Agricultural Marketing Resource Center · 2019-12-23 · Agricultural Marketing Resource Center •...

Agricultural

Marketing Resource

Center Quarterly Report – July – September 2019

As a condition of its USDA Rural Development grant, the cooperating universities

comprising AgMRC were tasked to prepare four reports a year and submit them to

USDA. These reports summarize the activities completed during each quarter, including

website development and functions, value-added business and economic analysis tools

and outreach activities (workshops, seminars, newsletters and WebMail inquiries).

Agricultural Marketing Resource Center

• • •

1

Agricultural Marketing

Resource Center Quarterly Report – July – September 2019

Iowa State University

AgMRC Website Statistics

This quarter, the total number of page views 238,839 with an

average of 2,597 per day.

The Commodities and Products section attracts the most visits, at

171,533 this quarter total. Within Commodities and Products, Fruits

is the top section at 43,157 visits. Fiber follows at 35,058 visits.

Vegetables has the next highest visits at 29,868.

Within the website, the top three topics visited during this quarter

were:

1. Industrial Hemp – 34,266 pageviews

2. Peaches – 4,876 pageviews

3. Watermelon – 4,623 pageviews

AgMRC • • •

The mission of AgMRC

is to continue to provide

independent producers

and processors with

critical information

needed to build

successful value-added

agricultural enterprises

through the

www.agmrc.org

electronic resource

information website.

AgMRC continues to

serve a national value-

added agriculture

audience, with nearly

3,000 unique visits per

day.

http://www.agmrc.org/

http://www.agmrc.org/


• • •

2

2019 Pageviews Page Views Per Day

January 96,029 3,098

February 98,746 3,527

March 104,426 3,369

April 114,066 3,802

May 96,592 3,116

June 72,291 2,410

July 69,991 2,258

August 78,603 2,536

September 90,245 3,008

October

November

December

Major Content Sections

The major content sections of the AgMRC website visits:

1. Commodities and Products – 171,533 pageviews

2. Business Development – 34,057 pageviews

3. Renewable Energy – 12,360 pageviews

4. Markets and Industries – 4,048 pageviews

5. Directories and State Resources – 2,003 pageviews

Within the Commodities and Products section, the top three topics visited during this quarter were:

1. Fruits – 43,157 pageviews

2. Fiber – 35,058 pageviews

3. Vegetables – 29,868 pageviews

Within the Business Development Section, the top three topics visited during this quarter were:

1. Getting Prepared – 10,700 pageviews

2. Starting a Business – 9,491 pageviews

3. Operating a Business – 9,489 pageviews

Within the Renewable Energy Section, the top three topics visited during this quarter were:

1. Renewable Energy – 3,315 pageviews

2. Renewable Energy and Climate Change Report – 3,187 pageviews

3. Ethanol – 2,194 pageviews


• • •

3

AgMRC Website Updates:

Profiles and Pages updated this quarter (25):

Agritourism https://www.agmrc.org/commodities-

products/agritourism

Bookkeeping and Accounting https://www.agmrc.org/business-

development/operating-a-

business/finance/bookkeeping-and-accounting

Borrowing Money https://www.agmrc.org/business-

development/starting-a-business/raising-

money/borrowing-money

Budgeting https://www.agmrc.org/business-


business/budgeting/budgeting

Business Contracts & Agreements https://www.agmrc.org/business-


business/legal/business-contracts-and-

agreements

Business Expansion https://www.agmrc.org/business-

development/strategy-and-analysis/expansion-

and-strategy/business-expansion

Business Strategy https://www.agmrc.org/business-


and-strategy/business-strategy

Business Taxes https://www.agmrc.org/business-


business/finance/business-taxes

Case Studies of Value Added Producer Grant

Recipients

https://www.agmrc.org/business-

development/strategy-and-

analysis/analysis/case-studies-of-value-added-

producer-grant-recipients

Cash Budgeting https://www.agmrc.org/business-


business/budgeting/cash-budgeting

Community Food Systems https://www.agmrc.org/markets-

industries/food/community-food-systems-

curriculum

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) https://www.agmrc.org/business-

development/operating-a-business/direct-

marketing/community-supported-agriculture-csa

Direct Marketing https://www.agmrc.org/business-


marketing/direct-marketing

https://www.agmrc.org/commodities-products/agritourism




https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/operating-a-business/finance/bookkeeping-and-accounting






https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/starting-a-business/raising-money/borrowing-money






https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/operating-a-business/budgeting/budgeting






https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/operating-a-business/legal/business-contracts-and-agreements








https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/strategy-and-analysis/expansion-and-strategy/business-expansion






https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/strategy-and-analysis/expansion-and-strategy/business-strategy






https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/operating-a-business/finance/business-taxes






https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/strategy-and-analysis/analysis/case-studies-of-value-added-producer-grant-recipients








https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/operating-a-business/budgeting/cash-budgeting






https://www.agmrc.org/markets-industries/food/community-food-systems-curriculum






https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/operating-a-business/direct-marketing/community-supported-agriculture-csa






https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/operating-a-business/direct-marketing/direct-marketing







• • •

4

Farmers’ Markets https://www.agmrc.org/business-


marketing/farmers-markets

Financial Management



business/finance/financial-management

Financing Your Business https://www.agmrc.org/business-

development/starting-a-business/raising-

money/financing-your-business

Legal Organizational Structure https://www.agmrc.org/business-

development/starting-a-business/creating-a-

business/legal-organizational-structure

Marketing Plans https://www.agmrc.org/business-


business/marketing/marketing-plans

Market Research


development/starting-a-

business/marketbusiness-assessment/market-

research

Mission and Goals https://www.agmrc.org/business-


business/mission-and-goals

Pricing https://www.agmrc.org/business-


business/marketing/pricing

Pumpkins https://www.agmrc.org/commodities-

products/vegetables/pumpkins

Sales https://www.agmrc.org/business-


business/marketing/sales

Starting a Business https://www.agmrc.org/business-


business/starting-a-business

Value-Added Farm Business Strategy https://www.agmrc.org/business-


and-strategy/value-added-farm-business-

strategy

Commodities and products profiles are updated based on client inquiries to AgMRC Match

participants and AgMRC office staff. This quarter we continued our streamlining of commodity pages

on our website and eliminated commodity pages that were not being utilized according to our

https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/operating-a-business/direct-marketing/farmers-markets






https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/operating-a-business/finance/financial-management






https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/starting-a-business/raising-money/financing-your-business






https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/starting-a-business/creating-a-business/legal-organizational-structure






https://www.agmrc.org/commodities-products/vegetables/pumpkins




https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/operating-a-business/marketing/sales






https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/starting-a-business/creating-a-business/starting-a-business






https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/strategy-and-analysis/expansion-and-strategy/value-added-farm-business-strategy









• • •

5

analytics. We have also been editing and consolidating our Business Development section to be more

usable and relevant. This process is ongoing.

Value-Added Case studies added this quarter include Farmer’s Daughter, Goodson Pecans, Honey

Creek Creamery, Emerson Vineyards, Lani’s Lana .

Email

AgMRC staff researched and responded to 115 e-mailed questions pertaining to hemp, macadamia

nuts, watermelon and cauliflower to name a few.

Phone Calls

As of September 30, AgMRC staff reported having 63 toll-free phone inquiries from 29 different states.

Facebook

AgMRC has expanded its public outreach by creating a page on Facebook. During this quarter, the

AgMRC Facebook page had 31 posts, which were seen by more than 2,547 people.

Enterprise Budgets

Emily Coll works with farmers to determine farm profitability as a program coordinator for the Iowa

State University Extension and Outreach Farm, Food and Enterprise Development Program team.

Through her work she found that farmers rarely track their expenses related to each market outlet they

use. This hindered their understanding of profitability per market outlet.

This project proposed to help farmers track all expenses related to specific enterprises and associated

market outlets. They could then use this information to decide which crops to plant and which markets

are more profitable. For this project, profitability was measured by annual returns in USD over the sum

of the production costs and marketing costs (total costs) per each market outlet.

The project team identified 10 farmers interested in analyzing enterprise (crop) profitability based on

the specific market outlet through which the enterprise was sold. They then selected six farmers

representing a wide range of enterprises and production methods. These enterprises included: high

tunnel tomatoes; field asparagus; greenhouse vegetable, fruit, and herb transplants; high tunnel

scallions; field carrots; high tunnel greens; field green beans; greenhouse hydroponic basil; greenhouse

hydroponic butterhead lettuce; and field and high tunnel sweet peppers.

The six farmers recorded all production and marketing expenses and sales receipts through the

growing season per market outlet. They included owner wages, insurance, utilities and other expenses

that may not be regularly included in their analyses. Each farmer met with the program coordinator

four times throughout the season to ensure accurate record collection. Market expenses can be

challenging to tease out. Also, determining how to allocate expenses can be difficult. The project team

https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/strategy-and-analysis/analysis/case-studies-of-value-added-producer-grant-recipients/farmers-daughter-vineyards

https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/strategy-and-analysis/analysis/case-studies-of-value-added-producer-grant-recipients/farmers-daughter-vineyards

https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/strategy-and-analysis/analysis/case-studies-of-value-added-producer-grant-recipients/goodson-pecans

https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/strategy-and-analysis/analysis/case-studies-of-value-added-producer-grant-recipients/goodson-pecans

https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/strategy-and-analysis/analysis/case-studies-of-value-added-producer-grant-recipients/honey-creek-creamery-milking-goat-dairy




https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/strategy-and-analysis/analysis/case-studies-of-value-added-producer-grant-recipients/emerson-vineyards

https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/strategy-and-analysis/analysis/case-studies-of-value-added-producer-grant-recipients/emerson-vineyards

https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/strategy-and-analysis/analysis/case-studies-of-value-added-producer-grant-recipients/lanis-lana

https://www.agmrc.org/business-development/strategy-and-analysis/analysis/case-studies-of-value-added-producer-grant-recipients/lanis-lana


• • •

6

decided to use the percentage of total sales of a crop per market outlet compared to the total sales of

that crop to allocate production expenses.

For example, if the crop sales analyzed were 40% of the total sales over all market outlets, that

percentage was used to calculate the amount of a utility bill to use in the production expense section.

Utility bill = $1,000

Sales receipts for mixed greens at the grocery = $10,000

Total sales receipts for mixed greens at all market outlets = $30,000

Percent allocated to utility bill = 33.33%

Calculation used to determine utility bill = $1,000*33.33% = $333.33

In summary, farmers were surprised at the varying levels of profitability per enterprise, either higher

or lower. Two farmers decided to change the market outlets they were using, as well as changing

production techniques to increase profitability. A decision-making toolkit resulted from this work and

can be found at the following link: https://www.extension.iastate.edu/ffed/market-based-enterprise-

budgets-toolkit/.

AgMRC Subcontracts

Progress Report on AgMRC MarketMaker Collaboration

Goal 1

Build Exportable Maps and Reports- Develop a series of maps and customizable marketing studies that provide Value

Added Producer Grant (VAPG) applicants with market intelligence that can easily be incorporated into feasibility studies and

business plans that support the VAPG application process.

The MM team has uploaded and integrated updated US Census demographic data and Bureau of Labor

Statistics Consumer Preference Data into the new mapping interface. The Consumer Preference is an

expanded version of the data set previously used and includes twice the number of categories of food related

consumer expenditure. This refreshed data can be incorporated into a customized map which along with the

associated tabular summary of the data can be exported for use in grant applications, feasibility studies, etc.

MM has downloaded purchased business data that includes information on nearly 1 million food related

businesses across the US. The MarketMaker tech team is in the process of completing the integration of the

data into the new mapping tool.

https://www.extension.iastate.edu/ffed/market-based-enterprise-budgets-toolkit/





• • •

7

Goal 2

Integrate Educational Content from AgMRC site into MarketMaker Platform- Develop additional MarketMaker search

tools targeting the AgMRC site educational content, building on the progress made in the first round of funding,

Goal 3

Enhance MarketMaker Advanced Mapping Tools- Expand the secondary data sources from USDA that can be incorporated

into the MarketMaker interactive mapping platform. Develop a more intuitive interface that will make the resource more

user friendly to the non-technical user. Develop new functionality that will allow VAPG grant applicants to identify market

trends.

Goal 4

Build Metrics and Impacts- Develop tracking tools that will allow AgMRC and MarketMaker staff to collect data that can be

used for evaluation purposes and ultimately the long term economic impact of the resources being developed.

Food Searcher- The current 26 products averaged 2,400 product searches per week during the 3rd quarter of 2019.

Most searched Food Searcher products include:

Watermelon: 283 searches per week

Cherries: 215 searches per week

Potatoes: 198 searches per week

Strawberries: 195 searches per week

Lettuce: 192 searches per week

Over 7,800 newsletters were sent out to MM users featuring MarketMaker profiles, Farm to School, AgMRC

educational content on August 19th, 2019.

The new interactive mapping tool was completed in Sept. It was uploaded to the live MarketMaker server October 7,

2019. It includes the following features:

• Customizable Regions of Interest that allow the user to design their own geographic boundaries for searches.

Regions can be built in increments of state, county of census tract boundaries.

• The ability to conduct searches and queries that map and list only those results that fall within the region of

interest.

• Census and Consumer Preference Data Reports that can be summarized by Customized Regions of Interest

• Time series maps that allow the user to visual data shifts and trends over time.

• Printable and Exportable Maps and related data tables

• The capacity to add in additional secondary data sources as is determined to be relevant.

A team of university researchers and USDA data specialists have scheduled a meeting to review the new mapping tool

and make recommendations regarding what additional data sources would be most beneficial to potential users.


• • •

8

Profile Views- There were 10,701 farms and businesses whose profiles were visited for a total of 45,162 profile views (some

profiles were visited multiple times)

Connecting Farmers to Markets -214 entities made 294 online business connections facilitated through the AgMRC and

MarketMaker collaboration.

Outreach and Engagement

University of Vermont Work Plan and Deliverables

The primary objective of this project was to provide tools and resources to support agritourism and value-

added agriculture enterprises. Funding was used to develop materials and deliver trainings and

Conferences and Trade shows- The MarketMaker team promoted the AgMRC /

MarketMaker collaboration at the following events in the third quarter of 2019.

`Illinois State Fair interactive Display with Illinois Farm Bureau; Find farmers or farmers

markets near you. August 9 – 18, 2019

USDA Direct Ag Marketing Summit- October 7-9th, 2019 Poster Display


• • •

9

technical assistance for producers and for agricultural service providers. Specific deliverables are

described below, and all materials are available for posting on the AgMRC website.

1. Best practices guides

A variety of new materials have been created and integrated into existing resource hubs, including the

Vermont Agritourism Collaborative website at https://www.uvm.edu/extension/vtagritourism and

Oregon State University Extension website at https://extension.oregonstate.edu/marion/agritourism-

tourism-marion-county. The acknowledgement of AgMRC support for the new website materials is at

https://www.uvm.edu/extension/vtagritourism/about and on all materials.

Publications and videos on best practices for agritourism and value-added enterprises posted at

https://www.uvm.edu/extension/vtagritourism/agritourism-guides include:

Agritourism Best Practices Publications

2019 Best Practices in Agritourism (PDF)

How to Develop a Farm Stand (PDF)

How to Develop a Farm Stay (PDF)

How to Develop a Farm Tour (PDF)

How to Develop a Pick-Your-Own Business (PDF)

How to Host a Farm Dinner (PDF)

How to Host a Summer Camp (PDF)

How to Host Weddings (PDF)

Best Practices Video Series

Couture's Maple Shop/B&B, Westfield, VT

Hollister Hill Farm & Bed and Breakfast, Marshfield, VT

Isham Family Farm, Williston, VT

Four Springs Farm, Royalton, VT

Scott Farm Orchard, Dummerston, VT

Value Added Producer Grant (VAPG) Profiles

African Alliance of Rhode Island (PDF)

Avena Botanicals (PDF)

Big Picture Farm (PDF)

Boothby's Orchard & Farm Winery (PDF)

Fuzzy Udder Creamery(PDF)

Gothberg Farms (PDF)

TMK Creamery (PDF)

When Pigs Fly Farm (PDF)

https://www.uvm.edu/extension/vtagritourism

https://www.uvm.edu/extension/vtagritourism

https://extension.oregonstate.edu/marion/agritourism-tourism-marion-county




https://www.uvm.edu/extension/vtagritourism/about

https://www.uvm.edu/extension/vtagritourism/about

https://www.uvm.edu/extension/vtagritourism/agritourism-guides

https://www.uvm.edu/extension/vtagritourism/agritourism-guides

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019_BestPracticesAgritourism-FINALDRAFT-lores.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019_BestPracticesAgritourism-FINALDRAFT-lores.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019HowTo-DevelopFarmStand.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019HowTo-DevelopFarmStand.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019HowTo-DevelopFarmStay.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019HowTo-DevelopFarmStay.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019HowTo-DevelopFarmTour.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019HowTo-DevelopFarmTour.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019HowTo-DevelopPYO.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019HowTo-DevelopPYO.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019HowTo-HostFarmDinners.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019HowTo-HostFarmDinners.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019HowTo-HostSummerCamp.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019HowTo-HostSummerCamp.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019HowTo-HostWeddings.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/2019HowTo-HostWeddings.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNNvBTy2DUo&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNNvBTy2DUo&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8L8PJalDSg&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8L8PJalDSg&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsGZnAo8GE&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxsGZnAo8GE&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL0OFLjPHdQ&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL0OFLjPHdQ&feature=youtu.be

https://youtu.be/b-BTTd0GFto

https://youtu.be/b-BTTd0GFto

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-AfricanAllianceRI.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-AfricanAllianceRI.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-AvenaBotanical.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-AvenaBotanical.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-BigPictureFarm.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-BigPictureFarm.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-Boothbys.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-Boothbys.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-FuzzyUdder.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-FuzzyUdder.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-GothbergFarms.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-GothbergFarms.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-TMKCreamery.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-TMKCreamery.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-WhenPigsFlyFarm.pdf

https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Vermont-Agritourism-Collaborative/Grantee-WhenPigsFlyFarm.pdf


• • •

10

Publications on best practices for agritourism and value-added enterprises posted at

https://extension.oregonstate.edu/marion/agritourism-tourism-marion-county include:

Questions Planners may Anticipate Regarding the Agritourism Industry’s Farm Direct Sales and other

Farm-Based Activities

https://extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/documents/9271/agtourfactsheetplannersquestions

agtouractivities2019v4.pdf

How to Create an Inventory of Agritourism Operations in an Area, County or Multi-County Region

https://extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/documents/9271/agtourfactsheethowtocreateinven

toryagritourismfinalf-copy.pdf

How Instagram Stories Can Help Direct Traffic to Your Agritourism Operation

https://extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/documents/9271/agtourfactsheetinstagramfinal.pd

f

Selling Farm Produce by Count, Volume or Weight

https://extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/documents/9271/selling-farm-produce-

volumefinal2.pdf

Agritourism Limited Liability Signs Provide Partial Protection for Agritourism Operators

https://oregonstate.app.box.com/s/6avux8g7r7v8oa60qgbxjehz81735sp5

Case Study: How Oregon State University Programming Supports the Development of Agritourism

Activities (Including Farm-Direct Sales) in Oregon

https://oregonstate.app.box.com/s/u7kgwnxvhqv67tmjncxg5jwqwvdcejwt

Case Study: On-farm Agritourism Activities in Marion County, Oregon from 2017 to 2018.

https://oregonstate.app.box.com/s/lkur2ylxejx5rd7wmvni4yux4op8zch5

2. Workshops on agritourism and value-added enterprises

During the grant period, we conducted 24 workshops on agritourism and value-added enterprises to

share best practices and the VAPG program with producers and agricultural service providers. The

workshops reached 615 participants in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest, including farmers,

agricultural service providers, and others working with agritourism and value-added enterprises.

Below is a list of workshops.

How to Enhance Your Agritourism Offerings with Farm-to-Table Programming, August 29, 2019,

Caldwell, Idaho. 15 tourism and community development professionals attended.



https://extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/documents/9271/agtourfactsheetplannersquestionsagtouractivities2019v4.pdf




https://extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/documents/9271/agtourfactsheethowtocreateinventoryagritourismfinalf-copy.pdf




https://extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/documents/9271/agtourfactsheetinstagramfinal.pdf




https://extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/documents/9271/selling-farm-produce-volumefinal2.pdf











• • •

11

How a Dairy Farm Creates and Presents Educational Experiences for Visitors, August 20, 2019, TMK

Creamery, Canby, Oregon. 20 agritourism operators attended.

Agritourism—Best Practices, Impacts and Trends; Central Oregon Planners Network Meeting, June

26, 2019. Madras, Oregon. 25 attendees including city and county staff, planners, elected officials and

planning commissioners.

Vermont Farm to Plate Agritourism Task Force Meeting, June 25, 2019, Philo Ridge Farm, Charlotte,

Vermont. 20 attendees.

Live the Farm, May 2, 2019, Wilsonville Rotary Club, Wilsonville Oregon. 28 attendees.

Live the Farm, April 19, 2019, Canby Rotary Club, Canby, Oregon. Attended by 47 including several

farmers.

Agritourism 101 Training, April 19, 2019, Marion Polk Food Share Youth Farm, Chemeketa

Community College, Salem, Oregon. 11 farmers attended.

Agri-Eco Tourism Conference, March 14, 2019, Salem, Oregon. 48 producers and tourism industry

representatives attended.

County Planners Network in Corvallis, Oregon, February 8, 2019. 38 county planners attended this

training.

Farm Image and Public Relations, December 28, 2018, Oregon State University Extension Service,

Marion County, Oregon. 11 participants.

ABCs of Farm-Based Education, October 21-23, 2018, Shelburne Farms, Vermont. 22 participants.

Participants came from Delaware, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Michigan,

Pennsylvania, Vermont, California and Galway, Ireland.

Farm-Based Education Network Fall Learning Journey, September 16 - 18, 2018, New York City; 9

participants. Tours were coordinated, hosted, and marketed by project partner, the Farm-Based

Education Network. The tours were attended by 9 individuals, who came from the greater New York

Area.

Food Safety for Farms Open to Visitors. August 9, 2018, Cedar Circle Farm, Thetford, Vermont. 21

participants.

Getting Your Farm Ready for Visitors Training, August 2018, Salem, Oregon. 5 farmers attended.


• • •

12

The Three T’s of Agritourism – Tours, Talks and Tastings, June 28, 2018, Park Hill Orchard,

Easthampton, Massachusetts. Organized with CISA (Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture).

17 participants.

Agritourism networking and demonstration training event on an agritourism operation in Gervais,

Oregon, June 6, 2018. 10 farmers attended.

Bringing Visitors to Your Farm, May 29, 2018, Glendale Ridge Vineyard and Winery, Southampton,

Massachusetts. Organized with CISA (Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture). 19 participants.

Agritourism Operator Network on-site technical tours, April 2018, 23 attended the network meeting

at Wooden Shoe Tulip Farm and 12 attended the network meeting at Bauman’s Farm and Garden.

Vermont Farm Based Education Workshop: Building Farmer & Educator Connections, April 17, 2018,

Snow Farm Vineyard, South Hero, Vermont. Organized with South Hero Land Trust, Healthy Roots

Collaborative & Shelburne Farms. 38 participants.

Engaging Visitors: Tours, Camps & On-Farm Events, February 28, 2018, Golden Well Farm &

Apiaries, New Haven, Vermont. Organized with Addison County Re-localization Network (ACORN).

17 participants.

Agritourism Conference 2018: A training for agritourism operators and professionals, January 24,

2018, The Oregon Garden, Silverton, Oregon, to teach agritourism best practices and provide tools to

agritourism farmers, value-added producers and tourism professionals. 80 attended from across

Oregon and Washington.

Dairy Tours & Overnight Farm Stays, December 6, 2017, Liberty Hill Farm, Rochester, Vermont. 24

participants.

Engaging Farm Visitors: Tours, Camps & Animals, November 2, 2017, Shelburne Farms, Shelburne,

Vermont. 34 participants.

Feasibility Studies for Value Added Producer Grant (VAPG) Applications, October 25, 2017,

Norwich Inn, Norwich, Vermont. 21 participants.

3. Presentations at professional conferences


• • •

13

During the grant period, we presented at eight professional conferences to share the best practices

materials and VAPG program with colleagues including agricultural service providers and researchers.

Below is a list of presentations.

Meeting of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association, Atlanta, Georgia, July 21-23, 2019.

Critical success factors for agritourism on small and medium farms: a multistate lens. Quella, L.,

Chase, L., Conner, D., Wang, W., Leff, P., Stewart, M., Singh-Knights, D., Reynolds, T., & Messer, C.

Peer reviewed presentation.

Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society and Association for the Study of Food and Society Joint

Annual Conference, Anchorage, Alaska, June 26-29, 2019. Critical Success Factors for Agritourism and

Direct Sales on Small and Medium Farms. Conner, D., L. Quella, L.C. Chase, G. Feenstra, P. Leff, C.

Messer, D. Singh-Knights, and M. Stewart, W. Wang. Peer reviewed presentation.

1st World Congress on Agritourism, Eurac Research, Bolzano, Italy, November 7-9, 2018. Developing a

Conceptual Framework for Agritourism in the U.S.A. Chase, L.C. and M. Stewart. Peer reviewed

poster. This opportunity to share tools and resources for agritourism and value-added enterprises with

an international audience, and also to learn from other countries, was not supported by AgMRC

funding since the conference took place outside the U.S., but we did share AgMRC resources with

participants, as many of these resources are applicable for farmers and service providers in other

countries.

Slow Living Summit, Brattleboro, Vermont, May 31, 2018. Organic Entrepreneurs: Finding Ingredients

for Success and Avoiding Recipes for Disaster, Chase, L.C., G. Cox, J. Franklin, C. Tomlinson, and P.

Ackerman-Leist. Invited presentation.

North American Farmers’ Direct Marketing Association Conference. Los Angeles, California, February

6, 2018. Operation Education: Your Farm as a Classroom, Simon-Nobes, V. and S. Marchand. Invited

presentation.

Vermont Fresh Network Annual Meeting, Norwich, Vermont, January 22, 2018. Marketing Beyond

Vermont, Chase, L.C. Invited presentation.

Vermont Maple Conference, Brattleboro, Vermont, January 20, 2018. Welcoming the Public to your

Sugarhouse, Chase, L.C., S. Cook, and P. Cooper-Ellis. Invited presentation.

International Society of Travel and Tourism Educators (ISTTE) 2017 Conference, Charleston, South

Carolina, October 15-17, 2017. Agritourism: Connecting Communities, Places and People. Walk, M.

and L.C. Chase. Peer reviewed presentation.


• • •

14

4. Technical assistance

During the grant period, we provided direct technical assistance through farm visits and one-on-one

consultations to support farmers with agritourism and value-added enterprises, including farms

applying for Value-Added Producer Grants. We worked with 64 farms in the Northeast and 71 farms

in the Pacific Northwest, totaling 135 farms supported with direct technical assistance during the grant

period.

University of Minnesota

Goal #1

Create and promote an electronic, Web-based library with powerful search capabilities to make value-added

information and other resources available to producers (includes web site development and functions).

Provide electronically available information and resources on value-added markets and industries including a

wide variety of commodities and products (this includes the Commodities/Products and Markets/Industries

sections of the Web site).

We did not have any commodity updates to do. We worked with University of Minnesota Crookston on the

subcontract from Iowa State on their digital content. An in-person was done with University of Minnesota

Crookston to plan the rest of the material.

Goal #2

Provide value-added business and economic analysis tools, including information on business principles, legal,

financial and logistical issues (information contained in the Business Development section of the Web site).

Nothing to report here

Goal #3

Conduct research and analysis on economic issues facing producers involved in value-added business ventures

(this includes research activities on all topics included at the Web site).

Final written report documenting employment, status of VAPG recipients, and other information was

completed, peer reviewed and sent to Iowa State for posting on website.

Goal #4

Conduct outreach activities to disseminate the research and information assembled and developed under the

previous three goals. These activities are designed for producers, producer groups, businesses and others

involved in value-added agriculture (this includes all outreach activities of the Center including workshops,

seminars, newsletters and other delivery methods including individual client requests for specific information).

Nothing to report here


• • •

15

Community Food Systems, Iowa State University

July-September

Throughout the last three months the team has offered the final four workshops in Iowa, Massachusetts,

Nebraska and Oregon. These trainings continued to compare the results of having multiple states or wide

regional representation in one training. Within the four state workshops there were 99 participants in Local

Food Leader and 77 participants in Community Food Systems. The primary evaluation is regarding the

usefulness of each section. Below are evaluations for each state; Massachusetts was conducted as a half day

due to weather and traveling conditions.

The hub workshops led to the following increase in knowledge.

• 68% overall increase in the participants' understanding of the process of becoming certified as a Local Food

Leader from prior to participating in the workshops to after completing the workshop.

• 42% overall increase in the participants' ability to support partners in food system development.

• 36% overall increase in the participants' skills for coalition development.

• 35% overall increase in the participants' confidence in their work with communities to develop food systems.

• 31% overall increase in the participants' understanding of how to create and use a logic model.

• 27% overall increase in the participants' understanding of what is involved in a community food system.

• 26% overall increase in the participants' skills for facilitating conversations around topics of food systems.

• 19% overall increase in the participants' ability to create a professional development plan.

• 19% overall increase in the participants' understanding of how to create and use a plan of work.

• 18% overall increase in the participants' ability to conduct evaluation for programs, projects, and systems change.

• 17% overall increase in the participants' understanding of how personal values connect to their work.

• 15% overall increase in the participants' ability to facilitate conversations effectively.

• 10% overall increase in the participants' understanding of the importance of inclusion and building trust.

Local Food Leader:

Iowa:

Agree Neither Disagree

Networking 0.94 0.06 0.00

Inclusion 0.88 0.06 0.06

Evaluation 0.81 0.19 0.00

Facilitation 0.81 0.19 0.00

Leadership 0.75 0.19 0.06


• • •

16

Professional Development 0.67 0.13 0.20

Working in Food Systems 0.63 0.25 0.13

Massachusetts:



Inclusion 0.65 0.25 0.10



Nebraska:


Inclusion 0.83 0.11 0.06



Facilitation 0.72 0.17 0.11

Evaluation 0.67 0.28 0.06


Professional Development 0.60 0.33 0.07

Oregon:


Networking (throughout day) 0.88 .13 0.00

Working in Food Systems 0.81 .19 0.00

Evaluation 0.81 .13 .06

Inclusion 0.75 .25 0.00

Facilitation 0.56 .25 .19

Leadership 0.56 .31 .13

Professional Development 0.50 .19 .31

In addition, we conducted pre and post evaluation statements to understand percent change throughout the

workshop.

Iowa:

Pre Post % Increase

I understand the process of becoming certified as a Local Food Leader. 21% 77% 56%

I understand how to create and use a logic model. 21% 62% 41%

I have a professional development plan. 36% 69% 33%

I understand what is involved in a community food system. 43% 69% 26%


• • •

17

I understand how to create and use a plan of work. 29% 54% 25%

I am confident in my work with communities to develop food systems. 21% 46% 25%

I am equipped with skills to facilitate conversations effectively. 57% 77% 20%

I can support partners in food system development. 36% 54% 18%

I have skills for coalition development. 29% 46% 17%

I understand the importance of inclusion and building trust. 86% 100% 14%

I understand my own personal values and how they connect to my work. 79% 92% 13%

I have skills for facilitating conversations around topics of food systems. 50% 54% 4%

I have tools to conduct evaluation - for programs, projects, and systems

change.

36% 38% 2%

Massachusetts:

Pre Post % Increase



I have skills for coalition development 11% 44% 33%





Nebraska:

Pre Post % Increase









change.

41% 65% 24%







• • •

18

Oregon

Pre Post % Increase














change.

71% 69% -2%

Local Food Leader Online Modules are available to participants following their participation in the in person

workshop. Participants from this pilot will receive a 50% discount for the online modules to complete

certification. The fee is used to support staff time for grading, hosting cohort calls, and providing support

and technical assistance for those going through the program.

Community Food Systems

The Community Food Systems program is offered as a two day workshop, focused on providing activities and

discussion for practitioners wanting to offer strategic planning conversations around food systems. Following

the workshop, individuals can go through up to 7 online modules for further advancement of skills.

The hub workshops led to the following increase in knowledge.

• 59% increase in the participants' ability to support coalitions develop vision, mission, and core values from prior

to participating in the workshop to after completing the workshop.

• 55% increase in the participants' understanding of the full scope of the Community Food Systems Program.

• 54% increase in the participants' knowledge of the Phase 1 Process for the Community Food Systems Program.

• 59% increase in the participants' knowledge of how to identify assets and opportunities in community.

• 53% increase in the participants' ability to help communities prioritize their goals.


• • •

19

• 53% increase in the participants' understanding of how to evaluate priority projects for collective community

processes.

• 51% increase in the participants' skills for facilitating conversations around topics of food systems.

• 51% increase in the participants' skills for coalition development.

• 51% increase in the participants' understanding of ways to create a menu of services.

• 48% increase in the participants' understanding of how to conduct a community food systems assessment.

• 47% increase in the participants' knowledge of principles of strategic doing.

• 47% increase in the participants' ability to help create project team goals, objectivves, and output statements.

• 46% increase in the participants' confidence in strategic planning processes.

• 44% increase in the participants' confidence in creating an evaluation logic model.

• 40% increase in the participants' ability to support project team development for food systems work.

• 39% increase in the participants' confidence in their work with communities to develop food systems.

• 38% increase in the participants' ability to showcase community research.

• 35% increase in the participants' understanding of what is invovled in a community food system.

• 35% increase in the participants' understanding of how the project management transition can occur.

• 35% increase in the participants' understanding of where to find data for community research.

• 34% increase in the participants' understanding of how individual and organizational projects can relate to

overall coalition goals.

• 34% increase in the participants' understanding of how design relates to food systems development.

• 34% increase in the participants' understanding of how evaluation relates to food systems development.

• 25% increase in the participants' comfortable in giving and receiving critique on project development.

• 21% increase in the participants' confidence in qualitative research practices.

• 15% increase in the participants' understanding of the difference between program, project, and systems

evaluation.

• 11% increase in the participants' ability to think creatively about project development.

• 10% increase in the participants' acknowledgement of multiple individuals and organizations as leaders in the

food system.

The following sections describe the individual state workshops.

Iowa

Day 1 Agree Neither Disagree


Networking 100% 0% 0%

Q4 Prioritize 100% 0% 0%

Project Brainstorm 100% 0% 0%

Evaluation 100% 0% 0%

Q3 Input 100% 0% 0%

Project Goals and

Metrics

100% 0% 0%

Q2 Research 91% 9% 0%

Strategic Doing 90% 10% 0%

CFS Framework 91% 9% 0%

Community Leadership 89% 11% 0%

Q1 Vision 91% 9% 0%

Project Development 80% 20% 0%

Secondary Data 90% 10% 0%

Phase 2 Coalition 80% 20% 0%

Primary Data 89% 11% 0%

Transition 80% 10% 10%


• • •

20

Compile Assessment 77% 23% 0%

Why Design 80% 10% 10%

Massachusetts






Q4 Prioritization 100% 0% 0%




Project Goals and

Metrics 88% 0% 12%



Q3 Input 80% 10% 10%



Project Development 63% 13% 25%



Q1 Vision 73% 27% 0%

Why Design 50% 17% 33%

Individual Engagement 60% 30% 10%

Nebraska




Project Goals and

Metrics 100% 0% 0%

Q1 Vision 94% 6% 0%

Why Design Matters 100% 0% 0%


Project Design and

Implementation 100% 0% 0%





Q3 Input 94% 6% 0%









Oregon






• • •

21


Project Goals and

Metrics 93% 0% 7%




Project Design and

Implementation 79% 21% 0%

Q3 Input 69% 23% 8%

Why Design Matters 71% 21% 7%



Q1 Vision 62% 31% 8%







In addition, we conducted pre and post evaluation statements to understand percent change throughout the

workshop. Many of the sections for the Community Food Systems workshop are expanded upon during the

online modules, and participants are not expected to have a high jump in their knowledge change from just

the workshop. These are also measured in the online modules to understand increased knowledge and

awareness as well as behavior changes.

Iowa

Percent of Improved Change | Pre and Post Workshop Day 1 and Day 2

Aggregated Agree %

I understand the full scope of the Community Food Systems Program 90%

I understand how to evaluate priority projects for collective community processes 70%

I understand the difference between program, project, and systems evaluation 70%

I feel confident in creating an evaluation logic model 70%

I know principles of strategic doing 60%

I know the Phase 1 process for the Community Food Systems Program 60%

I am equipped to help create project team goals, objectives, and output statements 60%

I can support project team development for food systems work 60%

I understand how design relates to food systems development 60%

I understand how evaluation relates to projects in community food systems 50%

I have skills for facilitating conversations around topics of food systems 50%

I think creatively about project development 40%

I am comfortable giving and receiving critique on project development 40%

I understand how the project management transition can occur 40%

I understand how individual or organizational projects can relate to overall coalition goals 39%

I understand how to conduct a community food systems assessment 39%

I have skills for coalition development 34%


• • •

22

I know how to identify assets and opportunities in community 25%

I am confident in strategic planning processes 25%

I have tools to help communities prioritize their goals 25%

I understand ways of creating a menu of services 25%

I have tools for showcasing community research 22%

I consider multiple individuals and organization as leaders in the food system 20%

I understand what is involved in a community food system 17%

I have tools to support coalitions develop vision, mission, and core values 17%

I am confident in qualitative research practices 16%

I am confident in my work with communities to develop food systems 8%

I understand where to find data for community research 5%

Nebraska


Aggregated Agree %


























• • •

23





Massachusetts


Aggregated Agree %






























• • •

24

Oregon


Aggregated Agree %



























I understand the difference between program, project, and systems evaluation -27%

I think creatively about project development -47%

There two items showing a significant decline in understanding are outliers from the pilot. This may be a misunderstanding of content,

or rather, a show of disagreement about how it was taught rather than the actual decline in knowledge on the subject

In addition, the Community Food Systems (CFS) online modules launched in late May, and we currently have

26 participants total; this includes 21 in the Full certification, 6 in Facilitator, 1 in Economic Impact, 2 in

Design Thinking, and 1 in Feasibility studies.


• • •

25

We have conducted cohort calls with 7 different state trainers regarding the next steps for hosting of Local

Food Leader curriculum. There will be a marketing and branding package developed in August that all

trainers will be able to use to market the program. Attached is an update trainer document that details the

different roles and responsibilities of respective institutions.

Next Steps:

This subcontract and support from AgMrc funding has allowed for identification of key components that food

system practitioners are looking for as they work with farmers, food business and general community

development. Curricula will launch as a full fee in 2020 and will continue to offer national trainings for those

interested in becoming certified. Additionally, Iowa State will continue to offer train-the-trainers and provide

support for place-based education and workshops. This pilot has shown that there is clear process delivery

and transferability opportunities, however, there is a need for place-based education especially in regard to

local practices for production, policies, and general network development.

A full report of all findings and next steps regarding the 14 state pilot will be finished in January 2020. All

materials will be shared on the AgMrc website.

Scaling Specialty Crop Processing: development of toolkit, business tools, and prototypes – Iowa

State University, Food Systems Team

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) provided over $318 million of funding to farmers

and ranchers to help aid them in adding greater market value for agricultural commodities, such as

adding processing or marketing of new products. Twenty-eight percent was distributed in the

Midwest. However, there are other services and technical assistance needed for this target audience in

providing value-added processing. A multi-disciplinary team at Iowa State University Extension and

Outreach has on-going work providing technical assistance to Iowans involved in the local foods

system, providing support and networking to assist small local food producers providing local foods to

consumers. Typically, these producers lack the facility and funding to develop high impact processing

of their product. This project revealed gaps and the potential for the ISU team to collaborate with Iowa

local food producers to develop and implement technical assistance resources for those scaling

specialty crop processing into their business operations. This scaling specialty crop processing project

included the following overall goals:

• Provide local producer and food business partners with technical assistance in addressing food

safety and quality training for value-added produce processing to meet Iowa laws and

regulation requirements.

• Provide business support to local food producer and food business partners to address specific

needs for a successful transition implementing or scaling specialty processing.


• • •

26

• Provide design templates and best practice design guidelines for layout and logistics needs for

scaling specialty processing.

This Scaling Specialty Crop Processing brought together a team of ISU Extension and Outreach

professionals from the units of Farm, Food, and Enterprise Development (FFED), Food Safety and

Consumer Production, and Community and Economic Development (CED). This team utilized a

process that included surveys, interviews and pilot projects to understand food business needs. The

primary categories that arose from this project include areas of visioning and pre-feasibility, food

safety, business development, and layout and logistics of processing space.

Overview:

An online assessment survey was created in February of 2019 and sent to potential partners to gather

detailed information about the food based businesses throughout the summer of 2019. The survey was

open until July of 2019, and resulted in 10 survey responses and 14 site visits and interviews. These

interviews and site visits were conducted with a variety of food based businesses including: shared-use

kitchens, farms, food hubs, farmstands, processors, grocers, restaurants, community and event centers,

and entrepreneurs looking to start-up their own processing food business. The interview and site visits

included on-site observation and evaluation with food producers and businesses. Site visit questions

were designed to learn more about the businesses daily schedules as well as their future goals.

Additionally, there were discussions on barriers to scaling processing and needs in reaching their goals

for the future of food processing. Site visit inventories and interviews led to understanding of:

• Existing conditions and site categories

• Understanding of common needs amongst food producers and businesses

• Identification of basic processing equipment and interior needs as well as layout and logistics

• Desire for business skills and scaling-up opportunities from financial perspectives

• Identification of food safety considerations, regulations and licensing

Following the interview and surveys, a pilot selection matrix was utilized to determine 3 pilot projects

suited for scaling project needs. Selection criteria included readiness, identification by the interviewee

their desire to scale-up or add value-added produce processing to their business, and different

categories of business operations. In early August 2019, scopes of work were developed for three pilot

partners, with business categories of community center, retail, and aggregator. Throughout early

August and end of September, the Scaling Specialty Crop team met and consulted with each partner

regarding food safety, layout and logistics, and business development. The pilot projects will inform

the Scaling-Up Processing Toolkit that will be published on the AgMRc website in January.

Agricultural Marketing Resource Center · 2019-12-23 · Agricultural Marketing Resource Center •...

Documents

Transcript of Agricultural Marketing Resource Center · 2019-12-23 · Agricultural Marketing Resource Center •...