Food and A G Final Report 2011

New River Valley Livability Initiative:
Food and Agricultural Systems Report
Photograph by Hali Plourde-Rogers
December 2011
Prepared by: Courtney Beale, Kinsey Cunningham, Amy Hubbard, Scott Kelley, Tiffany Luu, Jeremy Mauck, Hali Plourde-Rogers, Klaudia Sandomierz, Porter Stevens, and Rial Tombes
Table of Contents
I.
II.
a. Problem Statement b. Scope of the Report c. Methods a. b. c. d. e. f. g.
Introduction.................................................................................................4
New River Valley Agricultural History....................................................5

Introduction Agriculture in the New River Valley 1992 Census Data 1997 Census Data 2002 Census Data 2007 Census Data Census Data: Compiled 1992-2007
III. Marketing...................................................................................................27 IV. Local Supply...............................................................................................28

a. b. c. d. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Introduction Findings Recommendations to NRVLI Working Group Aggregation Markets Case Study: Good Food Good People, Floyd, VA Introduction Higher Education Public Schools Other Institutions Case Study: Virginia Tech Case Study: Ferrum College Case Study: Washington and Lee Case Study: Oklahoma Farm to School
V.
Local Demand............................................................................................30
VI. Policy...........................................................................................................36
a. Introduction i. Federal ii. Virginia iii. Educating Young Farmers a. Definition
VII. Food Hub...................................................................................................38
VIII. Next Steps: Conclusion.............................................................................42 IX. Appendix....................................................................................................43

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Surveys/Interview Questions Answers to Surveys/Interview Questions Contact Information Food Hub Funding Sources 2007 Census of Agriculture by county Agriculture Products Pricing Chart Additional Resources
b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.
Components Benefits Challenges Food Hub Development Funding Recommendations to NRVLI Working Group Case Study: Local Food Hub, Charlottesville, VA Case Study: Appalachian Sustainable Development
X.
Bibliography................................................70
Photographs by Hali Plourde-Rogers
New River Valley Livability Initiative
Photograph by Hali Plourde-Rogers
Introduction
Problem Statement
The local food systems equation consists of many variables, but the two that are most important are supply and demand. Our task was to evaluate how both supply and demand influence local food and agricultural systems in the New River Valley (NRV); however, time and seasonal constraints led us to focus more on the demand side of that evaluation. In order to understand this demand, we looked at several different questions as laid out by both the New River Valley Livability Initiative (NRVLI): 1. What is the demand for local foods? 2. How can local food producers (dairy, meat, vegetables or value-added products) enter into larger markets (Virginia Tech, Carilion, and others)? 3. What are the barriers or constraints to entering larger markets? (Requirements related to storage, delivery, standardization, timing, safety, etc.) 4. Is there an interest from these large buyers to purchase local foods? 5. What are the quantities that are currently being purchased of things that could be supplied locally and at what price point? 6. Historical review of what was grown and could grow well in the region to meet the demand. 7. Case study analysis of other large universities that have been successful at increasing the purchase of local foods. What did it take? These questions cover a diverse range of issues on the demand side of the equation but lead us to focus on how we may measure demand for local foods both quantitatively and qualitatively. The evaluation of demand led us to several different areas that we had not predicted from the outset. Those issues ranged from barriers and disconnects in the demand and supply equation to scalability of food systems and how this demand manifests itself going forward.
Scope of the Report

In this report, the Environmental Planning Studio Food and Agriculture Group aims to assist the NRVLI in their goal of increasing agricultural sustainability and food systems in our area. This project covers introductory data gathering and analysis on local food issues that will hopefully be helpful to achieving greater sustainability. The group was divided into two main sections: supply and demand. The supply section details what types of food crops are available in the NRV. We researched what types of crops have been successfully grown in this region. The supply section also discusses price points and their trends throughout the years. Interviews with farmers market managers and the farmers who frequent the markets are included in this section to assess their interest in contributing to local food programs and their desire and ability to expand their current production levels. The demand section includes interviews with possible local food purchasers. These interviews allowed the group to assess interest in local food programs, explore possible barriers for using local foods, and obtain a general idea of the types and amounts needed. This section then discusses possible ways of achieving greater food sustainability in this region, specifically by way of a food hub. Although the scope of this project is far-reaching, we hope to have covered the initial significant points related to achieving greater food sustainability in the NRV.
Methods
The Environmental Planning Studio Food and Agriculture Group had a meeting at the start of the Fall 2011 semester with Kim Thurlow, project coordinator for the NRVLI. At this point, Thurlow and our group discussed the direction the NRVLI would

be interested in pursuing. At this meeting, we discussed the need to hear from community members involved in the supply and demand of locally produced and sold food. The NRVLI leaders are most interested in assessing whether there is a demand for farmers throughout the NRV to sell their food locally. Therefore, the group split the work into two separate groups: supply and demand. The supply group focused on historical data of top ranked crops in the region as well as pricing trends for these products. The supply section also focused on interviews with farmers, farmers market managers, and aggregation markets. The demand group focused on talking to public school districts, universities and colleges, and hospitals in the NRV. Due to the large volume of food required for these venues, these markets were thought to be appropriate starting points for increasing local food procurement. Throughout the semester, we researched and interviewed working models. A case study was created for each model. Our final project will share both qualitative and quantitative data that focuses on our assessment of local procurement potential in the NRV. cant industry in Virginia (Lamie, 1997). Farmers have become less self-sufficient and have transferred many of the responsibilities for producing agricultural inputs, processing its raw inputs, and marketing to other sectors of the economy (Lamie, 1997). This has led to job increases in non-farming components of the agricultural system (Lamie, 1997). Today, close to 1 out of 5 jobs in Virginia are related to agriculture in some way (DEQ, 2011). Agriculturerelated activities are broad and range from the traditional raising of field crops, vegetables, livestock, and nursery products, to the breeding of commercial horses, the bottling of premium wines, and the growing of fish, or aquaculture (DEQ, 2011). However, for the purposes of this report, we will focus on the traditional crop and livestock components of agriculture.
Agriculture in the New River Valley

Agriculture is a major industry in the NRV. Traditionally successful crops in this region include: gourds, elephant garlic, soybeans, tomatoes, pumpkins, corn (sweet), and corn (grain), to name a few (DEQ, 2011). Major farm commodities that are produced in southwestern Virginia are cattle and calves, dairy, and tobacco (Lamie, 1997). In fact, the NRV is home to the seventh largest cattle population in Virginia (NRVPDC, 2010). In turn, meat processing is a major agricultural manufacturing activity of southwestern Virginia (Lamie, 1997). Poultry production and processing, soybean production, and tobacco processing are not strongholds in the southwestern and southern region of Virginia, though they are large industries in other parts of the state (Lamie, 1997). Although agriculture is still a significant operation of the NRV, there are declining trends in farming. In the mid-1930s, nearly 7,500 farms covered more than 690,000 acres of Floyd, Montgomery, Giles and Pulaski counties (Dellinger, 2004). However, by the late 1990s, only 1,959 farms remained, covering a little more than 363,000 acres (Dellinger, 2004). The NRV counties, particularly Montgomery and Floyd, have had large agricultural land losses from 1987 to 1997 (Dellinger, 2004). This is due mainly to the conversion of agricultural land to infrastructure, such as commercial development, housing, and roads (Dellinger, 2004).
NRV Agricultural History

Introduction
Before European colonists settled eastern Virginia, indigenous Powhatan tribes inhabited the area. These Native Americans cultivated distinct varieties of crops and developed specific farming techniquesthey were the countrys first agricultural experts (DEQ, 2011). Once the European settlers arrived, they adopted many of the Powhatan farming techniques, such as planting crops in rows (DEQ, 2011). The farming practices of the colonists, however, differed from those of the Native Americans. While the Native Americans were subsistence farmers, the colonists were more market-oriented and grew cash crops for export (DEQ, 2011). Important cash crops included tobacco, rice, indigo, and cotton (DEQ, 2011). By the time of the American Revolution, important crops grown in Virginia included corn, squash, beans, apples, cabbage, kale, mustard greens, lettuce, peas, and turnips (DEQ, 2011). In these times, the economy of Virginia was almost all agricultural (Lamie, 1997). The invention of farm machines, such as tractors, revolutionized farming (DEQ, 2011). These inventions allowed farmers to produce more crops in less time, using fewer resources (DEQ, 2011). However, as farming technology has increased the productivity of farm and non-farm labor, the labor force engaged in farming has declined (Lamie, 1997). Although agriculture is still changing today, it remains a signifi-
United States Department of Agriculture Census Data: 1992, 1997, 2002, and 2007
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as well as the National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) has provided a database of agricultural census data. We used four data sets from the Agricultural Census: 2007, 2002, 1997, and 1992. Each year has data for the entire state of Virginia as well as each county. We put together a section of compiled data including statistics for the four counties that make up the NRV. See the Appendix for exact agricultural census data for the region. New River Valley Overview Floyd County

Floyd County is the southernmost county in the NRV. Floyds population is 15,279 with 380.42 square miles (Census, 2010). Giles County Giles County is the northernmost county in the NRV. Giles population is 17,286 with 355.78 square miles (Census, 2010). Montgomery County Montgomery County makes up the eastern portion of the NRV. Montgomerys population is 94,392 people with 387.01 square miles of land (Census, 2010). Montgomery County includes two of the main urban centers in the region, Blacksburg and Christiansburg. Pulaski County Pulaski County makes up the western portion of the NRV. Pulaskis population is 34,872 with 319.86 square miles of land (Census, 2010). 1992 USDA Census Data Montgomery County In 1992, Montgomery County, Virginia had 98,914 acres in farms with 537 total farms. The average market value of products sold for all farms was $1.5 million. The average sales per farm for products sold were $33,158. Montgomery County actually had the highest average per farm in sales in comparison to Floyd, Pulaski, and Giles. Crop sales for all farms in Montgomery in 1992 were $1.4 million, while livestock sales for all farms were $1.3 million. Figure 1.1 indicates the wide disparity in sales with livestock making up 90% of sales, while crops only made up 10%. Figure 1.2 displays the number of farms by size in 1992. There were 238 farms in the mid range size of farms, 50-179 acres. The largest type of farm with over 1,000 acres contained the smallest number of farms in comparison to the other size brackets. Of the 46,786 acres of total cropland, Montgomery County used 20,482 acres for harvested cropland in 1992. 133 acres of cropland were allocated for irrigated land. On average, production expenses for a farm were about $24,463. As shown in Figure 1.3, there were 228 individuals who stated that farming was their primary occupation, while 309 individuals stated that farming was not their primary occupation but had spent at least 200 days in the field. Figure 1.4 showcases the wide range of the number of farms by value of sales in 1992 for Montgomery County. There were more farms that made less than $2,500 in sales than in any other bracket. Ultimately, a majority of all farms made less than $25,000

in sales. Strikingly, there were 40 farms that made $100,000 or more in sales. As indicated by Figure 1.5, beef cow farms made up the largest number of farms for livestock. There are 339 beef cow farms in Montgomery County, which dwarfs the other types of livestock farms. There are only 17 farms for hogs and pigs. the greatest percentage of crop sales in comparison to Montgomery, Pulaski, and Giles County. In Floyd County in 1992, mid size farms between 50 to 179 acres made up the largest number of farms, while farms with 1,000 or more acres had the lowest number of farms (Figure 2.2).
Similar to livestock farms, hay dominates the countys harvested crops. There are 391 hay farms, while all other farms for harvested crops are merely in the double digits.
In 1992, Floyd County had 339 individuals list farming as their primary occupation, while 422 individuals listed farming as an occupation where they spent at least 200 days in the field (Figure 2.3).
Floyd County In 1992, Floyd County had 761 farms with 116,509 acres in farmland. The average market value of products sold for all farms was $21.4 million. The average sales per farm for products sold equaled $28,064. With $5 million, Floyd County had the highest value in crop sales for all farms in 1992 in comparison to the other three counties. Livestock sales for all farms totaled $16 million. Figure 2.4 indicates that the greatest number of farms by value of sales have sales between $2,500 and $4,999. A majority of farms in Floyd County make less than $25,000. There were only 20 farms that made between $50,000 and $99,999 and only 39 farms that
Figure 2.1 indicates that crops in 1992 made up 24% of sales, while livestock sales were over 75%. Floyd County in 1992 actually had

made $100,000 or more. On average, each farm in Floyd County had $22,422 in total farm production expenses in 1992. Similar to the other counties, beef cows in Floyd County in 1992 were the largest type of livestock farm. Hogs and pigs made up the fewest number of farms in this category with only 13 farms. See Figure 2.5.
Floyd County had the greatest number of farms for crops like hay, alfalfa, small grain, etc. On the other hand, there were zero farms for soybeans. The second greatest number of farms for selected crops in 1992 came from corn for grain or seed. See Figure 2.6.
farms in Pulaski County had less than 180 acres. In 1992, 149 individuals listed farming as a primary occupation, which is fewer than the 215 individuals who worked less than 200 days in the field. See Figure 3.3.
Pulaski County In 1992, Pulaski County had 71,803 acres in farmland with 363 total farms. The average market value of products sold for all farms was $11.6 million. The average sales per farm for products sold totaled $32,091. Crop sales for all farms in Pulaski in 1992 equaled $1 million, while livestock sales for all farms totaled $10.5 million. Like Montgomery County and Floyd County mentioned above, Pulaski County has a greater percentage of sales coming from livestock as opposed to crops. Livestock made up 91% of sales while crops made up 9% according to Figure 3.1. Figure 3.2 represents the number of farms by size in 1992. There were 140 farms in the mid level range of 50 to 179 acres. There were only ten farms with over 1,000 acres. More than half of all
In 1992, more farms made less than $2,500 in sales than any other sales bracket. More than 75% of all farms in Pulaski County made less than $25,000 in sales. Only 24 farms in 1992 made more than $100,000. On average, each farm in Pulaski County had $22,422 in total farm production expenses in 1992. See Figure 3.4. Figure 3.5 indicates that Pulaski County had the greatest number of livestock farms for beef cows. The second greatest number of farms for Pulaski County for livestock was milk cows, but with

only 22 farms. However, livestock made up $3,568 in sales for the county, again this value is also far lower than the other counties. Like the three other counties shown above, Giles County has a similar ratio of livestock to crop sales. Crops made up 12% of all sales, while livestock made up 88% of all sales. See Figure 4.1. In 1992, Giles County had the same number of mid size farms in the 50 to 179 acre range as Pulaski County. There were 140 farms in this division. There were only 5 farms that had 1,000 acres or more. See Figure 4.2.
According to Figure 3.6, there were 270 alfalfa, small grain, and other types of hay farm in 1992 in Pulaski County, which far exceeds all the other types of selected crop farms.
Figure 4.3 indicates that 140 individuals in Giles County listed farming as their primary occupation in 1992, while only 192 individuals listed farming as an occupation for at least 200 days in the field. Giles County had the fewest number of individuals for farming as not as a primary occupation in comparison to the other three counties in 1992.
Giles County In 1992, Giles County had the fewest number of farms in comparison to the other three counties. There were only 332 farms, but Giles had more acreage in farms than Pulaski. The average market value of products sold for all farms in Giles County in 1992 was $4,053, which is the lowest in comparison to the other three counties. There was only $485,000 in crop sales for all farms in 1992.
Figure 4.4 shows that the greatest number of farms by value of sales for Giles County in 1992 fell between $5,000 and $9,999 in sales. There were only 11 farms in Giles County that made more than $50,000 in sales in 1992. Figure 4.5 indicates that beef cows made up the largest number of livestock farms in Giles County in 1992. In sum, there were not many farms for other livestock types besides beef cows for Giles County.

had the lowest sales in the region for both crops and livestock. Montgomery County had the largest average of sales per farm ($33,158), while Giles County had the lowest average sales per farm ($12,207). All of the counties produced more livestock farms for beef cows than any other type of livestock. Hay farms were also the most common type of farm for all of the counties as well. More than 50% of all farms in the region made less than $24,000 in sales. As shown from Figure 5.1, Floyd County had the most farms in the region, while Giles County had the fewest.
Figure 4.6 indicates that hay farms, including alfalfa, other tame, and small grains made up the largest number of harvested crop farms for Giles County in 1992.
Figure 5.2 indicates that Floyd County had the most farmers who listed farming as a primary occupation. However, Giles County had the fewest number of individuals who listed farming as a primary occupation.
Compiled Trends for 1992 There were 360,323 acres in farmland with 1,993 farms in 1992 as an aggregate whole from Montgomery, Floyd, Pulaski, and Giles Counties. There were 879 mid size farms between 50 to 179 acres in the region, the division with the most farms. There were only 40 farms with more than 1,000 acres. Ultimately, Floyd County had the greatest number of acres of farmland and the largest number of farms as depicted in Figure 5.1. Pulaski County had the least number of acres in farmland, while Giles County had the least number of farms. Floyd County had the greatest number of crop sales and livestock sales. On the other hand, Giles County
In 1992, Pulaski County had the greatest average sales per farm in comparison to the other three counties. Montgomery followed at a close second with $31,158 for average annual sales per farm in 1992. Giles County had the lowest average sales per farm in 1992. See Figure 5.3. In 1992, Floyd County had the highest market value of products sold for the entire county, while Giles County had the lowest market value of products sold for the entire county in 1992. See Figure 5.4.
10

1992, Montgomery County had the fewest number of farms in the division of 1,000 acres or more.
Figure 1.3 for 1997 indicates that there were 195 individuals who listed farming as a primary occupation, while 322 individuals listed farming as an occupation, but not primary occupation. From 1992 to 1997, there was a decrease in farming as primary occupation while there was an increase in farming as an occupation, but not primary occupation.
1997 Census Data Montgomery County In 1997, there were 517 farms with 93,074 acres in farmland. This was a decrease in both farms and acres in farmland since 1992. However, crop and livestock sales both increased since 1992. Crops made up 14% of sales in 1997, while livestock sales made up 86% as shown by Figure 1.1. The average market value of products sold for all farms was $14.8 million. The average sales per farm for products sold totaled $28,610. This was also an increase since 1992.
Figure 1.4 shows that Montgomery County still had the greatest number of farms making less than $2,500 in sales. In 1997, Montgomery County had an increase in the number of farms making at least $10,000 and $25,000. Total farm production expenses spent
Figure 1.2 indicates that in 1997 mid size farms with 50 to 179 acres still had the greatest number of farms in comparison to other acre divisions. There were 213 farms with 50 to 179 acres in 1997, but there were only 12 farms with 1,000 acres or more. Like in
11

per farm in Montgomery County in 1997 equaled $19,949. Although there was a decrease in the number of beef cow farms in Montgomery County from 1997 to 1992, beef cow farms still remain the dominant livestock farm. There was a decrease in milk cow farms, hog and pig farms, sheep and lamb farms, and chicken farms as well. See Figure 1.5. sales per farm since 1992.
Figure 1.6 indicates that hay farms still dominated the Montgomery region in terms of harvested crop farms. Hay farms, including alfalfa, other tame, and small grain had farms in the triple digits, while all other types of harvested crop farms were in the single or double digits. There was only a small drop in the number of hay farms in Montgomery County since 1992. There were 391 hay farms in 1992, but only 379 hay farms in 1997.
With crop sales totaling 39%, since 1992 crop sales have increased by almost 50% (Figure 2.1). Floyd County had more crop sales than any other county in the region. Figure 2.2 displays the number of farms by size in 1997. With the overall increase in the number of acres of farmland, Floyd County experienced an increase in the number of farms with over 50 to 179 acres of land. There were 23 more farms with 50 to 179 acres in 1997 than in 1992.
Floyd County In 1997, Floyd County had 731 farms with 122,613 acres in farmland. Floyd County experienced a decrease in the number of farms since 1992, but an increase in acres of farmland. As indicated by Figure 2.1, crops made up 39% of sales and livestock made up 61% of sales in 1997. Compared to the other counties in 1997, this ratio of crops and livestock is far more dispersed. The market value of all products sold in Floyd County was $21.4 million, which is greater than all of the other three counties. The average sales per farm for products sold totaled $41,126. Like Montgomery County, Floyd County experienced an increase in average
As shown by Figure 2.3, 317 individuals listed farming as a primary occupation, while 414 individuals listed farming as an occupation, but not as a primary occupation. Floyd County experienced a decrease in both categories of farmers since 1992. Figure 2.4 indicates that Floyd County had the greatest number of farms making less than $2,500 in sales in 1997. More than half of all farms in 1997 made less than $25,000 in sales. However, Floyd County had the most number of farms in the region making more than $100,000 in sales. There were 73 farms making more than $100,000 in sales in Floyd County in 1997, while Montgomery County had only 34, Pulaski County had only 26, and Giles County had only 4. The average total farm production expenses
12

a decrease in the number of farms since 1992. There were 582 hay farms in 1992, while only 540 in 1997. There was an increase in the number of wheat for grain and tobacco farms in 1997 for Floyd County. See Figure 2.6.
Pulaski County Pulaski County had 80,406 acres in farmland in 1997 with 370 farms. There were 7 more farms in 1997 than in 1992 with 8,603 more acres. The market value of all products sold for the county in 1997 was $12.9 million. The average sales per farm in 1997 equaled $35,062. As shown in Figure 3.1, a majority of sales came from livestock, with only 7% of coming from crops.
in 1997 for Floyd County totaled $30,839, which is an increase by about $8,000 since 1992. Similar to the other counties, beef cow farms made up the largest number of farms for livestock farms again in 1997. Floyd County saw a fairly large decrease in the number of beef cow farms and milk cow farms in 1997 as compared to 1992. Beef cow farms went from 508 farms in 1992 to 463 in 1997, and milk cow farms went from 62 farms in 1992 to 21 farms in 1997. See Figure 2.5.
Figure 3.2 indicates that most farms in Pulaski County had 50 to 179 acres. The type of farm by size with the least number of farms comes from farms with 1,000 acres or more. In almost all categories of farms by size except farms with 10 to 49 acres, farms with 180 to 499 acres, and farms with 1,000 acres or more, Pulaski County has increased the number of farms. Figure 3.3 displays the number of individuals who listed farming as their primary occupation and the number of individuals who listed farming as an occupation, but not their primary occupation. There were 142 individuals who listed farming as their primary occupation. Like a majority of the other counties, Pulaski saw a decrease in the number of individuals who listed farming as a primary occupation.
The dominant type of farm for selected harvested crops in 1997 in Floyd County was hay, including alfalfa, other tame and small grain. However, like beef cow farms, hay farms also experienced
13
Figure 3.6 indicates that hay farms, including alfalfa, other tame, and small grain made up the largest number of farms in Pulaski County. There was only one farm for tobacco farms, soybean farms, and orchard farms. There was an increase of 7 farms for hay farms since 1992 and a decrease of 10 farms for corn grain or seed since 1992.
Figure 3.4 indicates that the greatest number of farms by value of sales made between $5,000 and $9,999. The fewest number of farms make between $50,000 and $99,999 in sales, but there were more farms that made $100,000 or more in Pulaski County. The average total farm production expenses per farm in 1997 for Pulaski County equaled 29,471, which is an increase since 1992.
Giles County In 1997, Giles County had 67,245 acres in farmland with 341 farms. Giles County had the fewest number of farms and the fewest acres of farmland in the region. Similarly, the market value of products sold for all of Giles County was only $4.1 million, which was also the lowest market value of all the other counties. Crops made up 13% of sales and livestock made up 87% of sales in 1997 in Giles County (Figure 4.1). The average sales per farm in Giles County totaled $12,089 in 1997. Giles County had the lowest aver-
Figure 3.5 indicates that beef cow farms made up the largest portion of livestock farms by type in 1997. Sheep and lamb farms and milk cow farms made up the second and third largest portion of livestock farms. There was a decrease of 2 farms from 1992 to 1997 in the number of beef cow farms. There was also an increase of 6 farms for hogs and pigs and milk cows since 1992.
14

age sales per farm in the region. Since 1992, Giles County has lost 9 farms and 5,852 acres in farmland. Figure 4.2 displays the number of farms by size in 1997 for Giles County. Giles County had 152 farms with 50 to 179 acres, which is the most out of any other acreage division. Giles County actually had an increase in farms with 50 to 179 acres since 1992. growth in farms making less than $2,500 but a decrease in farms making more than $100,000 since 1992. More than 75% of the farms in Giles County in 1997 made less than $24,000. The total farm production expenses on average for a farm in Giles County equaled $12,266. Figure 4.5 delineates that beef cow farms remained the dominant livestock farm in Giles County in 1997. However, they have decreased by 22 farms since 1992.
In 1997, Giles County experienced an increase in individuals who listed farming as a primary occupation and as a part time occupation since 1992. There were 142 individuals who listed farming as a primary occupation and 199 individuals who listed farming as a part-time occupation. See Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.6 indicates that hay farms, consisting of alfalfa, other tame, and small grain farms were the dominant type of farms for harvested crops. With 260 hay farms in Giles County in 1997, other harvested crop farms dwarf in comparison. There were only 10 corn for grain farms, 2 wheat for grain farms, 6 farms for orchards, and 1 farm for tobacco. The number of farms for hay has increased by 8 farms since 1992.
Figure 4.4 demonstrates that 90 farms in 1997 made less than $2,500, while only 4 farms made $100,000 or more. There was a Compiled Trends for 1997 There were 363,338 acres in farmland with 1,959 farms in 1997 as an aggregate whole from Montgomery, Floyd, Pulaski, and Giles Counties. There were 846 mid size farms between 50 to 179 acres in the region. There were only 41 farms with more than 1,000 acres. Like the 1992 data, Floyd County had the greatest number of acres of farmland and the most number of farms as depicted in Figure 5.1. Floyd County also had the greatest sales in crops in comparison to the other three counties. Giles County had the lowest number of sales in the region. As depicted in Figure 5.2, Floyd County had the greatest number
15
From this 1997 census data with relative comparison to the 1992 census data, the ultimate finding shows that Floyd County tends to have greater agricultural prosperity than Giles County. Giles County tends to fall behind in the number of farms, acreage of farms, number of farmers, and sales of products. 2002 Census Data Floyd County Figure 1.1 shows the percentage of crop sales versus livestock sales. While Floyd County attributes a majority of its agricultural sales to livestock operations, in 2002 32% was based in Crop Sales. In 2002, Floyd County had one of the highest percentages of crop sales in the NRV, along with Montgomery County.
of farmers that listed farming as their primary occupation. Giles County had the fewest number of farmers who listed farming as their primary occupation in 1997. Figure 5.3 indicates that Montgomery County had the highest average sales per farm in 1997 with Pulaski County coming in at a close second. Giles County had the lowest average sales per farm in 1997.
Figure 5.4 evaluates the market value of products sold for the entire county in 1997 in millions. Floyd County had a market value of $21 million in products sold for their entire county, while Giles County only had $4 million.
Figure 1.2 shows the size profile of farms in Floyd County in 2002. This chart shows that 50-179 acre farms were the most common size category. Only 12 farms in the county are made up of more than 1,000 acres. This could be based on geographical constraints in Floyd County. Figure 1.3 shows how many farmers in Floyd County were primarily occupied by their farm in 2002. In Floyd County, more farmers use farming as their primary occupation, although there
16
is still a large number (40%) that do not. In the state of Virginia, 46% of farmers must rely on alternative means of income. Figure 1.4 shows the value of sales earned by farms in Floyd County. 180 farms sell less than $1,000 in a year. 166 farms sell $5,000 to $9,999 in a year. Only 25% of farms in Floyd County sell $20,000 or more in a year.
to the majority of cattle and calf livestock operations in Floyd County. Giles County Figure 2.1 shows the percentage of agricultural sales in Giles County attributed to crops and livestock in 2002. Nearly 80% of the agricultural sales in Giles County came from Livestock.
Figure 1.5 shows the type of livestock produced in Floyd County. In Floyd, the majority of livestock production is geared toward cattle and calf operations. Figure 1.6 shows the acreage of crops in production by type. Forage occupies the most amount of acreage in Floyd County. Forage is usually set aside for livestock to graze. This directly correlates
Figure 2.2 shows the size profile of farms in Giles County in 2002. In Giles County, the most common farm size fell within the 0 -179 acre range. 89.6% of the farms in Giles fall between 10 acres and 499 acres. Figure 2.3 shows the number of farmers that farm as their primary occupation compared to those that do not consider farming their primary occupation. In Giles, it is split pretty evenly between those that use farming as their primary occupation and those that do not.
17
Figure 2.4 depicts the value of sales by farms. In 2002, the most common value of sales per year fell within the $5,000 and $9,999 range. 85% of the farms in Giles County sell between $0 and $20,000 in a year.
Montgomery County Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of agricultural sales based from crop and livestock sales in Montgomery County in 2002. While livestock contributes to a significant percentage of agricultural sales, Montgomery County has one of the highest percentages of crop production in the NRV.
Figure 2.5 shows the top livestock production by type. In Giles, cattle and calves were the most common livestock produced. Sheep and lambs are the second most common livestock operation in Giles County, but the amount of sheep and lambs produced compared to cattle and calves is significantly lower. Figure 2.6 shows the top crops produced in Giles County. Forage contributed to the highest amount of acreage in crop production. Other top crops that rank in the top acreage include corn for silage, apples, corn for grain and cut Christmas trees.
Figure 3.2 shows the size profile of farms in Montgomery County. The most common farm size was 50-179 acres. There were 10 farms that operated with 1,000 acres or more. Figure 3.3 shows how many farmers rely on farming as their primary occupation and how many do not. There are slightly more farmers that rely on their farm as their primary occupation
18

in Giles County.
Figure 3.6 shows the amount of acreage allotted to certain types of crop production. In Montgomery County the highest acreage was for forage. Other top crops in Montgomery include grains, like corn and wheat.
Figure 3.4 depicts the value of sales by farm in Montgomery County in 2002. The most common value of sales was less than $1,000 by year. 80% of farms in Montgomery County sold between $0 and $20,000 in one year.
Pulaski County Figure 4.1 shows the percentage of livestock and crops that were produced in Pulaski County in 2002. 94% of agricultural sales in Pulaski County are derived from livestock. Pulaski County has the lowest percentage of agricultural sales from crops in the entire NRV for 2002.
Figure 3.5 shows the type of livestock production that occurred by farm. In Montgomery County, cattle and calf operations are the most common. Sheep and lamb operations as well as layer hens contribute to Montgomery Countys top livestock sales.
Figure 4.2 shows the size distribution of farms in Pulaski County. The most common size range of farms was 50-179 acres, closely followed by farms that are 10-49 acres. Pulaski has 10 farms that operate on 1,000 acres or more.
19
Figure 4.3 shows the number of farmers that used farming as their primary income as compared to farmers that rely on supplementary off farm income in 2002. In Pulaski, nearly 70% of farmers did not consider farming their primary occupation. This percentage is significantly higher than the states average of 46% of farmers relying on off farm income.
include sheep and lambs, horses and ponies, and goats. Figure 4.6 shows the top types of crops produced in Pulaski County. Forage contributed to the highest amount of acreage per crop. Other top crops include grains, like corn and wheat, and cut Christmas trees.
Figure 4.4 shows the value of sales for Pulaski County. Nearly 80% of farms in Pulaski operated with sales between $0 and $20,000 per year.
Compiled Counties 2002 Figure 5.1 shows the number of farms across each county in the NRV. Floyd has the highest number of farms at 829, while Giles has half as many farms as Floyd and the lowest number of farms in the NRV.
Figure 4.5 shows the type of livestock that were most produced in Pulaski County. Cattle and calves contributed to the majority of livestock produced. Other top livestock produced in Pulaski
Figure 5.2 shows the number of farmers that claimed farming was their primary occupation. Again Floyd had the highest number of
20

number of sales per farm. Pulaski had the 2nd highest amount of sales per farm, but was third in total value of products for each county. This is related to the demographics of each county. Giles County has the most room for growth in a local food economy. Giles was the only county in the NRV where apples were considered a top crop. Further research could be put into supporting apple growers in Giles. There is surely a market for them in the NRV. 2007 Census Data Floyd County farmers who do not rely on off farm income and again Giles had the lowest number of farmers that rely solely on their farm for income. Figure 5.3 shows the average sales per farm in 2002. Floyd County and Pulaski County earned the highest sales per farm. Giles produced sales equal to 1/3 of Floyds and barely half of Montgomerys, the county with the next lowest sales. Floyd devotes 57% of its land to livestock (Figure 1.1), which is significantly lower than the rest of the NRV, which averages at 77%. Floyd has the most land in farms (128,872 acres). And at 864 farms, Floyd has the most farms among the four counties.
Figure 1.2 shows the size profile of farms in Floyd County in 2007. 95% of farms in Floyd County are 10-499 acres. Figure 5.4 shows the value of agricultural products sold in each county. Floyd, again, earned the highest value for their products. Giles earned one sixth of Floyds total product value and just a little more than one third of Pulaskis product value.
Figure 1.3 shows the number of farms that rely on their own farm for their primary income. In Floyd County, there are more farmers that rely on off farm income. In 2002, Floyd County had the most robust agricultural regime. Montgomery, in most cases followed closely behind, except for its On average, farms in Floyd County sell $50,186 worth of product each year. This average is the highest in the NRV, although it is
21
Giles County Giles devotes 84% of its farmland to livestock. Giles has the smallest acreage of farmland as well as the fewest number of farms in the region. The average sales per farm per year are also lowest in the region. Giles County has 65,487 acres of land in farming with 344 individual farms. Figure 2.1 shows the majority of Giles Countys agricultural sales are gleaned from livestock production. Crops only account for 16% of agricultural sales in Giles County.
still lower than Virginias average ($61,000+). Figure 1.4 shows the most common value of sales for farms in Floyd County is $0-1,000. 76% of farms operate with sales less than $20,000 per year.
Figure 1.5 shows the top livestock produced in Floyd County. In Floyd, cattle and calve operations are the highest percentage of livestock productions. Other types of livestock that are produced significantly in Floyd County include layer hens, horses and ponies, sheep and lambs, and goats.
Figure 2.2 shows the size profile of farms in Giles County. The most common farm size falls in the 50-179 acre category. 90% of Giles Countys farms fall between 10 acres and 499 acres.
Figure 1.6 shows the types of crops that are produced in top quantities in Floyd County. Forage crops claim the highest amount of land used for one type of crop in Floyd. Nursery stock comes in second by claiming almost 2,000 acres of land. Corn and rye along with cut Christmas trees use significant amounts of acreage as well.
22

Figure 2.3 shows the number of farmers that rely on their farm as their primary occupation. In Giles, about 60% of farmers rely on an off farm occupation. Figure 2.6 shows the top crops produced in Giles County. Forage crops represent the highest amount of acreage used for a single crop in Giles County. Christmas trees are second to forage crops.
Montgomery County Figure 2.4 shows on average, farms in Giles County sell $14,626 worth of product a year. This is nearly 1/4 of the average sales value for farms in Virginia and the lowest average in the entire NRV. 83% of farms in Giles produce sales between $0 and $20,000 per year. Figure 3.1 shows the percentage of crop and livestock sales in Montgomery County in 2007. In 2007, 28% of agricultural sales in Montgomery County are crops.
Figure 2.5 shows that livestock production in Giles County focuses mostly on cattle and calf operations. Cattle and calf operations significantly outweigh the amount of land used for other top livestock products. Other top livestock operations in Giles County include sheep and lambs, goats, horse and ponies, and layer hens.
Figure 3.2 shows the size profile of farms in Montgomery County. 77% of farms are between 10 acres and 179 acres. Only 10 farms are more 1,000 acres.
Figure 3.3 shows the number of farmers that claim farming to be their primary source of income. There are a higher number of
23

farmers that rely on an alternative occupation as their primary income. The number of farmers that do not consider faming to be their primary occupation has increased by about 10% since 2002. Figure 3.6 shows the top crops by type in Montgomery County. Forage takes up the most acreage throughout the county. Corn for silage and for grain is second to forage.
Figure 3.4 shows the number of farms and their corresponding value of sales. In Montgomery, 77% of farms operate with yearly sales between $0 and $20,000. Less than 5% operate with sales above $249,999.
Pulaski County Pulaski County has 75,457 acres in farmland and 415 farms. While Pulaski is the smallest county (by square miles) in the NRV, it averages higher figures than Giles County. Pulaski County devotes 95% of its farmland to livestock production (Figure 4.1). This is the highest percentage of land devoted to livestock production in the entire NRV.
Figure 3.5 shows the most common types of livestock production in Montgomery County. Cattle and calf operations are the most common type of livestock produced. Other common livestock produced include horses and ponies, sheep and lambs, layer hens, and goats. Figure 4.2 shows the size profile of farms in Pulaski County. Nearly 75% of the farms in Pulaski County are less than 179 acres. Figure 4.3 shows the numbers of farmers that rely on farming as their primary occupation. In Pulaski there are more farmers that do not rely on farming as their primary occupation. Since 2002, the number of farmers relying on an off farm occupation has risen. Figure 4.4 shows the value of sales by each farm. 78% of the farms in Pulaski County operate with sales below $20,000 per year.
24

livestock. The other most common livestock grown in Pulaski produce at about the same scale and include horses and ponies, sheep and lambs and goats. Figure 4.6 shows the two most common crops grown in Pulaski County. Forage is the most common and corn for silage is second. Considering so much of Pulaskis agricultural sales are attributed to livestock, these crops make sense. Both of these crops are produced for livestock to eat.
Compiled Counties 2007 Overall, the NRV allots a higher percentage of its land to livestock production than it does for crop production. The terrain of the NRV could have a significant impact on farmers decisions to raise livestock instead of crops. In many cases, it is easier to produce livestock on hills than it is to grow vegetables. Between 2002 and 2007, there has been both a decrease in acreage of farmland as well as a decrease in number of farms in the NRV. Altogether, the NRV had 359,227 acres in farmland and 2,251 farms. In 2002, more than $80 million worth of agricultural product was sold. Each farm earned about $32,000. The state of Virginia averages about 70% of its agricultural sales based in livestock and 30% based in crops. The NRV corresponds with Virginias statewide average with 77% of the NRVs agricultural sales based in livestock and 23% based in crops. Figure 5.1 shows the number of farms found in each county. Floyd County has the highest number of farms at 864, and Giles County has the lowest at 344 farms.
Figure 4.5 shows the top four livestock categories produced in Pulaski County. Cattle and calves are the most common type of
25

Figure 5.2 shows Floyd County has the highest number of farmers that rely on farming as their primary occupation. Pulaski has the lowest number of farmers that claim farming as their primary occupation. Census Data: Compiled 1992-2007 Across the fifteen-year time span, there are certain agricultural trends that should be noted. By 2007, Floyd County stood out as a model for a successful agricultural system. Floyds agricultural success did not become so distinct until the past decade. In 2002, Montgomery led the way in highest sales, market value and other categories. Since, Floyd County has bypassed Montgomery County and assumed a leading role in agriculture in the NRV. Figure 6.1 depicts the trend of acreage set aside for agricultural purposes. Between 1992 and 2002, there was a significant jump in acreage set aside for agricultural use. By 2007, there is a quick drop in acreage for agricultural use. The reason behind this drastic drop is unclear, but it is possible that economic realities surrounding the housing crisis of 2008 may have played a key role. In the end, there was an overall decrease in acreage allotted to agricultural land use of roughly one thousand acres.
Both Pulaski County and Floyd County operated with higher average sales than the compiled NRV. While Floyd County has a significantly higher level of average sales, Floyd County is below Virginias average. Virginias average sales per farm for 2007 were more than $61 million. See Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.4 shows the market value of products sold for the entire county in millions. Altogether $80 million dollars are based from agricultural sales in the NRV.
Figure 6.2 shows the trend in number of farms in the NRV. This trend shows the number of farms is increasing. While the amount of acreage in agricultural production has remained fairly stagnant, according to Figure 6.2, the increase in number of farms indicates that in 2007 there were a higher number of smaller farms than in 2002.
In 2002, Montgomery County and Floyd County devoted the same percentage of land to crop sales. Since, Montgomery County has decreased its percentage of sales in crop production while Floyd County has increased their percentage.
Figure 6.3 shows a trend of increasing value of agricultural products sold for the NRV. This trend may indicate increased strength and stability in the agricultural economy in the within the region. An increased market value of agricultural products sold in the NRV may lead to more capacity for local agricultural infrastructure.
26

level of interest by institutional entities for local foods purchasing through an intermediated marketing channel. National farm sales of food items through intermediated marketing channels are over three times higher than direct-to-consumer farm sales (Low & Vogel, 2011). These results can be broken down by farm sizes small, medium, and large. Small Farms, those with gross annual sales less than $50,000, accounted for 81% of all farms reporting sales of local food in 2008 (Low & Vogel, 2011). They averaged $7,800 in local food sales per farm and relied mostly on direct-to-consumer venues (Low & Vogel, 2011). Medium size farms, with gross annual sales between $50,000 and $250,000, accounted for 17 % of farms reporting local food sales in 2008 (Low & Vogel, 2011). They averaged $70,000 in local food sales per farm and used a mix of direct-to-consumer and intermediated channels (Low & Vogel, 2011). Large farms, with gross annual sales greater than $250,000, accounted for 5% of farms with sales of local foods reported in 2008(Low & Vogel, 2011). The average local food sales per farm equaled $770,000 (Low & Vogel, 2011). These farms were equally likely to use either of the marketing channels exclusively, or a mix of both (Low & Vogel, 2011). As mentioned earlier, there is increasing interest on the demand side for more locally grown foods. However, as we will discuss later in the report, there is currently an inadequate supply to fulfill that demand. The USDA Census data reported earlier reveals that many NRV farms, not accounting for livestock, are small to medium sized. Comparing this to the national averages analyzed in 2008 by the USDA, we see an opportunity for more intermediated channels of marketing in the NRV. Combining the increasing institutional demand with additional infrastructure, such as a locally placed Food Hub, will allow regional food distributors to access the potential new supply from local farmers. These distributors already have a majority of the institutional market. This will also provide local farmers an alternative to direct-to-consumer markets for sales of their food items. U.S. Food Market Estimator One tool designed to help estimate potential markets for specific food items is the U.S. Food Market Estimator, developed at the Leopold Center For Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University. The U.S. Food Market Estimator is an expansive tool that uses data collected annually by the Economic Research Service (ERS) under the USDA to help users determine potential demand for specific food items. This tool can be used down to the county level for all counties in the United States (Leopold Center, ISU). The Estimator provides information for 204 food items, including some dairy products, meat products, fruits, vegetables and grain. Users choose how they want their results shown. This can be by pounds produced or consumed, number of servings, truckloads transported, or even cubic feet of warehouse space needed to store particular products (Leopold Center, ISU). The U.S. Food Market Estimator works by estimating the amounts of the 204 food items available for human consumption at a national per capita rate. It
Marketing
Introduction
Interest in local foods is growing in our region, expanding into private and institutional markets, thus creating many opportunities for economic growth. Some of the resulting benefits may include an increased net income for local farms and food establishments, an increased number of locally owned businesses, and more choices for farmers and consumers because of a robust, diverse agricultural economy. Other benefits may include increased employment in production, processing, distribution, and retail sectors of the local economy (Bendfeldt et. al, 2011). There may be opportunities for increased marketing for directto-consumer sales of local foods through venues such as farmers markets, roadside stands, on-farm stores, and community supported agriculture (CSA) systems. According to information provided by the US Census Bureau, if every household in the NRV planning district were to spend $10 per week on locally produced food, it would generate more than $34 million in revenue for the region. A report created by the University of Kentucky Agricultural Extension states that consumers come to small-scale venues primarily because of the quality of the produce there. Theyre looking for tastes that can only be grown locally- produce that is picked at its peak and sold at its most desirable stage (Ernst & Woods, 2002) During our interview with Frank Holland at U.S. Foods, he mentioned this advantage in quality and diversity means that people might be willing to pay more for locally sourced foods; they are getting more by paying more. This also explains why there has been 111% increase in the number of farmers markets in the United States from 1994 to 2004 alone (Ernst & Woods, 2002). Opportunities also exist for increased marketing through intermediated sales of local foods to regional distributors, grocery stores, restaurants, and other retailers (Low & Vogel, 2011). An Agricultural Resource Management Survey, conducted by the USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research Service shows that a majority of local food sales occur through the intermediated marketing channels, which include but are not limited to national distributors like Cisco or U.S. Foods (Low & Vogel, 2011). This is where the biggest opportunity for economic growth related to local food sales exists for the NRV. The demand section of this report shows the increasing
27

then multiplies the national per capita rate by population estimates from the U.S. Census for individual counties to determine the potential market for any of the food items at the county level (Leopold Center, ISU). Since this tool uses the per capita national average of consumption and food availability, it is only intended to provide estimates for potential market demand. It can be used to assist in economic analysis and for trending food use. This tool is intended for comparative and strategic uses, not to provide actual specific data. Understanding the limitations of the tool, we believe it can be used to estimate potential demand, and therefore potential generated revenue, for specific products grown and sold locally within the NRV. The Market Estimator is designed so that current market prices may be used. However, price points for agricultural commodities vary greatly and are updated by the Virginia Department of Agriculture on a monthly, weekly, and even daily basis. See the appendix for a sample table of prices for common Virginia agricultural products (with sources included) and additional online information about the U.S. Food Market Estimator. The following is an example of how this tool can work for counties in the NRV. Knowing that apples are potentially a major commodity in the NRV, we wanted to find out how many pounds of apples could be consumed annually in Montgomery County. 1. We assume 100% of the population consumes the per capita national average. This serves as a starting point for analysis that can be easily adjusted for more accurate population consumption averages based on more up-to-date census figures. 2. The tool calculates an estimated potential consumption rate based on national per capita averages multiplied by 2007 U.S. Census population estimates for the state of Virginia. These results are broken down by county. 3. Montgomery County potentially could consume 1.3 million pounds of apples. 4. If we take this information and multiply it by the current price of fresh apples, for example $1.00/lb., we can conclude there is a potential $1.3 million market for fresh apples in Montgomery County. 5. This tool can be used in a similar manner to project potential markets for various other products grown and purchased in the NRV. a survey for NRV farmers. These interview questions covered supply, demand, profit, and interest in additional infrastructure and community support. Once Professor John Randolph and Kim Thurlow accepted our questions, they were then submitted to and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). However, due to the harvest season corresponding with our research we were unable to contact many farmers (see the appendix for survey questions). Instead contacted Ellen Stewart, Market Manager for the Blacksburg Farmers Market. While waiting to speak directly with Stewart, we went out to the Farmers Market and spoke with four vendors.
Findings
Our responses came from the Blacksburg Farmers Market Manager and four local producers. Our overall findings from the farmers market vendors were that there is not a strong desire or interest in expanding their markets. The farmers who sold produce at the farmers market tend to cater their production to the needs and constraints of the farmers market. The farmers seem to like the smaller, local appeal of the Blacksburg Farmers Market and are perfectly content with producing on a smaller scale. When they were asked about the concept of expansion, a major concern among the group was the pressure to increase supply to meet a greater demand. The farmers ability to produce more is limited by the lack of land acreage, available manpower, and finances to support a larger operation. When asked about infrastructure, three out of the four farmers surveyed did not express any needs of additional infrastructure support. The other farmer did express an interest in water infrastructure support. (See the appendix for complete breakdown of farmer responses to survey questions.) We later spoke with the Farmers Market Manager, Ellen Stewart. Stewart was able to provide us with good background information of the farmers market and its history. She did suggest specific infrastructure needs: fencing and cold frames.
Recommendations to NRVLI Working Group

We have two recommendations for those who continue to work with the agriculture and food section of the NRVLI: 1. Speak with other farmers outside of the farmers market, especially to meat and dairy producers. These farmers might have larger capacity to support an increase in supply with little additional infrastructure inputs. 2. Track the number of people who visit during the farmers market hours of operation on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Stewart suggested it would be beneficial to the Blacksburg Farmers Market if they were able to keep track of this traffic. Collecting this data in the future would be a simple process and help support the market as well as supply valuable information about demand for local goods within Blacksburg.
Local Supply
Introduction
Our objective was to speak with local food producers to better understand if there was interest and the capacity to start supplying larger institutions with their products both locally and throughout Virginia. To determine potential local supply, we developed
28
CaseStudy Study Case
Aggregation Markets: Good Food Good People

GFGP was established to promote the integral connection between farmers and food connoisseurs in our bioregion, highlighting the variety, taste, and freshness of locally-grown foods
Problem Statement
What is Good Food Good Peoples (GFGP) role as a Food Hub in Floyd County? How could GFGP or other local food hubs supply Virginia Tech with local food?
those that work with GFGP. Currently only two GFGP producers have GAP certification.
Solution
Weaver (personal communication, Nov. 11, 2011) acknowledges that GFGP is an ever-changing company. In the future, GFGP may be ready to look into selling to larger institutions in the NRV. But before that can happen, GFGP needs to build their own processing facility and GFGP producers need to achieve their GAP certification. As Weaver (personal communication, Nov. 11, 2011) says, Good Food Good People is not grant funded, its farmer funded. This means that funds for a processing facility and infrastructure required to earn GAP certification are not necessarily on the near horizon for this company.
Background
Good Food Good People is a farmers cooperative located in Floyd County, Virginia. Over 50 producers contribute their fruits, vegetables, herbs, meats, egg, cheeses, value-added items, and more, all sourced from within a 100-mile radius. Tenley Weaver and Dennis Dove started GFGP in 1996. According to Weaver (personal communication, Nov. 11, 2011), each year GFGP is a different company. Based on the number of producers involved as well as the variation of customers from year to year the types of markets that GFGP serves varies. Good Food Good People has four main markets that they use to sell their products. These include farmers markets, community supported agriculture (CSA) programs, restaurants, and institutions. Good Food Good People sells their produce at farmers markets in Floyd, Blacksburg, and Roanoke. CSA Programs offer customers a chance to share the risk of a growing season by paying up front for a seasons worth of produce to be distributed on a weekly basis. GFGPs CSAs are distributed throughout Floyd, Blacksburg, and Roanoke. Several Roanoke restaurants have worked with GFGP for years and understand the quality of product that GFGP delivers but also understand the need for a back up in case of shortages on certain products. Lastly, GFGP has recently started selling to Roanoke College. Roanoke College is a private school with about 2,000 undergraduate students. The volume of produce needed to feed Roanoke Colleges entire campus is feasible for GFGP. Good Food Good People has not actively pursued selling to universities. There are several factors that influence GFGPs decision to maintain the current markets theyre working with. Institutions like Virginia Tech or Carillion Hospitals require a large volume of consistent produce, with quick turn around and cheap prices. In Southwestern Virginia, seasonality will always be a limiting factor for farmers. While GFGP acts as an aggregation facility and indeed sells a large volume of products throughout the year, GFGP producers are typically growing produce that is diverse in species and harvest time. Many institutions require their producers and suppliers to obtain certain certifications. Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) certification provides a difficult challenge to the small farming operations that make up GFGP. GAP regulations require certain types of infrastructure that are not monetarily feasible for small farmers like
29
Local Demand
Introduction
When looking at agricultural sustainability and food systems we decided it is important for entities within the NRV to purchase and consume food items grown or produced within the NRV. As markets exist outside of the region for NRV food products, we looked to find new, alternative markets within or near the region. We surveyed various private and public institutions including universities, large medical facilities, county school systems, and distributors to determine the level of interest in purchasing a higher percentage of locally grown food items. This section provides case studies, interviews, and survey results of these various institutions that show there is an overall interest, thus an alternative market, for purchasing more locally grown food items.
Coordinator of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, stated that she would be willing to help the NRV region build a farm-to-school team to coordinate the development of the program in public schools within the NRV (L. DuBois, personal communication, November 28, 2011). She also noted that this movement has received wide support from many audiences, including legislatures and parents (L. DuBois, personal communication, November 28, 2011). DuBois notes that the program will receive heightened attention in up-coming years (L. DuBois, personal communication, November 28, 2011). She comments that issues such as procurement and funding are still challenges to the program; however, she hopes that recent bills introduced during the Virginia General Assembly will address these program challenges (L. DuBois, personal communication, November 28, 2011). Like DuBois noted, the farm-to-school program is getting attention from many audiences. In fact, Matthew Benson, Ph.D. student and graduate research assistant in the Department of Agriculture and Extension Education, is participating in conducting a statewide survey called the Virginia Farm-to-school Survey of Virginia School Nutrition Directors. According to Matthew Benson (personal communication, Sept. 30, 2011), The overall purpose of the survey is to identify the attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of Virginia School Nutrition Directors towards the Virginia Farm-to-School Program. This survey will not be completed, analyzed, and released before this report is completed; however, it will be available for future working groups to use. In lieu of not having the results of this comprehensive survey, we completed our own survey of local school Nutrition Directors to gauge interest in expanding their Farm-to-School programs. We contacted Floyd County, Montgomery County, and the Oklahoma Farm-to-school Program. We received a response from Floyd County Public Schools. Floyd County Public Schools Floyd Countys School Nutrition Programs Director, Pamela H. Harris, was excited to talk about the Farm-to-School program in the county. In addition to participating in the annual Farm-toSchool week required by the state (Commonwealth of Virginia, 2010), Floyd County provides up to 10% of its food from local vendors (P. Harris, personal communication, Nov. 8, 2011). Harris (personal communication, Nov. 8, 2011) reported that they purchase approximately 75% of their produce from local vendors Puckett Produce and Roanoke Produce. She also stated interest in expanding the entire program and providing more locally grown foods for school meals within the county (P. Harris, personal communication, Nov. 8, 2011). Floyd County Schools serve close to 1,500 meals per day, so an increase in the Farm-to-School program would expand the market for locally grown foods. We asked about potential future programs Floyd County might be interested in to make better use of local agriculture resources. Harris (personal communication, Nov. 8, 2011) indicated that she has been working with a group of local farmers for Farm-to-School items and is thinking about involving local Future Farmers of America (FFA) in producing items for the school system.
Higher Education
The following section includes case studies from three universities in southwestern Virginia: Virginia Tech, Ferrum College, and Washington and Lee University. We spoke directly with coordinators from Virginia Tech and Ferrum College about the current use of local food in their institutions and their goals for expansion. Complete notes from these interviews can be found in the appendix. Case studies follow on pages 32-34.
Public Schools
Another potential market for NRV local foods are the county school systems. There has been an increasing push from the federal and state levels for more activity in local farm-to-school programs. Over 2,000 of these programs are already in place in 44 states (Ashbury, 2010). These programs vary in scope and may include incorporating local foods into school lunches, educational programs about composting and gardening, and educational programs about recipe preparation and nutritional meal ideas (Ashbury, 2010). Efforts are underway to increase the role of farm-to-school programs in Virginia school systems. In 2007, the Virginia General Assembly established the Virginia Farm-to-School Task Force. The mission of this task force was to develop an implementation plan for farm-to-school programs in Virginia (Ashbury, 2010). Some challenges the task force identified include: product availability, distribution, product costs, food safety, labor, and education (Ashbury, 2010). Since the farm-to-school movement in Virginia is fairly new, there is not an overarching structure or model to develop farm-toschool programs (Ashbury, 2010). According to a study done by Katherine Ashbury (2010), the most feasible model for Virginia to follow is a community-run approach through regional organizations. Infrastructure, such as a food hub, would allow schools to build their farm-to-school programs outside of Farm-to-School week (Ashbury, 2010). LeAnn DuBois, the Virginia Farm-to-School
30

Harris has complete support from the Superintendent and believes this is an important asset at the local level for the success of any Farm-to-School program. As she would like to expand the program, some obstacles preventing this include supply issues, storage, and distribution. Harris would like to serve a daily fresh salad from local farms but does not have the local supply of lettuce and tomatoes when these products are out-of-season (P. Harris, personal communication, Nov. 8, 2011). She also stated that having walk-in coolers would be beneficial as storage at the schools is minimal (P. Harris, personal communication, Nov. 8, 2011). Additionally, distributing the fresh foods is difficult as the schools are spread out around the county, so a more effective distribution system would benefit the school system. Harris (personal communication, Nov. 8, 2011) also indicated that she would benefit from opportunities to exchange ideas with farmers and tour other operations within the region. She also would like to participate in any training or educational opportunities related to local food processing/distribution that may already exist or will be offered in the future (P. Harris, personal communication, Nov. 8, 2011). Carilion already receives a number of local/sustainable items through U.S. Foods and encourages U.S. Foods to buy from local businesses. Ellis provided us with contact information for Frank Holland, the Sustainability Coordinator for U.S. Foods. We contacted him for interview. U.S. Foods One of the larger potential markets in the NRV for local foods lies with U.S. Foods. U.S. Foods is one of the major food service distributors in the country and offers 350,000 name brand products as well as its own brand of foods, ranging from meats to frozen vegetables (U.S. Foods, 2011). In the NRV, U.S. Foods serves as a major food distributor for institutions like Ferrum College, Washington and Lee College, the Carilion Clinic, and Virginia Tech. We quickly saw U.S. Foods and possibly other major food distributors as key players in the potential expansion of local foods to various institutions in the NRV. In order to gauge the companys interest in potentially sourcing more of its food from the NRV we contacted Frank Holland, the Sustainability Coordinator of U.S. Foods Roanoke division. He was able to provide us with some very useful information that we have used to create a much clearer picture of the problems facing a potential increase in the supply of local foods to major institutions in the NRV. According to Holland (personal communication, Oct. 31, 2011), U.S. Foods would be potentially interested in supporting local farms and processing facilities. In fact, Holland told us that the company already sources some of its food from local producers; it supports 30 regional vendors in the state of Virginia alone. The most important point Holland made during the interview was that distributors like U.S. Foods, want to buy more local food but lack of effective supply is a hurdle. They need to purchase food in large volumes, something that is not possible when working with small-scale producers one at a time. As a result, the key is creating effective distribution infrastructure; having resources like food hubs, where large quantities of local food can be accumulated, processed, frozen, and insured. Holland focused in on the importance of insuring food because it ensures that food is safe and is being handled and transported properly. He also mentioned that oversight is very important to an effective distribution system (F. Holland, personal communication, Oct. 31, 2011). As the movement to grow and purchase more food locally gains momentum, there has to be oversight; this can be a role of food hubs, and the local community. Distributors have to rely on food hubs to police farms, regulate them, and get them any certifications they may need (organic, Virginia Grown, GAP, etc.) There also needs to be independent third party organizations to manage and police the food hubs as well as to guide distribution systems to eliminate redundancy and eliminate shortfall. Finally, it is Hollands opinion that any new distribution system for local foods has to allow farms to make decisions on what to grow and provide them with accurate information regarding markets, instead of just asking them to grow certain crops.
Other Institutions
In addition to the major educational facilities present in the NRV, other private and public institutions could be potential sources of demand in an expanded local foods market. We talked to two of them: The Carilion Clinic and U.S. Foods. The Carilion Clinic The Carilion Clinic is a non-profit health care organization that is committed to ensuring quality care in their nine major hospitals throughout the Roanoke area. Part of their operation involves providing their member institutions with food for patients and hospital cafeterias. Carilion cooks, packages, and serves 1.5 million meals a year to Roanoke patients, and provides cafeterias with 800,000 meals (R. Ellis, personal communication, Oct. 20, 2011). Though the organizations area of operation technically lies outside the NRV planning district, we recognize that the service provided by the Carilion Clinic has the potential be a large regional market for NRV agricultural products. As a result, we sought an interview with a representative from Carilion Clinic, to gauge their interest in potentially purchasing more of their food locally. An e-mail to the organization was redirected to Rebecca Ellis, the Senior Director of Dining and Nutrition Services. Ellis told us that Carilion has always been interested in purchasing more of their food stock from local sources and already incorporates some local foods in their menus. She also told us the major obstacle to increasing the amount of local food they buy is volume. The sheer size of Carilions operation makes it nearly impossible to work with individual farmers; they need a large-scale supplier in order to meet their needs. The Clinic uses U.S. Foods for 85% of their food, and Ellis indicated that any potential increase in the supply of locally sourced foods would have to come through this distributor.
31
Case Study
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Dining Services

Promote a sustainable dining and food system at Virginia Tech and therefore the greater community
Problem Statement
What is Virginia Tech doing to incorporate local food purchases into their dining halls and how can we increase their local food purchases?
Education and Sustainability Tracking Assessment & Rating System (AASHE- STARS) granted Virginia Tech a Silver Rating in Sustainability. In their Dining Services section alone, VT received a 28.7%. The area that Virginia Tech can improve in most of all is their food and beverage purchasing.
Background
Virginia Tech operates a nationally ranked dining services operation with 11 separate dining centers, 18,500 dining plan holders, and 6.2 million meals per year (Dining Services, 2011). Currently Virginia Techs Dining Services procures about 1.5% of their food from local sources. Dining Services qualifies local food as food coming from within a 250-mile radius of Virginia Tech. Dining Services has established a station in Owens Dining Hall on campus that serves exclusively local, sustainable, or organic options. The Farms and Fields Project in Owens was started in 2008 and has since grown. In 2009, Dining Services acquired a 3-acre plot of land located at Virginia Techs research farm, Kentland Farm. The Dining Services Garden at Kentland Farm started as a small herb garden but has grown into a fully functional organic vegetable farm. Located fewer than 10 miles from campus, the produce from Dining Services plots at Kentland Farm makes up a significant percentage of local food procured for meals at Virginia Tech. In its 2011 growing season, Dining Services is expected to produce nearly 40,000 pounds of produce (Gibson, 2011). Dining Services Awards and Honors Green Report Card: In 2011, Virginia Tech received an overall B+ rating and a B rating specifically for their food and recycling programs. The type of food purchasing as well as various initiatives that have started on campus helped Virginia Tech earn this score. The Dining Services Garden at Kentland Farm as well as reusable water bottles, composting, and tray-less dining are all taken into account. Princeton Reviews Green Honor Roll: In the Princeton Reviews guide to Green Colleges for 2012, Virginia Tech received a score in the 99th percentile. Because of this grade, Virginia Tech is on the Princeton Reviews Green Honor Roll, which includes the 16 most sustainable universities throughout the country. The Princeton Review noted Virginia Techs composting rates and its Dining Services Garden at Kentland Farm. AASHE Stars: The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher
Future Possibilities
Dining Services at Virginia Tech serves about 6.2 million meals per year. Virginia Tech has huge potential to increase their amount of local purchasing through nearby farmers although there are significant barriers for farmers and Virginia Tech to overcome. Virginia Tech Dining Services is not limited by contract to certain vendors, but most of their food does come from larger distributors like U.S. Foods and Sodexo. Large-scale farms that can provide quality and quantity would be able to fit into Dining Services program. At this point, Dulys-Nusbaum (personal communication, Sept. 5, 2011), Dining Services Sustainability Coordinator, feels that Virginia Tech Dining cannot increase their local food procurement percentage without significant policy change or a change in marketing and distribution methods on the farmers end. DulysNusbaum (personal communication, Sept. 5, 2011) mentioned that she has heard positive feedback about aggregation facilities like the Local Food Hub in Ivy, VA or Appalachian Sustainable Development, located just outside of Abingdon, Virginia (see case studies included in this report).
32
Ferrum College: Farm-to-Table Initiative

Problem Statement
Maintaining and expanding local food acquisition for dining services.
Background
Ferrum College is a 4 year, private, liberal arts college located in rural Franklin County, VA with a total undergraduate enrollment of 1,484. Michael Martin, Dining Services Operations Manager, reported that depending on the season, Ferrums dining services source up to 30% of its food from local sources (within 200 miles of the campus) (M. Martin, personal communication, November 11, 2011). Martin stated that the college has a goal of using 50% local food in the near future. According to Martin (personal communication, Nov. 11, 2011), approximately 2% of their food comes from their own one-acre garden. The college has two sustainability coordinators who are employed through the natural science and math department (M. Martin, personal communication, November 11, 2011). Martin (personal communication, Nov. 11, 2011) also stated that Ferrum College has few funding restrictions because of its status as a private school. The funding for their local food comes directly from the funds created by student enrollment. In July 2010 a $2.1 million project, mostly funded by the Department of Agriculture, was proposed to provide easier access to local foods for Franklin County. This also extends to the surrounding regions, Franklin County Public Schools, and Ferrum College. A grant was requested and submitted by a joint partnership between Franklin County and Ferrum College. This grant seeks to establish a food warehouse in Rocky Mount and purchase vehicles for local food transportation.
Benefits
Improves the local economy by increasing employment and production Opportunity for student research and involvement Our farmers need to know they have a ready market. Local citizens need access to quality food, and research shows that locally grown food is fresher and healthier (Perriello, T., U.S. Representative).
33
Case Study
Washington and Lee University

Problem Statement
How does Washington and Lee incorporate local food into its dining services? What are the methods of its farm to college framework and how might it be applied to the public universities in the New River Valley?
Background
Washington and Lee University is a small public university of 1,777 undergraduate students located in Lexington, VA. It prides itself on its nationally recognized Law School and its incorporation of local foods into campus dining. In fall 2007, the University sponsored a Fall Harvest Meal and it has been an annual tradition ever since. This meal is 90% locally sourced and gives students and others who attend the opportunity to talk to the producers and gain an understanding about the importance of supporting local producers. According to the Universitys website, Initiatives begun during the 2008-2009 academic year should raise the percentage of local food purchased to 25 -35%.
Solution
According to Chris Carpenter, Special Projects Manager for Washington and Lee Dining Services, the Cost-Transfer Economics Program is essential to the Universitys success. This program uses the savings from one local vendor and applies it to a more expensive local vendor to even out costs. For example, apples are much cheaper bought local than from Washington State (as previously purchased); however, traditionally bought chicken is less expensive than the locally grown chicken. Therefore, the savings from purchasing local apples make it possible to purchase local chicken as well.
Benefits
Smaller carbon footprint while transporting locally Hormone-free fresh meat and produce. Every $1 spent on local foods yields $1.80 in benefits for the local community (Washington and Lee University, Jan. 2010) Fosters a relationship between the university and the community
34
Oklahoma Farm-to-School Program

Problem Statement
How can public schools in the New River Valley benefit from local food being served in cafeterias?
(Department of Human Service Commodity Division) and distributed by an existing private provider
Background
The Oklahoma Farm-to-school Program is a state-sanctioned program that encourages the use of local foods in schools throughout Oklahoma. It was created in a piece of state legislation titled The Oklahoma Farm to School Act in 2006 (Oklahoma Farm to School, 2011). The program began in just four school districts and has since expanded to over 60 districts (Oklahoma Farm to School, 2011). The main goal of this program is to increase the overall nutrition in students diets while encouraging and supporting local farmers (Oklahoma Farm to School, 2011). It seems that other positive impacts, such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions and more sustainable agriculture, are secondary.
Solution
This program created a department or central office that aims to increase and encourage local food use in schools (Oklahoma Farm to School, 2011). Despite the absence of an actual facility to compile local food, this program has increased local food use by organizing communication between farmers and schools as well as distribution of food between them. The activities sponsored by the Act are: Locally grown produce served in school cafeterias School gardens & events Farm & farmers market visits Nutritional & educational curriculum Cooking & tasting demonstrations Workshops for growers, food service personnel and teachers
Issues and discoveries that apply to the NRV: Healthier meals means higher labor costs to the schools but this is often offset by the low cost of the food (University of Minnesota) In Oklahoma, fresh produce does not need to be inspected, allowing for faster transfer from the farms to the schools which reduces spoiling of the food A coordinator was assigned to this project to inform farmers of what the schools need and to inform the school of the best ways to prepare and store the fresh produce Funds are allocated from the USDA and the Department of Defense Food orders are given to the Department of Defense
35
Policy
Introduction
With increased awareness that local food systems provide better health options, positive economic impacts, and increased environmental sustainability, more attention is being given to local food legislation. At a speech given in Ankeny, Iowa on October 24, 2011, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack spoke about the priorities for the upcoming 2012 Farm Bill. He stated, Local food is one of the fastest growing segments of agriculture. In the past decade direct consumer sales have doubled. Making connections so that a farmer can sell at a local school or hospital, or even a neighbor down the road, creates good-paying jobs in our rural communities and keeps the wealth created from the ground close to home (Vilsack, 2011). Understanding that federal, state, and local policy can have positive or negative impacts on the agriculture sector, we encourage all stakeholders and future working groups to review these policies ensuring the most effective legislation is in place to support sustainable agriculture and food systems in the NRV. We have included a few examples of federal and state legislation that impact local food systems. Federal The Food, Conservation And Energy Act of 2008 This expansive regulation affects many aspects of agriculture in the United States to include local foods, farmers markets and healthy diets. Also called The 2008 Farm Bill, it increased efficiencies and effectiveness of existing programs and provided funding for several new programs (American Farmland Trust, 2011). Some of the new policies and programs supported by the 2008 Farm Bill reflect the publics increasing demand for provisions that support local food. A list of some of these new programs that gained funding are as follows: 1. Farmers Market Promotion Program: to help establish and promote farmers markets 2. Community Food Projects Program: to help connect lowincome people with fresh foods from local community 3. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program: allows schools to purchase fresh fruit and vegetable snacks 4. Value-added Agricultural Market Development Program: assists farmers and ranchers in increasing overall sales through differentiation and distribution initiatives 5. The Healthy Urban Food Enterprise Development Center: a new initiative to provide support for the development of programs that distribute local and healthy food to under-served communities 6. Prioritized Financing for Locally Produced Agriculture: Rural Business and Industries Loan and Loan Guarantee program (American Farmland Trust, 2011) Understanding these and similar programs at the local level is critical for gaining possible funding for expanding activities that
may help promote agricultural sustainability across the NRV. Good Agriculture Practices (GAP) GAP educates farmers on how to safely and effectively grow their crops while paying special attention to preventing pathogenic contamination. It is a voluntary measure but allows for farmers to increase their markets (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University). Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 This act authorizes funding and organizes policies for the USDAs child nutrition programs. It also allows the USDA to make reforms to school breakfast and lunch programs. It asks states to submit a continuous improvement plan for provided meals and to provide more access to healthy foods. National School Lunch Program Lunches are separated into three types. Federal funding is distributed based on the states need. (Child Nutrition an WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004) Virginia Sanitation guidelines as outlined in the Virginia School Health Guidelines (Virginia Department of Health: Division of Child and Adolescent Health, 1999) 1. Food must be prepared in a manner that discourages the occurrence of food-borne illness 2. Food may be prepared on-site or outside of the school 3. All food preparation must meet the requirements detailed in the Virginia Rules and Regulations Governing Restaurants 4. Adequate holding temperatures for food must be maintained at all time (potentially hazardous foods must be kept below 45 degrees F or above 140 degrees F) Virginia Farm-to-School Week House Joint Resolution No. 95, January 13, 2010, designates the second full week of November, in 2010 and in each succeeding year, as Virginia Farm-to-School Week in the Commonwealth. Legislation recognizes the growing need to prioritize access to healthy foods for young people due to critical health concerns and looks to strengthen connections between Virginias local farms and school districts (Commonwealth of Virginia, 2010). Procurement Guidelines for purchasing at Virginia Tech are managed under Virginias Restructured Higher Education Financial and Administrative Operations Act of 2004 and Chapters 824 and 829 of the Acts of Assembly of 2008. Specifically, the laws state that To the end that the Institution (of higher learning) shall obtain high
36

quality goods and services at reasonable cost, that all procurement procedures be conducted in an open, fair and impartial manner with avoidance of any impropriety or appearance of impropriety, that all qualified vendors have access to the Institutions business and that no offeror be arbitrarily or capriciously excluded. Institution presidents are given the ultimate authority in this field, to ensure that any purchases made are in compliance with the Governing Rules, executive orders, and other regulations. Goods can be purchased using seven different procurement methods: Small Dollar Purchases, Competitive Sealed Bidding, Competitive Negotiation, Sole Source, Emergency, Reverse Auctioning, and Public Auction. Purchases not exceeding $50,000 are considered small-dollar purchases and are subject to their own policies and selection procedures, to be decided by the institutions. The second method, competitive sealed bidding, is used for purchases where specific requirement can be written and pricing schedules can be created. Next, competitive negotiation is a method for purchasing goods in which suppliers are chosen by a Request for Proposals (A tool used in the competitive negotiation process that includes all terms and conditions of the deal). Another procurement method is sole source. If it is determined that only one source for a good is available, a contract can be awarded to that source without competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation. The fifth procurement method, known as an emergency, is one that is used when the situation is urgent and immediate action is needed. In case of an emergency, a contract may be awarded without competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation; however, competitive bidding practices may be used if they are practical under the circumstances. One of the most easily recognized purchasing venues, the public auction, can be used by institutions; but only after the institution has set forth in writing that the purchase of goods from a public sale is in the publics best interest. Finally reverse auctioning (a type of auction in which sellers instead of buyers compete to obtain business) can be used to purchase goods or professional services, but not construction or professional services. If the purchase is more than $50,000, institutions are required to utilize competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiations. However, in certain circumstances, it may be in the best interest of the Institution to utilize sole source, emergency, public auction or reverse auctioning procurement methods Educating young farmers This section seeks to explore how the NRV can encourage younger generations of the population to become involved and stay involved in the agriculture industry. Encouraging a younger generation will ensure the viability of the industry for the future. According to the 2007 USDA Census, the average age of farmers in the United States in 2007 was 57 years. In 2002, the average age of farmers was 55.3 years with over a quarter of all farmers over the age of 65 (USDA Census). The average age of farmers has been rising by 1 year or more for each census year. As a region, the NRV is no exception to these statistics. The average age of farmers in the NRV is also 57 years, and this poses an endemic concern for the region (U.S. Census State and County Quickfacts, 2007). This would not be problematic if there were younger farmers joining the industry, but younger generations are reluctant to pursue a career in agriculture. Young individuals are wary of joining the agriculture field because of the prospect of low profits and manual labor (Bezrouch, 2009). With more farmers nearing the age of retirement and fewer people becoming farmers, this results in a number of issues. First, farming as an occupation makes up 47,383 jobs in the NRV (U.S. Census State and County Quickfacts, 2007). With no one filling these positions, as farmers age, the local economy will suffer. Second, farmers in the region provide a significant source of sustenance to the area and surrounding areas. Without their crop and livestock output, the NRV risks facing food insecurity in the long run. As gas prices sky rocket, reliance on distant areas for food exports will cost the region greatly. Ultimately, there is a high demand for young farmers and in order to meet this demand, local municipalities need to provide incentives that will encourage younger generations to understand the significance of the agriculture industry in the region. National Young Farmer Educational Association The United States Department of Education recognizes the National Young Farmer Educational Association (NYFEA) as the official adult student organization for agricultural education. The purpose of this association is to develop leaders, inspire service, strengthen communities, and enhance the success potential for American agriculture, especially the beginning farmers (NYFEA, 2011). Besides its focus on agricultural education, the NYFEA seeks to provide personal and business development opportunities. NYFEA has created a number of programs and benefits to members who join their organization. Some of these initiatives include Education for American Agriculture, Young Ag Leaders Event, Agricultural Decision Makers College, Community Service Projects, Local Emphasis Agricultural Development, Leader for Agriculture, National Agricultural Communication Award, International Exchanges, Agricultures Promise, and National Institute to name a couple (NYFEA, 2011). National Young Farmers Coalition A confluence of forces ranging from a growing market for local agriculture to a lack of entry level positions has led more and more young entrepreneurs to start up sustainable land based initiatives (NYFC, 2011). There are still significant barriers to their participation in these endeavors. The National Young Farmers Coalition is a group of young farmers working to create policy change that will help young farmers in the future. They see the main obstacles for beginning farmers being capital, land, and health care (NYFC, 2011). After conducting a survey of several hundred young farmers all over the country, they have created a list of policy recommendations at both the federal and local level to help overcome these obstacles. At the federal level, they
37

envision improved credit and savings opportunities, increased access to affordable land, and expansion of farmer training and education opportunities, as well as restoration of important conservation programs (NYFC, 2011). At a state and local level, their recommendations include providing grants and health care opportunities for small businesses, protection of farmland, and supporting local farms through purchasing choices (NYFC, 2011). In the NRV, there are several programs that seek to accomplish these goals. The Catawba Sustainability Center serves as a great example through their VT EarthWorks program. VT EarthWorks is a business acceleration program for land-based businesses that works to help producers gain access to land and markets (VTRC, 2007). It is clear that each of these programs is working to help new and young farmers gain access to land and on their way to success, but separately they do not work nearly as well. The NRVLI has a rare opportunity to link all of these resources to best facilitate opportunities for young farmers. 1. Aggregation/Distribution-Wholesale This component identifies food hubs as a location where farmers may drop off products and distributors and customers can pick up local and regional source-identified food. Food hubs maintain a consistent and reliable supply of locally produced foods by aggregating products from many small to mid-sized farms. Because of the sheer volume these larger institutions require, it is unrealistic to assume they could source from multiple farms individually. However, with food hubs collecting the food and redistributing to them, institutions can purchase the mass quantities they need from a single location. 2. Active Coordination This component identifies the importance of food hubs as an intermediary. Hubs will coordinate supply chain logistics, seek markets for producers, and work with distributors, processors, and buyers. The hubs provide a business management system that is crucial for accessing wholesale markets. The management system maintains consistent product supplies and product varieties by coordinating crop planting schedules and crop selection with farmers. 3. Permanent Facilities This component highlights how food hubs may provide important regional infrastructure, including space and equipment for storage, processing, packing, palletizing, and possibly selling under a regional label. 4. Community Service This component highlights how food hubs can provide health and social services. Barham (2011a) notes that possible services healthy food hubs provide include: Wholesale and retail vending space Offices for health and human service providers Fitness centers Community meeting space Community kitchens Healthy cooking classes Community garden Playgrounds Education and incentive programs for children Pilot sites for federal assistance programs, such as WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) and SNAP (USDA food stamp program). Education and technical assistance for farmers
Food Hub
Our research on local demand shows that many community members see the need for increased local food infrastructure. This infrastructure may include processing, packaging, and distributing. One of the options available to the NRV is a food hub. This section will outline what a food hub is, what its components are, the benefits of and challenges to a food hub, food hub development, and funding options. This section also contains a case study of the Local Food Hub located in Ivy, VA. The hub serves an area similar to the NRV and therefore is a good model for the NRVLI.
Definition
According to Barham (2011b), the USDAs working definition of a regional food hub is: A centrally located facility with a business management structure facilitating the aggregation, storage, processing, distribution, and/or marketing of locally/regionally produced food products.
Components
Barham (2011b) lists three major components of regional food hubs: aggregation/distribution-wholesale, active coordination, and permanent facilities. An additional and arguably major component Barham (2011a) identifies is community service. Alternative perspectives on food hubs stress the value of community service. A healthy food hub, as Barham (2011a) describes, consists of a variety of businesses, social services, and public spaces that mutually support each other in a sustainable and innovative way. Another service food hubs can provide is training and technical assistance for farmers.
Benefits
Food hubs offer many potential benefits. According to Barham (2011b), these include expanded market opportunities for producers, job creation in rural areas, and increased access to healthy foods. Barham (2011b) even notes that increased access may reach underserved areas such as food deserts. However, additional benefits may include: Large institutions have access to local products Farmers can move beyond small-scale and time-consuming direct sales (Ulrich, 2011).
38

Purchasing local supports the local economy and increases the local tax base (National Good Food Network, 2011). Educational opportunities for a next generation of farmers Farmers receive a consistent income from large institutions and are able to expand and hire more workers, further boosting the local economy (Ulrich, 2011) Reductions in carbon footprint for food transportation (National Good Food Network, 2011) Environmental services such as recycling programs, composting programs, and energy saving programs (Barham, 2011b) wholesal Consumer data showing willingness of consumers to pay a premium for local/regional product Stakeholder involvement including government and neighborhood support Producer and market manager education and training on season extension techniques GAP certification assistance for producers to meet growing requirements Barham (2011a) notes that when developing a food hub, the first order of business is to renovate facilities for aggregation, storage, packing, light processing, and distribution with start-up capitol funds. The next step is to create an effective business management system to coordinate supply chain logistics, such as grower-buyer transactions, aggregation, distribution, and marketing (Barham, 2011a). A final step is to provide training and technical assistance to farmers to set standards for production (Barham, 2011a). These standards include volume, quality, packaging, food safety, and other specifications (Barham, 2011a). The infrastructure needs mentioned above are important factors to consider when planning a food hub operation.
Challenges
There are several challenges that are necessary to overcome when developing a food hub. These challenges, as outlined by the Food Hub Collaboration (2011), include: Insufficient infrastructure Insufficient funding and high start up costs Developing infrastructure that is appropriate for the community Skepticism that buyers will not want to pay a higher price for local or regional product Concern among producers that wholesale markets have a reputation for unfair prices Concern over how to price products in disadvantage markets Concern that wholesale markets could not offer sufficient year-round product supplies due to seasonal constraints Lack of access of small farmers to aggregation and distribution channels Business acumen (National Good Food Network, 2011) Reliable volume needed for profitability (National Good Food Network, 2011) Market complexity (National Good Food Network, 2011)
Funding
There are many funding streams that can be used to support food hub operations and development. The USDA Regional Food Hub Subcommittee is working on developing a prioritized list of funding opportunities, which will be available in January 2012. Some USDA programs that have been used in the past include grants for the development of physical infrastructure and facilities for producers of locally grown agricultural products, funding for training and technical assistance for business development, and funding for producers of value-added agricultural products. Some examples of loan programs include loans for the construction of on-site storage, cooling, and minimal processing facilities; for construction and renovation of community facilities; and for rural economic development and job creation. A more detailed list of USDA grant and loan programs is included in the appendix.
Food Hub Development

According to Barham (2011a), oftentimes most of the physical and virtual infrastructure necessary for a food hub is already in place. However, there are additional infrastructure requirements that must be developed. The Food Hub Collaboration (2011) identifies the following infrastructure needs of a food hub: Closed loading docks, additional storage space, and temperature control systems Space and equipment for processing, packing, and packaging product Sub-aggregation points for farmers to better access the aggregation points and distribution channels Delivery and distribution systems so that producers can reach wholesale, food service and retail store markets in areas of low access Providing a mobile market component to reach areas with low access as an alternative to creating additional stationary infrastructure A retail component for markets that are currently strictly
Recommendations to NRVLI Working Group

1. Given the unmet demand for locally produced agriculture, we believe a food hub would be successful venture in this untapped market. We suggest looking further into this possibility. 2. The USDA Regional Food Hub Subcommittee is in the process of developing resource guide for establishing a food hub. The Subcommittee is also working on developing a list of prioritized funding streams that could be used to target food hub development. These resources are expected to be available in January 2012. More information can be found on the USDA Agricultural Marketing Services Food Hub website. We suggest reviewing these documents when they become available.
39
Case Study
The Local Food Hub, Ivy, Virginia

strengthen and secure the future of a healthy regional food supply by providing small farmers with concrete services that support their economic vitality and promote stewardship of the land
Problem Statement
How can small, local farmers scale up, i.e. reach larger markets such as universities, hospitals, and school districts?
Background
The Local Food Hub is located in Ivy, VA outside of Charlottesville. The mission of the hub is to strengthen and secure the future of a healthy regional food supply by providing small farmers with concrete services that support their economic vitality and promote stewardship of the land (Local Food Hub). Kate Collier and Marisa Vrooman opened the Local Food Hub, a non-profit, in 2009 after raising enough money from local donations to invest in the necessary infrastructure (Knowles, 2010). This infrastructure includes a 3,800 square foot warehouse and refrigerated trucks (Ulrich, 2011). The start up funding was completely local (Collier, 2011), showing the community support for the hub. Nelson County Economic Development was the very first to invest via a $10,000 planning grant for completion of a business plan (Collier, 2011). The Blue Moon Fund, local farmers, and community members were also extremely integral to the initial funding for the hub (Collier, 2011). Citizens even provided in-kind donations, including warehouse space, a forklift, farmland, computers, and office supplies (Collier, 2011). The Local Food Hub employs 15 people, 7 of which are full-time (Collier, 2011). The Hub also manages an educational farm, which offers outreach programs, apprenticeships, and internships (Local Food Hub). The Local Food Hub currently works with 50 farms located within 100 miles of Charlottesville (Local Food Hub; Knowles, 2010). These are small family farms with annual sales under $2 million (Barham 2011). The produce farms range from 1-30 acres and the orchards from 20-1,000 acres (Barham, 2011). They have 100 customers, including public schools, restaurants, groceries, senior centers, college dinning halls, distributors, processors, caterers, and a hospital (Barham, 2011).
for an extended period and farmers are not competing with one another to sell or running the risk of wasted fresh food in the form of a rotting surplus. According to Ulrich (2011), farmers are reporting a 10% increase in sales to local businesses and institutions; The Hub purchased in excess of $850,000 of local food as of October 2011 (Collier, 2011). Additionally, the Hub is assured of a consistent and secure supply for their buyers (Collier, 2011). Often buyers are looking for a single phone number for orders, a knowledgeable sales person, quality and consistency in product, regular delivery by refrigerated truck, and liability insurance (as much as $3-5 million for hospitals or universities) (Collier, 2011). The hub provides all these things. They purchased the required liability insurance to assure large institutions (Knowles, 2010; Ulrich, 2011). Most small farmers cannot afford this type of insurance, which can be a major barrier to entering the market. At the end of 2010, the Hub surveyed their buyers and found purchases of local food increased by an average of 30% (Collier, 2011). A few of the larger institutions in the area have set a goal to purchase 10% of their food locally (Collier, 2011). The hub connects farmers with many local institutions, grocers, restaurants and more, including: Albemarle County Schools Charlottesville City Schools Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) Darden School of Business, UVA UVA Dining Halls UVA Health Services and Hospitals
Benefits
Supports the local economy, employing 15 people and providing farmers with fair prices (overall income to farmers exceeds $850,000). The food hub offers educational opportunities on its farm at Maple Hill, ensuring a next generation of farmers. The food hub also donates fresh, local food to local food banks, ensuring healthy food for everyone in the Charlottesville area. Assists farmers in learning about regulatory challenges, such as GAP certification.
Solution
The Local Food Hub helps farmers scale up by providing a collection point or aggregation center and then distributing to larger institutions. In addition, the Hub helps assess local demand, making sure farmers can provide institutions with the food they need. To assess demand, the Hub assesses the previous years sales per week and projects the demand for the coming year (Collier, 2011). The Local Food Hub then works with farmers to plan production, a process that begins in October and continues through the beginning of January (Collier, 2011). This ensures the regions farmers work together and not against one another. Using a planting schedule means farmers do not harvest their produce all at the same time (Ulrich, 2011). Therefore, fresh produce is available
40
Appalachian Sustainable Development

redefine what a healthy economy is and what economic development is by working to revive the regions economy and protect the environment
Problem Statement
How can an organization develop a sustainable model that can work to reverse costly environmental damage associated with lumber and food production?
Background
Appalachian Sustainable Development (ASD) is a non-profit enterprise that specializes in selling sustainable harvested lumber and local organic produce. When ASD was founded sustainability, local foods, and sustainable forestry were not common terms or concepts (K. Terry, personal communication, Nov. 18 2011). Founder Anthony Flaccavento did not set off to integrate these words into the local lexicon but rather to redefine what a healthy economy is and what economic development is by working to revive the regions economy and protect the environment (PBS, n.d.). At its start, ASD was largely funded by grants, with large initial support coming from the VA Tobacco Commission. Today a large amount of the funds actually come from sales but about 30% still comes from grants (K. Terry, personal communication, Nov. 18 2011). Most of the grants have been 1 or 2 year grants rather than long-term support grants; this has slightly hampered efforts because a lot of the time is spent applying for funding (K. Terry, personal communication, Nov. 18 2011). According to Terry, portions of that funding go to pay the staff, which consists of 7 full-time staff and 5-7 part-time staff.
challenge in balancing supply and demand. Terry noted that ASD has worked to alleviate this by educating farmers on the necessity of planning and aimed to ensure that all appropriate inputs are available based on demands from farmers. The demand has far exceeded the supply to this point, which has given AH some leverage (K. Terry, personal communication, Nov. 18 2011). They are able to spend time on extension training and technical assistance programs because they know that those will help farmers and help increase the supply over the long run (K. Terry, personal communication, Nov. 18 2011). Terry explained, AH does not set their pricing at any point but offers a range of expected prices to farmers, when products are sold the farmers are paid based on what the produce sold for. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of profitability data, but the farmers that have kept such data are reporting profits (K. Terry, personal communication, Nov. 18 2011). This is important in a time when it has become more difficult for farmers to make a living wage, and ties in closely with ASDs goals of a triple bottom line through creative solutions (ASD). Appalachian Harvest has clearly illustrated that local agriculture can be successful in regional markets, providing that the necessary infrastructure exists. When you build this basic infrastructurethis field-to-table systemyou begin to see other economic opportunities, responded Flaccavento in a PBS interview. These economic opportunities have presented themselves in synergies that have emerged around the infrastructure. The infrastructure they have in place has greatly benefited the market that they aim at but has left other areas to be explored. Larger institutions schools, universities, and hospitals have largely been unexplored by the organization. This is mainly because of the seasonality of the operations. Terry explained that further infrastructure would need to be put in place so that schools and universities would be able to store and process seasonal products.
Solution
When founded, Flaccavento worked to transition tobacco farmers to organic produce but he had no supply from farmers, no market to sell the products, and no means of aggregating and distributing the products detailed executive director, Kathlyn Terry in an interview. Building this infrastructure has created opportunities and businesses that would otherwise be impossible in a rural setting. One of the main programs of ASD is Appalachian Harvest (AH). Appalachian Harvest was conceived as a way to connect local tobacco farmers, making the transition to organic produce, with local grocery stores but has recently grown to incorporate much more (K. Terry, personal communication, Nov. 18 2011). Terry explained that since AH moved to incorporate both local organic growers and local conventional growers, in 2010, the program has seen a dramatic increase in sales as well as engagement from local farmers. AH has also worked to move away from grading of produce, which will save money for both farmers and ASD (K. Terry, personal communication, Nov. 18 2011). AH markets primarily to regional grocery store chainsWhole Foods, Ingles, Earth Fareand produce brokers (K. Terry, personal communication, Nov. 18 2011). This steady customer base has led to a large
Benefits
Barham (2011a) lists the following benefits of Appalachian Sustainable Development: Regional stores and supermarkets have access to local products. Purchasing local supports local economic development. Offers educational opportunities for farmers, including training, technical assistance, and mentoring Works with farmers to develop preseason planning to decide what crops to grow, how much to grow, and when to grow it Donates produce that doesnt meet the grade to food banks, or sells it to other producers Offers new revenue sources for direct marketing farmers Offers a viable livelihood alternative of organic specialty crop production for former tobacco farmers
41
Next Steps: Conclusion

We focused on assessing the demand from larger institutions: hospitals, universities, public schools, and national distributors. These larger institutions make up the majority (60%) of the sales from the Local Food Hub (K. Collier, personal communication, Oct. 20, 2011). Future working groups or studio classes may consider assessing the demand of smaller buyers: independent groceries, restaurants, caterers, and processors. These represent 40% of the Local Food Hubs sales (K. Collier, personal communication, Oct. 20, 2011). We also surveyed a few farmers market vendors and spoke with the Blacksburg Farmers Market Manager, Ellen Stewart. However, we believe more research can be done on the supply side and suggest speaking with some of the larger producers in the area, especially the beef and dairy producers. These farmers might have larger an increase in supply with little infrastructure inputs. We spoke with Kate Collier, founder of the Local Food Hub in Charlottesville, VA, who suggested specific steps for others wishing to setup a food hub: speak with potential buyers and assess the market, survey the supply, make a business plan, assess that infrastructure. These steps are important to consider for future research and consideration of a local food hub in the NRV. In regards with Carillon, any locally sourced produce would have to come directly through US Foods, the hospitals main provider. This is because it needs a large supplier to meet its needs. Overall, given the unmet demand for locally produced agriculture, we believe that the NRV could significantly benefit from a food hub. Based upon our interviews and research we strongly suggest further looking into the possibility of a food hub for this region.
42
Appendix
Interview and Survey Questions

Questions for the Local Food Hub and Appalachian Sustainable Development
1. What was the greatest challenge in establishing the Local Food Hub? 2. What is the greatest challenge in acting as the middle man for farmers and larger institutions? Anything particular to universities, medical institutions, or school districts? 3. What do these larger institutions purchase the most of (i.e. tomatoes...)? What do they not want/have no demand for? 4. How do your price points compare to that of your major competitors (Aramark, Sysco)? How do you guarantee competitive price points? 5. Who were early stakeholders in the project and how did they get started? 6. Is the project funded solely by community donation or are there other sources of funding? 7. Are the farmers and institutions generally seeing a net positive outcome from the food hub? Are there lingering concerns? 8. How many people does the hub employ? 9. What type of business structure do you have? 10. How would you react and adapt to possible changes in supply due to storms, crisis...etc. 11. Are there any changes that could improve the functionality and performance of the food hub? 12. What percentage of their food supply do these large institutions receive from you? (i.e. tomatoes...)? 6. How much does the food supplied contribute to the total food used in schools (percentage)? 7. Was your project readily accepted by the public/parents? If not, how were the controversies overcome? 8. Was the school board behind the project the entire time or was there resistance? If there was, how was it overcome? 9. Was training for the school employees funded or coordinated through your office? If so, how what were the details of the training? 10. Is your office seen as a permanent fixture in the Oklahoma school system? Are there plans for expansion? 11. How do you react and adapt to possible changes in supply due to storms, crisis...etc.? 12. How is your program affected by state-wide restrictions like sanitary regulations or needing to purchase the most costeffective foods?
Questions for New River Valley Farmers Market Managers

1. What items are most demanded by customers? 2. What items are the least demanded by customers? 3. How many farmers participate? 4. What is the average $ amount made each week by the farmers? What is the average profit? What are costs associated with participating in a farmers market? (like transportation expenses, display stands, etc) 5. How many people on average attend the farmers market (customers)? 6. How many vendors participate in other markets or other forms of direct sales? 7. Are there any benefits/disadvantages of these other markets? 8. Is there interest in infrastructure support (i.e. food hub, processing plant, etc.)? 9. What percentage of vendors sell meat/animal products? produce? value-added goods?
Questions for the Oklahoma Farm to School Project Coordinators

1. How many employees are involved in the project 2. What kind of correspondence goes on between the farmers and your office, your office and the schools? 3. How often are orders updated? 4. How much food is supplied? What types of food? 5. What are the specific products that are the most demanded
43
Appendix
10. What is the average distance the vendors travel to be at this market? 11. Do farmers have capacity/interest to produce more (if mkt. available)? 12. Would participating in a food hub system help to increase yields? (As in they have more time to solely focus on farm production) 13. What are your methods of advertisement? 14. How do you determine how many days and what days to hold the market? 15. How do you react and adapt to possible changes in supply due to storms, crisis...etc.
Questions for Farmers

1. Who are your main customers? (Outside of farmers market) 2. Are you interested in expanding your market outside of Blacksburg? New River Valley? to Roanoke? Virginia Tech Dining Services? 3. What are possible obstacles or concerns you have with expanding your market? 4. Is there interest in a cooperative or similar aggregate organization? 5. Are you experiencing any issues with climate changes? Affecting productivity? Adaptations made? 6. What are your top crops? Main cash crops? What grows well here and during what season? 7. Are you willing to work with other farmers to plan a crop schedule during the year? 8. How do you react and adapt to possible changes in supply due to storms, crisis...etc.
44
Appendix
Local Food Hub (Ivy, VA)Frequently Asked Questions & Answers

Q: Who were early participants in the project and how did it get started? A: Founders Kate Collier and Marisa Vrooman met in the development phase. Marisa has nonprofit and fundraising experience. Kate has experience in food distribution and owns a specialty food store in Charlottesville. Start-up funding was all local. The first funding came from Nelson County Economic Development. This was a $10,000 planning grant to complete the business plan. The blue moon fund, located in Charlottesville, is one of five integral local foundations that made significant gifts. Additionally, a pair of local women organized a letter writing campaign to all of their friends, which drew in $40,000+ in contribution checks. There was a group of farmers involved in an advisory capacity. These farmers networked with other farmers to assess interest and explain the benefits of working with a food hub model. Richard Bean was a major influence in this capacity. Local citizens further supported the start-up by contributing In-Kind: warehouse space, forklift, farmland, computers, office supplies Q: What was the greatest challenge in establishing the Local Food Hub? A: The greatest challenge was figuring out how to finance the project. In sorting out financing, you must assess what type of organization you ultimately want to create (an LLC, cooperative, nonprofit, etc.). The Local Food Hub is a nonprofit. Then you must develop a mission, a business plan and raise the funds for startup. Also consider the strategy for securing all the required capital to keep the project running for the long term. Dont go into it under capitalized! Starting up is hard enough without having to worry about where the next money is coming from. The Local Food Hub has a staff with backgrounds in food and distribution, nonprofit work and with strong connections to farmers and buyers locally. This is key. An additional challenge is attracting enough farmers to fulfill the demand of the institutional purchasers. For institutions to make a long-term commitment to buying local, they need to have a consistent volume supply to depend on. Sustainability/viability of the business/mission depends on increasing supply to meet a growing demand. Q: What is the percent revenue from the various sources (i.e. sales, grants, private contributions)? A: Estimated percentages are: Individuals10%, Foundations50%, Federal15%, Corporate sponsorships5%, Income from sales20% Q: How has the source of funding contributed to or hampered your success? A: Of course, funding sources are essential! They enable our work Certain foundation contributions come with additional requirements that may not be essential to the project. This results in extra work in order to obtain the funding, involving significant time to write grants and additional payroll for that service. People love giving startups money; however, continual funding can be more difficult to acquire. The Local Food Hub is currently in the maturity phase after 2.5 years of operation. This phases challenge is staying exciting/relevant to funders. Q: How many people does the Local Food Hub employ? A: The Hub employs 15 people. The warehouse has 2 part-time and 3 full-time staff (1 sales, 1 purchasing, 3 warehouse & delivery). There are 3 executive staff, including director, development, and communications positions. The farm employs 1 full-time manager and 6 seasonal staff. Q: What type of business structure do you have (Board of Directors, Cooperative, etc.)? What is income structure? A: There is a Board of Directors made up of seven members with experience in: fundraising, non-profit, farming and food distribution. The Local Food Hub is a 501c3 corporation. We collect a service fee for our food distribution services. For example, when the Hub buys tomatoes from farmers for $1 we then sell them for $1.25. The Local Food Hub is a business-based nonprofit working towards financial sustainability. Over time the income from service fees reduces our fundraising requirements. Q: Do you negotiate pricing and quantity at the beginning of the growing season or at the time of harvest? A: Production planning is a process that starts in the beginning of October and goes through the beginning of January. To start with, we assess the past years sales on a weekly basis (what and how much). We then project demand for the next year. Once we have these projections, we meet with farmers and place weekly pre-orders for the coming season. We use historical pricing and the weekly demand for certain products to determine expected price ranges. We then ask the farmer, Every week that you can, we want 20 cases of red slicing tomatoes. Can we count on you to plant and grow that for us? The farmer can then say,
45
Appendix
We can do 10 cases or dont you need 50. This creates an open dialogue about what the farmers can do. From experience, we also know which farmers have been successful with which crops. We plan in the pre-season so farmers can buy seeds, soil, etc. and set aside a portion of their land for the Hub. None of the farmers count solely on the Hub because this would be an un-diversified risk for them. Most farmers also sell direct to consumer. The planning process also helps the food hub have a more secure and consistent supply for buyers. Q: What is the greatest challenge in acting as the middleman for farmers and larger institutions? Anything particular to universities, medical institutions, school districts, or restaurants? A: Before we started, we surveyed the buyers to find out what they needed regulatory wise to buy local food. Buyers want one phone number to call and place an order, a knowledgeable sales person, liability insurance coverage ($3-5 million for hospitals and universities), quality and consistency in product, and regular delivery in a refrigerated vehicle. The buyers also want a quality that meets or exceeds what they can get from the common market. Public schools have a certain budget they can spend on meat. This is established through a bid process. Therefore, public schools only source produce from the Hub. The Local Food Hub works with all the local public schools. We have not yet come across competitive bid limitations with other institutions. Its important to consider the human capital: who is the purchaser and how can you convince them to want local? Praising what they do and what they could do for their local economy and offering insurance, deliverability, and a professional sales experience every week can make it as easy as just choosing to buy local. The Local Food Hub also promotes the purchasers through public relations and social media. Q: What do these larger institutions purchase the most (i.e. tomatoes...)? What do they not want/have no demand for? A: Institutions want Apples (#1), tomatoes (#2), zucchini (#3), squash (#4), salad mix, peaches, watermelon, potatoes, bell peppers. Institutions rarely purchase: eggplant, hot peppers, eggs (perceived risk), and ground beef (HUGE price differential between conventional and local). They also dont purchase foods that require too much processing, like head broccoli (they want florets), butternut squash, kale, chard... Planning can be difficult because the consumer and supplier demand does change from year to year. Q: How do your price points compare to that of your major competitors? How do you guarantee competitive price points? A: Pricing is set based on conversations with farmers. We ask what they can grow a product for and still turn a profit. We then check with buyers and ask where the price point is that can replace out of area with local food. Next, we figure out where the prices meet in the middle. Our main goal is to give farmers a fair price. We survey the farmers every year to see if they think the prices are fair. 100% of our farmers do think the prices are fair. Then we go to the buyer. Pricing is also based on supply and demand. When there is an over abundance of a product or not enough, prices fluctuate. We are now starting to sell to distributors because distributors dont have the staff or time to aggregate small farm produce for themselves but their customers are requesting local. The distribution purchasers think our pricing overall is high and dont understand why people are asking for it. Students and consumers are driving the demand. Its very grassroots. Our customers and the distributors customers think the pricing is fair. The distributors are marking it up how they need to make a profit and the consumers are still paying it because people want to know where their food comes from. They are paying for source verified product. Additionally, higher prices ensure small-scale family farmers can stay in the business. Farm input costs have drastically risen in the last few years and the price growers get for their product has to reflect these increases. Q: What percentage of their food supply do the large institutions receive from you? How has this changed over time? A: We surveyed our buyers at the end of 2010. Reporting showed an increase in local food purchases by an average of 30% through working with the Local Food Hub. The UVA Hospital produce budget is $600,000 and they spend about $80,000 a year on local produce from the Hub. Some large area institutions have set a goal to purchase 10% of their food locally. They are still working toward this goal. Q: What percentage of your supply do you sell to large institutions? Hospitals, schools, senior centers, distributors: 60% Independent groceries, restaurants, caterers, processors: 40% Q: Are the farmers and institutions generally seeing a net positive outcome from the food hub (i.e. increased sales and operations)? Are there lingering concerns? A: Farmers are seeing increased income. As of December 2011, Local Food Hub has purchased more than $1 million of local food from 75 local farmers. This is the total for purchases since the hub began operating in July of 2009. For 2011, purchases have reached more than $550,000. Institutions are seeing happy customers and community commendation for their role in helping the local economy. The institutional purchasers do question the long-term interest in the local food movement. Some of the buyers think local food is a fad they happen to be participating in. However, they are looking
46
Appendix
at the market, listening to demand, and reacting to it. Institutions also cite potential food safety concerns. They want to see GAP certification but dont require it yet. They may require GAP certification in the future. Institutional purchasers express concern that aggregation supply might cause a safety problem, even though problems dont historically come from small aggregation centers. We are communicating with farmers that to insure future institutional business, they should get a started on the GAP certification process. Currently, the Local Food Hub farm services staff visits every farm for quality assurance. Farmers are slowly warming to the idea of investing in regulatory certifications as they see a regular income stream for their food. Farmers are mostly concerned about labor and season extension infrastructure. In Virginia, farms are productive from May to November if they are lucky. Lots of farms are looking to install high tunnels and greenhouses to increase winter income. However, farmers are concerned about the capital investment required for this infrastructure. Q: How do you plan for changes in supply due to environmental factors such as disease or drought that may limit supply? A: This year, one of the best producing farms had hail damage. We had pre-ordered half the zucchini and squash we needed to meet buyer demand from this farm. So, we were short on both all year. This winter we are trying to find 5-7 farms cultivating more than 10 acres that can offer a consistent weekly supply. We are trying to diversify the risk. We ask farms to produce more volume with crop damage in mind and plan to find buyers if there is excess. We also reserve the right to request more than pre-ordered. This year we were 20% under supplied. The growth projection for next year is 40%. We need to find 60% more supply than last year. Q: Are there any changes that could improve the functionality and performance of the food hub? A: Planning can always be better. We would like to receive more commitments from buyers. They estimate what they are going to need but dont always stick to that estimate. Wed like to get buyers to stick to their pre-orders. On the supply side, we want to have more consistent product and delivery times. When its raining in the morning, we have come to expect the farmers to be an hour and a half late. Our biggest day for deliveries is Tuesday and a lot of farmers deliver to us on Tuesdays. We would like to arrange a schedule where we are receiving and shipping on different days. Q: How do BMPs, like GAP certification (health and safety) or organic certification positively or negatively affect farmer and hub operations? A: The Local Food Hub educational farm is the only one of our suppliers that is certified organic. The farmer trend, inspired by Joel Salatin, is moving beyond organic without the added paperwork and expense of certification. GAP is one of those regulatory things that an entrepreneurial farmers first inclination is to resist (the forms, the inspector). But farmers are starting to understand where regulations like that work. The Local Food Hub finds the educational farm helpful because we learn what the farmers are going through by going through it ourselves. We can speak from experience. We are going through the GAP certification process so we can speak to the farmers as a farm and a partner not a regulator. Farmers are resistant to regulation as a group. However, GAP and organic certification are federally recognized and can be marketing tools to institutional buyers. Currently, there are no GAP requirements from buyers. It is coming, they say so we are getting ready. We are also working on being a GAP certified warehouse. The Hub is designed to deal with these types of regulatory things so the farmers dont have to. Q: Do you offer trainings or educational opportunities for member farmers selling via the hub? Or to those interested in selling via the hub? A: The educational farm has been operating for 2 years. We have a workshop series (8 or 10 sessions) that partner producers can attend for free and citizens can attend for a fee. The workshops are organized so classes in the winter are ones that participating farmers have asked for (Integrated Pest Management, season extension, etc.). In the summer, the series is more for community members (backyard gardening, canning). We offer apprenticeship and internship opportunities. Apprenticeships run from MarchNovember. The apprentices live on the farm and work full-time. They have access to the classes and work with the farm manager to learn hands on wholesale, organic vegetable production. The summer interns are usually high school students interested in farming, nutrition and food. We also have a farm services division. The farm services staff visits producer farms and collects information about the farms (demographics, stories, and photos), keeps records of reported farm challenges and provides technical and networking resources. Q: What advice do you have for other similar programs? A: First and foremost, talk to the buyers and find out if you have a market. Put together a meeting of potential stakeholders and buyers and give them a presentation speaking to why buying local will serve their demand. Peer pressure to buy local and support local is also helpful. Second, survey the supply. Are there enough farmers? Analyze established, experienced food producer resources because it takes a long time to train a new farmer. Third, make a business plan. Take a very realistic look at the numbers. How much food can you realistically sell and what can you sell it for? If the business plan works out, decide if you are a for-profit or non-profit service organization? Is there a group of farmers/stakeholders that want to form a co-op?
47
Appendix
Fourth, assess the infrastructure. You need lots of refrigeration space/trucks, a sales person, and human capital. The day-to-day operations require smart, experienced, multi-tasking, dedicated people. Food hubs are hugely rewarding because there are clear metrics of success. You can track your progress in QuickBooks. The money is traceable. The ripple effect is wide: farmers, the environment, institutions, and consumers. It provides an economic stimulus in your region based around land conservation and healthy food production. Q: Is there anything else I should have asked but didnt? A: Another aspect of a hub is getting food into more low-income communities or food security. This is a concern lately because of the economy. One thing a food hub can do is aggregate and facilitate food donations. There is a remarkable amount of food waste that can be saved. A food hub can deliver to organizations that are feeding those in need food that farmers have graded out, is second quality, or food that didnt get sold before its too ripe for retail. Community gardeners can also bring in their excess and have it distributed to food banks. Food banks rarely have access to fresh product, so this service is valuable for a communitys health and nutrition.
48
Appendix
Appalachian Sustainable DevelopmentInterview Questions & Answers

Q: What was the greatest challenge in establishing ASD? A: I was not here in 1995 when ASD was established, but my understanding is that at the time, sustainability, local foods, and sustainable forestry were not common terms or concepts. For example, when the founder elected to transition tobacco farmers to organic produce, he had no supply from farmers, no market to sell the products to if he had the supply, and no means of aggregating and distributing the products should he be able to leap the first two hurdles. So in addition to the ever present challenge of raising funds, he had to change the thinking of consumers and retailers while at the same time building infrastructure. Q: What is the greatest challenge in acting as the middleman for farmers and larger institutions? Anything particular to universities, medical institutions, school districts, or restaurants? A: One of the biggest challenges is balancing supply and demand. For instance, the marketer may sell 200 cases of broccoli to a buyer for a Thursday delivery because a farmer has said he will be delivering that product on Wednesday. If the farmer doesnt show up, it can make things difficult for the marketer and the buyer. So, educating farmers on the necessity of planning and attempting to enforce those plans can be quite challenging. Harvest forecasting is a very big challengehow much can you expect and when. We struggle with this every year. Appalachian Harvests primary customer base is regional grocery store chainsWhole Foods, Ingles, Earth Fareand produce brokers such as Produce Source Partners. We have not been very successful at growing an institutional market due to a number of challenges. First, schools and universities are not in session when the bulk of produce is available from local farmers. Therefore, some sort of processing would be beneficial so that the product could be stored and used by these institutions when they are in session. ASD does not currently have this infrastructure so tapping that market is difficult. Additionally, the price points at universities and school systems (even those with a commitment to local food purchasing) are often too low to make the transaction profitable for farmers. And given that there is more demand than supply at this point, there really is little incentive for farmers to take a financial hit in order to supply that market. ASD has not pursued medical institutions or restaurants aggressively at this point. This is primarily a matter of scale and supply. Our business model involves large deliveries to distribution centers. We usually operate a tractor with a 53 refrigerated trailer and we do our best to fill it up in order to minimize per case distribution costs. Such a model does not work at all well for restaurants. It could possible be made to work for larger medical facilities but given that we have 3-4x the demand currently than we have supply, we have not spent time developing this market. We have, however, discussed adding a purveyor-type model that would involve smaller refrigerated trucks that could be operated on a more limited scale for smaller buyers. This is currently under exploration and not in practice. Q: How do your price points compare to that of your major competitors (Aramark, Sysco)? How do you guarantee competitive price points? A: We do not sell much to universities so specifics on this are not possible. However, the challenge is usually price and local is almost always higher than products offered by Aramark or Sysco. Q: Who were early participants in the project and how did they get started? A: If by project you mean the Appalachian Harvest enterprise, the early participants were tobacco farmers and small independent grocery stores. The tobacco farmers were taught to grow organic produce and Whites Grocery Store agreed to purchase the product. This work started through a collaboration of engaged tobacco farmers and community members. Q: Is the project funded solely by community donation and sales revenue or are there other sources of funding? A: Very little of ASDs funding comes from community donations at this point. AH is funded from sales and grants. The enterprise is still fairly heavily grant dependent. We are currently making changes to the business model to reduce the reliance on grants and to attract more farmers. Q: How did you initially finance the infrastructure? A: The infrastructure was initially financed through grantsthe VA Tobacco Commission was a very large initial supporter, as well as private foundations. Q: What is the percent revenue from the various sources (i.e. sales, grants, private contributions)? A: The percentage of grant support to revenue is roughly 30% funded by grants, the rest is business income. Community support is not generally directed to this program but to those ASD programs that do not generate any revenue. Q: How has the source of funding contributed to or hampered your success? A: Building a local food system in a rural area (such as where ASD operates) is something that takes a long time to accomplish. Over the last two years, the grant dependence for this enterprise has been reduced dramatically, but it still takes considerable time and effort to raise operating funds. Longer-term support (vs. 1 or 2 year grants) would allow ASD to focus more on improving operations, recruiting more growers, etc. instead of spending so much
49
Appendix
time searching and applying for funding. Q: Are the farmers and institutions generally seeing a net positive outcome from the food hub (i.e. increased sales and operations)? Are there lingering concerns (loss of some autonomy because of coordinating planting schedules)? A: We have struggled to obtain profitability figures from our farmers. Many, surprisingly, do not track their profitability. The ones that do are making a profit. We have not experienced any pushback from coordinating planting schedules. That is usually a surprisingly easy processprobably mostly due to the fact that we have so much more demand than supply that there is generally plenty of room for farmers to do what they want. Q: How many people does ASD employ? A: ASD has 7 full-time staff (3 of which are full time for AH) and 5-7 part-time staff. During the growing season we also employ several laborers at the packinghouse. That number used to range from 2 or 3 to 12 or more in the peak season. In the upcoming season, ASD will no longer offer produce grading as a service so the number of part-time/seasonal help will stay at around 2. Q: What type of business structure do you have (Board of Directors, Cooperative, etc.)? A: ASD is a nonprofit. AH is basically a program of ASD. It is not a cooperative or a separate legal entity. ASD has an Executive Director and staff. The Executive Director is provided with guidance from the Board of Directors. There is no separate governing body for the AH enterprise. The structure of AH is that the ED is the over-all manager, there is a Marketer/Food Safety Manager who handles all sales, a Facility Manager who is responsible for operating the facility, managing trucks, maintenance, etc., and a farmer educator/supporter. Q: Who makes the decisions? What is the hierarchy/corporate structure? A: The board makes large purchasing decisions and those that impact the strategy and mission of the organization. Day to day decisions are made at appropriate levels. For instance, if a decision is made to purchase a new truck for AH, the Facility Manager will find the truck but it will be the EDs decision to makebut only if approval had been received previously from the board. Q: Do you negotiate pricing and quantity at the beginning of the growing season or at the time of harvest? A: AH operates a little differently. We do not set pricing. AH farmers are given a range of expected prices. When the product is sold, the farmer is paid based on what we were able to sell the product for. Q: How do you plan for changes in supply due to environmental factors such as disease or drought that may limit supply? A: Thats a really difficult thing to plan for. Drought is not generally much of a problem in our area, as almost all of our farmers irrigate and their sources are still producingunlike places in Texas and other parts of the country. Unfortunately, much of what we do in this regard is reactive, not proactive. For example, we no longer promote sugar snap peas to our farmers. They are a high priced item, but they have a correspondingly high seed price. For the last few years, germination has been really poor due to weather issues. Therefore, our farmers were barely recouping the cost of seed. We are happy to sell this product if growers wish to produce it but we will not promote it, as it has not been financially attractive for farmers. One proactive thing that we always do is to ensure that appropriate inputs are available based on the crop and potential for diseases and pests. Q: Are there any changes that could improve the functionality and performance of the food hub? A: Always. We are currently in the middle of another such change in order to move towards more financial sustainability for our farmers and the enterprise. Until 2010, we only marketed local organic produce and all natural free range eggs. We did not work with conventional (non certified organic) producers. In 2010 we changed that and have seen a dramatic increase in sales as well as engagement from area farmers. We have also decided to eliminate the grading of produce as a service. Growers will now be required to grade their own products before it comes to the packing facility. There are a variety of reasons for this, but primarily it comes down to a financial decision. We expect this will benefit both the farmers and ASD. Q: What percentage of their food supply do the large institutions receive from you? How has this changed over time? A: Very little. Institutions are not our focus. We have worked with institutions to try to make inroads and some of our product does get there via brokers but we do not know how much. Q: What percentage of your supply do you sell to large institutions? A: Less than 1%. Q: How do BMPs, like GAP certification (health and safety) or organic certification positively or negatively affect farmer and ASD operations? A: Certifications like GAP are very challenging for farmers. Often once these programs have been broken down for farmers into understandable language and processes, they are not onerous to implement. At other times, the changes required of farmers can
50
Appendix
cost tens of thousands of dollars. Additionally, the annual cost of certifying is driving some very small farmers out of the business, as it is too costly to continue to farm. Overall, various certification systems continue to add burdens (both financial and operational) to farmers who already had a very low margin and little time. Unfortunately, we have not seen a corresponding increase in prices (to the farmer) to compensate for these additional costs. Q: Do you offer trainings or educational opportunities for member farmers selling via ASD? Or to those interested in selling via ASD? A: ASD offers training on all aspects of organic vegetable production, irrigation systems, soil fertility, GAP training and certification, quality training, seed saving, farmers market education/ support, etc. Q: What advice do you have for other similar programs? A: Collaborate wherever possible. Do not reinvent the wheel. Be very aware of what it will take to sustain the intended program financially. Be nimble/flexible. For example, ASD committed to organic only for far too long, thus delaying our ability to become more sustainable and engage other farmers in the area. Create a solid business planconsider including in this plan both wholesale and direct markets.
51
Appendix
Good Food Good PeopleInterview Questions & Answers

Q: Do you see a role for Good Food Good People in acting as a distributor for institutions, like Virginia Tech, Carilion Hospitals, and K -12 Public Schools? If not, why? A: GFGP is basically functioning as a food hub but has chosen to focus on fairly small demand. GFGP feels that it would need to be moving towards a size where it is hard to buy from small farmers if they were to sell to Virginia Tech. Customers like Virginia Tech need minimum orders, produce packed a certain way, etc. GFGP has become a professional organization, but Virginia Tech is demanding a much higher level of professionality. If GFGP becomes that, they will be something other than what they are now. GFGP is not grant funded. It is literally farmer funded. Right now, GFGP does not have money to become what Virginia Tech would need. GAP certifications for farmers is NECESSARY (first question asked when trying to open a new account). Institutional idea: why not chasing this? Only big growers can benefit/compete with the price points that a university goes for. Smaller growers can not compete. Q: What are some of the policy hurdles farmers have with supplying to larger institutions like Virginia Tech, Carilion Hospitals, and K -12 Public Schools? A: Input prices are going up, but produce prices are not. Some have not in 5-10 years. Example of Hurdle for small scale farmer: Recycle wax boxes used for packing produce. GFGP cares about their environmental commitment, appalled by amount of waste that can occur with wax boxes. GFGP spent $5000 dollars on wax boxes, but fortunately were able to set up a return system. Wouldve spent $20,000 worth of wax boxes if none were returned. Save money by reusing wax boxes. Originally, farmers were bringing stuff in boxes from the garbage. At that point, GFGP realized they could not allow produce to be packed in boxes from the garbage. Q: What is the greatest challenge in acting as the middle man for farmers and consumers? Anything particular to universities, medical institutions, school districts, or restaurants? A: GFGP Completely understands where universities are coming from for their dining services to need consistency but GFGP does not have it necessarily. They need almost 24-hour turn around servicebuyers often are getting food 7 days/week. GFGP needs a 48-hour minimum turn around. GFGPs prduct is fresh and high quality, but service is difficult. Chefs love to work with GFGP but they always have a back up. Try to spread crop list, several growers per crop, but heat wave storms can still hurt all the growers. Can only spread risk a certain way. Institutional buyers need carrots on their salad bar, but GFGP could only have them sometimes. Seasonality is a limiting factor. Q: How do your price points compare to that of your major competitors (Aramark, Sysco)? How do you guarantee competitive price points? A: We dont compete. If GFGP pressures farmers to go to a lower price point, then theyre not doing their job. Primary goal is to help the farmers make living along with land conservation. Example: Homestead creamery share Homestead felt that buyers wanted a different box then GFGP did. How can GFGP get a cheap amount of produce into a box and make it look great? ($6/$5) Easily become 3 -4 dollars of input in a box before putting produce in box. What organics Lack: volume and price point to include those products in shares. Leads to the need for GFGP to ask: Who am I here for? Who am I serving? GFGP is a different company every year. Does not have potential to sell to institutions right now. Q: What percentage of your supply do you sell to institutions? A: Successful institutional account: Roanoke College (RC) is a private, considerabley smaller school that serves about 3,000 meals a day. RC can use salad mix for one lunch. If GFGP needs to move more stuff, will look into more small colleges. GFGP has not chased farm to institution because it is the most difficult place to go. Q: Are farmers and consumers generally seeing a net positive outcome from the GFGPs role as aggregate? (i.e. increased sales and operations)? Are there lingering concerns (loss of some autonomy because of coordinating planting schedules)? A: Current systems, including CSAs, restaurants, etc. are working, why chase a different monster? May change next year, might be getting bigger accounts on board with GFGP. Volume of produce rose about 30% in the past year. Q: Are there any changes that could improve the functionality and performance of the food hub?
52
Appendix
A: GFGP needs a solid facility: Finding a place to own has been difficultpartly their own stubbornness. Could go to an industrial park and get a place in a distributorship, but want to be near their farm. Currently, their distribution systems is located at the foot of Weavers driveway. Everything is a temporary structure, could leave in a week if needed. They really want a flat piece of land. Q: How do BMPs, like GAP certification (health and safety) or organic certification, positively or negatively affect farmer and GFGP operations? A: Currently, GFGP has two farmers that are GAP certified. New farm will come online that will be GAP certified and GFGP would like to sponsor an info session on GAP certification for other farmers. Similar level of hassles as an organic certification, but GAP requires washable walls, screened in porch, more infrastructure not feasible for small growers. How can we afford the logistics of this GAP demand? Q: What advice do you have for other similar programs? Hillsville Farmers Market Kevin Semonis (276) 733-1663 State run facility, GFGPs fall back. The produce offered there is very conventional, but has bulk. The market doesnt have much variety: broccoli, tomatoes, corn, no beets, no carrots. Monocrop and industry oriented. Dont have variety, but are fairly seasonal. The market can help when GFGP is in need of some bulk produce options for a cheaper price. Possible Contact: Chris Carpenterspearhead of VA for getting local food into Universities The Local food movement is moving so fast. Really helpful to keep up these dialogues. Really appreciate you enthusiastic young folks. Sometimes it just gets to be about business. Its really great to stay in touch with people that are eating this food. Roanoke College had local food day: impressed at people our age that talked about farmers markets, CSAs. What a change! Its more than a fad.
53
Appendix
Blacksburg Farmers Market Farmer Survey

The following answers were provided by four vendors at the Blacksburg Farmers Market. All four vendors did not answer every question. These vendors will be identified below as Farmer A, B, C, and D. Q: Who are your main customers? Farmer A: Blacksburg Farmers Market, Gillies, Eats, Annie Ks, excess produce goes to food banks (10% wholesale, 90% farmers market) Farmer B: Blacksburg Farmers Market, Individuals, Coffee Shops, Restaurants Farmer C: Blacksburg Farmers Market, Owens (Virginia Tech), local health food stores, Oasis Farmer D: Blacksburg Farmers Market only Q: Are you interested in expanding your market outside of Blacksburg? NRV? To Roanoke? Virginia Tech Dining Services? Farmer A: No, already maxed out Farmer B: Possibly interested in expanding to Virginia Tech, wants to stay local Farmer C: Possibly interested in expanding to Charlottesville area Farmer D: Not particularly interested because she doesnt see the need to expand. She explains that she only makes a small profit and she is content with that. Follow-up Q: What is your motivation for growing and selling your produce? Farmer D: The only way she can get away from Floyd. Q: What are the possible obstacles or concerns they have with expanding their market? Farmer A: They live close to the Farmers Market so its convenient. Their supply is not big enough. They would have to hire more people and would need more land. Farmer B: Lots of extra effort to ship and gas money Farmer C: Gas money and car maintenance Farmer D: The pressure of meeting the needs of a growing market with a small supply. Not having enough hands and help. She is the only person who runs the farm with a little help from her husband when he is not working.
Q: Is there interest in a cooperative or similar aggregate organization? Farmer D: The farmer already works with another farm to add more variety to her apple type and selection. Beyond this working relationship she doesnt see the need for a cooperative or other aggregate organization to accomplish her work. Q: What are the top crops? Farmer A: Heirloom tomatoes, salad greens. (certified organic, big plus) Farmer C: Herbs, strawberries, cherries, peaches, apples Farmer D: Apples, fruits for jams, squash, and pumpkins. She grows crops that she is particularly interested in and likes to have for her home as well. She looks to friends for advice for what she should consider growing. Q: How do you plan for changes that could impact production such as drought, disease, etc.? Farmer A: Cant plan for it. Mulching, drip irrigation, rich soil, companion planting, floating row cover. Farmer D: Use of irrigation when its dry and nothing can be done when there is too much rain often occurs in the spring. Q: Would you take advantage of any training or educational opportunities if they were available? If so, what particular topic area would you like to know more about? Farmer A: Self educated, but would like to learn about solar options and season extension Q: Do you have any other infrastructure needs that would help increase the profitability of your enterprise, such as ac cannery, aggregation center, cool storage, USDA slaughterhouse facility, etc.? Farmer C: Water in infrastructure
54
Appendix
Blacksburg Farmers Market Manager, Ellen StewartInterview Questions & Answers

Q: What items are most demanded by customers? A: Meat & Fresh Produce Q: What items are the least demanded by customers? A: Not quite sure, but farmers are good at determining what sells well themselves. Q: How many farmers participate? A: 14 produce growers & 5 meat producers Q: Do you collect information on total sales or average profit? Have you noticed trends over the years that make one farm stand more profitable from another? Q: What is the average profit? Q: What are costs associated with participating in a farmers market? (like transportation expenses, display stands, etc) A: Farmers pay the market 3% of their total profit to the market. (this was decided by the farmers themselves) Q: How many vendors participate in other markets or other forms of direct sales? A: 4 other markets Q: What other forms of direct sales do they participate in A: Meat producers do lots of direct sales. Vendors often sell through CSAs, restaurants, and health food stores. Q: Is there interest in infrastructure support (i.e. food hub, processing plant, etc.)? A: Some interest, havent taken a good look at it yet. Working with Kim and USDA for a local food assessment. Q: What other support could be provided to farmers and farmers markets to increase local agriculture viability? A: Infrastructure grants for fencing and cold frames in particular. Q: What is the average distance the vendors travel to be at this market? Where are farmers traveling from? A: 50 mile radius rule majority from Floyd & Giles counties. Q: What are your methods of advertisement? A: Roanoke Times, website, listserv, flyers on Virginia Tech campus (4 in fall & 2 in spring). Q: How do you determine how many days and what days to hold the market? A: The farmers determine this. Q: How do you react and adapt to possible changes in supply due to storms, crop failure...etc? A: Makes vendors aware of pest outbreaks, most vendors are very self educated on these issues.
55
Appendix
Floyd County Public SchoolsQuestions & Answers

The following answers were provided by Pamela H. Harris, School Nuitrition Programs and Medicaid Specialist of Floyd County Public Schools. Q: Is the Floyd County School System getting any of its food from local sources? If so, how much (percentage)? A: Yes, 10%. We also have a local produce vendor that we purchase 75% of our produce from. Q: Are there any future programs being planned by Floyd County Schools to make better use of local agricultural resources? A: We have been working with a group of local farmers for Farm to School items. Also, thinking about involving local FFA in producing items. Q: How many meals does Floyd County Schools serve (day/ month/or year)? A: 1,455 per day Q: How is your organization affected by state-wide restrictions like sanitary regulations or needing to purchase the most costeffective foods? A: Our Superintendent has always been supportive of our local Farm to School efforts. Our new Superintendent is as well. Q: In your opinion, what is the biggest obstacle for your organization to getting locally sourced food? A: We do salads daily and having someone local provide salad items would be wonderful. Also, transportation to deliver foods to all our schools which are spread out is a problem. Q: How would operations at your processing and packaging center need to change in order to accommodate food taken from local sources? A: We need walk in coolers to store items. Storage at the schools is very minimal. Q: Would you have an interest in getting more of your food from local sources if there was an effective distribution infrastructure (i.e. food hubs, local processing) in place? A: Yes. Q: Would you benefit from opportunities to exchange ideas with farmers or tour other operations within the region? If so, what types of operations? A: Yes, farming. Q: Would you take advantage of any training or educational opportunities if they were available? If so, what particular topic area would you like to know more about? A: Yes, Any topic would be good since I am not real knowledgeable about what is available.
56
Appendix
Ferrum CollegeInterview Notes

The following notes are from an interview with Michael Martin, Dining Services Operations Manager at Ferrum College on November 11, 2011. There are 45 people working in the cafeteria. There are 9 people working in the food court. 2 sustainability coordinators from the natural science and math dept work at the farm and supply veggies to the campus. However, only about 2% of campus food (vegetables) comes from this garden/campus farm. The farm is about 1 acre. They consider local to encompass a 200 mile radius for food. FCs distributors are Cisco and U.S. Food Service. The percentage of local food depends on time of year. However, their target is 50%. They just began using local ground beef (3 weeks ago). They are going to being using direct shipping from a local greenhouse to increase their supply of local vegetables in the winter. All FCs dairy comes from Homestead Creamery U.S. Food Service distributes it. Last year Franklin County was actively pursuing a food hub. This project is still on table but has lost momentum. They wash the foods using the same routine as if produce was not local. If Ferrum College begins to use its own cattle, they will get Virginia certification for the beef, much like Virginia Tech does. Hoever, locally bought beef has to go through a United States Department of Agriculture processor. They do not have federal funding, but their budget gets increased as the number of students increases and they use some of the increase for local food procurment. Students accept local food. It is a rural college and dining services are a big selling point, so local foods help a lot. Its healthier food as well. There are no objections to using funding because it is a private school. Labor prices for cooking the food have increased, but these increases are counteracted by the cheaper price of the produce. Dining services receives money to buy local food from its budget (beef, homestead creamery items, broccoli, apples). It is pretty flexible. *applies to Franklin County Public Schools too Most sanitation recalls are for produce from big farms, not local providers. Recalls have not been a problem thus far. The government has reduced many restrictions. Suggestion: Buy #2 apples because they are smaller. They are not marketable but are cheaper and create less waste for elementary school kids. Students actually prefer food made-from-scratch. Students are used to convenience foods and premade meals but seem to like made-from-scratch recipes better. Training chefs to use more fresh produce to make from scratch foods has been tough but training has been gradual, one menu item at a time.
57
Appendix
Contact Information
Appalachian Sustainable Development Kathlyn Terry (276) 623-1121 Blacksburg Farmers Market Ellen Stewart, Market Manager 100 Draper Rd. Blacksburg, VA 24060 www.blacksburgfarmersmarket.com (540) 239-8290 Ferrum College Michael Martin, Dining Services Operations Manager mamartin@ferrum.edu (540) 420-3927 Timothy Wayne Bernard, Executive Chef (540) 365-4453 bbernard@ferrum.edu Floyd County Public Schools Pamela H. Harris, School Nutrition Programs, Medicaid Specialist 140 Harris Hart Road Floyd VA 24091 P: (540) 745-9487 F: (540) 745-9496 harrisp@floyd.k12.va.us Good Food Good People Tenley Weaver and Dennis Dove goodfoodgoodpeople@swva.net Local Food Hub Kate Collier, Founder P.O. Box 4647 Charlottesville, VA 22905 (434) 286-2176 info@localfoodhub.org Virginia Farm-to-School Leanne DuBois, Coordinator Office of Promotions-Division of Marketing Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 102 Governor Street, Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 225-3663 leanne.dubois@vdacs.virginia.gov Virginia Tech Dining Services Elena Dulys-Nusbaum, Sustainability Coordinator 151 New Hall West Blacksburg, VA 24061 (540) 231-1139 edulysn@vt.edu U.S. Foods Frank Holland, Local Foods and Sustainability Coordinator
Suggested Contacts
Hillsville Farmers Market Kevin Semonis (276) 733-1663 Montgomery County Public Schools Michael Marcenelli, Head of Nutrition marcenel@mcts.org Washington and Lee University Christopher Carpenter Special Projects Manager, Dining Services
58
Appendix
Food Hub Funding Sources

USDA programs that have previously supported food hub projects
The Rural Business Enterprise Grant (RBEG) provides funding for the development of physical infrastructure and facilities for locally grown agricultural products (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Grants from this program range from $10,000 to up to $500,000 (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Additional information on this program can be found at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/ busp/rbeg.htm. The Rural Business Opportunity Grant (RBOG) provides training and technical assistance for business development (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). This includes support for food processing, marketing, and distribution facility development of locally grown agricultural products (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). The grant places emphasis on sustainable economic development of rural communities (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Additional information on this program can be found at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rbog.htm. The Farm Storage Facility Loan Program provides loans for the construction of on-site storage, cooling, and minimal processing facilities (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Eligible commodities for this loan were expanded by the 2008 Farm Bill, and include vegetable and fruit (including nut) producers (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Additional information on this program can be found at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=h ome&subject=prsu&topic=flp-fp. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides funding and technical assistance for businesses that conserve natural resources (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). As part of the 2008 Farm Bill, high tunnels and hoop houses are offered to vegetable producers to help extend the growing season (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Additional information on this program can be found at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/ index.html#intro. The Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) provides funding for producers of value-added agricultural products (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Grants for planning can be awarded up to $100,000 while grants for working capital can be awarded up to $300,000 (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Additional information on this program can be found at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/ coops/vadg.htm The Community Facilities Program provides loans and grants for construction and renovation of community facilities or for equipment purchasing for community projects (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Additional information on this program can be found at: http://www. rurdev.usda.gov/HCF_CF.html The Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program (REDLG) provides loans and grants for rural economic development and job creation (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Additional information on this program can be found at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/ ga/tredleg.htm The Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program (B&I) provide loans for businesses where a loan will keep the business operating, prevent employment cuts, or increase job opportunities (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). In order to ensure better loan terms, the UDSA provides loan guarantees to private lender (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Loans are restricted to rural cities with populations less than 50,000 (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Loans many be used to fund operations that convert, enlarge, repair, or modernize a rural business; purchase and develop land, easements, or facilities; and purchase equipment, leasehold improvements, or inventory (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Additional information on this program can be found at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/busp/b&i_gar.htm. The Farmers Market Promotion Program (FMPP) provides funds for the promotion and development of farmers markets (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). The goal of this program is to support direct-to-consumer market channels (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Grants from this program range up to $100,000 (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Additional information on this program can be found at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/FMPP. The Community Food Projects Competitive Grant Program (CFP) provides fund to increase food security in lowincome communities (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). The goals of this program are to develop linkages between sectors of the food system, support entrepreneurial projects, and encourage long-term community planning (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Grants range from $10,000 to $300,000 and last 1 to 3 years. Additional information on this program can be found at: http://www. csrees.usda.gov/hungerfoodsecurity.cfm. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) provides grants to support the advancement of sustainable agriculture-related innovations (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). The program places a special emphasis on outreach and dissemination components (Regional Food Hub Subcommittee, 2011). Additional information on this program can be found at www.sare.org.
59
Floyd County Virginia
2007 Number of Farms Land in Farms Average Size of Farm Market Value of Products Sold Crop Sales $18,727,000 (43 percent) Livestock Sales $24,634,000 (57 percent) Average Per Farm Government Payments Average Per Farm Receiving Payments $50,186 $182,000 $1,892 864 128,872 acres 149 acres $43,361,000
2002 829 135,311 acres 163 acres $32,801,000
% change +4 -5 -9 + 32
$39,567 $481,000 $4,011
+ 27 - 62 - 53
Floyd County Virginia

Ranked items among the 98 state counties and 3,079 U.S. counties, 2007
Item
MARKET VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS SOLD ($1,000) Total value of agricultural products sold Value of crops including nursery and greenhouse Value of livestock, poultry, and their products VALUE OF SALES BY COMMODITY GROUP ($1,000) Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas Tobacco Cotton and cottonseed Vegetables, melons, potatoes, and sweet potatoes Fruits, tree nuts, and berries Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod Cut Christmas trees and short rotation woody crops Other crops and hay Poultry and eggs Cattle and calves Milk and other dairy products from cows Hogs and pigs Sheep, goats, and their products Horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys Aquaculture Other animals and other animal products TOP CROP ITEMS (acres) Forage - land used for all hay and haylage, grass silage, and greenchop Nursery stock Corn for silage Rye for grain Cut Christmas trees TOP LIVESTOCK INVENTORY ITEMS (number) Cattle and calves Layers Horses and ponies Sheep and lambs Goats, all 38,353 2,442 1,169 879 446 12 24 27 24 50 97 97 97 94 97 820 1,032 1,188 1,007 1,582 3,060 3,024 3,066 2,891 3,023 27,590 1,994 1,875 900 718 15 1 16 1 2 98 71 81 51 67 759 41 679 63 73 3,060 2,130 2,263 977 1,756 209 (D) (D) 812 15,615 974 621 151 20,574 3,707 12 68 106 (D) (D) 72 (D) 24 17 5 2 47 35 6 18 51 30 38 42 (D) 97 34 15 95 96 94 64 98 96 96 78 86 95 94 44 94 2,339 (D) (D) 523 206 46 1,985 1,320 656 822 2,201 1,419 1,647 (D) (D) 2,933 437 626 2,796 2,659 2,703 1,710 3,054 3,020 3,054 2,493 2,922 2,998 3,024 1,498 2,875 43,361 18,727 24,634 15 15 18 98 98 98 1,689 1,498 1,359 3,076 3,072 3,069
Quantity
State Rank
Universe 1
U.S. Rank
Universe 1
Other County Highlights

Economic Characteristics
Farms by value of sales: Less than $1,000 $1,000 to $2,499 $2,500 to $4,999 $5,000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $19,999 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $249,999 $250,000 to $499,999 $500,000 or more Total farm production expenses ($1,000) Average per farm ($) Net cash farm income of operation ($1,000) Average per farm ($)
Quantity
199 87 120 135 118 18 68 26 48 22 12 11 40,539 46,920 3,897 4,510
Operator Characteristics
Principal operators by primary occupation: Farming Other Principal operators by sex: Male Female Average age of principal operator (years) All operators by race : American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander White More than one race All operators of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino Origin 2
2
Quantity
405 459 753 111 59.1 3 4 7 1,223 19 16
See "Census of Agriculture, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series" for complete footnotes, explanations, definitions, and methodology. (D) Cannot be disclosed. (Z) Less than half of the unit shown. 1 Universe is number of counties in state or U.S. with item. 2 Data were collected for a maximum of three operators per farm.
Giles County Virginia
2007 Number of Farms Land in Farms Average Size of Farm Market Value of Products Sold Crop Sales $787,000 (16 percent) Livestock Sales $4,244,000 (84 percent) Average Per Farm Government Payments Average Per Farm Receiving Payments $14,626 $78,000 $1,942 344 65,487 acres 190 acres $5,031,000
2002 407 68,329 acres 168 acres $5,341,000
% change - 15 -4 + 13 -6
$13,123 $53,000 $1,814
+ 11 + 47 +7
Giles County Virginia

Item
MARKET VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS SOLD ($1,000) Total value of agricultural products sold Value of crops including nursery and greenhouse Value of livestock, poultry, and their products VALUE OF SALES BY COMMODITY GROUP ($1,000) Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas Tobacco Cotton and cottonseed Vegetables, melons, potatoes, and sweet potatoes Fruits, tree nuts, and berries Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod Cut Christmas trees and short rotation woody crops Other crops and hay Poultry and eggs Cattle and calves Milk and other dairy products from cows Hogs and pigs Sheep, goats, and their products Horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys Aquaculture Other animals and other animal products TOP CROP ITEMS (acres) Forage - land used for all hay and haylage, grass silage, and greenchop Apples Cut Christmas trees Corn for silage Corn for grain TOP LIVESTOCK INVENTORY ITEMS (number) Cattle and calves Sheep and lambs Goats, all Horses and ponies Layers 10,017 1,300 548 493 489 48 17 43 59 68 97 94 97 97 97 1,998 718 1,362 2,260 2,180 3,060 2,891 3,023 3,066 3,024 8,389 (D) 393 118 103 55 9 6 67 86 98 88 67 81 94 1,881 (D) 157 1,851 2,325 3,060 2,144 1,756 2,263 2,634 8 54 280 82 199 164 10 3,913 179 89 47 7 92 79 31 74 7 79 77 40 64 26 63 59 97 34 15 95 96 94 64 98 96 96 78 86 95 94 44 94 2,770 2,105 929 2,092 241 2,728 2,480 1,879 1,891 1,199 2,243 2,157 2,933 437 626 2,796 2,659 2,703 1,710 3,054 3,020 3,054 2,493 2,922 2,998 3,024 1,498 2,875 5,031 787 4,244 82 89 67 98 98 98 2,810 2,846 2,509 3,076 3,072 3,069
Quantity
State Rank
Universe 1
U.S. Rank
Universe 1

Quantity
87 36 41 65 54 8 26 8 11 7 1 5,176 15,047 730 2,123
2
Quantity
148 196 307 37 57.5 4 2 505 4 -
Montgomery County Virginia
2007 Number of Farms Land in Farms Average Size of Farm Market Value of Products Sold Crop Sales $5,244,000 (28 percent) Livestock Sales $13,734,000 (72 percent) Average Per Farm Government Payments Average Per Farm Receiving Payments $30,219 $327,000 $4,034 628 89,411 acres 142 acres $18,978,000
2002 650 99,670 acres 153 acres $17,914,000
% change -3 - 10 -7 +6
$27,560 $548,000 $5,424
+ 10 - 40 - 26
Montgomery County Virginia

Item
MARKET VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS SOLD ($1,000) Total value of agricultural products sold Value of crops including nursery and greenhouse Value of livestock, poultry, and their products VALUE OF SALES BY COMMODITY GROUP ($1,000) Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas Tobacco Cotton and cottonseed Vegetables, melons, potatoes, and sweet potatoes Fruits, tree nuts, and berries Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod Cut Christmas trees and short rotation woody crops Other crops and hay Poultry and eggs Cattle and calves Milk and other dairy products from cows Hogs and pigs Sheep, goats, and their products Horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys Aquaculture Other animals and other animal products TOP CROP ITEMS (acres) Forage - land used for all hay and haylage, grass silage, and greenchop Corn for silage Nursery stock Corn for grain Sod harvested TOP LIVESTOCK INVENTORY ITEMS (number) Cattle and calves Horses and ponies Sheep and lambs Layers Goats, all 21,882 1,517 1,352 1,090 767 26 15 16 42 27 97 97 94 97 97 1,338 846 690 1,554 997 3,060 3,066 2,891 3,024 3,023 17,421 2,550 (D) 800 (D) 29 10 5 61 9 98 81 71 94 18 1,181 547 (D) 1,935 (D) 3,060 2,263 2,130 2,634 761 121 (D) 38 (D) 29 776 63 7,536 5,678 9 190 244 (D) (D) 80 (D) 81 15 28 37 42 23 15 56 13 23 37 (D) 97 34 15 95 96 94 64 98 96 96 78 86 95 94 44 94 2,441 (D) 1,834 (D) 784 1,787 1,577 1,412 673 2,290 656 950 (D) (D) 2,933 437 626 2,796 2,659 2,703 1,710 3,054 3,020 3,054 2,493 2,922 2,998 3,024 1,498 2,875 18,978 5,244 13,734 41 45 32 98 98 98 2,292 2,222 1,827 3,076 3,072 3,069
Quantity
State Rank
Universe 1
U.S. Rank
Universe 1

Quantity
162 73 77 97 95 19 34 13 28 13 10 7 18,407 29,311 1,846 2,939
2
Quantity
274 354 545 83 58.1 2 6 918 4 2
Pulaski County Virginia
2007 Number of Farms Land in Farms Average Size of Farm Market Value of Products Sold Crop Sales $611,000 (5 percent) Livestock Sales $12,728,000 (95 percent) Average Per Farm Government Payments Average Per Farm Receiving Payments $32,142 $185,000 $3,567 415 75,457 acres 182 acres $13,339,000
2002 448 80,922 acres 181 acres $14,427,000
% change -7 -7 +1 -8
$32,202 $215,000 $5,108
0 - 14 - 30
Pulaski County Virginia

Item
MARKET VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS SOLD ($1,000) Total value of agricultural products sold Value of crops including nursery and greenhouse Value of livestock, poultry, and their products VALUE OF SALES BY COMMODITY GROUP ($1,000) Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas Tobacco Cotton and cottonseed Vegetables, melons, potatoes, and sweet potatoes Fruits, tree nuts, and berries Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod Cut Christmas trees and short rotation woody crops Other crops and hay Poultry and eggs Cattle and calves Milk and other dairy products from cows Hogs and pigs Sheep, goats, and their products Horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys Aquaculture Other animals and other animal products TOP CROP ITEMS (acres) Forage - land used for all hay and haylage, grass silage, and greenchop Corn for silage Corn for grain Wheat for grain, all Short-rotation woody crops TOP LIVESTOCK INVENTORY ITEMS (number) Cattle and calves Horses and ponies Sheep and lambs Layers Goats, all 29,501 869 844 832 416 18 36 26 52 54 97 97 94 97 97 1,051 1,563 1,038 1,781 1,653 3,060 3,066 2,891 3,024 3,023 15,843 1,065 (D) (D) (D) 36 28 (D) (D) (D) 98 81 94 81 61 1,265 965 (D) (D) (D) 3,060 2,263 2,634 2,481 1,134 232 9 25 141 204 15 9,068 3,066 16 51 (D) (D) 70 92 89 68 75 69 19 25 46 37 (D) 4 97 34 15 95 96 94 64 98 96 96 78 86 95 94 44 94 2,310 2,533 1,957 1,931 2,665 2,285 1,266 915 2,075 1,643 (D) (D) 2,933 437 626 2,796 2,659 2,703 1,710 3,054 3,020 3,054 2,493 2,922 2,998 3,024 1,498 2,875 13,339 611 12,728 49 90 35 98 98 98 2,479 2,896 1,881 3,076 3,072 3,069
Quantity
State Rank
Universe 1
U.S. Rank
Universe 1

Quantity
103 51 51 76 43 16 24 6 25 8 7 5 11,541 27,810 2,225 5,363
2
Quantity
145 270 361 54 55.0 4 613 6 3
Appendix
Pricing Chart
Agricultural Product
Cotton Milk Cabbage Green Beans Pumpkins Squash Sweet Corn TomatoesMature Green TomatoesGrape, Plum, and Cherry Type No. 2 Yellow Corn No. 1 Soybeans No. 2 Barley Alfalfa Orchardgrass Mix Hay Mixed Grass Hay Orchard Grass Hay Straw Hay
Price
86.59 cents per pound (Adjusted World Price, effective November 11-17, 2011) 21.57 cents per gallon (Uniform price, Appalachian Marketing Region, last revised November 9) $8-10 for 1-3/4 bushel cartons of medium size cabbage; Prices are final reported for 2010 Virginia growing season $12.85 per bushel; Prices are final reported for 2010 Virginia growing season $80-100 per bin (each contains 30-40 pumpkins, 22-18 pounds each); Prices are final reported for 2010 Virginia growing season $7.00 per to 5/9 bushel cartons of small and $6.00 for medium; Prices are final reported for 2010 Virginia growing season $7.35- 8.35 per bushel; Prices are final reported for 2010 Virginia growing season $11.95 per 25 pound carton of extra large sized tomatoes; Prices are final reported for 2010 Virginia growing season For Grape, $19.95 per flat and $37.95 per carton. For Plum, $10.9511.95 per 25 pound carton. For Cherry, $15.95 per flat containing 12 one-pint baskets. Prices are final reported for 2010 Virginia growing season $6.30-7.05 per bushel. Prices are from elevators in the Harrisonburg area. Reported November 16, 2011 $10.25 per bushel. Prices are from elevators in the Harrisonburg area. Reported November 16, 2011 $3.50 per bushel. Prices are from elevators in the Harrisonburg area. Reported November 16, 2011 Small Square (45-55 lbs), 3.75-4.50 per bale; Prices are from Rushville Semi-monthly Hay Auction, Harrisonburg, VA. Reported November 2, 2011 Large Square (650-750 lbs) $55.00-75.00 per bale; Small Square (3545 lbs) $5.40 per bale; Small round (under 1000 lbs) $15.00-30.00 per bale; Prices are from Rushville Semi-monthly Hay Auction, Harrisonburg, VA. Reported November 2, 2011 Small Square (34-45 lbs) $5.00 per bale; Small round (under 1000 lbs) $92.50; Prices are from Rushville Semi-monthly Hay Auction, Harrisonburg, VA. Reported November 2, 2011 Large Square (650-750 lbs), $21.00 per bale; Prices are from Rushville Semi-monthly Hay Auction, Harrisonburg, VA. Reported November 2, 2011 Large Square (650-750 lbs) $55.00 per bale; Small square (35-45 lbs) $5.00 per bale; Small round (under 1000 lbs) $27.00 per bale; Prices are from Rushville Semi-monthly Hay Auction, Harrisonburg, VA. Reported November 2, 2011 This page features a list of feeder cattle that have been sold at twelve different markets around the state of Virginia for the month of September 2011. Animals are divided into different size classes and species (ex: Feeder steer medium and Large), with each category being divided into weight ranges and average market price for each weight range. For example: The average price of a small feeder steer in the 500-600 lb weight range is 113.55 cents per pound. 32 cents per pound; Price is national average as released by the National Agricultural Statistical Service on November 10, 2011 81.65 cents per pound; Weekly Composite Weighted Average Price; Released by USDA Market News on November 14, 2011 Fresh hens and toms (16-24 lbs each): 121-137 cents per pound; Prices are national averages as reported by the USDA Market News on November 16, 2011 Extra Large, 117.5-125 cents per dozen; Large, 116-123 cents per dozen; Medium, 102.5-110; Average price for Southeastern United States as reported by USDA market news on November 16, 2011.
Source
http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnrepo rts/mp_cn206.txt http://www.malouisville.com/OR DER5/unfprc5.pdf http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/ma rketnews/pdffiles/pvr.pdf http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/ma rketnews/pdffiles/pvr.pdf http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/ma rketnews/pdffiles/pvr.pdf http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/ma rketnews/pdffiles/pvr.pdf http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/ma rketnews/pdffiles/pvr.pdf http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/ma rketnews/pdffiles/pvr.pdf http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/ma rketnews/pdffiles/pvr.pdf http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnrepo rts/rh_gr110.txt http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnrepo rts/rh_gr110.txt http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnrepo rts/rh_gr110.txt http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnrepo rts/rh_gr310.txt http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnrepo rts/rh_gr310.txt http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnrepo rts/rh_gr310.txt http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnrepo rts/rh_gr310.txt http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnrepo rts/rh_gr310.txt http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/ma rketnews/archive/livestock11/sep1 1.txt
Timothy Hay
Livestock
Peanuts Broilers and Fryers Turkeys Eggs
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/M annUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?do cumentID=1640 http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnrepo rts/nw_py012.txt http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnrepo rts/nw_py044.txt http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnrepo rts/aj_py008.txt
68
Appendix
Additional Resources
1. The Community Food System Explorer: Another tool that can be used by future working groups is the Community Food System Explorer, a product of Virginia Cooperative Extension and NC Cooperative Extension. The product is a map-based tool that provides an assessment of public policies, economic conditions, and social structures that affect community food systems across the Virginia-North Carolina region. This product provides baseline data on social and economic characteristics of existing local food systems for community members, policy makers, economic development agencies, and planners. This tool, instructions for use, and additional information about its use can be accessed at: http://www. cfse.ext.vt.edu/ 2. Flaccavento, A. (2011). Is local food affordable for ordinary folds? A comparison of farmers markets and supermarkets in nineteen communities in the Southeast. Retrieved from: www.ruralscale.com/resources/downloads/farmers-marketstudy.pdf 3. USDA Agricultural Marketing Services Food Hub website: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateA&navID=FoodHubsLinkWFM Home&rightNav1=FoodHubsLinkWFMHome&topNav=&lef tNav=WholesaleandFarmersMarkets&page=FoodHubsandO therMarketAccessStrategies&resultType=&acct=frmrdirmkt. 4. U.S. Food Market Estimator: The U.S. Food Market Estimator, as well as, more comprehensive user instructions and tool limitations can be accessed at the following website: http:// www.ctre.iastate.edu/marketsize/Default.aspx. 5. The Roanoke Valley Locavore: A directory of local growers and retailers, products, and contact information. Accessible at: http://www.roanokevalleylocavore.com. 6. New River Valley Food Directory: A guide to locally produced food within the region. Accessible at: http://www. hokiewellness.hr.vt.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=g0jOeWC5 pgA%3D&tabid=127.
69
Bibliography
American Farmland Trust. (2011). Analysis of the 2008 farm bill. Retrieved from: http://www.farmland.org/programs/farmbill/analysis/default.asp Appalachian Sustainable Development (ASD). (n.d.) Retrieved from: http://www.asdevelop.org/ Ashbury, K. (2010). Virginia farm to school: Building a state-wide strategy. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Barham, J. (2011a). Regional food hubs: Linking producers to new markets. USDA Agricultural Marketing Services. Retrieved from: http://ngfn.org/resources/ngfn-database/knowledge/RFHub%20Presentation_complete%20version_5.24.pdf Barham, J. (2011b). Regional food hubs: Understanding the scope and scale of food hubs and public markets. USDA Agricultural Marketing Services. Retrieved from: http://www.ams. usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5091432 Bendfeldt, E., et. al. (2011). A community-based food system: Building health, wealth, connection, and capacity as the foundation of our economic future. Virginia Cooperative Extension. Bezrouch, K. (2009). Aging farmers in America. Imagine 2050. Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-265 2507. 118 Stat. 729 (2004). Dellinger, P. (2004, February 4). Understanding the regions rural past. The Roanoke Times. Retrieved from: http://mlalone.asp. radford.edu/Appalachian_Farming_Oral_History_Project_ files/Understanding the regions rural past.pdf Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). (2011). Virginia agricultural resources. Retrieved from: http://www.vanaturally.org/vanaturally/guide/agriculture.html Dining services sustainability. (2011). Retrieved from: http:// www.dining.vt.edu/sustainability/ Commonwealth of Virginia. (2010). HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 95. Ernst, M., & Woods, T. (2002). Selling farm products at farmers markets. Informally published manuscript, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. Retrieved from: http://www.uky.edu/Ag/NewCrops/marketing/farmmarket.pdf Gibson, J. (2011, Oct. 26). Student-run dining services garden expects 40,000-pound yield in 2011. VTNews. Retrieved from:
http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2011/10/102611-dsakentlandgarden.html Knowles, L. (2011, Dec. 15). Local food hub brings it all together. USDA Blog. Retrieved from: http://blogs.usda. gov/2010/12/15/local-food-hub-brings-it-all-together/ Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-296 3307. 124 Stat. 3183 (2010). Lamie, D. (1997). The economic impact of agriculture and agrelated industries on the commonwealth of Virginia. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University Institute for Transportation, About the U.S. food market estimator, Retrieved from: http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/marketsize/about.html#whatis Local Food Hub. (2008-2010). Retrieved from: http://localfoodhub.org/ Low, Sarah A., & Vogel, S. (2011). Direct and intermediated marketing of local foods in the United States, ERR-128, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, November 2011. National Good Food Network. (2011). Clearing the roadblocks: market based strategies forgetting good food to all communities. Wallace Center. National Young Farmers Coalition (NYFC). (2011). Building a future with farmers: Challenges faced by young, American farmers and a national strategy to help them succeed. New York: Lindsey Lusher Shute. New River Valley Planning District Commission. (2010). Virginias New River Valley 2010 regional data book. Retrieved from: http://www.nrvpdc.org/10DataBook/geography.pdf NYFEA. (2011). About. National Young Farmer Educational Association Oklahoma Farm-to-School. (2011). About farm to school. Retrieved from http://www.okfarmtoschool.com/f2s-overview. htm PBS NOW. Growing local eating local. Retrieved from: http:// www.pbs.org/now/enterprisingideas/asd.html Regional Food Hub Subcommittee. (2011). Potential USDA programs to support regional food hub development. USDA. Retrieved from: http://ngfn.org/resources/ngfn-database/ knowledge/Regional%20Food%20Hub%20Resources%20 from%20USDA%20v1.pdf
70

STARS. (2011, Aug 2). Virginia Tech. Retrieved from https://stars. aashe.org/institutions/virginia-tech-va/report/2011-08-02/ The Princeton Reviews 2011 green rating honor roll. (2011, Aug 1). The Princeton Review. Retrieved from http://www.princetonreview.com/green/press-release.aspx Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. (2011). Retrieved from: http://www.greenreportcard.org/reportcard-2011/schools/virginia-polytechnic-institute-and-stateuniv Virginia Tech Roanoke Center (2007). The Catawba Sustainability Center. Retrieved from: http://www.vtrc.vt.edu/catawba/ Ulrich, J. (2011, March 9). A new frontier in locally grown: Charlottesvilles local food hub. Flavor. Retrieved from: http:// flavormagazinevirginia.com/localfoodhub/ United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007 census of agriculture county profile: Floyd County Virginia. Retrieved from: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007 census of agriculture county profile: Giles County Virginia. Retrieved from: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007 census of agriculture county profile: Montgomery County Virginia. Retrieved from: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007 census of agriculture county profile: Pulaski County Virginia. Retrieved from: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2007). U.S. Census State and County Quickfacts: Blacksburg, Montgomery, Giles, and Pulaski. US Foods. (2011). Us foods: About us. Retrieved from: http:// www.usfoods.com/AboutUs/AboutUs.aspx Vilsack, T. (2011, Oct. 24). Agriculture secretary Vilsack on priorities for the 2012 farm bill. USDA News Transcript. Retrieved from: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/ usdahome?contentid=2011/10/0458.xml&navid=FARM_ BILL_NEWSRT&navtype=RT&parentnav=FARMBILL2008&e deployment_action=retrievecontent Virginia Department of Health: Division of Child and Adolescent Health. (1999). Virginia school health guidelines. Retrieved from: http://townhall.virginia.gov/l/GetFile.cfm?File=E:% 5Ctownhall%5Cdocroot%5CGuidanceDocs%5C601%5CGD oc_VDH_1768_v1.pdf Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. (2011) Food safety begins on the farm. Retrieved from: http://www. vt.edu/spotlight/innovation/2009-07-06_food_safety/090706_sidebar.html Washington and Lee University. (2010, Jan. 18). Local food policy at W&L benefits all. Retrieved from: http://www.wlu.edu/ x38117.xml Washington and Lee University. (n.d.). Local foods. Retrieved from: http://www.wlu.edu/x34599.xml
71

Food and A G Final Report 2011

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Food and A G Final Report 2011

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

New River Valley Livability Initiative:

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

Photograph by Hali Plourde-Rogers

a. Problem Statement b. Scope of the Report c. Methods a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

New River Valley Agricultural History....................................................5

III. Marketing...................................................................................................27 IV. Local Supply...............................................................................................28

VII. Food Hub...................................................................................................38

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

VIII. Next Steps: Conclusion.............................................................................42 IX. Appendix....................................................................................................43

Photographs by Hali Plourde-Rogers

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Photograph by Hali Plourde-Rogers

Scope of the Report

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

Agriculture in the New River Valley

NRV Agricultural History

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Recommendations to NRVLI Working Group

CaseStudy Study Case

Aggregation Markets: Good Food Good People

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Dining Services

CaseStudy Study Case

Ferrum College: Farm-to-Table Initiative

Washington and Lee University

CaseStudy Study Case

Oklahoma Farm-to-School Program

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Food and Agricultural Systems Report

Food Hub Development

Recommendations to NRVLI Working Group

The Local Food Hub, Ivy, Virginia

CaseStudy Study Case

Appalachian Sustainable Development

New River Valley Livability Initiative

Next Steps: Conclusion

Interview and Survey Questions