TL;DR. Georgia Grown is the marketing program operated by the Georgia Department of Agriculture, with a public member directory at georgiagrown.com/membership/member-directory/. Stream B’s first pass against Georgia Grown was partial — our scrape was rate-limited by the site’s web application firewall after enumerating ~95 of an estimated 690+ member listings, leaving an alphabetically-biased subset (names beginning with numerals or A through B). Within that partial subset, only 5 producers fall within scope (cattle, hogs, poultry). The headline finding from those 5 listings is striking enough that it survives the partial-universe caveat: Georgia Grown listings are the thinnest disclosure of the three directories Stream B has evaluated. Where AGW provides Tier-A certified Knowns on welfare and antibiotics, and Abundant Montana provides rich self-attested practice tags, Georgia Grown listings provide little beyond name, contact, product list, and a soft self-attested “organic and/or natural products” combo flag.
About the directory
Operator. Georgia Department of Agriculture, through the Georgia Grown marketing program.
Type. State agency-operated brand and marketing program.
Geography. Georgia statewide.
Approximate size. Sitemap reconnaissance and pagination indicate the public Member Directory contains at least 690+ entries (we confirmed pages 1-71, with each page carrying 10 listings, before the WAF blocked us; the actual final page count is likely higher). The directory mixes producers, retailers, restaurants, distributors, agritourism operators, gourmet-food brands, and forestry-product businesses without a structural distinction in the public-facing UI — the same listing template is used for everyone.
Root URL. georgiagrown.com · Member directory at /membership/member-directory/; per-member pages at /member/{slug}/.
Listing format. WordPress-backed; each member page carries name, free-text description, a Products or Services Offered category list (high-level: Livestock, Fruits & Vegetables, Retail, Restaurants, Distributor/Broker, Gourmet Food & Beverage, Agritourism, etc.), separate Direct To Consumer and Wholesale product lists, contact phone and email, and a single primary location address. There is no Growing Practices field, no welfare or antibiotic disclosure field, and no certifications field. The closest signal is a soft category tag: “We offer certified organic and/or natural products,” which conflates two very different things (USDA Organic certification and self-defined “natural” practices) and is self-attested.
What a typical listing looks like
A Georgia Grown member page identifies the operation by name, gives a short narrative description that the member writes themselves, names the city and Georgia ZIP, and lists the products the member sells direct-to-consumer and wholesale. That’s substantively the entire structured signal. The tag set carries category names like “Livestock” or “Gourmet Food & Beverage,” plus the soft “organic and/or natural products” combo flag. Compared with AGW’s certifier roster (every listing is third-party-certified-by-definition) or Abundant Montana’s structured Growing Practices taxonomy, the Georgia Grown listing format does not invite producers to disclose welfare practices, feed regimes, antibiotic policy, processor identity, or any of the supply-chain signals Stream B’s rubric asks about. The listing form simply doesn’t have those fields.
Why this evaluation is partial
Rate-limit barrier. Georgia Grown’s web application firewall began blocking our scraping infrastructure after roughly 95 successful page fetches. Multiple retry strategies (lower concurrency, longer pauses, different parallelism settings) did not recover full throughput within a reasonable session budget. A v2 pass with a different infrastructure profile (residential proxy rotation, or paced batches over many hours) is queued, but is deferred to a later iteration.
What this means for the findings below. The 95 member pages we did capture cover roughly the alphabetical range “15 Mile Creek Farms” through “Barrington Farms Apiary, LLC” — the very beginning of the directory’s alphabetical listing. Within that subset, 5 producers are in-scope cattle, hog, or poultry farms. We score those 5 against the same 15-category rubric used in the AGW and Abundant Montana pilots. The cohort numbers below are not projectable to the full Georgia Grown universe — the sample is too small and too alphabetically biased for that. But two kinds of finding are reasonable to publish from a partial pilot of this kind: (1) the per-listing structural facts about what disclosure fields the directory provides and what it does not (those are about the listing template, not the sample), and (2) the cross-directory contrast pattern that is consistent enough across n=5 that it would be very surprising if the full-universe pass changed it.
Findings (May 2026 partial pilot, n=5)
Cohort scoring distribution (n=5; cattle: 2, poultry: 3; hormones is N/A for the 3 poultry producers per federal regulation):
| Category | Known | Partial | Missing | N/A |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | 5 | 0 | 0 | — |
| Farm/Ranch identity | 5 | 0 | 0 | — |
| Sales channels | 3 | 2 | 0 | — |
| Breed | 1 | 0 | 4 | — |
| Origin (4 life-stages) | 0 | 5 | 0 | — |
| Feed | 0 | 3 | 2 | — |
| Animal welfare | 0 | 2 | 3 | — |
| Environmental practices | 0 | 3 | 2 | — |
| Certifications | 0 | 1 | 4 | — |
| Corporate ownership | 0 | 5 | 0 | — |
| Antibiotics | 0 | 0 | 5 | — |
| Hormones (cattle only) | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Processor identity | 0 | 0 | 5 | — |
| Recall / enforcement | 0 | 0 | 5 | — |
Traceability level distribution. All 5 sampled producers sit at Level 2 (farm-identified). None reach Level 3 because no producer in the sample disclosed processor identity — the same pattern observed across AGW and Abundant Montana, but here amplified by the directory’s lack of any disclosure field that would invite such information.
The cross-directory contrast. Of the three directories Stream B has evaluated so far, Georgia Grown’s listing template is the most disclosure-thin. The contrast is sharpest on the categories that AGW certification and Abundant Montana’s Growing Practices taxonomy each cover from opposite ends:
- Animal welfare — AGW: 100% Known via Tier-A certification. Abundant Montana: 0% Known but 67% Partial (self-attested practice tags). Georgia Grown: 0% Known, 40% Partial (only when the producer voluntarily wrote welfare-related language in their free-text description).
- Antibiotics — AGW: 100% Known. Abundant Montana: 0% Known but 67% Partial. Georgia Grown: 0% Known, 0% Partial, 100% Missing. No producer in the sample disclosed any antibiotic policy because the listing form provides no place for that disclosure.
- Certifications — AGW: 100% Known (the listing IS the certifier roster). Abundant Montana: 0% Known. Georgia Grown: 0% Known, 1 Partial via the soft “organic and/or natural” tag, 4 Missing.
The pattern that emerges across three directories: the depth of producer-side transparency disclosure is approximately equal to the depth of the directory’s listing template. Producers do not generally exceed the form they’re given. AGW’s certifier-rooted form forces Tier-A claims; Abundant Montana’s Growing Practices taxonomy invites granular self-attestation; Georgia Grown’s marketing-program form invites very little, and that absence reflects in the cohort scoring even on the limited partial sample.
One specific finding worth flagging. Georgia Grown’s “We offer certified organic and/or natural products” tag conflates USDA Organic (a federally regulated, third-party-audited certification) and self-defined “natural” practices (which has no federal definition and no audit) into a single membership-self-selected flag. Stream B scores producers carrying that tag Partial on Certifications and Partial on Environmental practices, with the explicit note that the conflation makes the tag itself an unreliable signal for either category. That conflation is a Stream B finding about Georgia Grown’s information design, not about the producers themselves.
Limitations of the pilot pass
- Partial universe (95 of 690+ listings). Producer-count percentages and species distributions cannot be projected to full Georgia Grown without re-running the enumeration. The cross-directory structural contrasts above are robust to this caveat; the producer counts are not.
- Alphabetical bias. The 95-record subset covers only A and B name-prefixes. Late-alphabet producers may differ in disclosure depth, though this would be unusual given the listing template applies uniformly.
- No producer-website fetch this iteration — same as the AM pilot.
- Regulator enforcement (cat 13) and corporate-ownership cross-check (cat 14) deferred — same as previous pilots.
- Per-producer table held back pending right-of-reply after the Georgia Department of Agriculture is notified.
Status
Partial pilot complete; v2 full-universe enumeration queued. The 5 producer scores, evidence rows, and cohort aggregates from the partial scrape are recorded in the supporting workbook FAT_Stream_B_GeorgiaGrown_PartialPilot_Scores_2026-05-07.xlsx. A v2 pass with rate-limit-friendly infrastructure will produce the full-universe cohort numbers and replace this page’s findings; the structural observations above (about the listing template) will likely carry forward unchanged.
Sources
- Georgia Grown member directory — georgiagrown.com/membership/member-directory/.
- Georgia Department of Agriculture — program operator.
- FAT_Stream_B_GeorgiaGrown_PartialPilot_Scores_2026-05-07.xlsx — the May 2026 partial pilot scoring workbook.
See the Stream B methodology for the full rubric and the four verification-ceiling tiers.
Last reviewed: 7 May 2026 — partial pilot complete (n=5 of an estimated ~60-70 in-scope producers in the full GA Grown universe); v2 full-universe pass queued.