Food Lost on the Farm: Empirical Data and Good Ideas

July 3, 2018

July 3, 2018



Today’s Guest Blog is by Christine Grillo. It was originally posted on the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future Blog on May 25, 2018.

Let’s imagine we’re at a vegetable farm in rural Vermont. The weather has been so perfect this year for growing carrots, spinach and squash that our farmer can’t harvest everything she’s grown. She won’t want to risk the expense of harvesting and transporting the veggies that retailers won’t buy because they look a little funny; she won’t be able to sell them if the markets are saturated; and she may not be able to find affordable farm labor to help her pick the crops and get them to their destinations. Some of those veggies bursting with nutrients and fiber will go uneaten, becoming part of what we call “on-farm food loss.”


Now let’s visit the home of a family suffering from food insecurity. Perhaps an elderly couple isn’t getting quite enough to eat. Or maybe an older teen is skipping meals so his younger sister can have more. In Vermont there are about 80,000 people in these circumstances, and the state provides more than 19 million institutional meals every year. These meals are made from food grown outside of the state and purchased with Vermont dollars, flown or trucked in from thousands of miles away.


Getting those nutrient-dense veggies onto the plates of the food insecure—as well as onto the cafeteria trays at public schools, nursing homes, hospitals and detention facilities—seems like it would be a win-win. The surplus crops grown in Vermont could replace some of the food grown outside the state and shipped in. In Vermont, top crops include not only carrots, spinach and squash but also potatoes, blueberries, strawberries and raspberries. What if some of that food lost on the farm could be recovered and re-directed onto people’s plates? What if farmers could be compensated for that food, instead of turning it into (expensive) compost?


Vermont is not the only state with this conundrum. Re-thinking on-farm food loss in Vermont could provide valuable clues for other states with similar situations.


In the quest for the win-win, Salvation Farms in Morrisville has produced the first empirical data on farm-level food loss in New England. Using a survey to collect data, it quantifies on-farm losses and investigates reasons for the losses. One finding shows that in Vermont 16 percent of vegetables and 15 percent of berries were considered lost but salvageable in 2015.


Theresa Snow, executive director of Salvation Farms, conducted the study with input from 58 farmers representing all counties in Vermont. “Farmers are busy!” said Snow. “But they’re happy to provide perspective if it shows there could be an ultimate benefit to their business by providing input.”


In a research paper published this week in The Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems and Community Development, “Salvageable Food Losses from Vermont Farms,” lead author Roni Neff, PhD, and program director at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, suggests that this quantification can help identify strategies and motivate action. “There is a remarkable gap in data on waste and loss of food on farms in the US,” she said. “This study provides the first such data for Vermont and shares a relatively easy to use 4-question tool Salvation Farms created for estimating waste and loss from farms.”


Neff notes that this study’s findings may be especially applicable to other areas with many small- to midscale farms, although the tremendous variety of crops, environments, farm types and markets in Vermont may make generalization challenging.

In addition to gathering data, several stakeholders in Vermont—Salvation Farms, Vermont Farm to Plate, the Vermont Agency for Agriculture and others—are working toward creating a Vermont Surplus Crop Management Plan. The goal of the plan is to get the excess food to humans who will eat it.


According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), on-farm food loss comprises about 16 percent of all the wasted food in the United States, although this estimate is based on minimal data. And according to the team’s paper, which used data from the Salvation Farms report, the biggest reasons for on-farm food loss are aesthetics (for example, the berries are blemished and retailers think people won’t buy them), demand fluctuations and market saturation (more berries than people can eat!), and labor availability and costs (can’t find farmworkers or can’t afford them). The paper acknowledges that there will always be some on-farm food loss. But it can be reduced, which, as the paper suggests, is the first priority.


Both Snow and Neff note that compensation for farmers is essential to reducing on-farm losses. If food is to be donated to food banks or similar programs, the farmer may be expected to harvest, package and transport it, which is expensive. Federal tax deductions for donated food are a small incentive for donating surplus crops, especially if the expenses associated with donating are not matched by tax savings. Snow believes farmers would be more incentivized by payments from the state or an opening up of new markets. Gleaning and food rescue programs, in which volunteers come onto the farm and do their own harvesting and transporting, offer farmers a way to have their excess crops eaten without incurring a lot of extra expense; unfortunately, the amounts gathered are often small in comparison to the loss. Experienced farmworkers can be even more effective at preventing on-farm food loss.


In farming, there will always be some degree of loss and waste (or some degree of deficit). But, as Neff suggests, if more entities across the US do as Salvation Farms has done—gathering empirical data—more food-system and supply-chain interventions become possible.

Christine Grillo is a Contributing Writer at Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF). She joined CLF in 2011 and writes about food system thinking—the intersection of food systems and public health. The work of the Center for a Livable Future is driven by the concept that public health, diet, food production and the environment are deeply interrelated and that understanding these relationships is crucial in pursuing a livable future. The article is reposted under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license.

NERC welcomes Guest Blog submissions. To inquire about submitting articles contact Athena Lee Bradley, Projects Manager at athena(at)nerc.org. Disclaimer: Guest blogs represent the opinion of the writers and may not reflect the policy or position of the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.


For more information on Salvation Farms, see NERC’s Blog Fresh Produce Recovery Models and the Building Resiliency in Food Recovery webinar presentation by Theresa Snow and webinar recording.

Share Post

By Waste Dive December 9, 2025
MRFs in the Northeast United States reported a decrease in average prices for nearly all recycled commodities — with glass and bulky rigids providing the rare bright spot — during the third quarter of 2025, according to a report from the Northeast Recycling Council. This continues the downward trend reported in the region since Q2. In Q3, average blended commodity value without residuals was $75.14, a decrease of 21.9% from the previous quarter. When calculating the value with residuals, prices were $60.16, a decrease of 27.24%, says the quarterly MRF Commodity Values Survey Report. Single-stream MRFs saw values decrease sequentially by 23.32% without residuals and 28.86% with residuals. Dual-stream or source-separated MRFs saw decreases of 17.33% without residuals and 21.76% with residuals compared to last quarter. The report includes information from 19 MRFs representing 12 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. The NERC report is meant to offer a regional look at price trends and is a part of the group’s ongoing work to promote and boost recycled commodity supply and demand in the Northeast. It surveys a variety of MRFs in numerous markets, including those in five states with beverage container deposit laws, which it says affect material flows into MRFs. NERC says its reports are not meant to be used as a price guide for MRF contracts because it “represents the diversity of operating conditions in these locations.” NERC adopted a new report format at the beginning of 2025 that now provides average prices for specific commodities in addition to aggregate values. According to the Q3 report, most commodity categories fell significantly, with the exception of glass and the “special case of bulky rigids.” The average price for bulky rigids in the quarter was $43.26, a 93% increase from the previous quarter. NERC did not offer insight into the increase. The average price for PET was $125.58 in the quarter, down 60%, while prices for Natural HDPE fetched about $955.31 a ton, down 46%. OCC saw an average price of about $86.23, down 10%, according to the report. Major publicly-traded waste companies echoed similar commodity trends during their Q3 earnings calls . Casella, which operates in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, reported that its average recycled commodity revenue per ton was down 29% year over year in Q3. To reduce the impact from low commodity values, the company typically shares risk with customers by adjusting tip fees in down markets. Recent upgrades at a Connecticut MRF helped raise revenue for processing volumes in the quarter, executives said. Meanwhile, Republic Services is planning to build a polymer center for processing recycled plastic in Allentown, Pennsylvania, next year. During the Q3 earnings call in October, executives said they expect strong demand at such centers from both a pricing and volume standpoint, despite the decline in commodity prices. The company already has similar polymer centers in Indianapolis and Las Vegas, which consume curbside-collected plastics from Republic’s recycling centers and produce products such as clear, hot-wash PET flake and sorted bales of other plastics. Read on Waste Dive.
By Megan Fontes December 4, 2025
NERC’s Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) Commodity Values Survey Report for the period July - September 2025 showed a continued decline in the average commodity prices for Q3 2025. The average value of all commodities decreased by 21.90% without residuals to $75.14 and by 27.24% with residuals to $60.16, as compared to last quarter. Single stream decreased by 23.32% without residuals and 28.86% with residuals, while dual stream / source separated decreased by 17.33% without residuals and 21.76% with residuals compared to last quarter. Dual stream MRFs saw a slightly smaller decrease with residuals than single stream. Individual commodity price averages this quarter denote the decrease felt across all commodity categories apart from glass and the special case of bulky rigids.
By Sophie Leone November 17, 2025
Currently employing almost 800 individuals, Maryland Environmental Service (MES) was established by the Maryland General Assembly in 1970. The goal of its formation was to assist with the improvement, management, and preservation of the air, land, and water quality, natural resources, and to promote the welfare and health of the citizens in Maryland. Dedicated to helping Maryland communities, MES is currently working on over 1000 environmental projects across the state and the Mid-Atlantic Region. Tackling environmental solutions through environmental justice is of high priority, “in FY23 and FY24, MES supported the preparation, writing, and submission of grant applications totaling over 163M dollars, and provided letters of support for many others.” NERC is thrilled to welcome Maryland Environmental Service as members. The work they do toward environmental justice and the help they provide their communities is a testament to their dedication. We look forward to supporting the important work they do. For more information on Maryland Environmental Service visit .