The University of Georgia

Transcription

1 The University of Georgia Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Farm to School Survey Findings Prepared by: Kent L. Wolfe, Sharon P. Kane, and Marissa Watson Center Report: CR January 2012

2 Farm to School Survey Findings Prepared for: Georgia Farm to School Alliance* January 2012 Summary Prepared by: The University of Georgia Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development Dr. Kent Wolfe, Director Sharon P. Kane, Public Service Associate Marissa Watson *The Georgia Farm to School Alliance is a network that joins statewide agencies working in food, farming and nutrition to coalesce resources and support for Farm to School, and to create a dialogue for building statewide programming. Members include: Georgia Department of Agriculture; Georgia Department of Public Health; Georgia Cooperative Extension Service; the Georgia Department of Education, School Nutrition Program and the Agriculture Education Program; Georgia Organics; Georgia Farm Bureau; Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, and the United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Our thanks to the members for their support and contributions to this research effort. i

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary... iii Overview... 1 Survey Highlights... 1 Appendix... 9 Endnotes Table and Figures Table 1. Respondent Listing of Food Distributors... 2 Table 2. Percent Purchased from Local Producers... 4 Table 3. Self Serve Salad Bar Usage in Schools... 5 Table 4. Local Purchase Efforts... 5 Table 5. Current Farm to School Program... 6 Table 6. Interest in Farm to School... 6 Table 7. Interest in Local Growers for Produce Purchases... 6 Table 8. Helpful Resources for Increasing Local Food Use... 7 Table 9. Potential Benefits of Serving Local Food... 8 Figure 1. Map of Responses by County... 1 Figure 2. Produce Purchases - Fresh, Canned, Frozen... 5 Figure 3. Present and Future Challenges... 8 ii

4 Executive Summary In the spring of 2011, the UGA Center for Agribusiness & Economic Development collaborated with partners in the Georgia Farm to School Alliance to develop and conduct a survey of School Nutrition Directors and managers in districts throughout Georgia to obtain more information about their characteristics, preferences, and challenges. Some highlights of the survey include: Most of the respondents 98% have full-service kitchens at the schools in which they serve. The top five most often mentioned food distributors that they currently use include U.S. ervice,, Glover, Sysco, and ACC Distributors. More than 50% of the responding schools indicated that they purchase less than 10% of their meat, produce, and dairy products from local sources. On average, the school districts purchase their produce primarily in the forms of fresh (41%), then canned (36%), followed by frozen (23%). 78% indicated that the students at their school do not use self-serve salad bars. Nearly three-quarters (72.4%) indicated that they had made efforts to purchase local, including the specific mention of certain products such as strawberries, the use of vendors or distributors that provide the local items they request, or sometimes purchases directly from local farmers, or the use of directories or cooperative.. Further, respondents indicated no preference between working with the various sources including individuals, groups, cooperatives or distributors. Only 24% of the respondents said that their institution is currently engaged in a farm to school program. When asked whether their institution would be interested in a farm to school program as described in the survey, 56.6% (43) indicated that they would be interested or would at least like to have more information (36.8%) The most popular form of local produce that the institutions were interested in was the fresh-cut (75%), followed by frozen (67%) and fresh-raw (60%). A smaller number were interested in canned and other forms of produce to be purchased locally. Approximately two-thirds of respondents indicated that they would be interested in identifying, communicating, and ordering local products through an Internet-based platform. In considering the resources that they might consider helpful in increasing their use of local food, the highest response was for a directory (92.3%), while the next highest included a clarification of procuring local food using simply terms (89.6%) and of federal, state, and local regulations (89.3%). All of the resources received a most important or important ranking from more than 65% of those that responded. Potential benefits of serving local food from the perspective of the responding schools included the highest response of better flavor (97.5%), with the next closest being to help Georgia farmers and/or businesses (95.7%) and the local educational agencies supporting the local economy (89.6%). Very close behind is the benefit of being able to have just in time produce (89.5%) and for children and adults to have healthier diets (89.1%). The lowest three benefits included food safety, increased participation rates/revenue, and increased shelf life. Perceived present challenges or obstacles in purchasing local foods include the top two concerns such as the lack of products available during certain times of the year and deficiency of producers from which to purchase. For the future, the top two were the time required to prepare and handle fresh produce and fitting it into the institutional budget. iii

5 Overview In the spring of 2011, the UGA Center for Agribusiness & Economic Development collaborated with partners in the Georgia Farm to School Alliance to develop and conduct a survey of School Nutrition Directors in districts throughout Georgia i. The purpose of the survey was to collect information about each school, with the following assessment goals ii : Current and potential economic impact Exploration of the market for farmers Willingness of schools to buy local foods Available infrastructure within the schools to prepare fresh, whole foods Perceived opportunities and challenges An online survey was conducted, collecting detailed information pertaining to these institutional characteristics and activities. It is important to note that the online sample was a self-selecting sample, meaning that respondents chose to visit and complete the online survey website. The respondents were not selected randomly and thus the results represent the responses of those that choose to complete the survey. Survey Highlights The initial sections of the survey requested simple identification information from each respondent, such as their name and title, and school system information. See Figure 1 highlighting the areas of the state from which the responses came. Figure 1. Map of Responses by County 1

6 Further, they were asked to identify the best description of where most of the meals are prepared and most indicated that preparation occurs at each individual school. The next question asked about the preparation facilities, Q.Which of the following typifies the kitchens in the district or at the school you represent? - Cold kitchen (no ability to cook or warm, but can prepare produce) - Warming kitchen (with microwave or oven, but meals are mostly pre-prepared) - Full-service kitchen (where meals can be prepared from scratch) - Other Most of the respondents 98% have full-service kitchens at the schools in which they serve, which indicates the ability to prepare meals from scratch. Further, all but one indicated that their school or district determines food providers by a bidding process. The remaining school indicated that they purchase by Request for Tender (RTF). Participants were also asked from which food distributors their school or district purchases food, and the option of listing five different distributors. See the table below for the full listing of distributors as answered in survey, noting that each row across indicates that the same respondent listed those businesses. Table 1. Respondent Listing of Food Distributors Respondent Listing of Food Distributors US ervice Mayfield Dairy Farms IBC Sales Sysco Atlanta US ervice - Atlanta ACC - Leesburg Glover - Americus State Wholesale - Macon Glover, Americus, GA, Douglas, GA US Food Service, Lexington, SC Pet Dairy Hostess Brands Steedley Produce Sysco US ervice Glover Auten Walker Meats Tanner Grocery US Mayfield Royal Williams ACC Distributors Glover Farmer Brown Produce Glover U S ervice Williams ACC SYSCO US ervice Dexter Farms GEC Co-op ACC Williams US Williams Glover (Americas Ga) ACC Distibutors (Leesburg Ga) (Douglas Ga) US Lexington Williams US ervice Atlanta Prince Wholesale Holland Produce U. S. ervice Atlanta Dexter Farms Sysco US Food service Samples Food service U S foodservice Beam Produce Milton's Sysco Sara Lee Mayfield CArolina Produce Williams 2

7 Respondent Listing of Food Distributors Sysco Glove US Sysco Meat Corral Samples Institutional Holland's Produce Mayfield Milk US Miltons Royal Sara Lee Mayfield US ervice Royal Mayfield Earth Grains ACC Glover US ervice Sysco US US Sysco Walker Meats Tanner Sysco, Atlanta Glover U.S. Dexter's Produce SYSCO Atlanta US ervice Royal Produce Samples Institutional Glover Derst Baking ACC Distributors Steedley Produce Company US Williams Inst. Glover US ACC Distributors US ervice, Lexington SC ACC Distributors Royal Produce Reinhart Food Service, Valdosta, GA, Douglas, GA Farmer Brown Produce, Valdosta, GA Dairy Fresh Milk Co. Flowers Bakery, Thomasville, GA U S ervice PFG Miltons Samples Sara Lee Bakery Leondard's Farmers Market Pridgen Brothers ACC Distributors Glover Williams Sysco of Atlanta US ervice Samples ervice Carolina Produce Glover Auten US ervice Williams Inst. U.S. ervice U. S. ervice, Fairburn Glover-Auten Sysco Bi-City Produce ACC Distributors Glover Renfroe US ervice Bi City Produce Glover Sysco Atlanta U.S U. S. ervice Earthgrains/SaraLee Royal Produce Mayfield Dairy Farms ACC GLOVER WILLIAMS ACC Glover, Inc. Pridgen Brothers Performance Food Service US Sysco Food Service Samples Institutional foods Flav-O-Rich Dairy US ervice Mayfield Dairies Royal Produce Earthgrains Glover Institutional Samples Institutional U.S. ervice U.S. ervice Glover Sysco-Atlanta Flavorich Milk August Produce Sutherland's Food Service Samples US Dean (Milk) Flowers (Bread) Williams Institutional, Inc Samples Institutional Resh Point (Produce) Glover ACC Distributors Kelley Aikens Produce US ervice Sra Lee Bakery Mayfield Dairies Glover ACC Distributors Sysco of Atlanta Pridgen Brothers US Sysco Glover-Auten U. S. Carden Sysco ACC Glover ervice Flowers baking Company and Holland Produce Royal 3

8 Respondent Listing of Food Distributors U S ACC Distributors Williams Inst. Glover AcC Williams Glover Glover ACC Distributors williams glover acc carden produce U. S. ervice Williams Carden ACC Dist Glover Pridgen Williams ACC Williams Inst. US ervice J & S Produce U.S. Miltons U.S. ervice US ervice- Columbia Williams Inst. Sysco -Atlanta Williams US U.S. Williams Glover acc pfg glover ACC Glover Williams Respondents were also asked to estimate the approximate amount that they purchased from local producers in the school year in the categories of meat, dairy, produce, and other. In each case, more than 50% said that they purchase only a small fraction (less than 10%) of their products from local producers. In terms of meat purchases, over 75% said that they purchase less than 10% from local producers. Table 2. Percent Purchased from Local Producers MEAT DAIRY PRODUCE OTHER Amt. from local Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent < 10% % % % % Total The next series of questions asks about the characteristics of the produce that the institution currently purchases, with the choices of fresh, frozen, canned or other. The responses were required to sum to 100%. On average, the school districts purchase their produce primarily in the form of fresh (41%), then canned (36%), followed by frozen form (23%) (See Figure 2). 4

9 Q. Generally speaking, of the produce your institution currently buys, what percentage is fresh, canned, frozen or other? Figure 2. Produce Purchases - Fresh, Canned, Frozen 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 41.3% 35.8% 22.8% Fresh Produce Canned Produce Frozen Produce When asked if the students at their school use self-serve salad bars, 78% indicated that they do not. Table 3. Self Serve Salad Bar Usage in Schools Q. Do students at your school use self-serve salad bars? Freq. Percent No Yes Total When questioned about whether their institution had made efforts to purchase local farm products for their school, nearly three-quarters (72.4%) indicated that they had made efforts to purchase local (Table 4). Further, they were asked to describe these efforts (See Appendix for complete listing of responses), which included 51 responses. These responses often included the mention of a specific food item, with strawberries receiving the most mentions (23 times). They also noted the use of vendors or distributors that provide the local items requested (17), while some (18) mentioned purchasing or trying to purchase directly from local farmers. Table 4. Local Purchase Efforts Q. Has your institution made any efforts to purchase local farm products for your school? Freq. Percent No Yes Total

10 The survey also included a question about whether their institution is currently engaged in a farm to school program. More than three-quarters of the respondents said that they were not currently engaged in such a program. However, in the following question, we inquired about their interest in a program as outlined in the survey and nearly 60% said that they were interested. In addition, nearly 36.8% said that they needed more information to determine their interest. Table 5. Current Farm to School Program Q. Is your institution currently engaged in a farm to school program? Freq. Percent No Yes Total Table 6. Interest in Farm to School Q. Based on the broad concept as defined, would your institution be interested in participating in a farm to school program? Freq. Percent No Yes Need more information Total Respondents were asked about their interest in talking with local growers about purchasing various forms of produce, and which would be preferred. Three quarters (75%) said that they would be interested in talking with producers about fresh-cut produce, while fewer indicated frozen (67%), fresh, raw (60%). A smaller portion indicated canned (47%) or other (27%). Considered together with those who also answered that they might consider such interaction with local growers, the fresh-cut produce had the highest fraction of interest at 92%. Table 7. Interest in Local Growers for Produce Purchases Q. Would your institution be interested in talking with local growers about purchasing fresh and frozen produce? If so, please indicate the form in which you would be interested. Product Form Yes % No % Maybe % (#) (#) (#) Fresh-cut produce (pre-packaged, bagged) (N=71) 75% 8% 17% (53) (6) (12) Frozen, sliced and diced produce (N=63) 67% 10% 24% (42) (6) (15) Fresh, raw bulk produce (N=67) 60% 13% 28% (40) (9) (18) Canned (N=53) 47% 28% 25% (25) (15) (13) Other (N=15) 27% 27% 47% (4) (4) (7) 6

11 Most indicated that they had no preference in working with an individual, a group or cooperative, or a distributor in pursuing this interest. Further, many indicated an interest in using an Internet-based platform for these interactions. Q. Would your institution be willing to use an online platform (Internet-based) in order to: Identify local producers 68.1% Communicate with local producers 68.1% Order online 67.6% When asked about the resources that they might consider helpful in increasing their use of local food (given a selection from which to choose and respondents could choose more than one), the highest response was for a directory (92.3%), while the next highest included a clarification of procuring local food using simply terms (89.6%) and of federal, state, and local regulations (89.3%). All of the resources received a most important or important ranking from more than 65% of those that responded. Please see Table 8 for a listing of all of the resources. Table 8. Helpful Resources for Increasing Local Food Use Q. Would your institution consider any of the following resources MOST IMPORTANT helpful for increasing the use of local food in your school or district? OR IMPORTANT N = Directory of farmers, vendors, suppliers offering local food products 92.30% 52 Clarification of how to procure local food in simple terms 89.60% 48 Clarification of federal, state, local regulations on local food 89.30% 56 Face to face trainings or workshops 83.70% 43 A web site with resources, strategies, and tips 82.90% 41 A toolkit or publication with resources, strategies, and tips 80.90% 42 Information and newsletters to share with families 73.80% 42 Examples of how other institutions use local food 72.30% 47 School- & student-tested recipes incorporating local food 68.20% 44 Access to a web-based food product ordering system 65.50% 55 One-on-one assistance 65.20% 46 In considering the potential benefits of serving local food (given a selection from which to choose and respondents could choose more than one), the highest response was for better flavor (97.5%), with the next closest being to help Georgia farmers and/or businesses (95.7%) and the local educational agencies supporting the local economy (89.6%). Very close behind this response is the benefit of being able to have just in time produce (89.5%) and for children and adults to have healthier diets (89.1%). All of the benefits listed received a most important or important ranking from more than 75% of those that responded. The lowest three benefits included food safety, increased participation rates/revenue, and increased shelf life. See Table 9 for a listing of all of the resources. 7

12 Table 9. Potential Benefits of Serving Local Food Q. In the opinion of your institution, what are the potential benefits of serving local food in your school or district? MOST IMPORTANT OR IMPORTANT N = Better flavor 97.50% 40 Would help Georgia farmers and/or Georgia businesses 95.65% 46 Local educ. agencies support local economy, farmers, community 89.58% 48 Produce is picked just in time/seasonally 89.47% 38 Children and adults have healthier diets 89.13% 46 Local purchases result in good public relations 85.00% 40 Lower transportation costs 83.33% 36 Local education agencies know the source of products 82.05% 39 Children and adults gain greater access to fresh fruits and vegetables 82.00% 50 Decreased environmental impact 81.82% 33 Special or unique varieties can be purchased and served 80.00% 35 Better control over food safety 76.47% 34 Increase particip. rates & revenue generated by featuring local food 76.32% 38 Increased shelf life 75.68% 37 Given choices about potential challenges or obstacles to the school or district purchasing local foods, either now or in the future, the top two concerns for the present include the lack of products available during certain times of the year and lack of local producers from which to purchase. For the future, the top two concerns were the time required to prepare and handle fresh produce and fitting it into the budget. Figure 3. Present and Future Challenges 8

13 Appendix Q. Has your institution made any efforts to purchase local farm products for your school? If yes, please briefly describe. We purchase strawberries from local farmers during the season. All of our fresh produce is purchased from a local produce company. We buy strawberries annually locally grown strawberries and peaches Purchased local produce from various vendors each month. Conducted a promotion each month with a "Farm To School" vendor of the month. When approached we have tried to use the local resource. We have received from Irwin County freshly shelled butterbeans; pink eyed purple hulled, white acre peas, and others. Had some difficulty with product safety. Contacted local farmers in Georgia Organics Local Food Guide by . Only one vendor responded. He had fresh blueberries that are not available during the school year. We have tried to purchase fresh peaches but they are not in season during our school year. We have been able to purchase fresh strawberries from local vendors. We have just switched to a produce company that works with local Georgia Farmers We purchase fresh strawberries from a local distributor. Currently, our local produce provider also purchases several items from local farms that are delivered directly to our school facilities. Strawberries are locally grown and we purchase direct from the grower and they deliver to the school. Watermelons, strawberries, some kiwi strawberries form local farmer Meeting with locals We use local farmers and allow them to deliver to our warehouse and then we deliver to the schools. We have use the fresh farm delivered strawberries, collard greens, green beans, and sweet potatoes Strawberries were the only available product by a local vendor that could service all schools Locally grown apples Our produce company purchases form regional sources our local buyer knows our desire and tries to buy local We are currently looking for suppliers that can deliver. We are talking with a few local farmers at this time. Located the farmers only and discussed food security with other counties. Produce bid encourages the company to purchase from local farmers We did buy potatoes from a local farmer for 1 school. Part of the problem is that the farmers cannot supply enough product for the entire school district. The other issue is meeting all of the purchasing criteria for schools. This probably is not as much of an issue for larger farmers but the farms in my area are small. Purchased GA-grown strawberries Through our produce distributor Carolina Produce Fresh strawberries Coastal Georgia Farmers Coop, I also have tried to purchase fresh sweet potatoes from a local farmer. 9

14 We purchase locally grown (Laurens County) grown hydroponic lettuces and strawberries, when available. Since we began purchasing from Royal Produce for the school year, they are great in obtaining the most local produce from around the Southeastern states. We purchase washed, packaged, shredded collard greens Farm to School Have used in the past Kiwi Farm to school Tried sweet potato sticks Farm to school unsuccessfully Got quotes on farm fresh strawberries but were higher than produce co could provide Strawberries Local seasonal fruit items. once, in the past, peaches We have purchased locally grown strawberries. We have used a local produce company in the past to purchase our produce. We purchased some locally grown produce from them. We did serve strawberries from a local farm one time. We purchase strawberries locally, but this is all at the current moment. Peach farms, squash, watermelon We have bought apples grown locally. Royal Produce buys from local farmers and delivers to our schools. We purchase fresh produce from a local supplier. Use of local farm products has been addressed recently and over the past two years has increased. We plan to continue this trend. We use a local Produce company that buys seasonal produce grown locally. Farm to school through produce vendors We met with a local grower. She was unable to meet the demands for our program. Storage for bulk delivery is another issue for the program. Try to buy local produce when it s available. We purchase strawberries form local farmers. We have purchased fresh vegetables from the production plant located in Americus. Green beans, zucchini, squash, cucumber, and carrots,etc We purchase fresh strawberries and some locally grown collards and peas. We have farms in the area that raise fruit and we buy from them when it is in season, usually in the spring and early fall. collards and strawberries purchase strawberries and collards from local growers Also ask produce supplier to negotiate for local produce contacted extension agent, spoke to local growers group, local farmers, talked to food vendors None available in our immediate area We are interested and are inquiring about having for next year. purchase fresh strawberries Searched local farms to provide fresh vegetables to school system 10

15 Endnotes i The survey was designed by a team from the Alliance, including University of Georgia, CAED, Georgia Organics, and Georgia Department of Education (GDOE) and then a link was sent out to 158 school districts, specifically to School Nutrition Directors and managers by GDOE using their listserv. Following the original request and several reminders, the final number of usable responses was 94. However, since not all respondents answered every question on the survey, the number of responses will be indicated in many of the summary presentations. ii For more details about the background, survey instrument and approach, see the unpublished paper by Watson, Escalante, et al. Farm to School: a Market Analysis, to be presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting in Birmingham, AL on Feb. 4-6,

16 The Center for Agribusiness & Economic Development The Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development is a unit of the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences of the University of Georgia, combining the missions of research and extension. The Center has among its objectives: To provide feasibility and other short term studies for current or potential Georgia agribusiness firms and/or emerging food and fiber industries. To provide agricultural, natural resource, and demographic data for private and public decision makers. To find out more, visit our Web site at: Or contact: Kent L. Wolfe, Director Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development Lumpkin House The University of Georgia Athens, Georgia Phone (706) The University of Georgia and Fort Valley State University, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and counties of the state cooperating. The Cooperative Extension Service offers educational programs, assistance and materials to all people without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability. An equal opportunity/affirmative action organization committed to a diverse work force. Report Number: CR January 2012 Issued in furtherance of Cooperation Extension Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, the University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating. J. Scott Angle, Dean and Director