Can Alaska feed itself? Mat-Su’s State Sen. Hughes says there’s room for optimism, but it will take time

Can Alaska feed itself?

In an increasingly uncertain world, it’s an important question.

Back in the day – before efficient transportation systems – Alaska did just that. There were local dairies; gardens were common, and subsistence hunting and fishing was important for all Alaskans, not just those in rural communities.

Now Alaska’s largest communities depend mostly on fast container ships sailing between the Pacific Northwest and Anchorage to bring most of our food. Because of those ships Alaska dairies can’t compete with large corporate farms in the Northwest, although one dairy near Delta is hanging in there.

The same goes for meat production. Alaska-raised beef and pork tastes better and is healthier, and we have lots of land for grazing and grain production.

So, what’s the problem? It’s complicated. For starters, the Alaska consumer market is small and it’s tough for growers to scale up to be able to compete with Lower 48 growers delivering on those fast container ships. Scott Musgrave, a rancher in the Delta area, thinks an export market is needed to increase the volumes of meat production needed to be competitive. That’s a challenging proposition and Alaska has tried it before.

However, the state of Alaska’s finances are tight and are likely to get tighter, hampering the state’s ability to help farmers with infrastructure, marketing and crop research, which are traditional roles of government support.

For example, the state Senate had to strip $1 million out of the state budget for University of Alaska Fairbanks agricultural research to help balance spending against reduced revenues.

Still, there’s room for optimism and a lot of room for more local foods, Mat-Su’s State Sen. Shelley Hughes says. Hughes, one of the Legislature’s biggest boosters for farming, thinks we can grow our own food or much more of if we put our minds to it.

“One in seven Alaska households is challenged with food insecurity,” she said, and things are particularly challenging in rural communities. “With over 80 percent of Alaska’s communities off the road and rail systems, village residents rely on planes, boats, and even snow machines to access and transport food rather than on trucks and trains,” Hughes said.

“The distance food travels, the time it takes, and the lack of temperature controled storage make it difficult for Alaskans to access fresh, nutritious foods consistently in many Alaskan communities, resulting in a high volume of wastage.”

The Pandemic should have been a wake-up call in 2020 and 2021 when shelves emptied out in grocery stores. Faced with these challenges, Gov. Mike Dunleavy created a task force on food security, with a report issued in 2002.

Hughes built on this with a broad volunteer effort by growers, grocery managers, transportation experts and state officials. A detailed report produced in 2024 laid out a to-do list.

Unfortunately, and perhaps not surprisingly, things are taking longer than expected. State agencies and the Legislature, which must set a lot of these wheels in motion, are preoccupied with revenue shortfalls and tight budgets.

Almost anything that cost money didn’t get done in the 2025 legislative session including a bill that would have marginally increased an allowable premium for Alaska-grown products purchased by school districts and state agencies like the prison system.

Politics also intervened to some extent. Some of the governor’s battles with legislators over education funding can spill over onto other issues the governor is championing, like agriculture.

A case in point is the recommendation, the top priority in the 2024 task force report, that the present Division of Agriculture, now in the Department of Natural Resources, be elevated to a full Department of Agriculture like most other states have.

This is more than bureaucratic reshuffling, Hughes said. It will put a new Commissioner of Agriculture at the table in meetings in the governor’s office, which will keep attention focused on farming and food security. It will also help in dealings with federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers large amounts of federal funding.

Most of the recommendations of the two task force reports are still waiting for action, or money, but some progress is being made because the task force raised awareness, Hughe said.

It wouldn’t seem obvious at first that improving weather reporting at rural airports is connected to food security remote communities, but missed flights and delays in delivery results in spoilage and waste.

The Legislature passed a resolution urging the federal government to improve technology for rural airport weather reporting and some of the solution recommended were included in the 2024 Federal Administration Agency Reauthorization Act.

Simply talking about problems with shippers has made a difference. Problems with the U.S. Postal Service’s ByPass Mail program also affects rural food deliveries, and while the postal service is working on changes recommended in a federal report discussions within in the task force have contributed to some changes in shipping procedures, Hughes believes.

For example, a particular problem in Bypass Mail carried by small aircraft serving rural communities is the large size of boxes used by Amazon in packaging small items. Hughes said Amazon has agreed to work on use of smaller boxes, which take up less space in planes.

Hughes said the task force was also encouraged by progress in researching use of autonomous aircraft, including drones, to deliver food and other goods to rural communities. Operated remotely, autonomous aircraft could land and take off in airport visibility conditions deemed unsafe for human pilots. The University of Alaska Fairbanks is actively working on this, and the Legislature has been supportive.

Another question that tackled was on whether more local foods can be purchased for meals in Alaska schools. Some Alaska school districts do make efforts to buy locally-grown products, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District being one.

A small price premium is allowed for schools to purchase locally but overall better coordination between school purchasing staff and growers is needed, the task force concluded. There was a bill raising the local purchase premium active in the 2025 legislative session but lawmakers were reluctant to load more costs on local schools in the current tight fiscal environment, Hughes said.

However, the task force did identify specific problems hindering local purchases. One is that schools had a hard time connecting with local producers, and then producers faced performance issues on contracts.

One solution identified was to create a catalog of available Alaska Grown and in-state manufactured food products available, the task force report said. A school purchasing cooperative, working with a catalog, could reduce administrative burdens for both producers and schools.

School districts could place their orders in the fall, giving producers time to plan and scale their operations with certainty in demand, the task force report said.

Such an approach could also ease payment problems for schools and producers. Schools must often make “up front” payments to producers. Since the state now provides much of the funding for schools, special food purchase allocations could be done within this framework.

“At the time of purchase, the state would provide half of the payment for the product up front—essentially an interest-free loan for the year—to help prime the pump of agricultural production,” the task force report said.

Second payments could be made when producers deliver food to warehouses, the report said.