1  

   

ENST  698—Environmental  Capstone                                  Fall  2012        

   

Carolina  Local  Dining:    Challenges  and  Opportunities  in  Local  Food  Sourcing  for  the  UNC  Dining  Halls  

           

Claire  Brown  Nina  Bryce  

Jonathan  Colgan  Suzanne  Fleishman  Michael  Harvey  

   

ENST  Capstone  Class,  Fall  2012                    

  2  

Table  of  Contents    

Executive  Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………...3    

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………………………6    

Introduction  ............................................................................................................................................7  Purpose  of  Project  ......................................................................................................................................................  7  Carolina  Dining  Services  and  Local  Purchasing  ............................................................................................  8  Project  Need  and  Guiding  Research  Questions  ............................................................................................  12    

Research  Methods  ..............................................................................................................................  13  Information  Gathering  .........................................................................................................................  13  Construction  of  Survey  ..........................................................................................................................  13  Grower  Interviews  .................................................................................................................................  14  Quantitative  Data  Analysis  ..................................................................................................................  14  Qualitative  Data  Analysis  .....................................................................................................................  14    Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15  Key  Informant  Interviews………………………………………………………………………………...…………………15    Survey  Analysis……….  .............................................................................................................................................  19  Grower  Interviews  ..................................................................................................................................................  25  Limitations  of  Project  ............................................................................................................................................  27  Farm  to  Fork  Impressions…………………………………...………………………………………………………………27    

Discussion  .............................................................................................................................................  29    

Recommendations  .............................................................................................................................  32  Table  of  Recommendations  .................................................................................................................................  32  Conclusion  ..................................................................................................................................................................  35    

Appendices  ...........................................................................................................................................  36  A.  CDS  Questionnaire  ...........................................................................................................................................  36  B.  Farmer  Survey    ..................................................................................................................................................  38  C.  Farmer  Interview  Guide    ................................................................................................................................  42  D.  Farm-­‐to-­‐Fork  Agenda  .....................................................................................................................................  43  E.  Farm-­‐to-­‐Fork  Handout  ...................................................................................................................................  44  F.  Farmer  Interview  Codes  ................................................................................................................................  46    References  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….………...47    

  3  

 

Executive  Summary                        For  Entire  Final  Report  Please  Visit:  

http://www.ie.unc.edu/for_students/courses/capstone.cfm    

 Carolina Local Dining: Challenges and Opportunities in Local Food Sourcing for the UNC Dining Halls ENST  698—Environmental  Capstone  Fall  2012    C.  Brown,  N.  Bryce,  J.  Colgan,  S.  Fleishman,  and  M.  Harvey    Introduction  and  background  

In  the  past  few  years,  Carolina  Dining  Services  (CDS)  has  become  increasingly  interested  in  purchasing  local  food  due  to  factors  such  as  university  initiatives,  student  interest,  and  national  trends  in  the  food  service  industry.  Proponents  of  local  food  cite  its  potential  for  improved  economic  and  environmental  sustainability.  Despite  interest  in  local  sourcing  by  CDS,  it  has  proven  difficult  to  forge  these  local  partnerships.  This  process  of  food  sourcing  at  UNC  is  complex,  and  involves  other  key  players,  namely  1)  a  contracted  food  service  provider,  Aramark  and  2)  distributors,  such  as  Sysco  and  Freshpoint.  This  capstone  project  was  developed  through  conversations  between  students  and  CDS  with  the  overarching  goals  of  identifying  key  factors  in  the  feasibility  of  business  partnerships  between  local  farms  and  CDS.  We  particularly  sought  to  better  understand  the  interest  from  NC  farmers  in  selling  to  UNC  as  well  as  the  obstacles  farmers  face  to  forging  institutional  partnerships.    

 Methods  The  first  portion  of  our  research  involved  conducting  interviews  with  key  informants:,  CDS,  food  service  professionals,  researchers,  and  other  local  food  experts.  We  then  designed  an  online  survey  and  conducted  interviews  with  farmers  to  obtain  information  about  their  perspective.  Our  Guiding  Research  Questions  were:  

• What  is  the  'ideal  farmer'  for  CDS?  • What  is  the  ‘ideal  customer’  for  local  growers?  • What  obstacles  exist  to  local  food  sourcing  at  UNC  from  the  perspective  of  CDS  

and  producers?  Is  there  alignments/overlap  between  these  two  sets  of  obstacles?    

• Which  of  those  obstacles  can  be  overcome  and  which  are  inherent  to  the  institutional  buying  model  and/or  the  contract  between  CDS  and  Aramark?  

• What  factors  does  a  local  food  producer  consider  when  deciding  whether  or  not  to  sell  food  to  UNC?  

• What  is  the  role  of  distributors/conglomerates  in  this  supply  chain?    

  4  

After  conducting  our  survey  and  interviews,  we  held  a  Farm-­‐to-­‐Fork  Forum  at  UNC  in  order  to  hone  our  understanding  of  our  findings  and  help  facilitate  information  flow  and  partnership  between  the  relevant  stakeholders.  At  the  forum,  we  presented  our  findings  and  engaged  in  discussion  with  UNC  affiliates,  CDS,  Sysco,  area  farmers,  and  other  stakeholders.    Findings     Interviews  with  CDS  informed  the  identification  of  critical  parameters  for  partnering  with  area  farms,  including:  Good  Agricultural  Practices  (GAP)  food  safety  certification,  proof  of  insurance,  payment  logistics,  high  volumes  of  product,  delivery  logistics,  price  point,  and  seasonality.  GAP  certification  was  highlighted  as  an  area  that  is  especially  of  concern  due  to  the  complexity  and  high  cost  to  farmers  of  this  relatively  new  certification  process.  

One  key  finding  from  our  farmer  surveys  and  interviews  is  the  high  interest  in  selling  to  CDS;  however,  small  farms  (<75  Acres)  are  the  most  interested  of  any  size.  This  is  problematic  because  in  comparison  to  medium  or  large  farms,  these  farms  are  not  the  best  equipped  to  conform  to  the  parameters  for  partnership  set  by  CDS  and  Aramark.  Small  farms  do  not  produce  high  volumes  of  consistent  product,  cannot  meet  CDS  delivery  specifications,  and  do  not  have  a  high  gross  farm  income  that  allows  for  capital  investments  in  GAP,  insurance,  or  scaling  up  production.    

Another  key  finding  was  that  intermediaries  such  as  distributors,  co-­‐ops,  or  conglomerates  could  be  critical  to  increasing  local  food  at  CDS.  Due  to  the  combination  of  strong  interest  from  and  significant  challenges  presented  by  small  farms,  using  intermediaries  could  be  essential.  These  parties  play  a  unique  role  by  providing  CDS  with  needed  volumes,  providing  farmers  with  support  and  shared  costs,  and  creating  ease  in  delivery  and  tracking.  We  found  that  locally  based  conglomerates  or  distributors  have  an  additional  advantage  over  larger,  national  distributors  because  1)  their  model  is  specific  to  the  types  of  farms  in  this  area  who  are  interested  in  partnership  with  CDS  and  2)  they  uphold  values  and  practices  that  align  with  the  local  food  movement.    

A  final  key  finding  was  the  importance  of  specifications  by  CDS  of  the  specific  items  they  want  to  buy  locally,  and  the  volume  and  price  point  for  those  items.  Before  intermediaries  or  farmers  invest  in  higher  production,  GAP  certification,  or  insurance  for  the  purposes  of  selling  to  CDS,  they  want  to  be  sure  that  the  market  is  there  and  have  clear  sense  what  they  should  produce,  how  much  of  it  they  should  plan  to  sell,  and  what  they  will  be  paid  for  it.    

 Recommendations  As  a  result  of  our  findings,  we  made  several  key  recommendations.  For  a  full  breakdown  of  recommendations,  including  specific  action  items,  please  access  the  Final  Report  online  at  http://www.ie.unc.edu/for_students/courses/capstone.cfm        

  5  

Short-­‐Term  Recommendations   Responsible  Stakeholders  

Increase  outreach  to  local  farms   FLO,  CDS,  Distributors  Strengthen  partnerships  with  local  food  organizations  and  individuals  

FLO,  CDS  

Strengthen  relationships  with  current  or  past  local  partner  farms  

CDS  

Connect  farmers  to  resources  to  ease  GAP  process   FLO  and  CDS,  Distributors,  Extension,  Farmers  

Gage  student  interest  and  demand  for  local  food   FLO  

Incorporate  seasonality  in  menu  and  diversify  local  food  offerings  

CDS  

Medium-­‐Term  Recommendations   Responsible  Stakeholders  Use  1.5.0.  and  Carolina  Catering  as  small  scale  pilot  for  local  growers  to  transition  to  CDS  

FLO,  CDS  

Cite  Aramark's  existing  commitment  to  “increasing  level  of  sustainable  food  offers  served  by  at  least  5%  each  year.”  1  

Auxiliary  Services  

Utilize  existing  conglomerate  organizations  that  can  provide  support,  shared  costs,  address  volume  and  delivery  challenges  

FLO,  CDS  

Increase  formalized  academic  involvement   Curriculum  in  Environment  and  Ecology,  Business  School,  Office  of  Sustainability,  School  of  Public  Health  

Clarify  market  for  local  food  at  CDS   CDS  

Long-­‐Term  Recommendations   Responsible  Stakeholders  Look  to  other  Aramark  Higher  Education  institutional  local  purchasing  models  (Elon,  UNCW)  

FLO  food,  future  academic  projects,  Student  Food  Groups  Across  the  State  

Expand  storage  facilities  (such  as  freezers)  to  increase  capacity  for  local  food  storage  

Future  Capstone  Projects,  Office  of  Sustainability  

Modify  contract  with  food  service  provider  to  facilitate  local  food  purchasing  

Auxiliary  Services,  Office  of  Sustainability  

Utilize  non-­‐undergraduate  university  affiliates  for  research  and  furthering  local  food  goals  

Triangle  University  Food  Studies,  Office  of  Sustainability  

 Acknowledgments    We  would  like  to  thank  all  of  the  individuals  and  organizations  that  made  this  process  possible:  Carolina  Dining  Services,  Survey  and  Interview  Respondents,  Key  Informants,  The  Odum  Institute,  and  Dr.  Elizabeth  Shay  and  Brian  Miller.                                                                                                                  1 Aramark Corporate Social Responsibility in Practice, January 2010

  6  

                       

Acknowledgements    

We  would  like  to  thank  all  of  the  individuals  and  organizations  that  made  this  process  possible:    

 Carolina  Dining  Services  

Survey  and  Interview  Respondents  Key  Informants  

The  Odum  Institute  Dr.  Elizabeth  Shay  and  Brian  Miller  

     

                 

  7  

Introduction    Purpose  of  the  Project  

There  is  a  growing  interest  in  local  food  as  an  environmentally,  socially,  and  economically  sustainable  choice.  The  “local  foods  movement”  is  inextricably  tied  with  other  food  “movements”,  including  organic  food,  non-­‐GMO  food,  food  that  is  produced  responsibly  in  terms  of  animal  welfare,  farm  workers’  rights,  and  other  considerations.  For  the  purposes  of  this  project,  we  try  to  isolate  local  food  as  much  as  possible,  exploring  it  as  a  promising  area  to  focus  on  in  an  effort  to  promote  sustainable  food.    Local  food  is  a  growing  industry,  and  North  Carolina  is  a  particularly  well  positioned  to  support  a  strong  local  foods  movement  with  an  estimated  200  farmers’  markets  and  an  estimated  100  Community-­‐Supported  Agriculture  programs  (CSAs)  (Curtis,  2010).      Local  food  is  a  viable  movement  in  North  Carolina  because  of  the  state’s  diversified  agriculture,  adaptable  workforce,  receptive  consumer  base,  proximity  between  rural  and  urban  areas,  and  an  abundance  of  supportive  educational  and  corporate  partners.  Local  food  can  help  strengthen  the  North  Carolina  economy,  decrease  the  carbon  footprint  of  the  food  we  eat,  and  support  positive  health  outcomes  through  access  to  fresh,  healthy  food.  These  are  just  a  few  of  the  reasons  that  local  food  proponents  cite  for  strengthening  the  local  food  movement  in  North  Carolina.       In  shifting  the  practices  of  food  procurement  in  North  Carolina,  institutional  food  buyers  have  a  lot  of  leverage.  Institutional  buyers  such  as  universities  and  hospitals  not  only  buy  enormous  volumes  of  food,  but  also  have  influence  over  the  eating  habits  and  perspectives  of  their  customers.  Local  purchasing  at  the  institutional  scale  can,  therefore,  create  both  direct  and  indirect  change  in  the  local  food  industry.  One  example  of  success  in  shifting  institutional  food  budgets  toward  more  sustainable  purchasing  is  the  Real  Food  Challenge  (RFC),  a  national  campaign  for  sustainable  food  on  college  campuses.    Since  2008,  students  involved  in  the  RFC  network  have  worked  with  their  campus  dining  services  to  secure  $48.5  million  worth  of  pledges  to  purchase  more  local,  fair,  sustainable,  and  humane  food.  One  way  this  was  achieved  was  through  universities  signing  the  Real  Food  Commitment,  a  pledge  to  buy  20%  “real  food”  (defined  by  RFC)  by  the  year  2020.  State  universities  such  as  the  University  of  California  at  Santa  Cruz  and  the  University  of  Vermont  have  signed  the  commitment,  as  well  as  private  colleges  including  Wesleyan  and  Macalester.2     Institutional  purchasing  of  local  food  holds  great  possibility,  but  it  is  certainly  not  without  its  challenges.  A  comprehensive  analysis  of  local  purchasing  at  the  institutional  scale  conducted  by  the  C.S.  Mott  Group  for  Sustainable  Food  Systems  at  Michigan  State  University,  the  Food  Bank  Council  of  Michigan  and  the  Michigan  Food  Policy  Council  identified  key  challenges,  including:  distribution,  processing,  grading  and  sizing,  packaging,  seasonality,  and  volume.  The  report  acknowledges  that  “food  procurement  procedures  and  menu  planning  strategies  have  become  streamlined  to  a  point  that  they  are  no  longer  flexible  or  based  on  local,  seasonal  food  availability”  and  that    “new  interest  in  stricter  food  safety  standards  is  trickling  down  through  our  dominant  global  supply  chain”  (George,                                                                                                                  2 http://www.realfoodchallenge.org/campaign-successes

  8  

Matts,  &  Schmidt,  2010).  A  nationwide  survey  by  the  Community  Food  Security  Coalition  that  sought  to  assess  the  reasons  why  college  campuses  undertake  sustainable  food  initiatives,  as  well  as  what  colleges  envision  as  the  benefits  of  such  programs,  found  that  “supporting  local  farmers,  community  and/or  economy”  was  the  most  commonly  cited  benefit,  followed  closely  by  “higher  quality  food”  and  “lower  environmental  impacts”  (George,  Matts,  &  Schmidt,  2010).  The  challenges  found  by  this  study  are  not  restricted  to  Michigan  State  University  and  are  common  among  universities  nationwide.  

This  capstone  project  was  developed  through  conversations  between  students  and  Carolina  Dining  Services  (CDS)  at  the  University  of  North  Carolina  (UNC)  with  the  overarching  goal  of  helping  CDS  and  local  farmers  to  establish  successful  business  partnerships  and  to  identify  key  factors  that  make  it  feasible  or  not  feasible  for  them  to  do  so.  In  short,  we  sought  to  first  illuminate  the  key  obstacles  to  institutional  purchasing  of  local  food,  and  then  to  articulate  strategies  for  overcoming  some  of  these  obstacles.  In  doing  so,  we  hoped  to  identify  untapped  opportunities  and  present  research-­‐based  recommendations  for  local  food  buyers  and  sellers  to  utilize  in  business  practices.    Carolina  Dining  Services  and  Local  Purchasing    What  is  CDS?  

Carolina  Dining  Services  is  in  charge  of  residential  dining,  retail  dining,  convenience  stores,  athletic  dining,  and  Carolina  Catering  (Treakle,  2008).  UNC  has  contracted  Aramark  to  manage  all  food  related  affairs  on  UNC’s  campus,  including  employee  hiring  and  purchasing.  For  this  reason,  all  CDS  affiliates  except  Scott  Myers  (the  director  of  food  and  vending)  are  Aramark  employees.  CDS  can  be  thought  of  as  the  on-­‐site  Aramark  operation  for  UNC,  with  one  non-­‐Aramark  Director.    

Within  terms  circumscribed  by  Aramark’s  contract  with  UNC  (Aramark  Educational  Services,  LLC,  2012),  CDS  makes  purchasing  decisions  regarding  the  food  served  on  campus  based  on  budgetary  constraints  and  pricing,  food  safety,  nutrition,  and  other  factors.    Ultimately,  CDS  is  accountable  to  their  customers  (i.e.  students),  and  this  accountability  is  formalized  through  their  relationship  with  the  UNC  student  dining  board.  The  student  dining  board  serves  as  a  liaison  between  the  student  body  and  the  university  dining  services,  and  consists  of  ten  students  and  five  university  administrators.  Their  responsibilities  “range  from  reviewing  Carolina  Dining's  annual  plan,  which  includes  budgets,  operating  hours,  and  staffing  needs,  to  assisting  in  the  evaluation  and  selection  of  dining  service  contractors.”  3  CDS  explained  that  student  dining  board  menu  decisions  are  largely  “historically  based,”  meaning  past  demand  and  past  sales  of  given  items  are  used  to  predict  future  demand.  

CDS  primarily  purchases  produce  and  meat  indirectly  through  distributors  who  help  control  for  factors  such  as  safety,  volume,  tracking,  and  storage.  The  primary  distributor  for  CDS  is  Sysco,  and  their  closest  warehouse  is  in  Selma,  NC.  Another  distributor  that  CDS  often  uses  is  Freshpoint,  whose  closest  warehouse  is  in  Charlotte,  NC.  Only  on  occasion  does  CDS  source  meat  or  produce  directly  from  farmers.  

                                                                                                               3 http://www.dining.unc.edu/StudentDiningBoard

  9  

Food  Safety  and  Liability  Food  safety  and  liability  are  vital  considerations  when  sourcing  local  food.  The  food  

supply  at  CDS  includes  large  volumes  and  feeds  thousands  of  students,  and  must  be  closely  regulated.  This  involves  protecting  the  producer-­‐to-­‐consumer  pathway  from  tampering  or  bioterrorism,  eliminating  microbes  and  food-­‐borne  illnesses,  and  other  considerations.  Aramark  is  a  food  service  provider  that  is  very  much  aware  of  the  strict  liability  that  food  purveyors  face  in  cases  of  food-­‐borne  illness  (Wrest,  2009,  p.  104).  Aramark’s  typical  supplier  contract  contains  several  specific  processes  and  protocols  that  suppliers  are  required  to  follow  in  the  course  of  producing  and  delivering  food  to  Aramark  (Aramark  Educational  Services,  LLC,  2012).  This  degree  of  precaution  is  understandable  in  light  of  both  the  meaning  of  “strict  liability”  and  the  recent  history  of  food  injury  lawsuits  (Raloff,  2007).    

One  implication  of  Aramark’s  risk-­‐averse  contractual  terms  is  the  prohibitively  high  cost  of  compliance  that  prospective  suppliers  face.  For  example,  one  important  food  safety  measure  required  by  CDS  is  that  suppliers  must  be  certified  in  Good  Agricultural  Practices  (GAP).4  The  GAP  certification  is  viewed  as  proof  of  specific  practices  that  help  to  ensure  food  safety  (Moses,  2009,  p.  1).  The  certification  is  slowly  becoming  a  standard  for  large-­‐scale  purchasing  and  is  required  by  most  schools  and  governmental  institutions  (Moses,  2009,  p.  1).  This  certification  can  be  highly  involved  for  farmers,  especially  if  their  enterprise  is  small  or  diverse.  The  GAP  certification  is  complex  and  can  include  up  to  four  levels  of  certification  (Estrin,  2010,  pp.  4-­‐5)  (Tocco,  p.  2).    Due  to  its  centrality  to  the  topic  of  food  safety  and  liability  at  CDS,  we  provide  a  more  detailed  description  of  GAP  below.      Good  Agricultural  Practices   In  1998,  with  growing  concerns  over  food  safety  in  the  fresh  produce  sector,5  the  USDA  published  a  list  of  Good  Agricultural  Practices  (GAP)  aimed  at  minimizing  microbial  contamination  on  the  farm  level  (Estrin,  2010,  p.  4).  These  concerns  were  not  trivial.  According  to  the  University  of  Kentucky  Cooperative  Extension  service,  “the  number  of  outbreaks  of  foodborne  diseases  resulting  from  contaminated  fresh  produce  .  .  .  have  doubled  in  the  U.S.  since  1987”  (New  Crop  Opportunities  Center,  2010,  p.  1).  Now,  within  the  last  decade,  as  a  consequence  of  both  this  increase  in  incidences  and  the  nature  of  product  liability  in  the  US  (Wrest,  2009,  p.  2),  insurance  companies  have  “begun  paying  out  huge  settlements  to  victims  and  their  families.”  (Raloff,  2007,  p.  1)  One  question  to  ask  is:  has  farming  undergone  any  major  change  since  1987  that  explains  this  increase  of  incidences?  One  report  by  the  Midwest  Organic  and  Sustainable  Education  Service  suggests  a  correlation  between  this  increase  in  incidences  and  increases  in  industrialization  and  centralization  of  the  US  food  system  over  the  same  period  (Moses,  2009,  p.  1).  This  implies  both  that  small,  unindustrialized  farmers—whose  production  role  has  remained  relatively  unchanged—have  had  little  to  no  culpability  for  the  increase  in  incidences  and,  hence,  that  the  USDA’s  issuance  of  GAP  was  hardly  directed  toward  them.  The  downside  to  this                                                                                                                   5 Food safety concerns and corresponding regulations had already been common for other food sectors for years—meat, seafood, dairy. This was the first time in US history that concerns over fresh produce safety gave rise to such a step toward standardization (Estrin, 2010, p. 4).

  10  

implication  is  that,  indeed,  GAP  as  a  certification  is  an  ill-­‐designed  program  for  small  farmers.  Small  farmers  bear  more  cost  for  both  the  audit  and  ongoing  compliance  relative  to  larger  farm  operations  (Woods  &  Thornsbury,  2005,  p.  16).6  That  is  the  first  point  to  note.  

The  second  point  to  mention  about  Good  Agricultural  Practices  (GAP)  is  that  there  are,  in  a  sense,  two  classes  of  GAP-­‐adherent  farmers,  those  certified  and  those  not.  This  point  is  important  to  understand  at  the  onset  of  any  conversation  about  GAP,  because  the  danger  of  not  beginning  here  is  that  consumers  could  potentially  conceive  of  GAP  certification  as  a  necessary  prerequisite  to  the  production  of  safe  food;  but  the  certification  merely  serves  to  confirm  a  farmer’s  compliance  with  a  set  of  best-­‐practices  that  are  largely  based  on  common  sense  (Tocco,  p.  1).  Certainly,  for  a  consumer  concerned  about  food  safety,  the  degree  of  deliberate  care  that  GAP  insists  on  at  the  farm  level  gives  consumers  good  reason  for  optimism;  but  this  optimism  is  warranted  of  any  GAP-­‐adherent  farm’s  produce,  whether  certified  or  not.  We  will  expound  upon  this  shortly,  but  for  now,  keep  in  mind  that,  because  GAP-­‐certified  produce  is  not  inherently  safer,  non-­‐GAP-­‐certified  produce  is  not  inherently  less  safe.  Farmers  are  free  to  follow  GAP  whether  they  intend  to  become  GAP-­‐certified  or  not,  and  in  likening  the  majority  of  GAP  to  common  sense  (Tocco,  p.  1),  the  implication  is  that  many  farmers  probably  already  operate  pursuant  to  GAP.     The  third  point  regards  the  details  of  cost.  What  does  it  mean  to  say  that  GAP  certification  is  expensive?  For  starters,  here  are  some  numbers:  GAP  auditors  charge  ninety-­‐one  dollars  per  hour  for  their  time  spent  travelling  to  and  auditing  a  farm,  and  auditors  conduct  at  least  two  audits  per  year—once  in  the  off-­‐season  and  once  during  harvest  (Moses,  2009,  p.  2);  because  of  the  minuteness  of  detail  GAP  requires  in  record-­‐keeping  and  the  additional  safety  processes  GAP  may  impose  (i.e.,  safety  training  for  all  employees)  (Tocco,  pp.  1-­‐2),  the  majority  of  the  cost  is  ongoing  rather  than  in  the  initial  investment  or  in  the  audit  cost  (Estrin,  2010,  p.  5).  Further,  GAP  certification  only  requires  an  audit  score  of  80%  or  better  to  pass  (Estrin,  2010,  p.  6).  So,  farmers  are  free  to  take  inventory  of  the  various  combinations  of  improvements  that  would  yield  a  passing  score  and  to  then  select  the  least  expensive  combination.  For  example,  there  is  an  almost  proverbial  story  floating  around  conversations  about  GAP  that  recounts  the  plight  of  a  farmer  who  failed  his  GAP  audit  when  his  dog  jumped  out  of  his  truck  and  ran  through  a  field  of  crops  before  the  auditor’s  eyes;  the  farmer,  so  the  story  goes,  failed  the  audit  immediately.  To  an  audience  unaware  of  the  wiggle  room  that  a  passing  score  allows,  this  would  portray  GAP  in  an  almost  impossibly  rigid  light.  However,  taking  what  we  know  into  account,  we  could  only  assume  that  if  the  dog-­‐incident  did  in  fact  lead  to  a  failed  audit,  then  the  farmer  must  have  already  accumulated  enough  point  deductions  to  have  been  on  the  cusp  of  a  failing  score,  and  that  the  dog-­‐incident  was  just  one  more  deduction.  So,  passing  a  GAP  audit  is  not  impossible.  Farmers  are  free  to  choose  the  best  combination  of  compliance  for  their  given  resources.     The  last  point  to  make  about  GAP  regards  its  voluntary  nature.  No  farmer  is  compelled  by  law  to  comply  with  GAP  (Tocco,  p.  1).  However,  buyers  of  farmers’  produce  are  free  to  impose  it  as  a  prerequisite  to  doing  business  with  a  given  farmer.  In  other                                                                                                                  6 Again, this is relative cost. Large farmer pay more absolute cost (Woods & Thornsbury, 2005, p. 10).

  11  

words,  the  more  buyers  that  require  GAP  certification  of  their  farmers  and  the  more  share  of  purchasing  power  those  buyers  wield,  the  more  the  market  will  effectively  mandate  that  farmers  be  GAP-­‐certified.  In  a  recent  survey  appearing  in  the  journal  Progressive  Grocer,  food  safety  is  “the  third  most  important  challenge  facing  the  retail  industry.  In  fact,  buyers  ranked  food  safety  as  more  important  than  attracting  shoppers  to  produce  or  the  quality  of  the  product  being  sold”  (Woods  &  Thornsbury,  2005,  p.  3).  So,  many  buyers  already  require  food  safety  certifications  like  GAP,  and  CDS  is  one  example  of  a  buyer  who  mandates  GAP  in  order  for  farmers  to  sell  to  it.  A  further  point  to  mention  is  that  the  historical  trend  of  government  oversight  of  food  safety  suggests  that  the  government  could  very  well  mandate  GAP  certification  (Estrin,  2010,  p.  4).  In  that  case,  farmers  who  are  already  GAP-­‐certified  would  be  ahead  of  the  competition  in  terms  of  staying  in  business,  much  as  farmers  who  are  currently  GAP-­‐certified  are  ahead  of  non-­‐GAP-­‐certified  competition  in  gaining  access  to  GAP-­‐mandating  markets.  Thus,  for  even  the  most  frugal-­‐minded  farmer  who  has  no  intention  of  accessing  these  GAP-­‐mandating  markets,  GAP  certification  is  an  investment  to  seriously  consider.  

 Why  Is  CDS  Interested  in  Local  Food?  

Local  purchasing  by  CDS  has  increased  over  the  past  few  years  and  reflects  statewide  trends  (Curtis,  2010,  p.  7).  CDS  adopts  the  definition  of  local  purchasing  as  “purchasing  within  a  150-­‐mile  radius  of  campus.”  (Shea,  2011,  p.  20)  In  2011,  their  purchases  were  33%  local,  a  12%  increase  from  the  previous  year  (Shea,  2011).    This  number  includes  new  contracts  with  local  growers  and  products  chosen  from  distributors,  primarily  Freshpoint.  Government  officials  in  North  Carolina  cite  job  development,  greater  food  security,  and  reduction  of  carbon  emissions  as  key  reasons  for  supporting  the  movement  to  build  a  local  food  economy  (North  Carolina  Department  of  Agriculture  &  Consumer  Services,  2012).    

The  increase  in  local  food  purchasing  by  CDS  is  a  response  to  administrative  and  student  demand  (Shea,  2011).  Initial  attention  to  sourcing  locally  began  with  UNC’s  mission  statement,  particularly  with  its  “component  of  sustainability.”  In  keeping  with  this  component,  the  UNC  Business  and  Finance  office,  at  the  behest  the  Office  of  Sustainability,  asked  CDS  to  buy  food  locally  whenever  possible.  In  practice,  “whenever  possible”  can  be  interpreted  as  whenever  the  price  of  a  local  food  is  not  significantly  larger  than  its  nonlocal  counterpart.    

Increase  in  local  food  on  UNC’s  campus  has  also  been  driven  by  student  demand,  which  is  only  expected  to  increase  in  coming  years.    A  student  group  called  Fair  Local  Organic  (FLO)  Food  formed  in  2008  to  focus  on  and  promote  sustainable  food.  One  of  their  main  goals  is  to  shift  the  purchasing  of  food  by  CDS  towards  more  fair,  local,  and  organic  products  (Treakle,  2008).  The  pursuit  of  this  objective  has  manifested  itself  in  many  ways,  including  student  education  and  direct  involvement  with  CDS  through  bi-­‐weekly  meetings  and  academic  projects.  Through  various  methods,  FLO  has  been  instrumental  in  gathering  information  on  CDS’s  behalf.  FLO  has  also  been  the  source  of  ideas  for  many  of  the  local  food  initiatives  that  CDS  has  implemented.  In  the  past  few  years,  however,  CDS  has  been  increasingly  taking  charge  of  local  sourcing  independent  of  FLO.      

  12  

Project  Need  and  Guiding  Research  Questions       Despite  increased  interest  in  local  partnership  from  CDS  and  student  groups,  more  information  was  needed  regarding  the  level  of  interest  from  NC  farmers  in  such  partnerships,  and  the  obstacles  to  forging  them.  This  information  is  central  to  effectively  and  efficiently  establishing  these  potentially  mutually  beneficial  relationships.       In  order  to  facilitate  these  partnerships,  we  identified  the  need  for  enhanced  understanding  of  the  demographics  of  potential  local  food  sources  and  farmers’  current  needs,  priorities,  and  existing  markets.  We  designed  and  implemented  interviews  and  a  survey  in  order  to  identify  potential  obstacles  to  local  purchasing  by  CDS,  gauge  interest  from  growers,  and  assess  the  characteristics  of  NC  farms  that  are  relevant  to  establishing  successful  partnerships  with  CDS.  The  final  component  of  the  project  was  a  Farm-­‐to-­‐Fork  Forum  at  UNC  to  help  facilitate  information  flow  and  partnership  between  the  relevant  stakeholders.  At  the  forum,  we  presented  findings  of  this  report  and  our  recommendations  to  UNC  affiliates,  CDS,  and  area  farmers.  We  also  held  a  free-­‐form  discussion  where  we  fielded  questions  from  attendees.    Guiding  Research  Questions  

Throughout  the  course  of  our  project  our  research  was  guided  by  the  following  research  questions:  

• What  obstacles  exist  to  local  food  sourcing  at  UNC  (on  the  buyer  side  and  the  seller  side)?  Is  there  alignments/overlap  between  these  two  sets  of  obstacles?    

• Why  do  these  obstacles  exist?  • Which  of  those  obstacles  can  be  overcome  and  which  are  inherent  to  the  

institutional  buying  model  and/or  the  contract  between  CDS  and  Aramark?  • What  factors  does  a  local  food  producer  consider  when  deciding  whether  or  not  

to  sell  food  to  UNC?  • What  is  the  'ideal  farmer'  for  CDS?    • What  is  the  “ideal  customer”  for  local  growers?  • What  is  the  role  of  distributors/conglomerates  in  this  supply  chain?  

                     

  13  

Research  Methods    

Our  project  included  several  phases:  information  gathering  (including  literature  review  and  key  informant  interviews),  survey  construction  and  distribution,  grower  interviews,  and  data  analysis.  Prior  to  the  study,  we  completed  an  online  Collaborative  Institutional  Training  Initiative  (CITI)  program  and  obtained  approval  from  the  UNC  Institutional  Review  Board  (IRB).  This  board  independently  reviews  research  to  be  conducted  on  human  subjects,  including  surveys  and  interviews.      Information  Gathering:  Key  Informant  Interviews  

The  first  phase  of  this  project  included  gathering  background  information  on  obstacles  to  increasing  the  volume  of  local  food  in  the  dining  hall,  existing  local  foods  programs  at  other  institutions  in  North  Carolina,  and  successful  local  foods  programs  through  Aramark.  After  an  initial  meeting  with  CDS,  we  examined  the  Aramark  Buyer  Contract  in  order  to  identify  specific  requirements  that  may  prove  problematic.  The  results  of  this  research  informed  the  construction  of  a  more  in-­‐depth  semi-­‐structured  interview  with  CDS  (Appendix  A).  The  purpose  of  this  interview  was  to  gain  a  more  specific  understanding  of  the  insurance  and  certification  requirements  for  farmers  interested  in  selling  to  the  dining  hall.    

We  also  conducted  key  informant  interviews  with  representatives  from  farming  conglomerates,  fellow  researchers,  extension  services,  and  food  distributors.  These  informants  were  selected  based  on  their  work  in  local  sourcing  and  GAP  certification  as  well  as  their  roles  in  the  food  industry.  These  informal  discussions  probed  for  farmer  perspectives  on  obstacles  to  selling  to  institutions  and  identified  some  of  the  work  already  being  done  on  this  issue.      Construction  of  Survey  

The  survey  was  designed  to  gather  information  from  a  variety  of  farmers  across  the  state  regarding  their  attitudes  towards  selling  to  institutions  and  large  distributors.  It  was  also  intended  to  identify  the  distribution  and  prevalence  of  farms  that  were  good  candidates  for  institutional  purchasing.  Lastly,  the  survey  served  as  an  outreach  tool;  growers  were  asked  to  provide  their  contact  information  if  they  wished  to  establish  a  connection  with  CDS.  The  questions  for  the  survey  were  based  on  background  research  and  the  results  of  key  informant  interviews.  An  expert  from  the  Odum  Institute  for  Research  in  Social  Science  at  UNC  provided  advice  regarding  survey  design,  including  question  order,  wording,  and  format.  Team  advisors,  Sysco  representatives,  a  researcher  at  North  Carolina  State  University  (NCSU),  and  CDS  representatives  provided  feedback  on  the  appropriateness  and  relevance  of  the  survey  instrument.  

The  survey  included  multiple  choice,  short  answer,  and  Likert  scale  questions  (Appendix  B).  Many  of  the  questions  pertaining  to  demographics  were  borrowed  with  permission  from  a  similar  agricultural  survey  conducted  by  NCSU.  The  survey  was  designed  to  take  less  than  fifteen  minutes  to  complete.  We  implemented  the  survey  in  Qualtrics,  and  we  distributed  the  survey  via  email  through  North  Carolina  extension  agents.  We  decided  to  use  extension  agents  because  no  inclusive  database  of  North  Carolina  

  14  

farmers  could  be  identified.  Because  each  county  in  North  Carolina  has  one  agricultural  extension  office,  we  determined  that  these  offices  would  have  the  most  complete  information  regarding  farmer  contact  lists  and  therefore  would  be  best  positioned  to  forward  our  survey.  The  email  format  was  used  because  the  time  sensitive  nature  of  the  project  excluded  the  possibility  of  mailing  the  surveys  and  because  the  method  of  using  extension  agents  as  intermediary  distributors  would  not  be  feasible  with  mail.        Grower  Interviews  

Team  members  conducted  semi-­‐structured  interviews  with  North  Carolina  growers  and  farming  conglomerates  in  order  to  gather  more  in-­‐depth  information  on  the  grower  perspective.  The  process  of  identifying  potential  interviewees  included  contacting  FreshPoint  for  a  list  of  current  growers,  using  the  USDA  web  page  to  find  growers  with  GAP  certification,  contacting  current  and  former  growers  who  sell  directly  to  CDS,  attending  the  Carrboro  Farmers  Market,  and  looking  at  web  pages  for  the  Durham  and  Raleigh  (statewide)  farmers  markets.  This  process  was  meant  to  include  respondents  that  varied  widely  in  size,  location  within  the  state  of  North  Carolina,  product,  certification  status,  and  attitudes  towards  large  distributors.  The  team  identified  30  possible  contacts  for  interviews,  with  an  anticipated  response  rate  of  66%.  

Interviews  were  conducted  in  pairs  on  the  phone  and  in  person.  The  farmer  interview  guide  included  the  questions  from  the  farmer  survey  that  were  rephrased  to  be  more  open-­‐ended  (Appendix  C).  The  format  of  the  interviews  allowed  researchers  to  follow  new  lines  of  inquiry  and  probe  for  greater  detail,  and  also  enabled  respondents  to  elaborate  and  speak  candidly  about  their  opinions.  During  each  interview,  one  interviewer  was  responsible  for  asking  questions  and  following  up  while  the  other  interviewer  was  responsible  for  taking  notes.  

Discussions  with  other  stakeholders  (as  described  in  the  “Information  Gathering”  section)  were  distinct  from  the  farmer  interviews  in  that  they  were  customized  to  the  interviewee  and  generally  covered  a  different  range  of  topics  related  to  the  respondent’s  line  of  work.  For  instance,  members  of  the  team  visited  Sysco’s  Raleigh  headquarters  in  Selma  to  gather  information  on  Sysco’s  process  for  communicating  with  farmers,  distributing  and  storing  food,  and  commitment  to  local  food.      Quantitative  Data  Analysis  

We  collected  and  analyzed  survey  data  through  the  data  management  program  Qualtrics.  We  interpreted  results  from  questions  of  the  survey  in  the  context  of  background  information  in  order  to  understand  their  significance.  We  cross-­‐tabulated  results  from  the  survey  and  generated  visuals  using  Microsoft  Excel.    Qualitative  Data  Analysis    

We  used  an  inductive  method  of  analysis  in  order  to  identify  common  themes  among  farmer  interviews.  Three  researchers  independently  read  and  coded  each  interview  and  then  compared  the  results.  The  identification  of  similar  threads  among  farmer  narratives  gave  rise  to  a  discussion  of  key  issues  faced  by  numerous  interviewees.  This  information  was  then  used  to  interpret  the  results  of  the  quantitative  survey  data  analysis,  and  informed  the  recommendations.    

  15  

Results    Key  Informant  Interviews      1. Carolina  Dining  Services  –  Parameters  and  Obstacles  to  Local  Purchasing    The  following  parameters  were  identified  by  CDS  as  their  own  requirements  for  farmers  to  comply  with  for  partnership.  Each  parameter  creates  its  own  obstacle  for  CDS  partnership  with  local  farms.    

1.    Good  Agricultural  Practices  (GAP)  certification:  GAP  is  one  of  the  requirements  for  local  producers.  The  high  cost  of  compliance  with  Aramark’s  terms  related  to  food  safety  and  liability  prevent  many  small  suppliers  from  consideration  as  a  local  food  source  for  CDS.  Using  Sysco  as  food  provider  relieves  some  of  the  food  safety  burden  from  CDS  due  to  Sysco’s  strong  existing  infrastructure  for  food  safety  and  recall.  

 2.  Proof  of  insurance:  Farms  are  required  by  Aramark  to  have  proof  of  insurance  up  to  a  certain  level  (examples  ranged  from  $2  to  5  million)  (Aramark  Educational  Services,  LLC,  2012).  Insurance  can  be  extremely  expensive,  sometimes  prohibitively  so  for  small  to  medium-­‐sized  farmers.  

   3.  Payment  logistics:  Many  of  the  practices  in  the  supply  chain  have  been  streamlined  and  standardized  in  ways  that  are  not  conducive  to  working  directly  with  small  farmers.  Aramark  pays  Sysco  seven  days  from  the  invoice  date.  The  payment  terms  are  agreed  upon  based  on  accounting  periods.  The  Aramark  office  in  Philadelphia  is  responsible  for  paying  Sysco.    Other  suppliers  get  paid  forty-­‐five  days  from  invoice  (this  is  the  industry  standard,  according  to  CDS).  Aramark  in  Philadelphia  cuts  all  checks  to  suppliers.  Current  source  contracts  are  typically  month-­‐to-­‐month  contracts  that  may  be  terminated  within  thirty  days  (see  sample  CDS  supplier  contract).  CDS  requires  distributor  to  buy  back  spoiled  or  otherwise  unsatisfactory  products;  this  is  an  industry  standard.  

 4.    Volume:  CDS  serves  upwards  of  10,000  meals  a  day  in  the  cafeterias  on  campus.  In  order  to  make  enough  dishes  from  local  product,  the  volume  of  individual  products  delivered  must  be  sufficient.  Small  farms  often  cannot  produce  enough  of  one  product  to  feasibly  supply  dining  services  on  their  own.  CDS  stated  that  examples  of  large-­‐volume  items  that  could  make  a  significant  difference  in  terms  of  local  sourcing  include  mozzarella,  canned  tomatoes,  and  french  fries.  These  value-­‐added  products  are  more  difficult  to  trace  than  fresh  produce  as  the  products  are  often  shipped  from  one  state  to  another  for  processing.  They  also  stated  that  proteins  are  the  category  of  food  that  they  buy  the  most  of.      5.  Delivery/physical  logistics:  CDS  does  not  have  the  structure  or  storage  to  handle  several  small  deliveries  per  day,  as  would  be  required  with  several  contracts  with  several  individual  farmers.  An  18-­‐wheeler  backs  down  the  (very  small)  Lenoir  dock.  

  16  

So,  there  are  physical  vehicle  constraints.  Additionally,  given  the  relatively  small  size  of  CDS’s  Lenoir  offices,  there  are  storage  constraints.  Currently,  CDS  is  not  set  up  to  receive  deliveries  straight  to  the  dock  on  campus.  Because  of  the  tight  space,  it  is  much  easier  to  buy  from  Sysco,  Freshpoint,  and  other  distributors  so  that  regular  trucks  can  bring  full  orders.  Although  CDS  does  contract  with  a  few  individual  farms  (such  as  Cane  Creek)  and  distributors  (such  as  Mae’s  Meats),  their  preference  is  to  work  with  farmers  through  Sysco.  Sysco  currently  delivers  to  CDS  four  days  out  of  every  week.  CDS  enjoys  the  convenience  of  online  ordering  capabilities  offered  by  Sysco  and  electronic  tracking  of  invoices.  Also,  orders  for  next-­‐day  delivery  may  be  placed  by  3:00  pm  and  add-­‐ons  are  permitted  until  5:00  pm.  Much  of  this  technological  convenience—and,  given  the  actual  physical  constraints  CDS  faces,  even  beyond  convenience,  the  accommodation—has  historically  been  lost  when  CDS  has  worked  with  smaller  independent  suppliers.  

 6.  Price  point:  CDS  prefers  to  buy  a  product  locally  as  long  as  the  price  is  equal  to  or  not  significantly  higher  than  the  price  they  currently  pay.  Local  products  are  often  cheaper  in  season:  “You  guys  need  to  go  to  school  during  summer  because  of  cheap  produce.”  Indeed,  it  is  generally  cheaper  for  Sysco  (or  seemingly  any  other  buyer)  to  buy  locally  when  produce  is  in  season.7  CDS  suggests  that  farmers  utilize  the  state’s  agricultural  extension  “best  price  consultation”  service,  which  clues  farmers  in  on  the  range  of  prices  they  might  expect  to  get  for  their  food  products—a  service  possibly  also  available  from  NC  Goodness  Grows.  CDS’s  preferred  process  for  determining  the  prices  it  will  pay  for  a  given  farmer’s  goods  is  for  her/him  to  submit  a  bid  sheet  with  the  best  prices  the  farmer  is  willing  and  able  to  offer  CDS.    7.    Seasonality:  The  best  growing  seasons  in  North  Carolina  are  late  spring  through  early  fall.  Unfortunately,  the  students  who  purchase  from  CDS  are  not  present  on  campus  in  high  numbers  during  peak  growing  season.  Freshpoint  has  a  growing  chart  that  indicates  the  seasonal  availabilities  of  various  local  food  products.  North  Carolina  agriculture  specializes  in  a  few  items  including  tomatoes,  sweet  potatoes,  and  peanuts.  CDS  currently  buys  many  local  sweet  potatoes.  Though  sweet  potato  fries  are  not  as  popular  as  regular  french  fries,  they  have  grown  in  popularity  since  FLO  suggested  them  as  a  possible  outlet  for  increasing  volume  of  local  produce.    Sweet  potato  fries  tend  to  be  featured  on  the  menu  more  during  “green  theme  meals”  and  other  local  events.    

 2. Audrey  Kreske     Dr.  Audrey  Kreske  is  a  food  safety  researcher/expert  at  North  Carolina  State  University.  She  is  in  the  process  of  guiding  twelve  produce  farms  through  the  process  of  obtaining  GAP  certification.  All  of  these  farms  are  less  than  thirty  acres.  The  purpose  of  meeting  with  Dr.  Kreske  was  to  gather  information  and  to  make  sure  that  our  survey  would  not  merely  replicate  her  existing  work.  Her  expertise  as  a  food  scientist  and  her  experience  

                                                                                                               7 Ibid.

  17  

working  with  small-­‐scale  local  growers  meant  that  she  was  highly  qualified  to  inform  this  project.    

Dr.  Kreske  spoke  to  us  about  her  experience  with  helping  farmers  obtain  GAP,  emphasizing  that  there  is  a  large  gray  area  between  the  USDA’s  published  manual  on  the  certification  and  the  actual  auditing  process.  Furthermore,  there  are  four  separate  levels  of  GAP  certification  that  all  lead  to  the  same  certificate.    

Dr.  Kreske  cited  disinterest  and  perceived  lack  of  ability  and  funding  as  main  barriers  for  small  farmers.  Currently,  farmers  are  able  to  sell  to  many  restaurants  and  farmers  markets  without  obtaining  the  certification.  The  $91/hour  fee,  including  driving  time,  required  for  auditors  was  also  an  issue  for  farmers.    

She  also  mentioned  that  CSAs  and  wholesalers  are  beginning  to  require  GAP  certification  for  their  members.  Currently,  Pilot  Mountain  Pride,  Eastern  Carolina  Organics,  and  New  River  Organics  all  require  evidence  of  transition  towards  GAP  certification.      3. Center  for  Environmental  Farming  Systems  

We  spoke  with  someone  who  works  with  the  Center  for  Environmental  Farming  Systems  (CEFS)  on  their  10%  Campaign,  which  encourages  consumers  to  commit  10%  of  their  existing  food  dollars  to  promote  local  food.  This  informant  has  extensive  experience  promoting  local  food  purchasing  in  North  Carolina.  

When  asked  about  institutional  purchasing,  our  informant  said  that  many  businesses  have  been  very  supportive  of  the  10%  Campaign.  Other  universities  in  the  area,  including  NCSU  and  UNC-­‐Wilmington,  have  joined  the  campaign.  UNCW  currently  contracts  with  Aramark.  The  respondent  also  mentioned  that  Sysco  was  very  excited  at  the  beginning  of  the  campaign  and  that  Freshpoint  has  been  supportive.  

In  order  to  facilitate  GAP  certification,  CEFS  is  providing  40  farmers  with  the  necessary  funding.  Their  organization  sees  GAP  as  one  of  the  biggest  issues  for  small  farmers  in  North  Carolina  because  without  GAP  certification  the  market  is  increasingly  restrictive.    

Our  informant  recommended  that  dining  services  join  the  10%  Campaign  so  that  their  data  could  be  included  in  CEFS’  research.  This  collaboration  could  facilitate  connections  between  CDS  and  farmers.  CEFS  is  “trying  to  be  the  glue  that  sticks  it  all  together,”  meaning  they  see  themselves  as  being  the  facilitators  in  the  burgeoning  local  foods  movement  in  North  Carolina.    4. Eastern  Carolina  Organics  

We  spoke  with  a  senior  staff  member  at  Eastern  Carolina  Organics  on  October  2,  2012.  Eastern  Carolina  Organics  is  a  distributor  for  50-­‐60  farms  in  North  Carolina.  ECO  was  formed  in  2004  to  help  transition  tobacco  farmers  to  organic  produce.  Their  main  markets  include  specialty  grocery  stores  and  universities.     Our  informant  at  ECO  echoed  Kreske’s  concerns  about  farmers  being  skeptical  towards  GAP.  The  respondent  recently  attended  an  interest  meeting  with  Lowe’s  Foods  and  much  of  the  presentation  regarded  GAP  certification.  This  individual  mentioned  that  GAP  is  especially  challenging  for  smaller  farms.  ECO  does  not  intend  to  require  all  of  its  producers  to  become  GAP-­‐certified.  They  are  in  the  process  of  educating  themselves  about  the  

  18  

process,  but  they  currently  cater  largely  to  direct  markets  that  do  not  require  the  certification.       The  respondent  acknowledged  that  buying  directly  from  the  farmer  is  difficult  for  large-­‐scale  buyers  who  require  large  volume  and  reliability.  This  individual  compared  ECO  with  US  Food  Services,  saying  that  because  ECO  represents  smaller  and  fewer  farms  they  are  necessarily  less  consistent  than  large  distributors.      5. Sysco    

A  few  capstone  team  members,  capstone  advisors  and  CDS  visited  the  Sysco  warehouse  in  Selma,  NC  on  November  6,  2012.  The  purpose  of  the  trip  was  to  learn  more  about  how  Sysco  functions  and  what  avenues  there  may  be  to  work  with  them  to  increase  local  sourcing.  The  trip  included  a  presentation  by  Sysco,  tour  of  the  warehouse,  presentations  by  local  farmers,  and  time  for  discussion.     The  Sysco  presentation  contained  information  on  procurement,  produce  contracts,  the  Sysco  brand,  value-­‐added  strategy,  food  safety  information  (recall  preparedness  and  traceability),  GAP  programs,  and  efforts  to  connect  with  local  producers.  The  parameters  of  food  safety  assurance,  volume  control,  distribution,  and  storage  are  especially  appealing  to  CDS.  Food  safety  removes  liability  issues.  Sysco  often  picks  up  and  delivers  so  it  creates  logistical  ease;  their  storage  conditions  remove  the  logistical  hurdles  CDS  faces  as  well.  Another  reason  Sysco  is  appealing  to  CDS  is  that  they  have  in  the  past  held  GAP  workshops  as  well  as  helped  to  finance  GAP  certification  for  certain  growers.  Sysco  also  recognizes  that  GAP  certification  is  a  significant  obstacle  to  increasing  local  purchasing  by  institutions.     Someone  at  Sysco  who  works  in  sourcing  expressed  how  that  they  had  seen  more  demand  from  buyers  for  local  product  and  more  contact  from  local  growers  about  availability.  Despite  witnessing  these  trends  the  respondent  expressed  that  she  needed  to  have  a  sure  commitment  from  the  buyer  before  putting  efforts  into  connecting  to  a  local  source.  CDS  asked  what  this  commitment  would  need  to  look  like,  but  a  clear  answer  was  not  given.  The  respondent  also  expressed  desire  to  be  connected  with  any  possible  local  growers  that  would  want  to  partner  with  them.     A  general  impression  expressed  by  CDS  members  was  the  surprise  at  how  quickly  Sysco  has  changed  their  approach  to  local  purchasing,  suggesting  a  significant  market  push.  Our  Sysco  informant  even  stated  that  the  conversations  taking  place  about  local  sourcing  and  Sysco’s  desire  to  source  local  product  would  not  have  taken  place  a  few  years  ago.  The  local  sourcing  system  is  very  new  to  Sysco  and  has  not  been  well  established,  but  the  general  sentiment  of  the  visit  was  that  their  purchasing  will  increase  –  as  long  as  CDS  commits  to  buying  it.        

  19  

Survey  Data    

Upon  the  closing  of  the  survey  on  December  9th,  2012,  70  farmers  had  participated  in  the  survey.  Farms  surveyed  were  from  all  over  North  Carolina,  but  counties  with  the  highest  response  rates  included  Orange  (n=10),  Person  (6),  Buncombe  (4),  Guilford  (4),  Alamance  (4),  and  Rutherford  (4).  The  size  of  the  farms  played  a  significant  role  in  determining  responses  as  farms  smaller  than  75  acres  comprised  the  vast  majority  of  respondents  (76%).  Due  to  this  skewing  of  the  results  towards  small  farms,  many  of  the  results  were  analyzed  with  normalization  for  very  small  farms  (<5  acres),  small  farms  (5-­‐74  acres),  medium  farms  (75-­‐199),  and  large  farms  (200+  acres).    Level  of  Interest  in  Partnership  

 

 Figure  1:  Farm  Size  and  Interest  in  Contact  from  CDS  

 Overall,  interest  in  selling  to  CDS  was  very  high,  with  80%  of  respondents  sharing  

their  business  contact  information  with  CDS  (Figure  1).  The  large  response  from  small  farms  to  the  survey  meant  that  of  those  interested  in  selling  to  CDS,  most  comprised  small  (45%)  or  very  small  farms  (29%).  There  was  also  strong  interest  from  medium  and  large  farms  in  sharing  information,  however  far  fewer  of  them  chose  to  fill  out  information  and  share  their  information  with  CDS.                      

Not  Interested  20%  

Very  Small  29%  

Small  45%  

Medium  6%  

Large  15%  

Interested  80%  

Level  of  Farm  Interest  in  Being  Contacted  for  Partnership  (by  Size)  

  20  

Conglomerates      

 Figure  2:  Farms  participating  in  conglomerates  broken  down  by  size  

 Although  many  of  the  farms  surveyed  were  small  in  size  a  vast  majority  (75%  

overall)  also  do  not  identify  as  participating  in  a  conglomerate  of  growers  to  sell  their  products.  Of  the  small  farms  (5-­‐74  acres),  50%  participated  in  conglomerates  (Figure  2).  In  contrast  to  this,  there  was  far  less  participation  in  conglomerates  among  very  small  farms  (26%)  or  medium  farms  (0%).  Although  all  largefarms  that  answered  this  question  (2)  identified  as  selling  through  conglomerates,  the  small  sample  size  does  not  allow  for  generalization.                              

0  1  

0  

1  

5  

5  

0  

1  

14  

6  

6  

0  

0%  

10%  

20%  

30%  

40%  

50%  

60%  

70%  

80%  

90%  

100%  

Less  than  5  Acres  

5-­‐74  Acres  

75-­‐200  Acres  

More  than  200  Acres  

Num

ber  of  Farms  

Farms  Participating  in  Conglomerates  

No  Conglomeration  

Conglomeration  with  Growers  of  Different  Product  

Conglomeration  with  Growers  of  Same  Product  

  21  

GAP  Certification    

 Figure  3:  GAP  participation  and  participation  in  conglomerates  

 Of  the  farms  surveyed,  very  few  are  GAP  Certified  or  in  transition  to  being  GAP  

certified  (22%)  (Figure  3).  Furthermore,  these  farms  were  more  likely  to  sell  through  a  conglomerate  (38%)  than  the  total  farms  surveyed  (25%).  Of  these  farms  with  certification  or  transitioning,  nearly  all  had  an  interest  in  selling  to  CDS  (88%).                                          

0%  10%  20%  30%  40%  50%  60%  70%  80%  90%  100%  

Percentage  of  Farms  

Farm  Characteristics:  GAP  Certi_ication  

Not  GAP  Certiuied  

Transition  to  GAP  

GAP  Certiuied  

  22  

Market  Choice    

   Figure  4:  Market  choice  and  reasons  for  choice  

 The  market  most  chosen  for  primary  or  secondary  sales  was  the  farmers  market  

(Figure  4).  Wholesale  to  distributors  was  also  indicated  as  a  significant  market,  while  wholesale  directly  to  groceries  was  least  common.         Profit  was  the  reason  most  often  indicated  for  choosing  these  markets  for  small  and  medium  farms.  Logistics  were  also  considered  by  many  of  this  farm  size  to  be  an  important  factor  in  market  choice.  However,  with  large  farms,  volume  considerations  were  equally  chosen  as  a  primary  reason  for  market  choice.    This  indicates  an  increased  focus  on  the  scale  of  a  potential  market,  rather  than  the  profit  it  provides,  for  larger  farms.                                    

15  30  

4   7   5   5  0  

10  

20  

30  

40  

50  

60  

Num

ber  of  Farms  

Markets  Farms  Sold  Through  

Secondary  Market  

Primary  Market  

14   3  4  

2  4   4  

6  2  

2  5   1   1  

0%  10%  20%  30%  40%  50%  60%  70%  80%  90%  100%  

5-­‐74  Acres  

75-­‐200  Acres  

More  than  200  Acres  

Primary  Reason  For  Choosing  Market  

Other  

Logistical  Convenience  

Volume  

Transportation  

Highest  Prouit  

  23  

Seasonality    

 Figure  5:  Variability  of  product  available  over  the  year  

 Farms  that  primarily  produced  meat,  dairy,  or  value  added  products  had  product  

consistently  throughout  the  year;  however  farms  that  primarily  vend  produce  have  a  significantly  larger  amount  of  product  available  for  sale  during  the  months  from  May  to  November  (Figure  5).  During  the  months  of  December  to  April,  less  than  80%  of  the  farms  surveyed  have  produce  available  for  sale.  The  month  of  February  has  the  lowest  amount  of  farms  with  produce  for  sale,  with  only  30%  of  surveyed  produce  farms  having  product  available.                                  

0  5  10  15  20  25  30  35  

Jun   Jul   Aug  Sept  Oct   Nov  Dec   Jan   Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Num

ber  of  Farms  Surveyed  

Months  Farm  has  Product  Available  

Monthly  Availability  of  Product  

Produce   Value  Added  Products  

Meat   Dairy  

  24  

Insurance  Policy    

.  Figure  6:  Amount  of  insurance  policy,  if  held  

 Of  the  farmers  surveyed,  31%  have  no  insurance  policy  at  all  (Figure  6).  Of  those  

that  disclosed  an  insurance  policy,  more  farmers  (26%)  held  policies  of  $1  million  than  any  other  amount.  The  highest  insurance  policy  value  of  $5  million  was  held  by  only  three  respondents  (4%  of  those  who  disclosed  value).                              

No  Policy  31%  

Yes,  Value  not  Disclosed  21%  

$300,000    2%  

$500,000    1%  

$1  Million  26%  

$2  Million  9%  

$4  Million  6%  

$5  Million  4%  

Yes  69%  

Yes,  Value  Disclosed  48%  

Farmers  with  Insurance  Policy  

  25  

Grower  Interviews    

Through  the  process  of  coding  our  notes  from  farmer  interviews  (Appendix  F),  we  have  identified  key  themes  that  recurred  and  played  central  roles  in  the  conversations.  Largely,  these  interviews  revealed  a  strong  interest  among  farmers  in  scaling  up  and  selling  to  an  institutional  buyer  like  CDS.  Yet  they  also  revealed  key  barriers,  primarily  regarding  food  safety  requirements,  uncertainty,  and  payment  regularity.  The  most  prevalent  barrier  discussed  was  food  safety  requirements,  both  GAP  certification  and  liability,  and  insurance.  Many  informants  were  also  deterred  by  a  sense  of  uncertainty,  feeling  that  the  process  of  acquiring  the  necessary  certifications  and  insurance  to  sell  to  CDS  was  ambiguous  and  contains  within  it  many  other  unclear  processes,  including  GAP  certification  but  also  uncertainty  regarding  volume  of  produce  and  mode  of  distribution.  Another  key  barrier  was  payment  regularity  concerns.  We  found  that  54%  of  farmers  surveyed  collect  less  than  $50,000  in  profit  each  year.  The  payment  at  CDS  is  often  a  30-­‐45  day  delay  from  the  time  they  receive  the  food  until  the  farmer  receives  the  check.  For  small-­‐scale  producers  who  depend  on  regular  payments  for  monthly  bills,  this  delay  can  cause  significant  financial  strain.    As  the  volume  and  price  of  an  order  increases,  its  significance  relative  to  the  farmer’s  monthly  income  increases  as  well,  which  can  cause  significant  financial  strain  for  smaller  farmers.  Related  to  the  issue  of  cash  flow  is  the  topic  of  seasonality;  farmers’  yields  are  highest  in  summer,  when  CDS  demand  is  lowest,  and  they  are  concerned  about  lost  profit  during  that  time.  The  stringent  food  safety  requirements,  uncertainty  and  risk  in  the  process  of  CDS  partnerships,  and  concerns  about  cash  flow  return  from  large  institutional  buyers  are  deterrents  to  farmers  selling  their  products  to  CDS.  The  “ideal  customer”  described  by  multiple  informants  is  one  who  is  dependable,  has  the  ability  to  pay  farmers  quickly,  and  communicates  consistently  with  producers.     Key  concepts  from  interviews  are  enumerated  below  in  further  detail.      

I. The  liability  risk/legal  responsibility  risk  is  daunting  and  insurance  is  expensive.  • Due  to  Aramark’s  stringent  food  safety  requirements,  farmers  feel  that  

they  would  take  on  a  significant  legal  risk/accountability.  • Growers  generally  feel  that  that  these  requirements  are  absolutely  

understandable  considering  the  scale,  but  the  requirements  still  pose  significant  financial  barriers.    

II. When  other  large  buyers  (e.g.,  Lowe’s  Foods)  ask  for  evidence  of  transition  to  GAP  (rather  than  requiring  GAP),  it  provides  a  more  feasible  way  to  start  selling  to  them  before  the  process  is  complete  and  incentivizes  to  finish  the  process.    

• GAP  is  cumbersome  and  expensive,  and  not  worthwhile  worth  it  unless  the  market  that  requires  it  is  reliable  and  attractive.  

• Having  a  buyer  invested  in  completion  of  GAP  helps  provide  support  during  the  process,  which  can  lack  uniformity  or  logic.    

III. Producers  have  a  strong  interest  in  scaling  up,  identifying  new  markets,  and  expanding,  but  need  assurance  that  the  market  is  there.  

  26  

• Due  to  the  shelf  life  of  most  farm  products  and  the  nature  of  the  business,  it’s  vital  to  know  a  market  is  there  before  ramping  up  production.  

• Many  interviewees  expressed  a  desire  for  an  estimate  of  scale/quantity.    

IV. There  is  a  need  for  clear  communication  of  requirements,  expectations,  and  timeline  at  the  outset.  

• In  order  to  plan  ahead,  financially  and  in  terms  of  time  allocated,  it  would  be  helpful  for  farmers  to  have  a  clear  outline  of  the  process  of  becoming  a  local  seller  to  CDS.    

V. High  turnover  in  institutional  buyer  staff  can  present  challenges  for  local  farmers  who  want  a  long-­‐term  business  relationship  with  CDS;  there  is  a  feeling  of  uncertainty  regarding  business  communications.  

• It  can  be  confusing  to  know  who  to  contact  at  CDS;  a  contract  can  be  arranged  with  one  person  and  then  another  person  can  take  it  on,  or  communication  can  come  from  multiple  sources.  

• Some  interviewees  felt  that  this  perceived  inconsistency  contributes  to  slow-­‐moving  interactions  and  communications.      

VI. Many  farmers  have  an  impression  that  when  selling  to  CDS,  things  will  move  slowly.  • There  is  often  a  feeling  that  the  CDS  staff  members  in  Chapel  Hill  are  part  

of  a  much  larger  machine  with  many  moving  parts.  • Some  producers  have  experienced  delays  with  Aramark.    • Expected  delays  and  time  spent  while  waiting  for  Aramark  responses  

decreases  the  attractiveness  of  the  market.    

VII. There  is  a  strong  interest  in  using  an  aggregate/conglomerate  and  a  perception  that  this  might  help  expedite  the  process  

• Farms  that  may  not  have  the  volume  for  CDS  alone  would  appreciate  the  support  of  an  intermediary  that  sells  their  product  along  with  others  in  their  region  

• Many  farmers  indicated  that  they  do  not  know  of  any  conglomerates  in  there  area  but  would  be  interested  in  forming/participating  in  one    

VIII. Cash  flow  delay  is  a  major  concern  when  selling  to  a  large  buyer;  farmers  have  a  strong  need  for  consistent  payment  

• Large  orders  are  great  for  farmers,  but  often  go  hand-­‐in-­‐hand  with  delayed  payment,  which  is  especially  challenging  after  assuming  the  costs  associated  with  a  large  order  

• Many  farmers  depend  on  rapid  turnaround  time  and  cannot  accommodate  the  payment  schedules  of  an  institutional  buyer  

• Concern  that  payment  time  frame  may  not  be  negotiable  if  it  is  set  at  a  corporate  level        

  27  

IX. Farmers  have  challenges  with  seasonality    • When  NC  produce  is  most  abundant,  CDS  is  serving  less  food;  the  market  

shrinks  during  the  summer  and  farmers  must  find  alternative  markets  just  for  summer  season.    

• This  can  present  a  challenge  to  farmers  who  depend  on  a  contract  with  CDS  that  involves  large  volumes.  

 Limitations  of  the  Data   The  exploratory  nature  of  this  study  has  several  limitations.  First,  our  convenience  sampling  method  is  likely  to  have  disproportionately  selected  for  respondents  who  are  interested  in  institutional  partnerships.  Moreover,  this  method  excluded  farmers  who  do  not  regularly  use  email.  This  means  that  the  findings  from  this  study  cannot  be  generalized  to  the  entire  farming  population  of  North  Carolina,  but  only  to  those  who  are  on  particular  email  lists  and  chose  to  fill  out  the  survey.  Ideally  this  survey  would  have  enabled  a  generalization  of  the  data  to  the  entire  population  of  North  Carolina  to  gain  a  comprehensive  understanding  of  the  market  for  institutional  purchasing  of  locally  produced  food  and  an  accurate  estimate  of  how  many  growers  are  interested  in  selling  to  Carolina  Dining  Services.  However,  the  parameters  of  the  project  and  possibilities  for  farm  contact  limit  comprehensive  surveying.

Another  limitation  of  the  sampling  is  the  focus  on  North  Carolina  farmers.  According  to  the  CDS  definition  of  local,  farms  within  150  miles  that  lie  in  Virginia  would  be  candidates  for  partnership  as  well.  The  relatively  close  proximity  of  the  Virginia  border  means  that  farmers  in  southern  portions  of  Virginia  may  actually  be  closer  to  Chapel  Hill  than  farmers  in  the  far  southwest  or  southeast  of  North  Carolina.  This  exclusion  may  have  prevented  contact  with  several  possible  candidates  that  would  fit  the  qualifications  for  local  partnership  by  CDS.  

A  final  significant  limitation  of  the  study  was  the  lack  of  investigation  of  how  farms  found  the  markets  they  currently  sell  to.  If  one  of  the  main  goals  of  the  project  was  to  help  connect  local  farms  to  the  market  provided  by  CDS,  it  is  important  to  understand  how  farmers  find  venues  for  their  product.  By  understanding  the  mechanisms  through  which  local  growers  find  most  of  their  markets,  CDS  would  be  able  to  reach  out  to  these  growers  best.  Inclusion  of  this  topic  in  the  survey  or  farmer  interviews  would  have  greatly  helped  to  influence  specific  recommendations  on  farm  outreach.    Farm  to  Fork  Impressions    

On  December  4th,  we  hosted  a  Farm  to  Fork  Forum  at  Ram’s  Head  Dining  Hall  at  UNC  (Appendix  D).  We  had  between  35  and  40  attendees,  comprised  of  local  growers,  distributors/conglomerates  (including  ECO  and  Sysco),  university  faculty,  student  representatives  (including  FLO  Food  and  Student  Dining  Board  members),  interested  community  members,  and  CDS  personnel.  We  presented  our  initial  findings,  offered  information  on  GAP  (Appendix  E),  and  held  a  question-­‐and-­‐answer  session  and  a  

  28  

discussion,  which  informed  our  recommendations  and  next  steps.  Key  themes  from  the  conversation  at  Farm  to  Fork  were:    

• There  is  a  need  for  quantifiable  evidence  of  student  interest  in  local  and/or  sustainable  food.  CDS  makes  purchasing  decisions  based  on  the  Aramark  contract  and  on  student  demand.  Data  regarding  the  student  demand  would  help  drive  change  in  local  purchasing.      

• Local  food  producers  want  to  know  what  the  market  is  (i.e.,  what  percentage  of  the  CDS  budget  is  spent  on  local  and  what  that  amount  is).  CDS  has  multiple  sources  of  these  numbers,  some  more  conservative  than  others.    

 • Farmers  would  like  CDS  to  communicate  which  items  they  source  locally  on  a  

regular  basis.      

• Farmers  feel  that  there  is  no  “red  phone”  means  of  communication  and  that  there  is  a  chasm  between  producers  and  buyers  at  CDS  

 • There  is  interest  in  whether  CDS  can  purchase  food  that  comes  from  a  GAP-­‐certified  

handler  or  whether  all  the  individual  growers  must  be  GAP-­‐certified  as  well.  CDS  said  they  would  find  out.  This  could  make  ECO  a  very  promising  source  for  local  foods.    

 •  One  farmer  in  attendance  was  GAP-­‐certified.  She  expressed  that  the  level  of  GAP  

certification  depends  on  the  buyer,  and  that  it’s  not  uniform.    

• Bon  Appetit/Duke  was  brought  up,  and  there  is  an  ongoing  question  about  how  they  deal  with  food  safety  risk.  Are  they  just  assuming  more  of  the  cost?    

 • Sysco  did  not  publicize  the  resources  they  could  offer  (financial,  trainings,  etc.)  to  

support  farmers  through  the  GAP  process,  but  it  was  clear  from  farmers  that  these  resources  would  be  helpful.  How  can  this  be  facilitated?  How  could  we  explore  other  sources  of  support  and/or  funding  (perhaps  grants)  for  farmers  seeking  GAP  certification?  

 • We  discussed  the  turnover  in  both  CSD  personnel  and  in  students  as  an  impediment  

to  clear  communication  with  local  food  producers.      

• There  was  discussion  of  increasing  seasonality  in  the  menu  at  CDS,  which  might  require  a  shift  in  student  tastes  (but  this  kind  of  shift  was  successful  with  sweet  potatoes).    

     

  29  

Discussion       As  a  result  of  our  investigation,  we  were  able  to  confirm  that  there  is  currently  interest  from  both  CDS  and  local  food  producers  in  increasing  the  amount  of  local  food  in  the  dining  hall.  However,  issues  of  scale,  financial  risks,  and  clear  communication  hinder  this  mutual  interest.  CDS,  farmers,  and  distributors  share  many  of  these  obstacles.  This  discussion  will  trace  the  most  prevalent  obstacles  that  arose  from  the  survey  results  and  the  interviews,  and  deconstruct  these  themes  in  order  to  explore  ways  to  overcome  them.       One  key  issue  that  influences  several  other  obstacles  is  that  the  type  of  farms  interested  in  partnership  often  are  not  well  equipped  to  fit  the  parameters  set  by  Aramark  or  CDS.  Due  to  the  structure  of  the  survey  as  an  opportunity  sample,  having  a  large  number  of  small  farm  and  very  small  farm  respondents  suggests  that  there  is  an  increased  interest  from  this  size  of  farm  in  comparison  to  larger  farms.  Furthermore,  farms  of  this  size  expressed  the  highest  interest  in  sharing  their  information  with  CDS.  The  survey  and  interview  results  showed  that  small-­‐scale  producers  are  often  the  most  enthusiastic  about  the  possibility  of  partnership,  especially  since  this  can  mean  scaling  up.  Due  to  the  high  interest  from  this  size  farm,  much  of  our  discussion  deals  specifically  with  obstacles  to  small  farms.  

The  most  obvious  concerns  with  partnership  between  small  farms  and  CDS  are  those  of  scale.  Independent  of  a  small  farm  having  the  ability  to  deliver  directly,  CDS  needs  high-­‐volume,  consistent  product  in  as  few  shipments  as  possible.  The  survey  confirmed  that  the  season-­‐dependent  availability  of  produce  in  North  Carolina  exacerbates  these  volume  concerns  since  product  is  even  less  available  while  classes  are  in  session.  Furthermore,  the  interviews  brought  to  attention  how,  on  the  farmer  side  of  this  issue,  there  is  the  need  for  a  summer  market  to  make  up  for  product  CDS  cannot  purchase  during  this  time.  This  means  that  in  order  for  small  farms  to  partner,  there  must  be  a  manner  to  aggregate  their  product  through  a  distributor  or  conglomerate  to  provide  for  volume,  logistical,  or  seasonal  controls.    

Reasons  for  market  choice  and  financial  risk  are  other  major  obstacles  in  terms  of  small  farm  partnership.  The  survey  indicates  that  many  small  producers  are  choosing  to  sell  at  farmers  markets  due  to  the  increased  profits  they  provide.  This  suggests  that  these  farms  would  change  markets  as  long  as  CDS  will  pay  for  it.  However,  price  is  a  large  factor  for  CDS  as  well.  Because  the  meal  plan  is  optional  for  students,  the  price  of  a  meal  plan  must  remain  reasonable  in  order  to  maintain  sales  and  retain  customers  one  semester  to  the  next.  This  means  that  CDS  cannot  pay  much  extra  for  local  food;  local  produce  can  only  be  purchased  in  large  volumes  if  it  is  priced  competitively  with  non-­‐local  produce.    

In  contrast  to  the  idea  that  farmers  markets  are  a  desired  choice,  a  key  informant  hypothesized  that  the  prevalence  of  roadside  stands  and  farmers  markets  in  North  Carolina  is  a  result  of  lack  of  access  to  broader  markets  for  small-­‐scale  producers.  Further  supporting  evidence  of  this  idea  is  that  the  farmers  we  interviewed  expressed  an  interest  in  scaling  up  and  that  those  who  had  been  in  talks  with  CDS  were  accepting  of  their  proposed  prices.  The  implications  of  these  two  key  findings  are  that  although  increasing  the  price  CDS  is  willing  to  pay  may  help  in  incorporating  more  food,  there  are  larger  financial  risks  preventing  farmers  from  partnership  that,  if  overcome,  can  create  an  alternative  option  that  does  not  require  an  infeasible  price  point.  

  30  

The  financial  risk  to  farmers  in  trying  out  markets  like  CDS  primarily  regards  GAP  certification,  insurance,  and  increasing  production.  Of  the  small  farms  surveyed,  very  few  held  GAP  certifications  or  adequate  insurance.  Interview  conversations  provided  insight  into  how  much  of  the  financial  risk  in  partnership  is  placed  upon  the  producer.  Small-­‐scale  producers  are  often  not  in  a  position  to  commit  to  increasing  labor  and  capital  input  without  knowing  they  can  sell  the  product.  However,  many  buyers  require  GAP  certification  and  insurance  before  purchase.  This  puts  the  small  farmer  in  a  high-­‐risk  situation:  (s)he  must  invest  in  GAP  certification  and  insurance  the  year  before  (s)he  sells  to  a  large  buyer,  so  (s)he  must  take  on  the  cost  of  the  certification,  insurance,  and  scaling  up  far  in  advance  of  when  the  income  from  the  new  market  comes  through.  One  model  for  mitigating  this  issue  is  used  by  Lowe’s  Foods;  they  ask  that  farmers  prove  that  they  are  transitioning  to  GAP  while  also  guaranteeing  a  market  for  increased  volume.    

Many  of  our  findings  from  interviews,  surveys,  and  conversations  point  to  the  critical  role  of  intermediaries  between  CDS  and  farms  in  terms  of  finding  and  aggregating  farms,  delivery  and  tracking,  and  decreasing  financial  risks.  Carolina  Dining  Services  does  not  have  the  time  or  resources  for  finding  a  high  number  of  individual  farms  for  CDS  to  partner  with.  Sysco  is  interested  in  increasing  local  purchases  and  is  aware  of  the  increase  in  demand.  CDS  receives  a  weekly  list  of  local  options  from  Freshpoint,  a  subsidiary  of  Sysco.  However,  turnover  in  Sysco  personnel,  loyalty  to  existing  business  relationships  with  producers,  and  the  fact  that  outreach  to  local  producers  is  not  explicitly  required  in  any  job  description  means  that  Sysco  is  not  in  contact  with  all  potential  North  Carolina  producers  who  are  willing  to  work  with  a  large  distributor.  Furthermore,  Sysco  must  cater  to  the  preferences  of  customers  who  may  have  very  specific  expectations  about  the  color,  shape,  and  flavor  of  certain  products.  This  means  that  selling  North  Carolina  lettuce  is  more  difficult  than  selling  California  lettuce  because  many  consumers  are  used  to  the  appearance  and  taste  of  California  lettuce.  Sysco  can  only  consistently  buy  product  that  can  consistently  be  sold.    Conversations  with  Sysco  revealed  that  large-­‐scale  distributors  may  be  able  to  help  with  volume  and  delivery  concerns,  but  they  require  farmers  to  clean  their  own  vegetables  and  have  strict  standards  concerning  vegetable  size  and  shape,  which  is  problematic  for  farms  with  few  employees.    

Another  model  is  the  formation  of  local  farming  conglomerates  that  help  facilitate  sales  and  amass  volume  from  a  variety  of  small  farms.  The  emergence  of  conglomerations  such  as  Pilot  Mountain  Pride  and  Eastern  Carolina  Organics  is  helping  to  bridge  the  gap.  The  locality  and  small  scale  of  these  organizations  allows  them  to  specialize  in  working  with  small-­‐scale  farms  like  those  interested  in  selling  to  CDS.  Furthermore,  this  quality  allows  for  consistency  with  the  ideals  of  buying  from  local  farms  by  purchasing  through  a  local  intermediary.  Furthermore,  the  specification  of  these  organizations  allows  for  particular  attention  to  the  obstacles  small  farms  face.  For  example,  Pilot  Mountain  Pride  partners  with  a  nearby  university  to  acquire  grant  money  for  GAP  certification,  thus  mitigating  some  of  the  financial  strains  on  small-­‐scale  farmers.  Farmhand  Foods,  a  meat  distributor,  is  helping  to  create  a  market  for  sustainable  meat  in  the  area  and  therefore  many  farmers  are  able  to  increase  their  production  of  free-­‐range  meat  because  of  the  guaranteed  sale.  These  conglomerations  are  in  a  unique  position  to  act  as  intermediaries  between  large-­‐scale  buyers  and  small-­‐scale  farmers  because  they  can  collect  product  from  a  wide  variety  of  farms,  store  the  product,  and  distribute  it.  Small-­‐scale  interviewees  expressed  interest  in  joining  conglomerates  of  this  type,  but  these  conglomerations  often  

  31  

form  based  on  location  and  do  not  yet  encompass  the  entire  state.  Conglomerates  do  not  resolve  all  barriers  by  any  means,  but  they  are  certainly  an  attractive  model  for  small  or  mid-­‐sized  farmers,  and  our  interviews  indicated  a  need  for  more  conglomerates  throughout  North  Carolina.     Although  many  of  the  enumerated  obstacles  are  not  specific  to  small  farms,  survey  data  included  few  (24%)  respondents  from  medium  (75-­‐199  acres)  or  large  (greater  than  200  acres)  farms.  In  comparison  to  agricultural  census  data,  it  is  evident  that  there  are  a  large  number  of  farms  of  this  size  in  North  Carolina,  so  this  cannot  be  the  reason  for  the  lack  of  response.8    There  are  many  possible  explanations  for  this  disconnect;  perhaps  producers  of  this  size  have  already  found  sufficient  markets  for  their  product  or  were  left  out  of  the  convenience  sample.  This  in  itself  presents  an  obstacle,  because  medium-­‐scale  producers  have  less  obstacles  to  overcome  in  selling  to  CDS  or  Sysco.  Their  size  allows  for  higher  volume  sales  that  can  meet  the  needs  of  CDS.  Furthermore,  decreased  interest  in  choosing  a  market  due  to  profit  coupled  with  a  higher  gross  farm  income  mean  that  farms  of  this  scale  are  much  more  likely  to  be  able  to  handle  the  financial  risks  involved  in  certifications  and  insurance.     Many  of  the  large-­‐scale  farmers  interviewed  sold  their  product  to  a  wide  variety  of  distributors  and  buyers  across  the  nation.  When  asked  about  increasing  local  sales,  most  large-­‐scale  farmers  expressed  interest.  Selling  in  North  Carolina  is  beneficial  for  farmers;  interview  respondents  expressed  that  they  believe  that  it  minimizes  food  safety  risk  (due  to  a  shorter  distance  between  producer  and  consumer),  has  lower  transportation  costs,  and  supports  the  local  economy.  Product  can  be  delivered  quickly,  lengthening  the  shelf  life  of  any  given  delivery.  However,  many  sales  decisions  are  based  on  long-­‐standing  relationships  with  buyers,  and  large-­‐scale  farmers  are  not  willing  to  terminate  relationships  with  loyal  buyers  in  the  interest  of  increasing  local  sales.    

Beyond  the  obstacles  specific  to  farm  size,  there  is  one  significant  concern  independent  of  farm  size  or  role  as  intermediary.  This  concern  is  exactly  what  market  CDS  is  offering  in  terms  of  volume  and  type  of  product.  Both  a  large-­‐scale  distributor  and  a  small-­‐scale  distributor  vocalized  a  need  to  know  exactly  how  much  local  food  CDS  is  buying  and  what  their  long-­‐term  commitment  to  local  purchasing  is.  Like  farmers,  these  intermediaries  are  hesitant  to  explore  this  new  market  and  scale  up  without  more  information  on  its  security.  Furthermore,  both  intermediaries  and  farmers  expressed  the  need  for  a  clear  communication  and  a  streamlined  process  in  order  to  establish  trust  in  a  business  partnership.  Clear  communication  and  intent  to  purchase  will  be  necessary  for  partnerships  to  be  comfortably  established.      

                                                                                                                       8  http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/County_Profiles/North_Carolina/cp99037.pdf

  32  

Recommendations    

Based  on  our  findings,  we  have  developed  recommendations  for  ways  to  improve  the  feasibility  and  ease  of  sourcing  local  foods  to  the  UNC  dining  halls.  Our  recommendations  are  divided  into  short-­‐term,  medium-­‐term,  and  long-­‐term  solutions.  These  recommendations  are  also  associated  with  specific  action  items  that  are  grouped  by  which  stakeholder  would  implement  the  recommended  action.  The  stakeholders  include  CDS,  Sysco,  Aramark,  FLO  Food,  farmers,  farmer  conglomerates,  future  capstone  students,  and  interns.      

Short-­‐Term  Recommendations  

Action  Items   Responsible  Stakeholders  

Increase  outreach  to  local  farms  

Host  local  foods  "round  table"  events  and  future  forums  

FLO  

Create  partnership  resource  guide  for  farmers  to  access  online  and  clarify  specific  GAP  requirements  such  as  level  and  role  of  certifiable  handlers  

CDS  

Pressure  Sysco,  Freshpoint,  and  other  distributors  to  incorporate  more  local  farms  

CDS  

Strengthen  partnerships  with  local  food  organizations  and  individuals  

Incorporate  local  foods  experts  and  advocates  into  FLO-­‐CDS  meetings  

FLO  

Create  point  of  contact  with  the  10%  Campaign,  Local  Foods  Supply  Chain  Project  

FLO  and  CDS  

Strengthen  relationships  with  current  or  past  local  partner  farms  

Make  points  of  contact  clear  regarding  business  transactions  

CDS  

Set  up  explicit  payment  timelines  and  tracking  

CDS  

Connect  farmers  to  resources  to  ease  GAP  process  

Connect  interested  parties  or  Farmers  with  Audrey  Kreske  or  Extension  Agents  

FLO  and  CDS  

Hold  trainings  regarding  GAP  process   Distributors,  Extension  Utilize  existing  resources  for  GAP  certification  

Farmers  

Look  at  other  GAP  requirement  models  (such  as  Lowe's  Food's  evidence  of  transition  model)  

Sysco  or  Freshpoint  

Gauge  student  interest  and  demand  for  local  food  

Create  and  send  out  student  survey   FLO  

Incorporate  seasonality  in  menu  and  diversify  local  food  offerings  

Use  green  theme  meals  as  an  opportunity  to  gauge  student  tastes  for  unfamiliar  local  foods  

CDS  

  33  

 

   

Medium-­‐Term  Recommendations  

Action  Items   Responsible  Stakeholders  

Use  1.5.0.  and  Carolina  Catering  as  small-­‐scale  pilot  for  local  growers  to  transition  to  CDS  

Work  with  chef  of  1.5.0.  and  Carolina  Catering  

FLO  

Publicize  to  farmers  other  models  for  selling  to  CDS  

CDS  

Cite  Aramark's  existing  commitment  to  “increasing  level  of  sustainable  food  offers  served  by  at  least  5%  each  year”  (Aramark,  2010).    

Communicate  to  corporate  Aramark  the  need  for  streamlined  way  to  facilitate  these  local  partnerships  

Auxiliary  Services  

Utilize  existing  conglomerate  organizations  that  can  provide  support,  shared  costs,  address  volume  and  delivery  challenges  

Keep  tabs  on  existing  conglomerates  and  propose  new  options  as  they  arrive  

FLO  

Increase  communication  with  ECO,  Farmhand  Foods,  and  Pilot  Mountain  Pride  

CDS  

Increase  formalized  academic  involvement  

Increase  number  of  internships  and  independent  studies  

Curriculum  for  Environment  and  Ecology  ,  Business  School,  Office  of  Sustainability,  School  of  Public  Health  

Clarify  market  for  local  food  at  CDS  

Include  specific  food  items,  budget,  and  volume  desired  by  CDS  

CDS  

  34  

 

               

Long-­‐Term  Recommendations  

Action  Items   Responsible  Stakeholders  

Look  to  other  Aramark  Higher  Education  institutional  local  purchasing  models  (Elon,  UNCW)  

Coordinate  visits  and  meetings  with  CDS  and  student  food  groups  at  other  universities  

FLO  food,  future  academic  projects  

Coordinate  NC  Aramark  Dining  Services  Forum  

Student  Food  Groups  Across  the  State  

Expand  storage  facilities  (such  as  freezers)  to  increase  capacity  for  local  food  storage  

Research  possibilities  for  construction,  budget,  and  other  considerations  

Future  Capstone  Projects,  Office  of  Sustainability  

Modify  contract  with  food  service  provider  to  facilitate  local  food  purchasing  

Create  higher  percentage  of  local  food  purchasing  requirements  

Auxiliary  Services,  Office  of  Sustainability  

Make  processes  better  suited  for  local,  small,  or  medium  food  producers  

Auxiliary  Services  

Utilize  non-­‐undergraduate  university  affiliates  for  research  and  furthering  local  food  goals  

Increase  graduate  student  involvement   Triangle  University  Food  Studies  

Increase  long-­‐term  office  of  sustainability  involvement  

Office  of  Sustainability  

  35  

Conclusions       In  the  course  of  our  research,  we  used  key  informant  interviews,  a  farmer  survey,  and  farmer  interviews  to  construct  a  cohesive  account  of  obstacles  and  parameters  of  partnership  between  Carolina  Dining  Services  and  North  Carolina  farms.  We  also  explored  the  vital  roles  of  stakeholders,  including  students,  Sysco,  locally  based  distributors  and  intermediaries,  Aramark  Corporate,  and  others.  We  found  that  all  parties  have  a  high  interest  in  partnership,  however  there  are  several  obstacles  to  forming  partnerships.  Many  of  the  obstacles  faced  by  CDS  are  parallel  to  the  obstacles  faced  by  local  food  producers.  This  leads  us  to  believe  that  there  is  fertile  ground  for  collaboration  and  cooperation  between  the  two  parties  to  overcome  these  issues.  We  highly  recommend  that  future  efforts  consider  the  integral  role  of  intermediaries,  the  importance  of  collaboration  with  other  local  food  initiatives,  and  the  need  for  clear  communication  of  projected  demand  for  local  products.  

The  effectiveness  of  this  project  will  be  measured  by  efforts  to  reduce  ambiguities  surrounding  these  obstacles  and  opportunities  to  local  sourcing  at  UNC.  The  best  indicator  for  which  we  can  hope  is  to  see  CDS  continue  to  increase  its  local  food  purchases  year-­‐to-­‐year  and  for  the  process  to  be  streamlined.  We  acknowledge  that  there  is  still  much  to  be  done  in  this  vein  of  research  on  behalf  of  CDS  and  local  food  producers,  more  nuance  to  uncover,  and  greater  depths  to  illuminate.  But  the  subject  of  this  research  matters  greatly  to  us.  So,  we  invite  future  researchers  to  carry  the  torch,  and  to  use  our  efforts  as  the  spark  for  new  questions  and  further  research.  

With  the  conclusion  of  this  semester’s  research  project,  we  hope  to  see  conversation  continued  by  entities  like  FLO  and  the  UNC  Sustainability  Office,  to  see  our  recommendations  carefully  considered  by  CDS  in  particular,  and  to  see  further  research  picking  up  where  we  stopped.  Possibilities  for  future  research  include  1)  gathering  data  to  reflect  student  demand,  2)  clarifying  the  GAP  process  for  farmers  and  connecting  them  with  grants,  training  resources,  and  supportive  buyers  to  make  GAP  certification  feasible  for  them,  and  3)  providing  a  thorough  exploration  of  other  university  institutional  buyers  who  use  the  Aramark  contract  and  source  locally.  We  hope  to  see  CDS  and  potential  local  suppliers  capitalize  on  the  opportunities  we  have  articulated  in  order  to  transact  mutually  profitable  arrangements  on  a  local  scale.    

                         

  36  

 

Appendices    Appendix  A.  CDS  Questionnaire    

 Purpose:  The  purpose  of  this  questionnaire  is  to  gather  information  with  which  a  formal  local  source  survey  may  be  written.  Hence,  conduction  this  CDS  questionnaire  is  essential  before  the  local  food  capstone  team  can  proceed  to  writing  the  local  source  survey.  

 Format:    This  questionnaire  asks  questions  designed  to  inform  the  local  food  capstone  team  of  which  questions  to  ask  in  the  local  source  survey.  In  other  words,  it  will  ensure  that  all  the  information  that  CDS  deems  necessary  to  know  is  collected.  This  section’s  subsidiary  parts  regard  what  CDS  currently  buys  from  its  sources,  how  CDS  logistically  facilitates  those  purchase  decisions,  and  why  CDS  makes  the  decisions  it  makes.  The  second  section  (“The  Opportunity”)  asks  questions  designed  to  define  CDS’s  motivations,  anticipated  benefits,  and  potential  obstacles  for  sourcing  more  of  its  food  locally,  information  probably  necessary  to  consider  both  in  conducting  the  local  farmer  survey  and  proceeding  with  the  project  generally.  “The  Opportunity”  section  follows  the  model  of  a  SWOT  analysis  (strengths,  weaknesses,  opportunities,  and  threats),  a  model  with  which  most  businesses  and  business  managers  are  familiar.  The  local  food  capstone  team  considers  its  partnership  with  CDS  to  be  based  on  its  role  in  researching  one  particular  SWOT  opportunity:  sourcing  more  local  food.  This  section’s  subsidiary  parts  are  intended  to  define  the  opportunity,  state  anticipated  impacts  for  CDS  if  the  opportunity  were  satisfactorily  realized,  and  highlight  potential  obstacles  to  the  opportunity.    With  CDS’s  answers  to  these  questions  in  hand,  the  local  food  capstone  team  would  feel  confident  in  drafting  a  local  farmer    survey  that  sufficiently  serves  CDS’s  interests.  

 [Section  1]  “CDS  Today”  

1. Current  Source  Purchases  a. What  goods/products  is  CDS  currently  purchasing  (i.e.  list  of  particular  

products)?    b. What  goods  is  CDS  currently  purchasing  locally?  c. What  are  CDS’s  top  ten  most  commonly  purchased  goods?  d. What  is  the  volume  of  each  given  good/product  CDS  currently  purchases  

(How  many  pounds,  crates,  etc.)?  Does  that  vary  seasonally,  and  if  so,  to  what  extent?  

e. What  is  your  price  point  for  each  good/product  (i.e.  just  a  list  of  prices  and  products)?  Does  that  price  point  vary  relative  to  market  conditions?  

f. We  are  interested  in  being  able  to  contrast  the  size  of  CDS’s  current  source  purchase  area  against  the  size  of  a  targeted  local  source  purchase  area.  With  

  37  

this  in  mind,  what  approximately—in  miles,  states,  or  countries—is  the  radial  size  of  your  current  source  purchase  area)?  

2. Logistics  of  Current  Source  Purchases  a. How  does  CDS  prefer  to  take  deliveries  (a  short  narrative  tracking  food  from  

distributor  to  CDS  kitchen  would  be  instructive)?  b. Is  there  a  preferred  frequency  or  schedule  based  on  different  goods  (i.e.  leafy  

greens  vs.  beef)?  Preferred  time  of  day?  c. What  payment  options  are  available?  Which  do  you  currently  use?  d. Duration  of  current  source  contracts?  e. Does  CDS  require  distributor  to  buy  back  spoiled  or  otherwise  unsatisfactory  

products?  3. Factors  Explaining  Current  Source  Purchases  

a. What  factors  determine  the  “Current  Source”  situation  (specifically,  the  particular  arrangements  CDS  has)?  

b. What  factors  determine  the  “Logistics  of  Current”  situation  (specifically,  the  particular  arrangements  CDS  has)?  

                                               

  38  

Appendix  B.  Farmer  Survey  Instrument    

 

�������� �&��%#��$��&#'�)�� �%(�#�

����%%!$��&���"&��%#��$�� �����&��%#��$� �%# �������� !�!�!�!�� !�)!��&#'�)�#��%�#�'��(��� �*

�&$�)��

���(

���&+��#�����'

��!)�� ������#$#����&+�

�(��&

�&$�)��

���(

���&+

��!)���������#$#����&+�

�(��&

�*#�&

��#���&

��&����$& �&

�$#�!$"�&�(����'(&��)(�$#���#���&

�(��&

��''�(��#����&�'

������&�'

�������&�'

��������&�'

�������&�'

���������������������

������ ������� �� �����������!��(��!!�(��(��%%!+�

������ ��������� ���������������������������� �����������

������ ���������������������������!��(��!!�(��(��%%!+�

�������� ������������� ���(�(��

�������� ������������� ���$)#(+�

����������� ������� ����������������� ��������

  39  

   

�������� �&��%#��$��&#'�)�� �%(�#�

����%%!$��&���"&��%#��$�� �����&��%#��$� �%# �������� !�!�!�!�� !�)!��&#'�)�#��%�#�'��(��� �*

�%$+�$) %$�"

��') � ����'��$ �

�'��$ ���$��') � ��

%%����' �*")*'�"��'��) ��(��������') � ��

�'�$( ) %$ $��)%,�'�(������') � ��) %$

�)��'

��$*�'-

���'*�'-

�'��

�&' "

�-

�*$�

�*"-

�*�*()

��&)�#��'

��)%��'

�%+�#��'

����#��'

��(��, )���'%,�'(��""�, )��(�#��&'%�*�)

��(��, )���'%,�'(�, )��� ���'�$)�&'%�*�)(

�%

�)��'

���()��'%� )

�'�$(&%')�) %$

�%"*#�

�%� () ��"��%$+�$ �$��

�)��'

�������������������������� �����������������������"��)��""�)��)��&&"-�

����������������������������������������������������������"��)��""�)��)��&&"-�

������������������������������������������ ���������������

������������������������������������������ ���������������"��(����$!��'%#�#%()�)%�"��()�*(���

��������������������������� ����������������������

��%"�(�"��)%�� ()' �*)%'

��'#�'(� �'!�)

�%##*$ )-��*&&%')�����' �*")*'�������

��()�*'�$)(

��%"�(�"��)%��'%��'-�()%'��%'��%%&�'�) +�

�)��'�

  40  

  41  

     

�������� �&��%#��$��&#'�)�� �%(�#�

����%%!$��&���"&��%#��$�� �����&��%#��$� �%# �������� !�!�!�!�� !�)!��&#'�)�#��%�#�'��(��� �*

����

����

� �����������������

���

���

���

���

����� �����������������������

���"��"�� �

���

� �� ���

������ #���

����

��%�%�#���&�#������"��������"��"���

��� ��%����������� ��"��� ����#���"����������������"�� �$��%�"��� �!#�"!����"��!!# $�&�����"��������"�"���� "�� !���!�����&�#�%�#��������"���""��������!��!����"�&�# � ��� �����"������"��������%�

���&�#���$����&��# "�� ��#�!"���!�� �������"!�

  42  

Appendix  C.    Farmer  Interview  Guide    

The  purpose  of  this  research  is  to  gather  information  on  the  general  climate  for  partnership  between  farms  in  North  Carolina  and  Carolina  Dining  Services  as  well  as  to  identify  Farms  or  conglomerates  for  possible  partnership.  This  interview  will  take  approximately  15-­‐30  minutes  to  complete.  Your  participation  is  completely  voluntary,  and  the  information  you  provide  will  be  kept  confidential.  Results  will  be  reported  only  in  aggregate  form;  your  contact  information  will  only  be  disclosed  if  you  indicate  on  the  form.  Do  you  consent  to  participate  in  this  research?      1) What  is  your  current  market  (where,  how,  and  to  whom  you  sell  your  products)  and  

why?    a) If  necessary,  probe  for  the  relevance  of  the  following  factors:  price;  convenience;  

consistency  b) Which  of  these  factors  is  of  greatest  importance  to  you?  

2) How  do  you  set  your  price  points?    3) Do  you  sell  locally,  regionally,  or  nationally?    

a) What  is  your  experience  with  or  impression  of  these  different  scales?  4) What  certifications  do  you  have?    

a) Why  did  you  pursue  each  of  those  certifications?  5) What  barriers  are  there  to  pursuing  other  certifications?    6) How  do  you  get  information  about  certifications?  7) Do  you  have  GAP  certification?    

a) If  you  have  it,  which  level/type  do  you  have?  Why  did  you  pursue  it?  If  you  do  not,  why  not?  What  is  your  impression  of  GAP  certification?    

8) Have  you  ever  sold  your  product  to  an  institution?    a) Why  or  why  not?    

9) Would  you  be  interested  in  selling  to  an  institution  like  UNC?    a) Why  or  why  not?    

10) What  is  your  impression  of  large-­‐scale  distributors?  11) Would  you  consider  selling  to  a  distributor  like  Sysco?    

a) Why  or  why  not?  12) Are  you  involved  in  any  conglomerates  of  farmers  that  sell  their  products  together?  

a) If  not,  are  you  interested  in  becoming  part  of  a  one?  b) How  do  you  view  conglomerates  compared  to  distributors?  

                 

  43  

Appendix  D.  Farm  to  Fork  Agenda      

Farm to Fork Forum: UNC Capstone Project Presentation

Tuesday, December 4, 2012, 4:00pm

The End Zone at Rams Head Dining Hall, Chapel Hill, NC

A project by UNC-Chapel Hill undergraduates with support from Carolina Dining Services

Welcome and Introduction to Capstone - Brian Miller Introductions Carolina Dining Services - Suzanne Fleishman Guests - Nina Bryce Presentation - Capstone Team Q&A session and General Discussion - Claire Brown Breakout Discussions and Networking        

  44  

Appendix  E.  Farm-­‐to-­‐Fork  GAP  Handout    

UNC  Farm-­‐to-­‐Fork    Fall  2012        

Facts  for  Farmers  Curious  about  GAP:  • GAP  is  a  voluntary  certification,  however  .  .  .  

o Certain  markets  effectively  mandate  it.  o Future  legislation  could  still  mandate  it.      

• There  is  no  single  GAP  certification.  o Different  retailers  require  different  ones.  o So,  it  is  important  to  ask  what  your  retailer  requires.  

• GAP  standards  cover  4  areas  of  the  farm-­‐level  supply  chain.  o Soil  à  animals  and  manure.  o Hands  à  personnel  hygiene  and  proper  facilities.  o Water  à  potable  water  OR  pathogen-­‐free  water.  o Surfaces  à  processing  areas  and  related  equipment.  

• Official  aim:  to  prevent  microbial  contamination.  o Preventative  rather  than  curative  (recall  Ben  Franklin).  o Process-­‐driven  standards  rather  than  outcome-­‐driven  

• A  good  place  to  begin:  write  a  GAP  manual.  o It  is  free  to  do  so,  and  the  process  is  self-­‐educational.  o Tool  to  use:  http://intranet.primuslabs.com/igap/  

• Educate  yourself  about  GAP’s  application  on  your  farm.  o Utilize  your  local  extension  agent.  o Offer  your  farm  for  a  university  research  case  study.  

• How  much  does  GAP  cost?  o Auditors  charge  $91  per  hour.  o Bulk  of  cost  is  with  record-­‐keeping  and  compliance.  o Initial  capital  investment  and  ongoing  operating  cost.  o Makes  sense  to  annualize  estimates  over  a  decade.  

[See  backside  for  two  GAP  cost  estimates,  one  low  and  one  high.]  

  45  

   

 Source:  Estrin,  H.  (2010).  Here  Comes  GAP  Certification!:  The  inside  story  of  a  Vermont  farmer  going  for  USDA  GAP  certification.  Burlington,  VT:  UVM  Extension.  

  46  

Appendix  F:  Interview  Codes    

Ø need  diversified  markets  

Ø percentage  quota  for  local  

Ø large  volumes  

Ø cash  flow  delay  

Ø ideal  customer  would  call  and  ask  what  we  have  in  stock  and  then  buy  it  

Ø high  turnover  in  institutional  buyer  staff  (CDS)  is  confusing  

Ø lots  of  hoops  to  jump  through  for  big  buyers  

Ø evidence  of  transition  to  GAP  

Ø cumbersome  and  expensive  (GAP)  

Ø can’t  raise  crop  w/o  guaranteed  sale  

Ø lack  of  uniformity  to  GAP  process  

Ø interest  in  selling  to  institution,  but  would  need  to  know  the  demand  

Ø ideal  customer:  dependable,    not  picky,  pay  you  quickly,  

Ø risk    

Ø liability  

Ø seasonality  

Ø communication  

 

 

                     

  47  

References  Aramark.  (2010).  Corporate  Social  Responsibility  in  Practice.  Aramark.  Aramark  Educational  Services,  LLC.  (2012).  Supplier  Agreement.  377960(3).  Philadelphia.  Chibnik,  M.  (2011).  Risk,  Uncertainty,  and  Decision  Making.  In  M.  Chibnik,  Anthropology,  

Economics,  and  Choice.  Austin:  University  of  Texas  Press.  Curtis,  J.  (2010).  From  Farm  to  Fork:  A  Guide  to  Building  North  Carolina’s  Sustainable  Local  

Food  Economy.  Raleigh,  NC:  Center  for  Environmental  Farming  Systems.  Estrin,  H.  (2010).  Here  Comes  GAP  Certification!:  The  inside  story  of  a  Vermont  farmer  going  

for  USDA  GAP  certification.  Burlington,  VT:  UVM  Extension.  George,  V.,  Matts,  C.,  &  Schmidt,  S.  (2010).  Institutional  Food  Purchasing:  Michigan  Good  

Food  Work  Group  Report  No.  3  of  5.  East  Lansing,  Michigan:  C.S.  Mott  Group  for  Sustainable  Food  Systems  at  Michigan  State  University.  

Moses.  (2009,  June).  GAPs:  Bringing  Good  Agricultural  Practices  to  Your  Farm.  Spring  Valley,  WI:  Midwest  Organic  and  Sustainable  Education  Service  (MOSES).  

New  Crop  Opportunities  Center.  (2010).  Good  Agricultural  Practices  (GAP).  Lexington,  KY:  University  of  Kentucky  College  of  Agriculture  Cooperative  Extension  Service.  

North  Carolina  Department  of  Agriculture  &  Consumer  Services.  (2012,  November  1).  North  Carolina  Sustainable  Local  Food  Advisory  Council.  Retrieved  from  http://www.ncagr.gov/localfood/  

Raloff,  J.  (2007).  Lettuce  Liability.  Science  News,  172(12/01/2007).  Shea,  C.  (2011).  2011  Campus  Sustainability  Report.  Chapel  Hill,  NC:  UNC  Sustainability  

Office.  South  Carolina  Food  Policy  Council.  (2011).  Farm  to  School  and  Beyond.  Columbia,  SC:  State  

of  South  Carolina  Department  of  Agriculture.  Tocco,  P.  (n.d.).  GAPs  on  Your  Farm.  Lansing,  MI:  MSU.  Treakle,  J.  (2008).  FLO  Guide  to  CDS.  Chapel  Hill:  FLO.  USDA.  (2007).  2007  Census  of  Agriculture.  Washington,  D.C.:  USDA.  Wilkins,  J.  L.  (2005).  Eating  right  here:  Moving  from  consumer  to  food  citizen.  Agriculture  

and  Human  Values,  22,  269-­‐273.  Woods,  M.,  &  Thornsbury,  S.  (2005).  Costs  of  Adopting  Good  Agricultural  Practices  (GAPs)  

to  Ensure  Food  Safety  in  Fresh  Strawberries.  Agricultural  Economics  Report,  1-­‐20.  Wrest,  A.  D.  (2009).  Buyer  Beware:  The  Liability  Gap  Created  by  Tribal  Farming.  San  

Joaquin  Agricultural  Law  Review,  103-­‐126.     Please direct all follow-up questions and inquiries to: unclocaldining@gmail.com The final report will be available at: http://www.ie.unc.edu/for_students/courses/capstone.cfm