1. template_main Lawrence Holdsworth Chair: Dr. Timothy Green Committee: Dr. Barry Nocks 1 1

2. 1. Overview 2. Methods 3. Results and Analysis 4. Recommendations 2 2 Source: Carsten Rodin www.spur.org

3. Definitions  Local: 100 miles from origin to plate  Institutional Food Operation (IFO)-Food service belonging to an institution whose primary objective is not food service (Warner 1992).  Local Food Hub- A business, non-profit, or cooperative that aggregates source identified product from multiple regional producers to serve larger markets (Barham 2012).  Prime Vendor- a large, often nationally based distributer of grocery items.  Produce-fruits and vegetables. 3 3

4. Major Points from the Literature  There is widespread concern surrounding the global industrial food system ( D’Souza and Ikerd 1996, Stevenson 2011).  Environmental  Social  Economic  An orientation toward the development of local food is seen to address a range of these issues (Feenstra 2002, Pothukuchi 2007 ).  Institutional food service is seen as an area where access to local, fresh foods could be expanded ( Villianatos 2004,Roche and Kolodinsky 2010).  There are barriers to the incorporation of local product into IFO’s (Berkenkamp 2006, Martinez 2010) 4 4

5. Research Motivation  Local food hubs are an emerging area of local food development. Research shows that a food hub could be a viable option for the Upstate (Meter and Goldenberg 2013).  IFO’s are often a large part of the customer base for a local food hub (Moraghan and Vanderburgh-Wertz 2014).  Recent research by the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League had yet to examine the potential for a food hub to serve institutional food operations (SCCCL 2013). 5 5

6. Research Questions  1.What is the existing market for produce from IFO’s?  2.What barriers and opportunities exist for the procurement of local product by institutional food operations? 6 6

7. Study Area Ten County region as defined by Ten at the Top, Upstate Alliance. 7 7 Source:www.wilbertgreenville.com

8. 1. Market Size  Cross sectional analysis  Unit of Analysis:  Food Service Operations  Study Population:  Public K-12 School Districts  Five Largest Upstate Hospitals  Methods  In-person survey Research Design and Methods 8 8

9. Research Design and Methods 9 9 2. Barriers and Potential.  Qualitative Analysis  Study Population: Key informants on the local food system and IFO’s.  School district IFO Directors  Hospital IFO Directors  Local Produce Distributors  Methods  In-person survey/interview.

10. School Districts Abbeville Anderson 1 Anderson 2 Anderson 3 Anderson 4 Anderson 5 Cherokee 1 Greenville Greenwood 1 Greenwood 2 Greenwood 3 Laurens 1 Laurens 2 Oconee Pickens Spartanburg 1 Spartanburg 2 Spartanburg 3 Spartanburg 4 Spartanburg 5 Spartanburg 6 Spartanburg 7 Union 10

11. AVERAGE6,941 MEDIAN6,495 RANGE14,400 MIN2,000 MAX16,400 ST DEV4,284 Responding School Districts  65% of Upstate districts, 43% Purchasing Data  6 Spartanburg County  4 Anderson County  5 districts from 4 other counties 11 Enrollment Data of Responding Districts

12. Hospitals 4 of the 5 largest hospitals in the Upstate. Beds 347 550 885 475 12

13. Results and Data 13 Source: www.retail-week.com

14. Produce Market Size 14

15.  1. One month of invoices Prime and Local Vendors (1 District).  2.Spreadsheets from local vendors showing total and local spend per month 2013-2014 (8 districts).  3.Survey chart data showing total produce spend (1 district).  Response Rate: 43% Produce Market Size 15

16. Produce Market Size 16 Example of Respondent Data

17. Estimating Market Size 17  1.Ratio between local vendor and prime vendor produce  2.Applied to SEP, OCT, NOV local vendor totals=total expenditure  3.Divided by enrollment = per student expense  4.Divided by number of days in month=per student per day  5. Averaged between months and across districts  6. Average applied to non respondents Enrollment X per student expense per day X 180 days

18. Produce Market Size 18 Estimate of Produce Expenditure for 2014-2015 School Year 23 Districts

19. Average Local Expenditure 19 8 School Districts’ Average Local Expenditure Per Month

20. 20 Interview and Survey Data Source: www.hadapt.com

21. Interviews and Coding  15 Interviews  8.5 Hours of recordings  100 Pages of transcripts  364 Codes  526 Excerpts of text Structural Coding (Saldana 2013) 21

22. 22

23. Coding Example Barriers Aging Farmers Stubborn Fewer Numbers Land Cost Price Availability Food Safety GAP HACCP DHEC Pesticides Cost to Producer Climate Growing Season Lack of Producers Consistent Volume Logistics Delivery Frequency Harvest Schedule Predictable Service Communication Labor Planning 23

24. Procurement Procedure School District  Purchasing Alliance  RFP’s  Yearly Contracts  District-wide Hospitals  Group Purchasing Organization  5 Year Contracts  80% of Food Budget through Prime Vendor  Most contracts with prime vendor 24

25. District Hospital Vendor 25

26. Barriers to Local Sourcing 26

27. Barriers to Local Sourcing  Food Safety 87%  Gap Certification 47%  HACCP Certification 27% (buying produce from an uncertified producer) it’s going to put all the blame on me. I have paperwork stating that I will only deal with GAP certified vendors, now I’m not in compliance so my insurance company’s gonna leave me and I’m going to be left holding the bag and I’ve gotta pay out all these lawsuits. I’ve just killed however many people, or made however many sick and I’m out of business … I know its ok to eat this watermelon from this guy who’s not certified… But on the grand scale of things, am I willing to gamble everything I got on it? No I’m not willing to do it. -Distributor 27

28. Barriers to Local Sourcing  Price-53%  Bidding  Revenue …but if I go buy tomatoes from farmer John here and he wants pretty much the retail price for them, he’s wanting $2 a pound, when I buy them from a commercial farmer out of Florida I’m gonna buy them at 60 cents a pound.. It doesn’t affect us. We don’t mind what something costs but if you’re my customer I’m going to bring it up to you and say here’s your options. Is this worth being local to you? -Distributor School IFO Directors Who Will Pay a Price Premium for Local Product. 28

29. Barriers to Local Sourcing  Growing Season 46%  School Schedule … When they hear the volume that we can take in, some of them it scares them off because they don’t want to deal with that much.. - District Director.  High Volume 46% …And what is available they don’t really use, you don’t really see a lot of kids eating collard greens and cabbage. They’ll offer it to them but it mainly hits the trash….. - Distributor  Scale ….I think that most farmers are very comfortable with their roadside stands ….. -District Director  Predictable/Reliabl e Supply …its hard to get farmers to understand that once you start buying it you need to be able to buy it every week. So instead of planting blocks that will come in every week or two, they want to plant it all at one time and it will all come in at one time…..-Distributor 29

30. Local Food Potential 30 www.pixshark.com

31. Local Food Potential  Produce Orientation Code: 67% of directors.  Preference for Local Product Code: 75% of directors.  Vendor Sourcing Locally Code: 92% of directors..I’m more familiar as far as what goes on with produce. As far as I know, when you get outside of produce I don’t know that there’s a whole lot of local sourcing going on…Hospital Food Service Director.  Discussed sourcing with vendor: 67% of directors 31

32. Benefits of Local Sourcing N=9 32

33. Benefits of Local Sourcing  Community Benefit  78% the first thing that pops to my head is produce, and just knowing where it comes from and that its, that we’re helping our community out. – District Director  Quality  44% It’s been great. We have..you know we’re getting in great quality product that is at the peak of its freshness because it hasn’t sat on a truck coming all the way from California. We can proudly say we’re serving South Carolina or local product …. its real food its what you’d expect. You know, everybody envisions the big huge red apple, well that comes from Washington, they have special soil. But we get local apples that may not be quite as big they’re…we get so many different varieties and the flavor’s wonderful. And its not coated in layers of wax because it had to come from Washington. It’s huge. -District Director  Marketing  44% 33

34. Summary of Key Findings Market Size  Total Produce-$8,166,351.81  Local Produce-$1,245,936.89 Barriers  Food Safety  Cost  Volume Opportunities  Preference for Local Product, Vendors.  Clear Economic Development Connection.  Quality and Marketing 34

35. Policy Implications 35 www.asme.org

36. Development Opportunities Season Extension …A negative side of dealing with local farmers, and this is any farmer really is you’re dealing with nature, so we could be looking good today with a crop and you could have a hailstorm, frost storm, anything like that.- Distributer..I deal with a gentleman here locally… He grows in a greenhouse and is doing quite well at it. And he’s kinda combatting not having a lot of property because you have to have a lot of money to buy the property to get into the farming industry. But he’s found a way to do that without having to make this upfront investment on land, still making money and a living doing it a smaller way. So it can be done, you just have to change your mindset of what you’re growing and find a niche. -Distributer  Maximizing returns on fewer acres.  Unpredictable Weather 36

37. Development Opportunities  Increasing GAP certification for producers would expand IFO access to local product. ….before they hired the lady, we actually we actually took a group of farmers to Charleston and got them to sit through a seminar. And two of the farmers we took down became GAP certified and we still buy from them today …. -Distributer …We see the markets everyday, and they only know what people tell them. They can look at the USDA market in Columbia and see what stuff is selling for but they’re not out on the streets, beating the streets. We are everyday...we can tell them what’s selling, what’s easy to sell for us, what the markets are doing and give them that information and help them do something where they can be more profitable and make them want to stay in the game. And that’s what we’re trying to do.  Increased access to market information would improve marketing of local product. 37

38. Development Opportunities Barriers to entry for new intermediaries. …Its kind of a good old boy system, so if you’ve got those predetermined relationships kindof already set and pat because you know being a family business in South Carolina where a lot of rural farmers put a lot of vested interest on the principles, those family oriented principles. Then it makes life a lot easier because people are gonna go out of their way to meet your demand…. - Distributer You’re gonna find some guys that you might know or some guy might know and you can get him to call him and see if you can’t get something working- Distributer..But as far as produce and milk I would really like to stay where we are now, just roll it over. It’s a lot to rebid. It’s not just a matter of a contractual agreement. We’re trying to spec produce and set up deliveries, get used to who’s doing the deliveries and they need to learn our expectations. It’s really a relationship that has to be developed. I’m really pleased with what we have right now…. District Director 38

39. Serving Institutions Identifying Producers  New Farmers  Small producers not serving existing distribution. Aggregating Product  Addresses scale and volume  Dispersed sourcing may reduce risk 39 www.localfoodhub.org

40. Serving Institutions School Food Service  Expanding market with new serving requirements  Summer feeding is small opportunity  Bidding requirements and competition  District-wide bidding  Partner with existing distribution 40 www.ztrim.com

41. Serving Institutions Hospital Food Service  No bidding  Fewer contracts?  Commitment to agriculture and community development  Year-round  System-wide procurement?  Easier to service?  Price premium 41 www.benjaminfoods.com

42. Further Research Needs  Detailed expenditures by product weight and price  More hospitals  Assisted living  Private schools  Colleges and universities  Change over time. 42

43. Any questions ? 43

44. Works Cited Barham, James, Debra Tropp, Kathleen Enterline, Jeff Farbman, John Fisk, and Stacia Kiraly. Regional Food Hub Resource Guide. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Washington, DC. April 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/MS046.04-2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/MS046.04-2012 Berkenkamp, J. (2006). Making the Farm/School Connection: Opportunities and Barriers to Greater Use of Locally-grown Produce in Public Schools. University of Minnesota. Retrieved from https://www.leopold.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/pubs-and-papers/2006-01-making-farm-school- connection-opportunities-and-barriers-greater-use-locally-grown-produce-public-sc.pdf Feenstra, G. (2002). Creating Space for Sustainable Food Systems: Lessons From the Field. Agriculture and Human Values, 19(2) Martinez, S. et all (2010). Local Food Systems: Concepts, impacts, and Issues. Economic Research Report, 97. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/122868/err97_1_.pdfhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/media/122868/err97_1_.pdf Met er, K., & Goldenberg, M. (2013). Making Small Farms into Big Business. Crossroads Resource Center. Retrieved from http://www.crcworks.org/scfood.pdfhttp://www.crcworks.org/scfood.pdf Moraghan, Malini, and Darrow Vanderburgh-Wertz. "Food Hub Business Assessment Toolkit." (2014). Wholesome Wave. Web. 5 Nov. 2014.. Pothukuchi, K. (2007). Policy Guide on Community and Regional Food Planning. Retrieved from https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/pdf/foodplanning.pdf https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/pdf/foodplanning.pdf South Carolina Coast Conservation League. (2013). Upstate Region Local Food Hub Feasibility Study. Stevenson, G. (2011). Midscale Food Value Chains: An Introduction.Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 1(4). Warner, MIckey. "A New Look at Institutional Food Management."Hospitality Review 10.1 (1992). Print. South Carolina Coast Conservation League. (2013). Upstate Region Local Food Hub Feasibility Study.

45. EnrollmentAverageTotal SpendSummerTotal Data District29090.23$120,432.602769.9498$123,202.55 Data District90760.2$326,736.007514.928$334,250.93 Data District51020.3$275,508.00xxx$275,508.00 Data District10,0980.17$308,998.807106.9724$316,105.77 Data District2,9770.14$75,020.401725.4692$76,745.87 Data District8,0740.16$232,531.205348.2176$237,879.42 Data District11,1470.26$521,679.6011998.6308$533,678.23 Data District2,0000.15$54,000.00xxx$54,000.00 average 0.20125 No Data District164000.18$531,360.0013579.2$544,939.20 No Data District30890.2$111,204.00xxx$111,204.00 No Data District38320.2$137,952.003172.896$141,124.90 No Data District26630.2$95,868.00xxx$95,868.00 No Data District120000.2$432,000.009936$441,936.00 No Data District110000.2$396,000.009108$405,108.00 No Data District42000.2$151,200.00xxx$151,200.00 No Data District96310.2$346,716.00xxx$346,716.00 No Data District91040.2$327,744.007538.112$335,282.11 No Data District755080.2$2,718,288.00xxx$2,718,288.00 No Data District9840.2$35,424.00xxx$35,424.00 No Data District68020.2$244,872.005632.056$250,504.06 No Data District31360.2$112,896.002596.608$115,492.61 No Data District105500.2$379,800.00xxx$379,800.00 No Data District27490.2$98,964.00xxx$98,964.00 $8,035,194.60$88,027.04$8,123,221.64 summer average size0.09 summer per student0.018 Existing Market Size For Produce, School Districts