Objective Our objective was to pilot collaborations between two urban farms with two corner stores to increase access to fresh produce in low-income neighborhoods. Design We conducted a pre-post evaluation of two farm-store collaborations using quantitative distribution and sales data. Using semi-structured interviews, we qualitatively assessed feasibility of implementation and collaboration acceptability to farmers and storeowners. Setting Low-income urban neighborhoods in Baltimore, MD in 2012 Subjects Pair #1 included a ½-acre urban farm with a store serving local residents and was promoted by the neighborhood association. Pair #2 included a 6-acre urban farm with a store serving bus commuters. Results Produce was delivered all 9 weeks in both pairs. Pair #1 produced a significant increase in the mean number of produce varieties carried in the store by 11.3 (p<0.01) and sold 86% of all items delivered. Pair #2 resulted in a non-significant increase in number of produce varieties carried by 2.2 (p=0.44) and sold 63% of all items delivered. Conclusions Our case study suggests that pairing urban farms with corner stores for produce distribution may be feasible, and could be a new model to increase access to fruits and vegetables among low-income urban neighborhoods. For future programs to be successful, strong community backing may be vital to support produce sales.

Asia is responsible for ~60% of global egg production. As in most of the world, nearly all of the egg-laying hens are housed in cages. While there is growing demand for cage-free eggs in many regions of the world, challenges have been reported when transitioning to these systems, which may affect the willingness of producers to transition. The aim of this research was to investigate the views of Asian egg producers on the feasibility of cage-free systems and what they perceive to be the main challenges and proposed solutions in adopting cage-free systems. A total of 224 egg producers (165 cage egg producers) completed questionnaires containing a mix of free-form, Likert scale and demographic items. Data were analyzed using thematic qualitative analysis and descriptive quantitative statistics. Responses indicated that cages are primarily used for their efficiency and ease of management. The most common reasons to consider adopting cage-free systems included improved animal welfare, increased market access, and increased product quality. A majority of producers (65%) responded “yes” or “maybe” when asked if they consider cage-free systems to be feasible in their country. Perceived challenges in adopting cage-free systems included reduced profitability, higher costs, and biosecurity and disease. Potential solutions included the development of the cage-free industry and market development. Most producers (72%) said more support is needed to establish cage-free farms, mostly pertaining to technical advice, training and resources. The findings of this study provide an enhanced understanding of the egg industry in these countries and potential areas for producer support in transitioning to cage-free systems.

Residents in low‐income areas often rely on corner stores for food, but these storeowners seldom stock fresh produce. Many urban farms are looking to provide better access to produce for low‐income consumers. Our objective was to partner two urban farms with two corner stores in Baltimore, MD to distribute fresh produce. In summer 2012, we conducted a pre‐post evaluation using semi‐structured interviews coupled with distribution and sales data. Partnership #1 paired a 6‐acre urban farm with a store that served commuters. Produce was delivered all 5 weeks with the mean total quantity of produce delivered being 38 (SD 16) items. On average each week, 6 (SD 2) different types of produce were brought into the store, of which 2 (SD 2) types sold out. Partnership #2 paired a ¼‐acre urban farm with a store that served local residents, and was promoted by the neighborhood association. Produce was delivered all 5 weeks with the mean total quantity of produce delivered being 77 (SD 12) items. On average each week, 10 (SD 1) different types of produce were brought into the store, of which 6 (SD 2) types sold out. Partnering urban farms and corner stores for produce distribution is feasible. For future programs to be successful, strong community support appears vital to sustain produce sales.Grant Funding Source: NICHD U54HD070725