Farm To Msu Slides For Portland

445 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
445
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Farm To Msu Slides For Portland

  1. 1. Farm-to-MSU: Institutional Procurement of Local, Sustainably Grown Products <ul><ul><li>David Conner </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Colleen Matts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Getachew Abatekassa </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Michigan State University (MSU) </li></ul></ul>
  2. 2. Overview <ul><li>Introduction: motivation for study </li></ul><ul><li>Previous research </li></ul><ul><li>Research objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Methods and approach </li></ul><ul><li>Results </li></ul><ul><li>Recent progress </li></ul>
  3. 3. Introduction: motivations <ul><li>Support MSU’s desired Farm-to-MSU program </li></ul><ul><li>Potential benefits: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Support local farmers, economy, community, landscape </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved freshness, nutrition </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Part of educational mission </li></ul><ul><li>Pressure from commodity groups, agricultural community </li></ul>
  4. 4. Previous research: Farm to Institution <ul><li>Numerous common themes across studies: </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits: fresh, local, flexibility, transport costs </li></ul><ul><li>Barriers: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Logistics”: ordering, delivery, billing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Risk management”: timely delivery , adequate volumes , quality, safety, specification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reliance on pre-processed produce (diced, chopped, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Apathy of end consumers (students) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>*Vogt and Kaiser, Agriculture and Human Values, 2008 </li></ul>
  5. 5. Best Practices: Other Universities’ Experiences <ul><li>Set goals within sustainability initiatives </li></ul><ul><li>Have a champion </li></ul><ul><li>Start slow and steady, document </li></ul><ul><li>Build support from wider university </li></ul>
  6. 6. Objectives of Farm to MSU study <ul><li>Examine current food purchase practices and experiences </li></ul><ul><li>Explore opportunities/barriers for buying Michigan </li></ul><ul><li>Propose applicable approaches and models </li></ul>
  7. 7. Methods <ul><li>Interviews (N=15) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Within MSU structure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supply chain actors (snowball sampling) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Topics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>MSU organizational structure and procedures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supply chain actors’ experiences and practices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Experiences/perceptions buying Michigan products </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Organizational Structure University Food and Dining Services (UFDS) Farmer/Producer (Contract) Manufacturer Packer/shipper ( Contract) Distributor U. Housing Dining Kellogg Hotel & Conf. Center MSU Concessions Sparty’s Cafés MSU Bakers MSU Union Ingredient supplier Food Stores
  9. 9. MSU procurement procedures <ul><li>Food Stores= self-managed central conduit: </li></ul><ul><li>Chooses vendors </li></ul><ul><li>Purchases from manufacturers and distributors </li></ul><ul><li>Negotiates contracts, prices (bids) </li></ul><ul><li>Authorizes payment </li></ul><ul><li>Ensures compliance with rules, reg’s, standards </li></ul><ul><li>Stores inventory or coordinates deliver </li></ul><ul><li>Very centralized: Pros and Cons </li></ul>
  10. 10. MSU procurement procedures <ul><li>Ranked priorities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Right quantity, type and quality of products at right price </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Continuity of supply </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Suitability of product/service ordering, transportation and logistics system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requirements of Food Stores’ on-campus customers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Prefers one-stop shopping, experienced vendors </li></ul>
  11. 11. Supply chain actors <ul><li>Recurring themes : </li></ul><ul><li>Food quality and safety </li></ul><ul><li>Reliability and quantity of supply </li></ul><ul><li>Logistics (efficiency, transportation and transaction costs) </li></ul><ul><li>Pricing </li></ul><ul><li>Relationships among agents </li></ul>
  12. 12. Experiences with Michigan products <ul><li>Importance of supporting Michigan businesses </li></ul><ul><li>Michigan is “local” source for many products (fresh produce) in summer/fall but not always identified </li></ul><ul><li>Barriers: season, climate, quality perceptions </li></ul>
  13. 13. Discussion <ul><li>Opportunities </li></ul><ul><li>Shared commitment to local </li></ul><ul><li>MSU account size and prestige </li></ul><ul><li>Learning from current efforts </li></ul><ul><li>Part of local food movement </li></ul><ul><li>Obstacles </li></ul><ul><li>Asynchrony of supply and demand </li></ul><ul><li>Use of processed produce: waste, yield uncertainty, labor costs and safety issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Processors reluctant to run batches –may be changing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Advantages of current system </li></ul><ul><li>High demand on farmers: costs of insurance, handling, traceability </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.mottgroup.msu.edu/Portals/0/downloads/FarmToMSU%20final%20report.pdf </li></ul>
  14. 14. Recent Progress: Partnerships <ul><li>“ 80 mile diet” dinner in 2008 (MSU class) </li></ul><ul><li>Michigan-only distributor: dried fruit, fresh produce (roots and greens) </li></ul><ul><li>MSU Student Organic Farm supplying salad greens </li></ul>
  15. 16. Progress: Procurement <ul><ul><li>Romaine </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not chopped </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Only one delivery/week </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mixed reaction </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peppers, cucumbers from Canada </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All Michigan non-GMO soy fryer shortening </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Local beef, lamb </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Michigan organic turkey </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Spec’s for regional canned tomato, frozen vegetables, meats </li></ul></ul>
  16. 17. Progress..Vendor changes <ul><ul><li>Sysco Grand Rapids </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>MOU with growers, value chain partnerships </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Investment: satellite distribution centers </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Assistance with packaging, food safety certification </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Increased purchases from hoop house farms </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Requiring batch processing </li></ul></ul></ul>
  17. 18. Recent Progress…MSU changes <ul><li>New VP for Housing/Dining </li></ul><ul><li>Changes in Dining Services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposed name: “Culinary services” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>made to order </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>fewer items (less waste, higher quality) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposed position: Sustainability-food safety officer </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Student changes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Know where food comes from </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Culinary” hall: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Built for 3,500 meals/day </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Do 6,200 ! </li></ul></ul></ul>
  18. 19. Summary Thoughts <ul><li>Still business as usual, but… </li></ul><ul><li>Local food movement </li></ul><ul><li>Demand pull on vendors </li></ul><ul><li>Still not enough farm capacity (especially hoop houses!) </li></ul><ul><li>Slow steady institutional change </li></ul><ul><li>Influence on NACUFS? </li></ul><ul><li>Stay Tuned! </li></ul>
  19. 20. Thank You! <ul><li>David Conner and Colleen Matts, C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems at MSU </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>http://mottgroup.msu.edu </li></ul><ul><li>Getachew Abate, MSU Product Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.productcenter.msu.edu/ </li></ul>

×