CAN Research Paper #1: College and University Purchasing of Local Farm and Food Products in Central Appalachia – Current Status and Trends

Submitted by Anthony Flaccavento, SCALE, Inc, July 25th , 2010

Introduction and Overview

Research was conducted by SCALE, Inc during May – July, 2010. Megan Williams, under subcontract with SCALE, undertook most of the information gathering and compilation, as well as surveys of food service personnel at various schools. Anthony completed these phone interviews with food service staff, reviewed and discussed with Megan all of the information gathered and wrote this paper.

Information was obtained on 17 schools in or near the five state region, including four each in Virginia and Tennessee and three each in Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia. The extent and quality of information varies, depending both upon published information (including school websites) and the responsiveness of dining service staff to enquiries. All major state universities in the region – OhioUniversity, University of Tennessee, Virginia Tech and West VirginiaUniversity – or nearby – University of Virginia, University of Kentucky – were included. It should be noted that information gathered from different sources sometimes seems inconsistent or of questionable reliability. This includes both total dining service budgets – Virginia Tech’s published information suggests that they spend more than double per student on food compared to UK or WVU – and amounts spent on local purchases. The latter has not been well tracked by many schools thus far, as they have relied on distributors for their “local sourcing”.

The intent of this review is not to provide a comprehensive analysis of every school in the region, but to surface common challenges or obstacles and promising trends and opportunities, the understanding of which might help propel greater purchasing of locally raised or produced foods by colleges and universities in the region.

List of Schools on which some information was gathered

Kentucky: University of Kentucky; BereaCollege; CenterCollege (Unable to find information or elicit response from EasternKentuckyUniversity)

Ohio: OhioUniversity; KenyonCollege; DenisonUniversity

Tennessee: University of Tennessee; EastTennesseeStateUniversity; TusculumCollege; SewaneeCollege

Virginia: Virginia Tech; University of Virginia; RadfordUniversity; Washington and LeeUniversity

West Virginia: West VirginiaUniversity; MarshallUniversity; West VirginiaStateUniversity

Dining Service Operations – Self operated vs contract

The trend at colleges and universities across the country has, for more than a decade been to contract out their dining services. This trend holds true in the central Appalachian region, without regard to the size of the student body.

Self Operated Dining Services: University of Kentucky;OhioUniversity; Virginia Tech; Washington and LeeUniversity;

Corporate dining services: Aramark – University of Virginia; University of Tennessee; West VirginiaUniversity; EastTennesseeStateUniversity; TusculumCollege; SewaneeCollege;

Sodexo – BereaCollege; DenisonUniversity; MarshallUniversity; CentreCollege;

Other – RadfordUniversity (Chartwells); West VirginiaState (AVI)

In the region as a whole, only 4 of the 17 colleges and universities examined have self operated dining services (24%), compared to 13 which contract out their food services (76%). This is significant, as the “self-op” schools are consistently better performers when it comes to local and sustainable purchasing, though there are corporate dining service operations with serious commitments to local and sustainable buying, particularly Berea College and to a lesser degree, UVA.

Summary of Key Findings

  1. It is difficult to accurately assess total local/sustainable food purchases for two reasons: First, most schools rely on food distributors, ranging from Sysco to local companies, and most of these in turn have only recently begun to track and document local purchasing practices. This information should be more reliable and available going forward because of the general demand for this type of purchasing. Secondly, the question of what constitutes a “local purchase” is complicated and inconsistently defined. This is true not so much in terms of miles traveled – most seem to be arriving at 100 – 250 miles as a reasonable description of “local” - but in terms of the nature of the product. Several schools for instance include products like milk, other dairy items and baked goods in their local category because the supplier is located reasonably close to them. However, in some of those instances, the farms supplying the milk are scattered much further away and the “local dairy company” is really serving as an aggregator.
  2. Nearly all of the schools are seeking to increase purchase of local foods significantly over the next several years, ranging from 5% annual increases – the stated goal of some Aramark schools – to Washington and Lee’s plan to increase to 35 to 40% by 2011.
  3. Schools with self operated dining services – Ohio University, UK, Virginia Tech and W & L – are for the most part substantially ahead of those with corporate food services, the latter constituting ¾ of the sample. The self-op schools are buying more, have more ambitious goals to increase local and sustainable foods in their system, are more aggressive and creative about getting there, and more empathetic with local suppliers/farmers.
  4. In that same vein, self op dining service directors are not yet requiring GAP certification of produce farmers, often a major obstacle to smaller growers. Virtually all of the schools are looking for clear food safety standards and protocols to minimize their risks, including that farmers be trained in GAP procedures, food safety and sanitation, and in some cases water testing. The traceability of the food is also of great importance across the board. The difference at this point is that the corporate food service providers, with the exception of BereaCollege and WVU, are requiring actual GAP certification of participating produce farmers. The food service director at WVU was almost completely unfamiliar with GAP, perhaps a blessing in disguise.
  5. Regarding purchase of meats, all the schools purchase only USDA slaughtered beef and pork (very few appear to purchase lamb). This is an obstacle for those farmers and areas of the region where no USDA slaughterhouse capacity exists. Purchase of local poultry varies, following to some degree the different allowances of state laws on poultry slaughter.
  6. Purchase of local, generally free range eggs is relatively common and growing. This seems to be an area for significant potential increase as processing rules tend to be flexible and relatively easy to meet. Pricing, as with other items, may present greater challenges.
  7. Every school has concerns about food safety and their own liability, and as a result, all require product liability insurance policies ranging from $1 million to $5 million. This requirement is not necessarily on the individual grower, as the policy can be carried by the aggregator (eg Appalachian Harvest) or the local distributor, though the latter are less likely to do this with growers they do not manage or control.
  8. Although there is some variability, it appears that in the vast majority of cases it is school administrators and/or dining service staff – particularly the “sustainability coordinators” – who are driving the movement towards local and sustainable foods, rather than students. This perspective came from school administrators and dining service leaders, but was reinforced by Elena Dulys-Nusbaum, a student leader at Virginia Tech and southeast staff person for the Real Food Challenge, a student-based effort to mobilize students for “real food” on campuses. This is not to say that students are not concerned about the food they are eating, or that various student environment and food-based groups are not beginning to get involved, in some cases strongly pushing for local and sustainable purchases. The overall assessment of those involved nonetheless is that these are the exceptions around the region, and not the primary driver at this point. This somewhat surprising finding could be considered an opportunity for partnerships with the Real Food Challenge and other student organizations.

Specific Needs or Concerns of Dining Service Personnel

While the enthusiasm for local purchasing varies, it seems clear that nearly all of the schools examined (and likely some not included in this sample) are either planning or wanting to purchase considerably more produce, eggs, meats and other foods from local farmers and producers. However, only a handful of the schools have personnel who know how to go about sourcing locally and are willing to go to what they consider to be the considerable amount of extra work it takes to make this happen. Certainly Berea, Ohio University, Washington and Lee and Virginia Tech fall into this category, probably University of Kentucky, RadfordUniversity and DenisonUniversity as well. For the other schools, it will require someone making it relatively easy for them to find and purchase local foods, and to ensure that these foods meet their safety and quality standards.

For all of the schools in the sample, including even those schools who’ve clearly made local foods a priority, certain needs or concerns surfaced:

One stop shopping – Some dining service personnel have worked hard to develop relationships with individual farmers and seem willing to continue doing some purchasing directly from these farmers, but even they join their colleagues in describing local food as more difficult – and more costly – because of the disproportionate amount of time it takes to procure. Thus there is a strong preference for someone to aggregate and distribute the goods of many local suppliers to them, at least in categories (produce, meats, etc). ACEnet and Rural Action, Appalachian Harvest and Creation Gardens and Produce Source Partners, two local distribution companies in Kentucky and Virginia respectively, were mentioned as examples of making local purchasing more feasible and reliable.

Food safety – This is a concern across the board, though understanding of and requirement for GAP protocols or audits varies. When schools purchase from an established distributor, whether Sysco or a local company, they assume that these issues are being adequately handled, an assumption they do not make when considering purchasing directly from farmers.

In this regard, the GAP roundtable meeting tentatively planned for early fall by the east TN/southwest VA subregional network and UT may be important to everyone in the region working to sell to colleges and universities.

Reliability and seasonality – Of course there is a desire for consistent, quality supply from everyone, and several mentioned the desire for produce farmers to extend their season with hoop houses or high tunnels in order to provide for a greater part of the academic year. This also extends to the volumes that are available, which are generally seen as too small and too variable; one purchaser spoke of the desire for “guaranteed volumes”, which would make his job much easier.

Pricing and cost – Generally this did not surface as a major obstacle in the interviews or survey responses, though I suspect it will be more significant if and when the proportion of local foods purchased increases substantially. The cost of procuring local food, in terms of staff time particularly, did come up on several occasions, reinforcing the need for aggregators and distributors to reduce this burden on food service personnel.