Options for Light Processing and Value Chain
Developments in North Dakota’s Fruit and
Vegetable Agricultural Economy
Prepared for:
FARRMS – Medina, ND
By:
Tyler Demars
Rachel Brazil
Common Enterprise Development Corporation—Mandan, ND
2015
i
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... III
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
MARKET ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................................ 2
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
CURRENT MARKET ACCESS ................................................................................................................................................... 5
MARKET ACCESS BY REGION................................................................................................................................................. 6
Northwest ....................................................................................................................................................................................6
Southwest ....................................................................................................................................................................................6
South Central .............................................................................................................................................................................7
EXPANDING MARKET ACCESS ........................................................................................................................... 7
PRODUCTION POTENTIAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
ADDRESSING PRODUCER NEEDS ........................................................................................................................................ 10
INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENTS IN NORTH DAKOTA ............................................................................... 11
CASE STUDY: EMERGING FOOD HUB— ANAMOOSE, ND .............................................................................................. 12
CASE STUDY: MULTI-FARM COLLABORATION— ROLETTE, ND .................................................................................. 14
OPTIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 16
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS......................................................................................................................................... 16
WASH-PACK FACILITIES ...................................................................................................................................................... 17
On Farm Wash Station ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
Wash & Pack Shed ................................................................................................................................................................ 18
Wash & Pack Operation ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
Shared Use Kitchens ............................................................................................................................................................ 20
Storage....................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
LIGHT PROCESSING COMMERCIAL KITCHEN .................................................................................................................... 21
Contract Processing ............................................................................................................................................................. 21
Canning ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Freezing..................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Equipment and Cost for Light Processing Commercial Kitchen ..................................................................... 22
AGGREGATION CENTERS ...................................................................................................................................................... 23
DISTRIBUTION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 25
CONCLUSION: MOVING FORWARD................................................................................................................ 26
WORKS CITED ...................................................................................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX I: DETERMINING VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT SCALE .................................................. 30
APPENDIX II: PRODUCTION NODE ASSESSMENT..................................................................................... 31
ii
Acknowledgements
Common Enterprise Development Corporation (CEDC) prepared this document for
FARRMS, a recognized leader in local foods education and advocacy. The work was
completed by Tyler Demars and Rachel Brazil and was funded by USDA Rural Development
Rural Business Opportunity Grant. The amount of time spent on this project now yields a
collection of tools and perspectives to facilitate actions to grow a sustainably rural local
food economy. While we struggled to find a reasonable starting point, we hope the users of
this report will find a solid foundation.
This work would have not been possible without the ongoing conversations between CEDC
and FARRMS as we sorted through the complexities of local food economies and the
nuances of the rural characteristics of North Dakota communities. During these
discussions, we were grateful to receive the input Ken Meter of Crossroads provided in
regards to the project. His advice and suggestions directed us to his studies in South
Carolina, leading us to the concept of production nodes and helped gain perspective to the
complexities surrounding a local food system. This quote of Meter’s seems to say it all.
"Transitioning from a situation in which little food is produced for local markets to
one in which production is ample requires a difficult balancing act. At each step of the
way, supply and demand must be balanced" (Meter 2013).
This call for balance also applies to those facilitating the development process as we learn
to balance scope and perspective between the larger demand and the needs and abilities of
producers. It is the producers, big and small, who deserve special thanks. The producers
who took the time to complete the survey helped us to understand the current production
trends. Those who engaged in further discussions, Janel Anderson, Annie Carlson, Keith
Knudson, Joanna Larson, Kimberly and Doug Lemieux, Apryl Lunde, Alyce Ann and Roger
Lunde, Holly Mawby, Lindsay Ostlie, Julia and Mirek Petrovic, Kari Stroh, and Nicholas
Traumbauer, each provided insight to an array of producer needs and values. What we
hope we offer here are tools for producers, economic developers, small business
counselors, and food entrepreneurs to take the steps needed to grow a thriving local food
economy in the rural towns and urban centers throughout North Dakota.
iii
Introduction
For so long, the idea of agriculture in North Dakota has been dominated by images of
expansive fields of wheat, corn, flax, or sunflowers and busy farmers working long days
with large and expensive equipment. Likewise, the idea of North Dakota grown food has
been limited to the notion of commodities that make their way into our pasta, cereals, and
other pantry staples. In the shadow of this common image resides another kind of farmer
and another kind of food.
Fruit and vegetable farmers are working the same long hours, but with smaller equipment.
They rely on high tunnels and greenhouses to extend the short growing season. They grow
tomatoes, peppers, greens, squash, melons, berries, and much more to sell at Farmers
Markets or distribute through community supported agriculture (CSA). These farmers
consist of young families, retired couples, and ambitious individuals. They have often have
limited resources for developing their farm business and rely on off-farm income to
provide a living. Yet these producers have a great dedication to their industry and an
unrelenting enthusiasm to grow.
This project considers the potential for the development of fruit and vegetable industry
infrastructure such as light processing facilities. Light processing facilities can consist of
various components including wash-pack facilities, storage capabilities, and aggregation or
distribution services. With access to such infrastructure, producers could meet processing
requirements, maintain food safety standards, and have the means to build strategic
partnerships to venture outside of direct-to-consumer sales and reach food service and
retail buyers.
Anthony Flaccavento of Appalachian Sustainable Development defines a value chain as,
“A supply chain that is designed to link supply with markets efficiently, but to do so
while promoting certain core values, including equity and fair pay, ecological
sustainability, community capacity, and health and food access” (Flaccavento 2009).
1
Flaccavento prepared a toolkit for value chain development for the Central Appalachian
Network, which offers a flexible framework for this report. The list of adapted questions
can be found in Appendix I. The points of discussion he generates help to determine an
appropriate scale and starting point for value chain development including market
assessment, production capacity, expanding market access, and identifying the need for
existing and potential infrastructure.
In the market analysis section, we quantify the market potential and present the
information by county and present a finding of $40.2 million per year as a potential market
for locally produced fruit and vegetables throughout the state. We also examine the
current producer access to markets. In the following section, we explore market expansion
opportunities and discuss the role of market partners in building value chains and also
consider the needs and potential of current producers. In the Innovative Developments
section, we apply the concept of food production nodes as we present case studies of small
clusters of producers who are seeking to enhance their role in the supply chain. We then
offer an overview of the options for infrastructure development including potential costs
and benefits of wash-pack facilities, commercial kitchens, aggregation facilities, and
distribution options.
Market Analysis
Drivers of the growing trend in the consumption of locally produced foods often include
consumer desire to understand the story behind their food, promote sustainability, and
support local small businesses. Throughout North Dakota, consumer demand for local food
has influenced an increased the prominence of fruit and vegetable producers, farmers
markets, and community support agriculture. Quantifying the market potential for locally
grown fruits and vegetables in North Dakota encourages additional opportunity for growth
in the industry by providing insight for producers looking to scale up and organizations
looking to support value chain development.
2
Methodology
We quantified the potential market for locally grown fruits and vegetables in North Dakota
by utilizing demographic data to generate a per capita local produce value perception score
to each county in North Dakota. The four demographic indicators of household income,
education level, age, and household size influence national per capita consumer demand for
fresh produce. According to the Food Institute’s 2011 Demographics of Consumer
Spending Report, the national average of annual household expenditures on fresh produce
was $429 in 2009. Households earning over $70,000 annually spent $520 per year on fresh
produce while households earning over $100,000 annually spent $712 per year. Economist
Roberta Cook from University of California- Davis explains,
“The economic power of higher income households has driven growth in chains such as
Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, and Costco, and has likely contributed to a greater
emphasis on quality in fresh produce departments among conventional retail chains.”
Annual fresh produce consumption in households with members with a Bachelor degree
was $521, compared to $369 for households whose members have not attended college.
For households with members with postgraduate degrees, annual fresh produce spending
increases to $641. Households headed by persons aged 35-44 spent $478 annually on fresh
produce, and households headed by persons aged 45-54 spent $496 annually. Combined,
these households headed by persons ages 35-54 make up 39% of all households and
purchase 45% of all fresh produce. Interestingly, fresh produce per capita spending
positively correlates to smaller household size as well. In 2009, per capita fresh produce
spending in a four-person household was $136 compared to $227 for single-person
households (Cook 2011).
Results
These indicators for North Dakota counties projected an estimated total market for locally
produced fruits and vegetables of over $40.2 million.Data for each county is listed below
and can be used by readers to assess the market potential for their specific regions and
trade areas.
3
Estimated Market for Locally Produced Fruit and Vegetables
Number
Median HH
Total Food
Fruits & Vegetable
Households
Income (2012)
Spending
Spending
Adams
Barnes
Benson
Billings
Bottineau
Bowman
Burke
Burleigh
Cass
Cavalier
Dickey
Divide
Dunn
Eddy
Emmons
Foster
Golden Valley
Grand Forks
Grant
Griggs
Hettinger
Kidder
LaMoure
Logan
McHenry
McIntosh
McKenzie
McLean
Mercer
Morton
Mountrail
Nelson
Oliver
Pembina
Pierce
Ramsey
Ransom
Renville
Richland
Rollette
Sargent
Sheridan
Sioux
Slope
Stark
Steel
Stutsman
Towner
Trail
Walsh
Ward
Wells
Williams
1,101
4,871
2,291
350
3,028
1,354
1,007
34,703
65,816
1,754
2,178
1,035
1,438
1,104
1,634
1,555
754
27,465
1,113
1,149
1,097
1,146
1,955
827
2,573
1,308
2,666
4,021
3,650
11,416
3,069
1,540
753
3,328
1,983
4,826
2,283
1,041
6,614
4,750
1,741
614
1,116
296
10,439
890
8,873
1,034
1,406
4,948
25,173
1,949
10,411
$45,829
$50,274
$36,435
$65,346
$50,756
$56,238
$53,693
$64,811
$52,590
$56,685
$47,359
$55,057
$62,424
$42,908
$38,477
$50,677
$44,583
$46,745
$38,524
$45,542
$48,179
$50,000
$53,691
$49,076
$44,266
$36,066
$67,995
$52,584
$64,477
$54,909
$59,583
$46,292
$71,250
$49,846
$43,499
$50,457
$49,788
$55,232
$53,759
$36,158
$53,381
$39,505
$31,337
$52,645
$63,886
$55,735
$50,120
$52,033
$48,767
$48,592
$56,647
$48,422
$76,210
$10,629,440
$50,399,760
$30,974,008
$3,936,496
$30,338,944
$14,475,856
$10,386,224
$398,410,328
$733,381,816
$17,547,584
$23,636,992
$10,422,256
$18,745,648
$10,827,616
$15,700,944
$15,160,464
$8,210,792
$311,582,216
$10,706,008
$10,341,184
$11,980,640
$10,935,712
$18,763,664
$8,764,784
$26,672,688
$12,404,016
$41,950,256
$42,864,568
$38,698,368
$130,570,960
$42,229,504
$13,939,880
$8,440,496
$32,343,224
$20,047,304
$52,039,216
$24,844,064
$11,746,432
$73,590,856
$65,677,328
$17,520,560
$5,873,216
$19,952,720
$3,427,544
$127,066,848
$8,827,840
$95,124,480
$10,435,768
$14,890,224
$50,012,416
$306,226,960
$18,943,824
$133,295,880
4
$385,350
$1,704,850
$801,850
$122,500
$1,059,800
$473,900
$352,450
$12,146,050
$23,035,600
$613,900
$762,300
$362,250
$503,300
$386,400
$571,900
$544,250
$263,900
$9,612,750
$389,550
$402,150
$383,950
$401,100
$684,250
$289,450
$900,550
$457,800
$933,100
$1,407,350
$1,277,500
$3,995,600
$1,074,150
$539,000
$263,550
$1,164,800
$694,050
$1,689,100
$799,050
$364,350
$2,314,900
$1,662,500
$609,350
$214,900
$390,600
$103,600
$3,653,650
$311,500
$3,105,550
$361,900
$492,100
$1,731,800
$8,810,550
$682,150
$3,643,850
Local Fruit &
Vegetable Market
Potential
$154,140
$681,940
$320,740
$49,000
$423,920
$189,560
$140,980
$4,858,420
$9,214,240
$245,560
$304,920
$144,900
$201,320
$154,560
$228,760
$217,700
$105,560
$3,845,100
$155,820
$160,860
$153,580
$160,440
$273,700
$115,780
$360,220
$183,120
$373,240
$562,940
$511,000
$1,598,240
$429,660
$215,600
$105,420
$465,920
$277,620
$675,640
$319,620
$145,740
$925,960
$665,000
$243,740
$85,960
$156,240
$41,440
$1,461,460
$124,600
$1,242,220
$144,760
$196,840
$692,720
$3,524,220
$272,860
$1,457,540
North Dakota
Total
287,270
$54,579
$3,258,162,072
$100,544,500
$40,217,800
Current Market Access
The unmet demand for local food throughout North Dakota expands from all market
segments: direct-to-consumer, direct-to-retail, direct-to-food service, and wholesale. The
results from the North Dakota market projections include analysis from both at-home and
away-from-home consumption patterns. On average, Americans consume 50% of their
meals away from home. This includes meals eaten in restaurants, cafeterias, schools, and
other institutions. Thus, 50% of the $40.2 million of potential market in locally grown fruits
and vegetables, a total of $20.1 million exists outside of the direct-to-consumer markets of
farmers markets, on-farm sales, and CSAs. In addition, scaling up these direct-to-consumer
strategies will not begin to fulfill the market for at-home consumption of locally grown
fruits and vegetables. By entering additional market segments such as direct-to-retail and
direct-to-food service, producers have the opportunities to engage in buying agreements
and scale up production with greater predictability.
The data collected in the 2014 Local Food Producer survey indicated that fruit and
vegetable producers most commonly access direct markets opportunities through
community-supported agriculture, farmers market, on farm sales. Few sold product to
hotels, restaurants, and other institutions (HRI), and other outlets. Many respondents
provided a percentage of revenue per market outlets, indicating consistent access to more
than one category. The chart below presents the primary and secondary market outlets
utilized.
5
Market Access by Region
The survey data also offered a look at the market access trends and challenges in the
northwest, southwest, north central, and south central regions.
Northwest
72% of the producers have trade areas of 25 miles or less, many focusing on farmers
markets and on farm sales. No growers in the northwest region indicated the utilization of
institutional sales.
Southwest
83% of the producers have a trade area of 25 miles or less. The majority focus on selling
produce at farmers markets, however others do rely on on-farm and institutional sales as
well.
North Central
69% of the producers maintain a trade area of 25 miles or less. The remaining 31% travel
100 miles or more to get their product to market. This pattern is likely due to the absence
of an urban market in close proximity. One producer from this region indicated regularly
6
travel to sell at the Farmer Markets in more urban areas. Overall, 62% of the growers in
this region are relying on farmers markets for their produce sales.
South Central
50% of the producers have a trade area of less than 25 miles, while the other half travels 50
miles or more. These growers practice a healthy mix of direct market sales through farmers
markets, CSA, on-farm sales, and institutional sales.
Expanding Market Access
The unmet demand for locally produced fruit and vegetables is so expansive that it is
imperative to consider potential production prior to trying consider the scale of potential
value chain infrastructure. Each of the fruit and vegetable producers within the state face a
different set of circumstances influencing their decisions to scale up production to access
new markets. Producers know that as they expand the reach of their markets, their
operations will increase in complexity. At the same time, engaging in more traditional
supply chains reduces the percentage of the consumer dollar that reaches the producer.
It is this reason that value chains have such an influence in developing local food
economies. Philip Ackerman-Leist, author of Rebuilding a Foodshed describes value chains
as,
“Strategic collaborations and business relationships between farms, processors,
distributors, and retailers that operate on the basis of explicitly conveyed values—
shared values that create a collaborative business opportunity and, ideally, customer
allegiance” (Ackerman-Leist 2014).
When considering the potential for direct-to-retail and direct-to-food service options in a
region, it is important to develop relationships with each potential buyer. Not all
restaurants, schools, hotels, nursing homes, or grocers will be interested in purchasing
local products from local producers. It may not fall within their capacities or values—and
that is perfectly okay. Time and commitment are required on the part of the producers and
the buyers to engage in preseason planning, discuss specific needs and expectations, and
7
make purchasing agreements. When the opportunity arises to begin these conversations
with buyers you have not only identified a potential market, you have identified a potential
market partner. Ackermain-Leist explains,
“Once ‘local’ enters the restaurant and grocery sector, those businesses become
responsible for heightening the value of the product to their customers. In that
scenario, value is immediately tied to values. The diner and the shopper willing to pay
prices considered fair to the farmer justifiably expect to connect dollar value with
appropriate farm practices. Such consumers are all the more intrigued when they feel
the entire supply chain that got the food to their plate of their grocery basket is well
grounded in its ethics and commitment to the local and regional community.’”
What Ackermain-Leist describes above is the partner market for local foods, which is
distinct from the potential market. For growers, identifying customers in their partner
market is a critical strategic effort that happens perpetually as their businesses evolve and
grow. Below are some characteristics of customers in the potential market and customers
in the partner market.
Potential Customer
Willing to purchase locally grown food
Will purchase local food if it fits in their current
menu and food preparation processes
Partner Customer
Makes effort to connect and source from local
producers
Will purchase local food understanding local
produced product is often higher quality and
are willing to pay for that quality
Will explore new ways to incorporate local
foods into their menu
Does not market the story of their
business/organization
Sees the stories of local producers as a valuable
addition to their own story
Will purchase local food only if prices are
competitive with conventional suppliers
Production Potential
The data from the 2014 Local Food Producer Survey provided insight to the common
trends and needs of fruit and vegetable growers. Overall findings indicated:

61% of these growers are operating with less than 10 acres in production.
8

70% of these growers are relying on farmers markets, community supported
agriculture, and on-farm sales as a primary outlet for their products.

79% are part-time growers, supporting themselves with off-farm jobs and earning
less than 50% of their income from local food production.

86% of the growers have an interest in scaling-up their operations to meet the
demand for local food.

The three most commonly cited challenges in expanding strategies for production or
distribution include the cost of scaling up, access to markets, and processing
facilities.
While the enthusiasm and commitment to increasing local food production is remarkable,
building the supply for a light processing facility will be a gradual process. The current
supply of locally produced fruits and vegetables in these regions is in the hands of a small
pool of producers. Increasing production takes careful planning and consideration. Rebecca
Thistlethwaite, author of Farms with a Future: Creating and Growing a Sustainable Farm
Business insists local food producers utilize holistic management practices in decisionmaking. Producers who take the Farm Beginnings course offered through FARRMS use this
book as a text and participate in workshops on holistic management strategies. The
producers learn to set goals in three areas: quality of life, form of production, and future
resource base and test all decision making against these goals. Two areas that often guide
the decision making process includes the maintenance of cash flow and soil health.
Producers know not to plant too much or add too many animals without identified market
or committed buyers. Only 30% of the surveyed fruit and vegetable growers in the western
and central part of the state have farm financing. Given the size of the farms discussed
earlier, we can assume that the remaining 70% are likely self-funded. Thistlethwaite
explains, “self-funding will teach patience and avoid risk, and result in slow but sustainable
growth over time” (Thistlethwaite 2012).
The producers who are not limited by finances would find themselves limited by their
future resource base through soil health. Issues such as potential crop demands,
9
compaction, organic matter, mineral composition, and soil erosion are limiting factors for
rapid growth for sustainable fruit and vegetable producers.
Addressing Producer Needs
As producers scale up production in ways that align with their production abilities there
are two options: 1) Expand trade areas to reach urban areas . 2) Expand their customer
base in rural areas to include more institutional buyers. When asked about their barriers
to expansion or the need for additional infrastructure, survey respondents provided the
following comments,
“Storage, processing facilities.”
“Wash and pack facility for community.”
“Post harvest handling facilities.”
“Need to be able to properly clean & store produce”
“Wash Pack Facility”
“Rentable commercial kitchen space would be a plus for ND.”
“Produce washing station.”
“Access to needed used equipment (cold storage).”
“Washing, storage, processing.”
“Small processing and washing station.”
“Food coop or hub with wash and pack facility.”
“A mill or commercial kitchen would open up new possibilities.”
“Transportation.”
“Efficient Routes.”
10
“Distance to market and transportation.”
“Expense of going to multiple markets (price to have stand, gas, time, etc.)”
“Time and money (gas) spent on commute from farm to market. The produce
outlets we use now not capable support larger produce quantity. People want
cheap produce (at least in farmers’ market they do), to keep prices affordable we
cannot hire help or invest in equipment (like refrigerator truck).”
“Time and money (gas) spent on commute from farm to market; the produce
outlets we use now not capable support larger produce quantity.”
“Increase number of local food outlets such as stores and restaurants by creating
low bureaucracy cooperation scheme.”
“An online purchasing food hub for farmers to show what is available for
institutions to purchase.”
“Combined delivery methods, logistics, and a willingness on the part of larger
distributors to handle local foods.”
“I think the best support we can have is for more regional support that will link
our vendors to a network of customers whether it is families, schools, hospitals, or
restaurants. Once it is in place we can work on unified distribution to these
customers.”
Innovative Developments in North Dakota
Among these producers, there are two groups who are exploring business development
strategies that have the potential to have an impact on fruit and vegetable production
industry in North Dakota. The two groups are located in Anamoose and Rolette, two rural
towns within 100 miles of one another. Yet, their approaches to development vary greatly.
While Julia and Mirek Petrovic are leading the way for aggregation and distribution via the
11
state’s first food hub, four producers in Rolette are making steps to supply area schools and
restaurants.
In talking with these producers, we applied concepts from a study by the Crossroads
Resource Center entitled, Making Small Farms into Big Business: A Plan for Infrastructure
Investments to Connect Small Farms in South Carolina to Local Markets. In this study, Ken
Meter and Megan Phillips Goldenberg demonstrated how developments among small
clusters of producers can lead to an interconnected and sustainable local food economy.
These small clusters, called food production nodes are imperative to the move from directto-consumer markets to strategic partners within supply chain relationships.
Meter and Goldenberg also contend that food production nodes be created by farmers and
food producers who are in close proximity to one another in order to work collaboratively
and utilize common food production infrastructure. The core infrastructure needed for
successful food production node development include: season extension, training
programs, washing, sorting, and packing facilities, food storage, local distribution capacity,
and small retail and direct-to-consumer markets to meet local consumer demand (Meter
and Goldenberg 2013). The appendix includes a list of questions or points of discussion
that help to determine the characteristics and inform the direction of emerging food
production nodes.
The producers near Anamoose and in Rolette have an advantage as the producers we
talked to had access to season extension, training programs (including Good Agricultural
Practices certification), and direct-to-consumer markets in place. What they are working on
developing are the facility components. These producer groups featured in these two case
studies are in the process of exploring the potential of post-harvest handling, aggregation,
and distribution and remain to be dynamic components of a larger system.
Case Study: Emerging Food Hub— Anamoose, ND
In the small town of Anamoose, among a population of 280 people, Mirek and Julia Petrovic
operate Slavic Heritage Farm, where they grow a variety of fruits and vegetables. To date,
they have sold their products at Farmers Markets in small towns throughout McHenry
county as well as larger markets in Harvey, Rugby, and Devils Lake. This year though, they
12
are working on something big when it comes to local foods—a food hub. They envision the
food hub as a mission-based enterprise that aggregates products from area farmers and
offers distribution services to retailers. In addition the hub will help build relationships
between customers and producers and serve as a point for community engagement.
Their situation seems unique, as they secured the physical location of the hub prior to
fitting together the pieces regarding purchasing agreements or strategic partners. The
building site was an opportunity in itself for propelling the idea into reality. The building is
an old post-office, with a big basement that can be converted to processing and storage
space. They purchased the building from town of Anamoose for an affordable price and the
Job Development Authority granted $15,000 for roof repairs.
With a little renovation and construction, they can convert the basement into processing
facilities, rent apartments from the upper level rooms to help cash flow the food hub
business, and eventually include a small store and bakery for locals.
The inclusion of the community is a central component to their success. So much of the
hubs success will come from garnering local support through relationship building,
utilizing farmers markets as a marketing tool, and delivering and selling products to larger
market areas.
They anticipate sourcing product from the 10 area farms, including their own to supply
retail buyers from surrounding towns like Harvey and Killdeer and are working to seek out
urban retailers such as the up-and-coming BisMan Community Food Co-op in Bismarck.
Urban market partners such as the Co-op are ideal, as they have already captured a market
of dedicated consumers.
The Petrovics intend to start manageable with local supermarkets, using preseason
planning to gain a sense of the products mix, scale, quality, and duration expected by these
buyers. Buy starting small, they expect they can remain flexible to changes in the market
and maintain stable growth as they expand the enterprise.
While the site for the hub is already secured, one of the challenges in planning and
development remains prioritizing equipment and space for washing, packing, and
13
processing. One of the values that is central to the Pertovics’ operation is that of minimal
waste. While they see converting the basement space to processing and aggregation space,
they also envision a commercial kitchen in a large room upstairs to utilize excess product.
In addition to the basic requirements for wash-pack facilities, their equipment list includes
commercial dehydrator and chopper, with intentions to scale up as the business grows.
The Petrovics are in a seemingly unique opportunity in which a facility emerged prior to
the point of planning and developing strategies. Perhaps such a situation is not that unique
as rural communities often have under utilized structures such as former schools, city halls,
post-offices, or churches that can be a springboard for helping producers enact strategies
to scale up.
This is where the role of community collaboration comes in. Economic developers, city
governments, and job authorities can offer ways to assist these producers to make the most
of their resources. In the case of the Petrovics, the support from the local job development
authority gave them the physical structure to begin the work that is needed in their region.
As talented food entrepreneurs, the Petrovics have the capacity to help grow local in
various markets segments.
Case Study: Multi-Farm Collaboration— Rolette, ND
Four producers in the town of Rolette have been collaborating over the past few years.
They partner to purchase seeds, collaborate at the farmers markets, attend trainings and
conferences, and make production plans together. They are a tight knit group, consisting of
Janel Anderson, Kimberly and Doug Lemieux, Alyce Ann and Roger Lunde and their
daughter-in-law, Apryl Lunde. Together they grow a variety of fruits and vegetables on less
than 15 acres of field and several high tunnels and greenhouses.
Together their acreage totals just shy of 15 acres. On this land, they grow sweet corn,
pumpkin, squash, tomatoes, peppers, onions, carrots, broccoli, beans, cabbage, garlic,
celery, beets, asparagus, melons, and strawberries. They have been selling at farmers
markets in Rolette, Rolla, and Belcourt, and have even considered selling as far away as
14
Devils Lake. Last year, Apryl implemented a CSA delivery program but found the amount of
time and energy it required was more than she could keep up with at this point.
The group continues to look toward the future. Apryl considers the amount of time she will
have to dedicate to marketing and sales as her young children grow as well as the
possibility of being the successor for her in-laws farm. Kimberly and Doug are building a
greenhouse and considering a high tunnel to extend their capacity to grow. Doug sees the
potential for flash-freezing and marketing a North Dakota blend of vegetables. Alyce Ann
and Roger have juneberries, plums, and chokecherries in the ground, which can one day
serve as a U-pick opportunity. Janel envisions dedicating part of her field to a pumpkin
patch for agritourism and become a partner for agricultural education with local schools.
In the mean time, the group is asking the question, “What would it take to start selling our
product to schools?” Last year, Janel had an excess of potatoes, with which she went to area
schools to gauge their interest in purchasing fruits and vegetables from a local producer.
Some schools expressed no interest as they relied heavily on prepared product in their
menu plan. Other took advantage of the opportunity to buy local foods and support a local
farmer. One school even inquired about additional products, eventually buying melons,
squash, peppers, and tomatoes.
Soon the Ojibwa school at Turtle Mountain approached them about buying greens on a
regular basis. Other interest has come from Dunseith and Wolford schools. The Wolford
students have done farm tours at Janel’s and in return she donated corn and celery.
This group of producers sees the addition of a wash and pack facility as an essential piece
to their expansion. They are also considering what potential a commercial kitchen with
light processing capabilities might offer. Their goal is to find a group of market partners
with core products and a desire to put contracts in place. With the implementation of
preseason planning, these producers could access additional markets and afford to utilize
heat in their season extension infrastructure to gain a few more weeks in late season crops.
In our discussions with them, they discussed some of the food service owners who already
15
shop at their farmers markets and might serve as a good starting point for building
conversations.
They see school buyers as potential partners, especially Dunseith that feeds students
throughout the summer months. They intend to sell their best quality to the schools. They
did this with Ojibwa school last fall, and they paid farmers market prices. In addition, they
are considering the potential for food service partners such as country clubs, bar and grills
that offer Friday night steak night, and convenience stops that serve sandwiches.
Options for Infrastructure Development
Regulatory Considerations
The regulatory factors to consider when planning for produce aggregation are largely
aimed at the producers. Good Agricultural Practices Certification is required by a large
majority of commercial buyers. A new model that is just now emerging is Group or Global
GAP. In the Group GAP model, producers attain benefits of scale such as in house skilled
technical support providing trust, access; locally appropriate solutions and buffer between
farmers and external food safety interests. Shifts investment from paying external expenses
such as audits and training to building internal capacity.
In North Dakota farmers of produce can market their uncut/unprocessed produce to
anyone including restaurants and retail food stores. However, any cutting, shredding,
slicing, or chopping requires those processing methods be done in a licensed and inspected
facility. If the farmer is going to do the light processing in a commercial kitchen, that
kitchen will need to be licensed and inspected. The State Health Department or Local
Health district would want to review and approve those processing methods as the cut
produce now becomes potentially hazardous and requires refrigeration.
The State Health Department issues a small food processors license that would be required
and issued to whomever is responsible for the cutting, processing, bagging, etc. An
inspector would come out to the commercial kitchen and make sure it meets Health
Department facility requirements. They would also inspect for proper cleaning of
16
equipment, proper handling of food products, and make sure the packaged products are
labeled appropriately and stored in refrigerated storage after processing. Inspections are
done once per year. There are no classes or certifications required for the processor. The
cost for a small food processor annual license is $60 per year.
The State Health Department is regulatory authority regarding small food processors in
most counties. There are only a couple of local health units that deal with small food
processors: First District Health of Minot and The City of Bismarck. Most defer back to the
State Health Department.
It is recommended any producer exploring facility and value adding investments touch
base with both their local health district and the State Health Department.
Wash-Pack Facilities
In this section a number of washing, packing, and light processing models are presented
starting with low cost options and scaling up to higher cost, larger scale models. Effective
washing and packing model requirements will vary widely depending on the market and
operational circumstances of the each unique producer or cluster of producers. by
Products such as leafy greens require thorough washing and drying in cool water. Other
products such as tomatoes, celery, and apples must be washed in warmer water. Many root
vegetables are not washed in water, but instead brushed clean. Wash & pack facility with
cold storage would allow these producers to expand to Farmers Market without using up a
whole day of harvesting, washing, preparing, traveling, and selling. Products that would
benefit from a washing facility include carrots, potatoes, and beets. Of course, the scale of
the operation is also an important factor. Here are options for producers at different
production scales, from under once acre to 50 acres or more.
On Farm Wash Station
This system is intended for simple/effective method of hand washing fresh vegetables
using materials commonly available from hardware store at modest cost. It is
recommended producers with one to three acres of production consider the on farm wash
station as an option.
17
Image credit: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture
In Field Wash Station
Lumber
Hose Line
Plastic Sink
Steel Sink
Plastic Tub
Dry Rack
Drain Line
Roof
Labor hours
Total Cost: $1,200
Quantity Cost
Total
NA
$150
$150
1
$25
$25
1
$150
$150
1
$200
$200
1
$100
$100
2
$100
$200
1
$25
$25
1
$150
$150
10
$20
$200
Wash & Pack Shed
The wash & pack shed is designed to allow growers to wash, dry, sort, pack, and cold store
product immediately after picking. The proposed design can be a feasible option for
farmers with 4-6 acres of production. However, there are a number of shed design options
with or without a walk in cooler that could be customized to fit the needs of a specific
grower outside of that production scale. When exploring washing, processing and packing
18
investments it is recommended that existing buildings or other infrastructure is utilized to
reduce costs.
Wash & Pack Shed
Quantity
Lumber
NA
Dunk Tub
1
Dry Rack/Screen Table
1
Spin Drier
1
Scale/Screen Table
1
Roller Table
1
Coolbot Cold Storage
1
Electric Service
1
Labor
30
Total Cost
$3,900
Cost
Total
$250
$250
$100
$100
$100
$100
$150
$150
$250
$250
$150
$150
$1,700
$1,700
$600
$600
$20
$600
Wash & Pack Operation
A larger wash & pack operation could be an option for growers with seven to ten acres of
production or more. Here again, every effort should be made to utilize existing buildings
and infrastructure. The cost breakdown below assumes a 1,600 square foot building
including 300 square feet of climate-controlled storage. Costs could be drastically reduced
if an existing building were available for use with electrical and plumbing already in place.
An operation of this scale could accommodate multiple producers. There are several
potential benefits for producers working together. The most apparent is access to
economies of scale. Economies of scale are a proportionate saving in costs gained by an
increased level of production. By leveraging their combined resources and production
yields, producer collaborations have better access to the capital needed to finance
operational investments, in addition to the production needed to justify those investments.
19
Packhouse Operation
Quantity
Building - 1600 sq ft
Wet Cold Storage
Dry Cold Storage
Chilled Storage
Barrel Root Washer
Vegetable Wash Line
Roller Conveyer 5'
Roller Conveyer 10'
Steel Sink
Drying Rack
Shelf
Table
Curtain
Stock Tank
Hand Wash Station
Spin Drier - 5 Gallon
Electical
Mechanical & Plumbing
Labor Hours - Equipment Setup
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
2
1
4
8
2
2
1
1
NA
NA
60
Total Cost $119,700
Cost
Total
$40,000 $40,000
$12,000 $12,000
$12,000 $12,000
$12,000 $12,000
$3,250
$3,250
$600
$600
$500
$2,000
$700
$2,800
$175
$350
$200
$200
$150
$600
$175
$1,400
$350
$700
$125
$250
$100
$100
$250
$250
$10,000 $10,000
$20,000 $20,000
$20
$1,200
Shared Use Kitchens
These kitchens can be used by farmers primarily for production of packaged products .
They can create supplemental revenue stream for farmers with excess crop or capacity.
There is opportunity to connect shared-use growers with shared-use small business for
local hub development. Shared use kitchens do not require hiring and training a large staff,
as they are often rent-by-the hour or membership based commercial kitchens with the
specific intent to conduct value-adding processing of excess produce. Shared use kitchens
can be expanded to be open to catering, baking, and dry good storage as a small business
incubation kitchen.
The areas of consideration of a shared use kitchen include the fact that producers are
required to for their own processing, often during the harvest season. Each producer
utilizing the kitchen would be required by the State of North Dakota Health Department to
maintain a yearly small processing license for a fee of $60 per year. As the producers are
the ones doing the processing, they are also responsibly for maintaining, cleaning, and
respecting the space and equipment. The shared used kitchen model may be most
20
beneficial for rural communities with access to under utilized commercial kitchens.
Starting a shared use kitchen from the ground up or expanding its capacities will require
market research so that production capacity and buyer needs can inform the development
of the right services and equipment.
Storage
Storage can be a successful strategy for seasonal extension and off-season revenue. Some
products can be stored for many months for fresh consumption. Products that would
benefit from cold storage include carrots, potatoes, onions, cabbage, beets, squash, apples,
garlic, beets, and pears. Under the right conditions, crops can remain saleable for six
months. Proper storage temperature and humidity varies by crop. The ideal storage should
be kept constant. Additional information on specific storage requirements can be found at
the Wholesale Success Guide at Familyfarmed.org.
Light Processing Commercial Kitchen
In general, light processing refers to chopping- transforming produce into the sizes, forms,
and quantities most frequently used in the food service industry. This can refer to slicing,
peeling, coring, pulping, shucking, and more. Such a facility is scale dependent and the
types of equipment depends on the variety of produce coming into the facility. In smaller
operations, it is most cost effective to cut and chop products manually. In other cases, it
may be best to utilize fresh-cut machines, or machines that are mechanized to chop, dice,
slice, and package. The addition of a commercial kitchen would allow for more consistent
use and also give opportunity to sell salsas, jams, and other value added products.
Products that would benefit from light processing, such as chopping include lettuce, herbs,
and cabbage.
Contract Processing
Contract processing centers have a professional staff to process and produce food products.
They generally work well within a scenario that producers have excess produce, for which
the contract-processing kitchen processes and sells the product to wholesale or
foodservice companies. From a business perspective, contract-processing facilities are
more profitable and productive than shared use kitchens, as they have ready buyers. They
21
use certified recipes for their products. There usually is a fee for producers to have their
product processed, and can be a complex business to manage as it requires hiring and
training staff, and continual access to a fully equipped kitchen.
Canning
A typical commercial canning operation employs washing, sorting, grading, preparation,
container filling, sealing, sterilizing, cooling, labeling/casting, and storage. Canning
provides shelf life to highly perishable fruits and vegetables and lends its self to products
such as pickles, salsas, dips and spreads, and sauces that can be sold in retail markets and
utilized in food service. Foods can be canned in small batches, using traditional means of
preservation or foods can be processed at a large scale through continual methods, which
cans or jars move through pressure processors and are quickly cooled.
Freezing
The potential for frozen fruits and vegetables include green beans, corn, broccoli, peas,
carrots, cauliflower, and more. In small operations, the process can include blanching,
shocking in the freezer, packaging, and freezing. Large Operations use flash freezing where
food is frozen quickly in cryogenic temperatures. Products need to be tracked and labeled
with expiration.
Equipment and Cost for Light Processing Commercial Kitchen
The functions and scale of a successful commercial kitchen can vary widely depending on
the market and customers served. For the purposes of this report we are looking at a
commercial kitchen where fruits and vegetables are cut, sliced, shredded, and bagged.
22
Commercial Kitchen for Light Processing
Total Cost $92,495
Quantity Cost
Total
Building
1 $41,000 $41,000
Dishwasher
1
$3,200
$3,200
Triple Sink
1
$600
$600
Hand Sink
1
$100
$100
SS Tables
4
$1,250
$5,000
Vegetable Cutter
1
$320
$320
Wedger
1
$100
$100
Vegetable Slicer/Shredder
1
$375
$375
Food Processor
1
$1,900
$1,900
Dehydrator
1
$5,400
$5,400
Refridgerator
1
$900
$900
Freezer
1
$900
$900
Blast Freezer
1 $18,000 $18,000
Cooker/Canner
1
$5,000
$5,000
Vacuum Sealer
1
$600
$600
Digital Scales
2
$600
$1,200
Misc Utinsuls
NA
$2,500
$2,500
Electical
NA
$3,000
$3,000
Mechanical & Plumbing
NA
$2,400
$2,400
Aggregation Centers
Aggregating and storing specialty crops from a variety of producers, provides buyers a
simplified way to purchase large quantities. Aggregation facilities can have a number of
revenue streams depending on the business model, on-farm capabilities of suppliers, and
mix of market channels. One of those revenue streams could be fee-based on farm product
pickup. Delivery/Pick up route coordinating would be a critical function of the manager.
Farmer suppliers could also have the option to drop product at the hub at no fee assuming
they have access to refrigerated transport. . Capital Expenditures are estimated to be
$155,000, the bulk of which pays for a 800 square foot walk in cooler, a refrigerated
delivery truck and a refrigerated delivery van. Other capital expenditures include grading
and packing equipment, office equipment, and leasehold improvements. Operating capital
needs are estimated to be just over $180,000. The significant operating capital line items
are pre-opening salaries and wages ($26,667), starting inventory purchases ($25,000),
consulting & legal fees ($40,000), and working capital ($40,000).
23
Required Start-Up Funds
Fixed Assets
Leasehold Improvements
Equipment
Furniture and Fixtures
Vehicles
Other Fixed Assets
Total Fixed Assets
Operating Capital
Pre-Opening Salaries and Wages
Prepaid Insurance Premiums
Inventory
Consulting/Legal/Accounting Fees
Rent Deposits
Utility Deposits
Supplies
Advertising and Promotions
Licenses
Other Initial Start-Up Costs
Working Capital (Cash On Hand)
Total Operating Capital
Amount
Totals
25,000
60,000
10,000
60,000
Depreciation
15.00
7.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
Notes
years
years
years
years
years
155,000
26,667
2,500
25,000
40,000
4,200
1,500
2,500
5,000
3,000
5,000
40,000
GM for four months at $54K/year + 1 month employee wages
Property & Liability
Assuming 3% of total year 1 purchases
Development and supply organization support
1 month's rent
155,367
Total Required Funds
$
Sources of Funding
Owner's Equity
Grants/Other Investors
Additional Loans or Debt
Commercial Loan
Amount
12.89%
12.89%
Total Sources of Funding
100.00%
310,367
Totals
40,000
40,000
74.22%
230,367
$
Loan Rate
6.00%
310,367
Term
84.00
Monthly Payments
$3,365.32
$3,365.32
24
Distribution
The most significant operating expenses are Delivery Fleet Expenses of over $43,000/year
one and Facility Rent at $50,400/year. See appendix for breakdown of vehicle operating
costs. Website development is included in the advertising budget and assumes
development/technical support costs for a web-based ordering system. Moving market
ready product from the facility to the customer is another critical function. As with
aggregation, existing food hubs across the country have shown creativity in developing cost
effective distribution models, in some cases including partnerships with established
wholesale distributors. Products that are aggregated and packed for distribution need to be
transported to market quickly. Many produce wholesale buyers require deliveries made
with refrigerator trucks that can maintain appropriate temperature. The hub will require a
refrigerated truck for out of town deliveries and product pickup, and a refrigerated van for
in-town deliveries and special runs. A critical management function is the efficient
coordination of delivery and on-farm pick up routes.
Expenses
Loan Interest
Depreciation
Fuel
Maintenance/Repair
Tires
Insurance
Registration, Title and
Taxes
Total
Month
$46.67
$125.00
$364.58
$476.25
$33.33
$333.33
$50.00
Van Expense
Year
$560.00
$
1,500.00
$
6,250.00
$
5,715.00
$
400.00
$
4,000.00
$
600.00
$1,429.17
$19,025.00
25
Per Mile
$
$
$
0.21
0.19
0.01
Expenses
Loan Interest
Depreciation
Fuel
Maintenance/Repair
Tires
Insurance
Registration, Title and
Taxes
Total
Month
$83.33
$312.50
$729.17
$627.50
$44.44
$333.33
$50.00
Truck Expense
Year
$1,000.00
$
3,750.00
$
12,500.00
$
7,530.00
$
533.33
$
4,000.00
$
600.00
$2,180.28
$29,913.33
Conclusion: Moving Forward
26
Per Mile
$
$
$
0.31
0.19
0.01
Works Cited
Ackerman-Leist, Philip. 2013. Rebuilding the Foodshed: How ro Create Local, Sustainable,
and Secure Food Systems. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, Vermont.
Barham, James, Debra Tropp, Katheen Enterline, Jess Farbman, John Fisk, and Stacia Kiraly.
2012. Regional Food Hub Resource Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Marketing Service. Washington, DC. http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/MS046.04-2012
Cantrell, Patty & Bod Heuer. 2014. Food Hubs: Solving Local. The Wallace Center at Winrock
International. Retrieved from http://ngfn.org/solvinglocal
Cantrell, Patty. 2010. Sysco’s Journey from Supply Chain to Value Chain: 2008-2009 Final
Report. The Wallace Center at Winrock International. Retrieved from
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5091496
Cook, Roberta. 2011. Eye on Economic: Much More than Dollars and Centers: Tracking
Consumption Trends and Buyer Preferences. Blueprints. Retrieved from
http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/234-2159.pdf
Day-Farnsworth, Lindsey, Brent McCown, Michelle Miller, Anne Pfeiffer. 2009. Scaling Up:
Meeting the Demand for Local Food. University of Wisconsin Ag Innovation Center and
University of Wisconsin—Madison Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems.
http://www.cias.wisc.edu/scaling-up-meeting-the-demand-for-local-food/
Dunning, Rebecca. 2013. Research-Based Support and Extension Outreach for Local Food
Systems. Center for Environmental Farming Systems, North Carolina.
Ecostrust. 2012. FoodHub Spreads Love of Local Food Across Pacific Northwest. http://foodhub.org/news/tag/pacific-northwest/. Accessed January 2015.
Fischer, M., Hamm, M., Pirog, R., Fisk, J., Farbman, J., & Kiraly, S. 2013. Findings of the 2013
National Food Hub Survey. Michigan State University Center for Regional Food Systems &
27
The Wallace Center at Winrock International. Retrieved from
http://foodsystems.msu.edu/activites/food-hub-survey.
Flacceneto, Anthony. 2009. Health Food Systems: A Toolkit for Building Value Chains.”
Central Appalachian Network.
Local Food Research Center. 2012. Non-Profit Food Hubs: Summary of Economic Viability.
Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project. Asheville, North Carolina.
Martinez, Steve, et al. 2010. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues, ERR 97, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Matson, James, Martha Sullins, and Chirs Cook. 2013. The Role of Food Hubs in Local Food
Marketing. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development. Service Report 73.
Meter, Ken. 2013. “Food Production Nodes” Build a Web of Support Around a Food Hub.
Crossroads Resource Center. www.crcworks.org
Meter, Ken and Megan Philips Goldenberg. 2013. Making Small Farms into Big Business: A
Plan for Infrastructure Investments to Connect Small Farms in South Carolina to Local
Markets. Crossroads Resource Center. www.crcworks.org.
National Good Food Network. 2015. Field Guide to the New American Foodshed: Intervale
Food Hub. http://foodshedguide.org/cases/intervale-food-hub/ Accessed February 2015.
Pesch, Ryan.2010. How Much Impact Can Farm-to-School Programs have on a Regional
Economy? Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture. University of Minnesota
Extension.
Pirog, R., Miller, C., Way, L., Hazekamp, C., & Kim, E. 2014. The Local Food Movement: Setting
the Stage for Good Food. MSU Center for Regional Food Systems.
Pinchot, Ariel. 2014. The Economics of Local Food Systems: A Literature Review of the
28
Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Local Food. University of Minnesota Extension
Center for Community Vitality.
Rushing, James and Jens Ruehle. 2013. Buying into the Local Food Movement. AT Kearney,
Inc.
Schless-Meier, Adrien. 2012. FoodHub Uses Online Social Networking to Get Farm-fresh Food
to School Cafeterias. Civileats.org. http://civileats.com/2012/06/28/foodhub-uses-onlinesocial-networking-to-get-farm-fresh-food-to-school-cafeterias/#sthash.i8adC1G1.dpuf
Schmit, T.M, B.B.R. Jabolnksi, and D. Kay. 2013. Assessing the Economic Impacts of Regional
Food Hubs: the Case of Regional Access. Cornell University.
http://dx.doi.org/10.9752/MS145.09-2013
Thistlethwaite, Rebecca. 2012. Farms with a Future: Creating and Growing a Sustainable
Farm Business. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, Vermont.
29
Appendix I: Determining Value Chain Development Scale
Questions for determining the scale of value chain development, adapted from Anthony
Flaccavento’s document for the Central Appalachian Network, “Healthy Food Systems: A
Toolkit for Building Value Chains.”
1. How large is the unmet demand for healthy, local foods in your defined region? Can the
expansion of farmers markets, CSA’s and other direct-to-consumer options meet this demand?
2. Who and where are the specific market drivers for healthy local foods? Are public schools,
colleges, universities, or local retailers interested in sourcing products from local producers? Are
they dedicated to promoting the values held by your farm?
3. What is the estimated total demand, and for your products? Is there a minimum demand that
must be met?
4. Roughly how many farms / acres of land would be required to meet this demand?
5. Is there broad enough interest among farmers to meet this demand, and if so, how much
assistance and support (training, materials, finance) will they likely need?
6. Why are these markets beneficial for farmers? Do they reduce costs? Improve prices? Provide
larger or easier market access?
7. How many farmers / food producers will be needed to meet the minimum – and projected –
demand, and how close are these farmers to one another?
8. What infrastructure is needed to link the desired products to the markets? Does some or all of
it currently exist?
9. What will it cost to build or access the needed infrastructure? What forms of funding – grants,
loans – are available?
10. Is there a local organization or business willing and able to launch the value chain? To
manage it, if necessary?
30
Appendix II: Production Node Assessment
1. Producers
a. Product Mix
i. What products are you producing?
ii. How much product are you producing?
iii. Thinking of the vision for your ideal or dream operation, what products
are you producing?
iv. How many acres are you managing in your ideal operation?
v. How many acres do you currently plant/harvest/manage?
vi. How many acres do you have access to?
b. Cooperative Marketing Experience/Willingness
vii. Do you currently work with other growers/producers in marketing your
product? If so,
1. What cooperative marketing models have you implemented?
2. What have been the success/failures/lessons learned?
viii. What do you hope to accomplish in exploring cooperative marketing
models?
ix. What are your concerns about cooperative marketing models?
c. Individual Farm vs Cooperative Farm Branding
x. Do you want to retain your own farm brand/traceability in cooperative
marketing or would you prefer a separate cooperative brand?
d. Value adding capacity
xi. Do you currently conduct any value adding processing in marketing your
products?
xii. What do you see as the “low hanging fruit” regarding value adding
processes?
e. HR Assessment
xiii. How many additional hours can you and your existing staff contribute to
value adding activities?
31
xiv. What additional human resources would you need to execute the value
adding activities? What time of year and for how long would you need the
additional HR?
xv. Is affordable and capable staff available for hire?
2. Markets
a. Defined trade area
b. Direct to Consumer
c. Food Service
d. Retail Grocery
e. Farm to School
3. Production and Marketing Plan
a. Target Market Partners
b. Value Added Product Mix
c. HR Plan
4. Financial Plan
a. Revenue Projection
b. Operating Expenses
5. Facility/Equipment Needs
a. Commercial Kitchen Basics
i. Refrigeration
ii. HACCP Plan
b. Wash & Pack
c. Light Processing (Cutting, Chopping, Dicing, Bagging…etc)
i. Food processor
ii. Slicer
iii. Cutter
iv. Shredder
v. Bagging/Packing
d. Processing for Preservation (Canning & Freezing)
32
33