Meredith Carter April 30, 2008 Honors Senior Research Conference Promoting Locally Grown Foods in Schools through Developed Classroom Curriculum and Foodservice Educational Tools Meredith Carter April 30, 2008 Honors Senior Research Conference
Personal Relevance Senior nutrition student Sheep farmer Intern with MA Dept. of Agricultural Resources Consultant for MA Farm to School Project
Reasons for Sustaining Local Agriculture Support local farms & farmers Strengthen local economies Conserve energy used in transportation, food preparation & storage Preserve open land Maintain wildlife habitats Consume fresh, healthy foods (www.mass.gov/agr)
Farm to School Programs Objectives: Support local agriculture Increase healthy food consumption among students National Farm to School 1,986 Farm to School programs 38 states have operational programs 8,354 schools served by programs (www.farmtoschool.org)
MA Farm to School Project Partially supported by MA Dept. of Agricultural Resources 100 public schools, private schools, & colleges serve locally grown food Serves 50 Massachusetts farms (www.mass.gov/agr)
Agriculture in Massachusetts 6,075 farms 518,517 acres of farmland $433 million in annual cash receipts Multitude of products Fruits & vegetables Dairy Aquaculture Value added products Nursery (www.mass.gov/agr)
“Massachusetts Harvest for Students Week” Organized by MA Farm to School September 24-28, 2007 Objectives: Assist schools in serving local foods Raise awareness of benefits to purchasing & serving local foods in schools Educate students and public on local agriculture, nutrition, & sustainability (www.mass.gov/agr)
Study Objectives Assess Harvest Week activities by evaluating: Provision, education & marketing of local foods in cafeterias Developed classroom curriculum
Methods: Preliminary Steps Present project proposal to URI’s Honors Program Select and enroll participating schools Receive approval from URI’s Institutional Review Board Collect Parent Consent Forms & Student Assent Forms
Participating Schools Amvet Boulevard School, North Attleboro K-5, 400 students, 27 teachers 91% white, 5.5% English not first language Heath School, Brookline K-8, 377 students, 35 teachers 70% white, 17.4% English not first language (www.naschools.net; www.brookline.k12.ma.us)
Methods: Objective #1 - Foodservice Quantitative Data Foodservice data sheet Pre & post-Harvest Week foodservice surveys Qualitative Data Foodservice interview questions Foodservice educational & marketing tools
Methods: Objective #2 - Classroom Pre & post-test student surveys Classroom curriculum Two 45-minute lessons Lesson #1: Locally grown foods vs. non-locally grown foods, food supply Lesson #2: Benefits to buying locally grown foods
Methods: Harvest Week Administered pre-Harvest Week surveys & interview questions Served local foods in cafeterias Displayed foodservice educational tools Taught two classroom lessons Administered post-Harvest Week surveys & interview questions
Methods: Post-Harvest Week Testing in Rhode Island Tested classroom curriculum in one third-grade class Narragansett Elementary School, Narragansett Collected IRB approved consent forms Administered pre & post-test surveys Taught two classroom lessons Adjusted to fit Rhode Island agriculture
Methods: Data Analysis Objective #1 - Foodservice Combined N. Attleboro & Brookline results Objective #2 - Classroom Combined MA results Compared to RI results Looked for changes in knowledge & attitudes
Results Student surveys Foodservice surveys, interviews, data sheets N. Attleboro - 15 students Brookline – 15 students Narragansett – 9 students Foodservice surveys, interviews, data sheets N. Attleboro – 5 participants Brookline – 3 participants Pre-Harvest Week results only
Results: Objective #1 - Foodservice [Quantitative] N. Attleboro 942 lunches/week 140 fruit servings/day, 100 vegetables servings/day No cost difference Consumption was same or greater Brookline 850 lunches/week 1 serving fruit + 1 serving vegetable/student Local foods cheaper or equal in price to usual foods Consumption data unavailable
Foodservice Survey: Question #1 Local fruits and vegetables look better than non-local fruits and vegetables. 1 2 3 4 5 I don’t know. Strongly Neither agree Strongly disagree nor disagree agree
Foodservice Survey Results Pre (n=8) Post (n=5) Look 4.3 4.6 Taste 4.4 4.5 Preparation 1.3 2.4 Marketing Difference 3.1 2.5 Cost – Not Important 4.9 4.8 Cost – Important 4.1 4.2 Support 5.0 (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)
Results: Objective #1 - Foodservice [Qualitative] Pre-Harvest Week Excited, supportive, optimistic that students will consume more Foods believed to be fresher, healthier, brighter in color Expect students to notice educational & marketing materials Post-Harvest Week No significant differences in quality Few issues with product delivery & shelf life
Results: Objective #2 - Classroom % Like to Go to Farm or Farmers' Mkt. to Buy Food Pre Post A 46.7 73.3 B 66.7 N 33.3 A=N. Attleboro; B=Brookline; N=Narragansett
Student Survey: Question #2 #2) Fruits and vegetables in the supermarket grow on farms in these places. (You can choose more than one.) My town Massachusetts New United Around the England States World
Where Food is Produced MA (n=30) RI (n=9) (% correct) Location Pre Post My Town 36.7 53.3 22.2 33.3 My State 76.7 55.6 100.0 N.E. 20.0 44.4 66.7 U.S. 40.0 70.0 88.9 World 46.7 77.8
Foods Grown in State MA (n=30) RI (n=9) (% correct) Foods Pre Post Strawberries 93.3 66.7 77.8 Corn 90.0 100.0 Oranges 50.0 70.0 44.4 Lobster 3.3 20.0 Cheese 13.3 22.2
% Associate Label with Freshness Pre Post A 93.3 100.0 B N 88.9
% Believe Farms Are Important Pre Post A 93.3 100.0 B N
Reasons Why Local Farms Are Important MA (n=30) RI (n=9) (% correct) Reasons Pre Post Jobs 40.0 80.0 0.0 62.5 Open Land 76.7 55.6 Gas 70.0 93.3 44.4 Healthy/Delicious 88.9 75.0
Acceptability of Fruits & Vegetables in Schools Pre Post A 3.9 4.1 B 3.5 (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)
Conclusion: Objective #1 - Foodservice Foodservice staff supportive of local farms Positively received Harvest Week No apparent differences in: Cost Quality Consumption Local foods may require special preparation techniques
Conclusion: Objective #2 - Classroom Students were receptive Already had appreciation for local agriculture Student knowledge & attitudes improved with classroom curriculum Need to reevaluate curriculum Students already knowledgeable on some topics
Conclusion: Overall Locally grown foods popular Harvest Week appears to be great program Classroom programs seemed effective Materials may be used in the future Foodservice departments very willing to participate
Learning Experiences IRB approval & informed consent critical for studies Paperwork required to work with young children & school systems Difficult to work with schools from a distance Timing of project was challenging More resources needed for future studies Publication of research possible
Questions?