemistry and physics. “My first job out of college was doing thermal modeling as an engineer. It is in my wheelhouse to think about heat transfer and phase change.” He then experimented with cold storage running a farm in Michigan. Knapp used Google Scholar to review studies on the storage needs of each vegetable he wanted to grow. For example, Knapp found that winter squash stores best after curing outside, which involves healing and hardening its rind, but curing will not happen in colder and wetter climates. To make up for uncontrollable wet and cold weather, Knapp introduced humidity control measures into his storage plans.

In 2020, Knapp moved to Fairbanks to start Offbeet Farm. There, he found farmers using root cellars and other cold storage techniques that were costeffective at temperatures well below zero degrees. But few farmers, if any, stored for more than a month or two. “Most farms here sell out by early September.”

So, Knapp set out to build a structure on his 1.5-acre farm that could store his produce through the entire winter, a time when temperatures drop to -40 degrees for weeks on end. The structure is 25 square feet, and looks like an ordinary outdoor shed, but it rests on specialized concrete forms that encase insulation and act as retaining walls. He now runs a successful over-winter Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) and sells his produce through March.

“I built this building myself, and the total infrastructure cost was about $55,000. I have the capability of storing 35,000 to 40,000 pounds of produce.” With around 120 CSA customers, Knapp currently stores 25,000 pounds of produce, and he plans to expand each year.

Knapp says cold storage provides additional revenue streams and work-life balance; both are hard to come by for small farmers. “Farmers around here get half the year off, and they enjoy that, but their growing season is intense. It’s rough. It’s hard to make it through that time. I rarely feel burnt out from farming.” With cold storage, farmers do not have to harvest and sell all of their produce within the short growing season. It also helps balance self-care and family.

Storability varies by product: While Knapp has found that he and his customers are still eating their cabbage into the summer of the following growing year, storing his onions has proven tougher. He is still searching for an onion varietal that can store well after almost 24 hours of sunlight during the subarctic summer, followed by a cold and damp fall.

Every farmer experiments, and Knapp is no exception. He’s made some surprising discoveries. For instance, Knapp had not anticipated the warmth made by the vegetables themselves. After being picked, vegetables still respirate, (that is, metabolize carbohydrates), and produce heat as a byproduct—so much so that even when outside temperatures hit -10 degrees, Knapp has to cool the unit to lower the inside temperature down to 32 degrees. “This last winter, there was one time when it was -25 out, and my cooling fans were turning on.”

While Knapp is proud of his innovations, he still relies on more established farmers in the area for best practices in storing and selling produce at a commercial scale through a Fairbanks winter. “Half of it is hard research. The other half is talking to other farmers.” Building cold storage also comes with up-front investment and risk. “It seems very risky at the start, (to put) all this money down to get into it in the first place.”

To learn how others got over this risk and technical difficulty, Knapp interviewed cold-storage innovators from Winnipeg to North Carolina in Beyond the Root Cellar. It also shares practical know-how, ultimately showing that cold storage is within reach for all farmers. For example, readers learn that many farmers can take advantage of their existing summer storage facilities.

“Many people are primed to do this already,” he says. “You can start storing 3,000 to 5,000 pounds of produce by investing a couple thousand bucks just converting some space you already have.”

Never one to get ahead of himself, Knapp also points out that, in every interview, he heard the same touchstone: “Start small.” Knapps book, Beyond the Root Cellar, will be released November 14.

The post Meet the Modern Farmer Cracking Cold Storage in the Coldest Places appeared first on Modern Farmer.

This is especially true for Shannon Williams, a student at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, as she shops at her neighborhood Safeway on the west side of town. This is the closest option to South Cushman. Williams picks that store mainly for cost savings.

Across the street is a Fred Meyer grocery store. When asked what she thought of both supermarkets falling under one ownership, Williams was concerned. “It’s a bad idea. These are our two options, and Safeway is cheaper. If Fred Meyer owns both, I’m afraid they’ll control the prices.” 

The fate of food access in South Cushman turns on a proposed merger between Kroger, which owns Fred Meyer, and Albertsons, which owns Safeway. The Cincinnati- and Boise-based owners announced their $24.6-billion deal in October 2022, hoping to close by early 2024. Reaction to the proposed merger has been mixed, with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and some states threatening legal action to stop it. If successful, one company will have control over grocery prices for South Cushman. The same goes for neighborhoods like it across the country. Kroger would own 22 percent of the U.S. food retail market.

Over the past four decades, ownership over retail grocers in the U.S. has concentrated further and further. Four companies—Walmart, Kroger, Costco and Albertsons—own more than half of all grocery sales today. If Kroger goes ahead with its purchase of Albertsons, it would be just three companies that control the majority of all grocery sales in the country. 

Food deserts, too, are on an upward trend. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has defined urban food deserts as low-income areas where at least one third of the residents live at least one mile from a supermarket. A 2017 report shows that, since 2010, the number of food deserts in the country have increased, with estimates that almost 30 million Americans live in one. Further, 34 million Americans lack access to affordable, healthy food. Grocery corporations often say that consolidation can help counter those problems, but the evidence proves otherwise.

Less competition, higher prices

A spokesperson for Kroger tells Modern Farmer the merger “will mean long-term job security, higher wages, expanded benefits and a strong unionized workforce for associates. The merger will also mean lower prices and more choices for fresh food for customers and more investments in our communities. The alternative is lose-lose, undermining good union jobs and putting our communities at risk of higher prices, fewer options, shuttered stores, and more food deserts.”

It’s a common claim in the industry.

Yet, several studies, including the USDA’s own review, found that consolidating grocery stores results in higher prices in markets that have few options. In a letter sent to the Federal Trade Commission, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) states, “there is no evidence the projected efficiencies” in the proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger will pass savings on to consumers. According to Sara John, a senior policy scientist at CSPI, this comports with basic economic principles. “When there is less competition, that leads to higher prices.”

This is especially concerning with food prices already at a historic high. Competition between a Fred Meyer on one side of the street and Safeway on the other generally helps consumers. If Kroger and Albertsons merge, a shopper might find their grocery bill changes, even if the stores’ names do not.

We’ve been here before

In a food desert, a significant portion of a neighborhood’s residents lack a supermarket within one mile. That distance cuts access to healthy foods, as low-income folks often lack reliable transportation, especially in difficult weather. The inconvenience alone forces shoppers to choose shelf-stable food, rather than fresh produce.

One study found that “the availability of supermarkets has been associated with more fruit and vegetable intake, more healthful diets and lower rates of obesity.” Kroger and Albertsons state that the merger will “expand access to fresh and affordable food.”

That’s true; supermarkets do provide access to a range of foods. Whether those options are available to low-income neighborhoods, however, depends on their price and store location.

Advocates, legislators and state attorneys general are worried about Kroger closing stores, especially any Albertsons close to an existing Kroger. The FTC, as well as state attorneys general, are currently reviewing the deal under their antitrust authority to ensure that mergers don’t harm consumers. To address those concerns, (as well as other fears of a monopoly), Kroger and Albertsons announced it will instead sell more than 400 of its stores to a third party, C&S Wholesale Grocers. 

To some experts, this is cold comfort. Lina Khan, the current head of the FTC, wrote a law review article in 2017 outlining how divesting stores has not solved monopoly concerns.

History gives us a stark example. When Albertsons purchased Safeway in 2017, the FTC signed off on the deal because Albertsons promised to sell stores to a small chain called Haggen. Haggen was ill equipped to take on so many locations, went bankrupt, closed stores and even sold some of them back to Albertsons. As a result, says Khan, “the level of consolidation resulting from this [2017] merger will be greater than what the government has planned and approved.”

The Kroger-Albertsons’ plan has similar issues. In 2017, selling to Haggen failed because it was unable to manage an increase to 164 from 18 stores. Today, selling to C&S will increase their stores to 413 from 160.

Sara John at CSPI is also worried about the disproportionate effect of closures on low-income neighborhoods. She predicts that grocers “will close their worst-performing stores, which has the biggest impact on low-income communities, on average.”

During another merger between Amazon and Whole Foods, there was speculation that Amazon’s capabilities make ordering online easier. However, many low-income folks, especially in Alaska and rural areas, lack reliable internet access to take advantage of delivery options.

Communities respond

Considering the potential harm to consumers, the FTC has an open investigation of the proposed deal. The commission can review mergers for anticompetitive practices, and if it finds problems, it can negotiate with the merging entities to avoid them. If all cannot agree, the FTC can attempt to stop the merger under federal laws that prohibit unfair business practices.

State attorneys general, such as those in Arizona and Washington, are also conducting their own investigations. Nevada has an open survey to take the pulse of consumers. The US Senate will be holding an antitrust panel this month. 

Other stakeholders are organizing to stop the merger. For example, a nationwide Stop the Merger coalition brings together consumer protection, privacy and labor advocates, to name a few. One member of the coalition, Katy Milani, is associate director for policy and advocacy at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. She is calling on the FTC to enforce existing laws. “In the ’50s and ’60s, when the FTC enforced the antitrust laws on the books…independent grocery stores flourished,” Milani told Modern Farmer in an email. “We had a dynamic food ecosystem—we didn’t have food deserts.”

There are also more local efforts. In Alaska, an effort by the Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG) led to the state’s Republican and Independent US senators, as well as its Democratic House representative, to urge the FTC to oppose the merger. Some (no less cold) communities, such as Chicago, are organizing to form publicly owned grocery stores.

Kroger states the merger will conclude in early 2024. To the shoppers outside Safeway in Fairbanks, consolidation often feels out of their hands. Still, movements to slow consolidation are gathering steam. To continue that movement, we have to recognize that consolidation does not, as the grocers claim, create oases.

This story has been updated to include a statement from Kroger. 

The post How Supermarket Mergers Affect Food Deserts appeared first on Modern Farmer.

For new farmers, this isn’t the whole story. Alaska is the country’s largest state, with an immense amount of wilderness, yet this creates a misconception that the state is one of the few places a new farmer can find affordable farmland.

“The idea that we are a land of plenty, in that regard, is incorrect,” says Phoebe Autry, who runs Sauntering Roots farm in Palmer, a city about 45 minutes north of Anchorage, and is the farmland conservation director at the Alaska Farmland Trust. Autry receives about three to four phone calls per month, as well as an email per week, from new farmers seeking land in Alaska. “About ninety percent of these people are from outside of Alaska,” says Autry. They expect land in Alaska to be cheaper, even close to major markets. Often, Autry has to dissuade them. For farmland near the largest markets in Alaska—the Mat-Su Valley and Anchorage—Autry says, “We’re looking at fair market values per acre of $25,000 to $40,000.” In 2021, the USDA listed the average value for an acre of farmland in California at $13,860. In Florida, it’s $7,300. In Kansas, it’s $2,100. It did not track values for Alaska. 

Even farther north, farmers see similarly high prices. A new farmer might believe that the conditions in a town like Fairbanks would make farmland affordable. Much of it overlays permafrost, winter temperatures drop below -40 degrees Fahrenheit and the growing season is only four or five months long. Still, the Fairbanks North Star Borough lists “lack of available and affordable farmland” as a key barrier to increasing agriculture. Fairbanks farmer Brad St. Pierre puts it bluntly: “There is no cheap farmland in Alaska.” 

St. Pierre runs a diversified, organic vegetable farm on a 75-acre plot with his wife, Christine. Having difficulty affording farmland in Fairbanks, the couple rents from a private landowner, about 10 miles from downtown. The farm is successful, and the St. Pierres were named the 2019 Alaska Farm Family of the Year. Yet, they are unsure whether the equity they build in the soil will be theirs down the line.

Across the country, historically underserved farmers have the most difficulty accessing land. The U.S. Department of Agriculture includes in that category beginning farmers: those who have run a farm for 10 years or less. Like St. Pierre, whose family came to the U.S. from Cuba with only “their wedding ring and the clothes on their back,” these farmers rarely have family wealth or land.

Without a nest egg, new farmers turn to cheaper land. That comes with pitfalls. In the far north, more affordable farmland often overlays permafrost, which causes slumping and sinkholes when it thaws. A Fairbanks study notes that while climate change increases growing days which many are touting as a bright future for Alaska farming—warming also causes permafrost to thaw more rapidly, rendering portions of the land unusable. Glenna Gannon, assistant professor of sustainable food systems at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, says that “beginning farmers often don’t have a ton of capital at their fingertips, and they look at the land they can afford, not the land they need.”

Clearing land, using plastic for high tunnels and mulch and irrigation exacerbate permafrost degradation. “Those practices can be highly disruptive to permafrost, so we see an exponential rate of thaw and subsidence in the presence of some permafrost types,” says Gannon.  

Ultimately, farmland close to the market is the most important to preserve because it keeps these costs and risks down. But farmland near town gets more expensive when it competes with residential and business development, two more economically viable uses. “We’re doing our best to preserve the best land that we have, [but] we’ve lost so much of it already,” says Autry. “We have a housing subdivision sitting on farmland that has 12feet of topsoil. It breaks my heart.”

It would be difficult for a new farmer to come to Alaska, buy farmland close to town and turn a profit in a reasonable time, says Sam Knapp, who runs Offbeet Farm in Fairbanks. Maybe if the farmers are “coming in with money,” Knapp says they might fare alright. Knapp’s farm is in a residential area on land he purchased with income from a second job and the support of his wife.

Second incomes are often critical for farmers in Alaska. This means less time to turn a profit on the farm. Additionally, what best prepares farmers for success, such as working someone else’s farm and studying for a degree, does not allow them to save money.

Such difficulties drive new farmers in Alaska to plots even farther from town. Like the land overlaying permafrost, these plots are cheaper to buy but more expensive to keep. Undeveloped land must be cleared and cultivated over years before planting a crop for sale. Remote land requires building water and power infrastructure, transporting goods to market and shipping in equipment and fertilizer. With such thin margins in farming, these costs are prohibitive.

Nels Christensen plans to farm 40 acres of his family’s allotment land, 145 miles northeast of Fairbanks in the sovereign nation of Gwichyaa Zhee, also called Fort Yukon. Allotments are part of a federal program that requires Native Americans to ask for land back that the U.S. government originally took from them. Christensen dreams of returning to Fort Yukon to farm that land, yet he is hesitant to start in a place far from infrastructure and markets. Although he has gardened since childhood, he started farming one year ago, at age 21. He predicts it will be “difficult to have stability and prosper” in Fort Yukon at this early stage.

There are USDA grants for beginning farmers and loans through the Farm Service Agency and the Alaska Rural Rehabilitation Corporation. The USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service and soil and water conservation districts provide free technical and financial support. Still, new farmers in Alaska find it difficult to own the land they farm. When farmers do not own, they owe.

Throughout the country, there is a high concentration of farmland in the hands of a few landholders who are aging out. The market incentivizes their heirs to develop it for other uses. Farmland wanes and new farmers cannot afford what is left. The nation’s largest, most wild state is no exception. The next generation of farmers cannot benefit from Alaska’s abundant territory if communities do not find ways to help them own and keep the land best suited for the job.

The post In Alaska, Affordable Farms Are Hard to Find appeared first on Modern Farmer.