Research, guides, and stories on farming, food systems, and the people growing our food in New England, written so you can use them, not just read them.
This New York study measures what happens when schools shift part of their food budget to local farms. It finds that every dollar schools spend on local food generates additional economic activity in the state through farm sales, wages, and local business purchases. It also notes that these benefits are largest when local purchases replace food sourced from out-of-state suppliers. In other words, the gains come when you actually displace big, distant vendors instead of rearranging spending between locals.
This paper builds a method for tracking how much money schools spend on local food and how that money flows back to nearby farmers and businesses. Case studies show that when schools commit to buying from local farms, it can become a stable, long-term market that supports farm income, encourages new hiring, and keeps public dollars moving through local communities instead of leaving the state through large national distributors.
This case study compared small farms that sell directly to customers (farm stands, farmers’ markets, etc.) with more traditional farms selling into big wholesale channels. Every $100 spent with the direct-marketing farms created $186 of total local economic activity, while the same $100 spent with conventional farms created $142. On top of that, local direct-marketing farms created about 29 local jobs per $1 million in sales, compared with only 10.5 jobs for the larger wholesale operations. Translation: buying from smaller local farms puts more money and more jobs into the surrounding community than buying from the big, anonymous supply chain.
Washington State pulls together multiple studies on “farm-to-school” programs and reports a simple, striking number: every $1 invested in farm-to-school can generate up to $2.16 in local economic activity. That’s money going to farmers, truck drivers, packers, and main-street businesses instead of large, centralized food service companies. It’s a clear example of how public food dollars can be turned into a local economic engine instead of a pipeline to big national suppliers.
Modeling a Midwest watershed, this study found that skipping the plow (no-till farming) cut soil erosion and sediment runoff by more than 70%. Notably, targeting just the most erosion-prone 40% of fields got nearly the same result as converting everything. Less tilling means less topsoil ending up in the nearest river instead of growing next year's food.
Pooling results across dozens of trials, this analysis found that fields treated with manure instead of synthetic fertilizer alone stored 30% more organic carbon in the soil. Healthier soil holds water better, erodes less, and quietly banks carbon that would otherwise be in the air. It's a side effect of doing things the older way.
New England has already lost 80% of its farmland over the last 60 years, and this analysis projects at least 267,000 more acres gone by 2040 if current development trends hold. Every acre a small farm loses to a subdivision doesn't come back. Supporting the farms still standing is part of keeping the region's food-growing capacity from shrinking further.
Analyzing over 14,000 fields across France, this study found that farms rotating a wider variety of crops year to year used meaningfully less pesticide, cutting use by 19-23% depending on the crop. Diversity isn't just good for the plate. It's a working alternative to spraying more.
Tracking 62 wild bee species against pesticide-treated cropland over 18 years, this study found neonicotinoid use tracked with real, large-scale population declines, hitting species that feed on treated crops three times harder than others. It's a rare case of a chemical's harm showing up not in a lab, but in national wildlife data.
Mixing trees into pastureland (silvopasture) could sequester up to 25.6 million tons of CO2 a year across the eastern U.S. if farmers adopted it widely, cutting the carbon footprint of beef by as much as 11%. Some tree species pay farmers back in under a decade, too. It's one of the rare climate fixes that also pencils out financially.
In this huge 21-country cohort, higher intake of processed meat clearly tracked with more heart disease and higher mortality. Unprocessed red meat and poultry, at typical intakes, were not significantly linked with major cardiovascular events or death. The risk signal shows up when meat is heavily processed and eaten in big amounts, not when someone has moderate portions of unprocessed meat alongside plenty of real food.
This review shows that real maple syrup is more than flavored sugar water. It carries phenolic compounds with antioxidant, antimicrobial, and anti-inflammatory activity. It’s still a sweetener, but compared with stripped-down white sugar, it brings along protective plant compounds instead of empty energy.
Here, people at risk for diabetes ate a government-approved “healthy” diet, then switched to a version with an extra ~150 g/day of lean, unprocessed beef swapped in for mostly refined starches. The beef version didn’t worsen insulin sensitivity, blood sugar, or most cholesterol markers, and actually shifted LDL particles toward a “fluffier,” less risky profile. In other words, replacing some white carbs with lean beef inside a whole-food pattern didn’t break their metabolism.
This review of 18 controlled trials found that real honey, in realistic amounts, modestly improved several markers like fasting blood sugar, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides compared with other sweeteners. It’s still sugar, so you don’t chug it. As a sweetener, though, honey behaves more like a functional food than empty calories.
This paper digs into how different doses and types of honey affect metabolic health markers. It supports the idea that small to moderate amounts of real honey can fit into a heart-conscious diet better than refined sugars, likely thanks to its unique mix of antioxidants and bioactive compounds.
Following over 100,000 adults for decades, this study found that about 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per day (2 fruits, 3 veg) was linked to the lowest risk of death. More than that didn’t seem to add much, less than that clearly hurt. It’s a very straightforward “5-a-day really matters” result.
A short, occasional email about what's inseason, new farms added to Farmstands, and the people behind the food. Free. Easyto unsubscribe.
